From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can we get a better definition?[edit]

Fascism is the State controlling businesses. The Nazis nationalized many industries. The State taking over sectors of the economy such as Healthcare is Socialism. Government incentives for certain crops or forms of energy, may be necessary, but are steps towards Socialism. If the takeover is done by a bunch of people, it is Communism. If done by one person with a pen and a phone, it is Fascism. I realize that my statement is too political for a Wikipedia definition, but no mention of industry is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

no. Stanley G. Payne A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (1996) p 122 - ‎states: "In practice, Fascist 'totalitarianism' referred to the preeminent authority of the state in areas of conflict, not to total— or in most cases even approximate—day-to-day institutional control. ... Big business, industry, and finance retained extensive autonomy, particularly in the early years." see Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What is meant by control though and how many is "many" and if it was a lot then why not call it communism?
State communism as existed in the Soviet Union involved widespread state ownership or complete nationalization whereas fascist economics involved a form of dirigisme as in to direct an economy.
Fascism is by definition a, "political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the marketplace" which is how economic production and logistics was provided to support mass mobilization as in turning civilians into combatants. Some company names which I won't mention here were involved and still exist today.
As for healthcare, that is not socialism in the workers-owning-enterprise sense of the word but has to do with the Welfare state which in Europe was first put into place by the prince and duke Otto von Bismarck in the 1880s and perpetuated to the present day through Social democracy (which Karl Marx wrote about in the Critique of the Gotha Program) as in being linked to the Social Democratic Party of Germany which was influenced by Ferdinand Lassalle.
To add to this, politics before the war was not the same as it is today and in Europe right-wing politics was partly authoritarian as in perhaps still being influenced by European conservatism as in wishing to preserve monarchy and a strong state, with the British Conservative Party having shifted its support away from nobility and aristocracy towards a capitalist economy in perhaps the late 1800s.
Today's right-wing politics is more influenced by liberalism (as in classical) and the liberal republican tradition of the United States in interpreting the left–right paradigm in terms of "man versus the state" instead of the people (pro-republicans) versus king and centralised authority (pro-monarchists).
If one is seeking out the factual, there is lots of information to clarify the subject. Wikipedia is not about facts but references though as Rjensen has provided. --JamesPoulson (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the Webster dictionary, there is no indication that fascism is "right-winged". It is merely a belief in strong control by the government, which is why Hilter (a democratic socialist) was a fascist. The right is believes in the Constitution which is founded on individual liberty; therefore is completely opposite to fascism. Progressives would be best aligned with fascism; however, all mention of right and left should be taken out for purpose of purity and separation of political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djca73 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try the OED: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."[1] In any case we use textbooks rather than dictionaries for definitions. Your view is fairly common on conspiracy theory websites but since it lacks any credibility in reliable sources, there is no need to rebut it. The Right by the way did not believe in the Weimar Constitution, the Social Democrats did. TFD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Djca73, Liberalism has a strong belief in democracy and free speech, which Fascism does not. It would be more correct to say that modern Conservatism has been moved much closer to the traditional Liberal views than it was in the past, but ultimately Conservatism is about keeping the society the same or reverting it back to a former state, which Fascism is much closer aligned with (by preserving tradition and recreating the totalitarian governments found under past Monarchies)Hibernia86 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Fascism can fall on both sides of the aisle. Revert back to the version from 03:05, 17 November 2015‎. The current version is biased and inaccurate. Stating that "yet also takes from the far left, with points like: state control of the means of production, and suppression of dissenting view points towards the state and it's beneficiaries" should not be controversial. Didn't mean to delete the previous version. Just meant to state what I think. Fascism can fall on both sides of the political aisle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by You-are-a-liar (talkcontribs) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources disagree, and reverting hundreds of edits spanning over a year is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The editor is now indefinitely blocked. TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fascism can also fall under the extreme left as well. There are many critics who after that leftists can be fascists. I-want-truth (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As is their next account above. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017[edit]

I would like to edit the description that fascism is a right wing political ideology because that is false. The left-right political spectrum is based off of the more government control the further to the left the ideology land on the left-right spectrum. As the right side of the left-right spectrum is less government control you would have classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarians, and the furthest to the right on the right side of the left-right spectrum would be anarchy because that advocates for no government control. Fascism does not advocate any of the things on the right side of the spectrum and to be labeled far-right is misleading and overall incorrect. Because the farthest right you can get is being an anarchist. Except maybe Anarcho-Communists but as I described Anarchists are basically the opposites of communists making anarcho-communists a political contradiction. To specify the left side of the spectrum of the left-right political spectrum just to be through. You would have modern day liberals, fascists, and communists. The far-right label attached to fascism actually came from the Spanish Civil War, where Communists used it as propaganda against the Fascists claiming that they were far-right lunatics. Because well to communists, fascists are far-right lunatics, but aside from an extremely far-left point of view, fascism is a fairly far left type of system. 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Littlegreen5300 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Littlegreen5300 is not very convincing. he seems to think the Spanish civil war was between two left-wing forces with the right nowhere to be seen. He needs to provide cites to the reliable secondary sources he is using to make these assertions. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires sources, not assertions. In any case this is an outgrowth of National Review writer who has found favor with American conservatives, who see fascism as a handy label to apply to those on the left that they don't like in defiance of the past 85 years of political scholarship. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Here is a source that is very in depth on political thought in general and only one labels fascism as far-right while another example separates fascism and Franco (called Franquism) which is labeled as far right. Even though it doesn't fully back me up, I do recommend reading it regardless of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegreen5300 (talkcontribs)

New comments go at the bottom of the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how those sources directly support your claim that fascism is considered right-wing only as a result of Communist propaganda. The Cambridge source says that one author (Lipset) regarded Fascism as extreme centrism, and that a later author (Eysenk) separated fascism (opposed by liberalism) as a second axis perpendicular to left and right wing politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Read up yourself, you're right to think that no right wing thought would exist in a country is absurd but the main players in the Spanish Civil War were the Nationalists supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and the mainly Stalin supported the Spanish Republicans. I mean just read up here is a third party source detailing events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlegreen5300 (talkcontribs)

@Littlegreen5300: New comments go at the bottom, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia does not draw original conclusions, so you need to find sources that explicitly make and directly support the claims you are making. We don't want 'evidence,' we want a source that you can cite almost verbatim (just don't plagiarize the source's phrasing). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Doctrine of Fascism Authorized translation of Mussolini's "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism" (1933) (PDF). Readings on Fascism and National Socialism by Various – Project Gutenberg Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt – Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics of Fascism, originally published 1995.

Using the external links that Wikipedia gives itself on Fascism doesn't align with the right wing on the left-wing spectrum, Mussolini himself had a paragraph titled, REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE. The first sentence stating, Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism. So it is against individualism and against materialism which in this case I'm pretty sure he's talking about Economic materialism which is certainly not a socialist ideal.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). (there I'll reference Wikipedia itself.) Fascism is not socialism but Fascism is definitely not right wing, at least economically, I could go further but it seems others have done a way better job at trying to convince Wikipedia that fascism is not a far right political ideology so regardless of what I say about it. Also to respond to Ian Thomson's comment about Wikipedia drawing conclusions it seems the evidence to support fascism being a far-right political ideology is one that is up for debate and putting it up on Wikipedia as a far-right political ideology is drawing conclusions which you said Wikipedia doesn't do, so by that alone shouldn't that be reason enough to at least remove any reference to it being far-right? Littlegreen5300 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)little greenLittlegreen5300 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We await a consensus of scholarship over the past 85 years that rejects fascism as a phenomenon of the right. What you think or conclude from the above is not useful on Wikipedia. We are all aware that it can be over-simplified on a one-axis left-right scale, but given the recent fashion in the US and Europe for using fascist as an all-purpose epithet for perceived oppressors by partisans on the left and the right the reliance on disinterested scholarship isn't going to be any more susceptible to change than it is anywhere else on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"Less government control" is a defining characteristic of the Right but a position that they had assumed by the 1970s when the Nolan Chart was designed. The original right had of course been ultra-royalists. Nonetheless, until they prepared for war, fascists supported less government control of the economy than either socialists or conservatives and Ludwig von Mises and other libertarians advised them on economic policy. TFD (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"Less government control" is libertarian. it is rejected in USA by the religious right -- which wants more government control for example over marriage and gays and moral issues generally. Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As ever, the problem is not with the assertion that fascism is anti-individualist and tended to prefer a corporatist economic model, with a significant (although not necessarily dominant) economic role for the state, but with the assumption that the left-right spectrum is defined simply by the shift from collectivism/statism (left) to individualism/libertarianism (right), in both economics and other areas. It isn't and never has been. That in turn is why most academic study has no problem with placing fascism on the right of that divide, due to the other common factors found in fascist philosophy/practice (eg aggressive nationalism, reactionary social positions etc). And arguing about the underlying justifications is all a bit moot anyway: the fact is that that classification system is general academic and everyday practice, which is what counts for WP content purposes. Assuming good faith, I could say that this was at least explaining some basic stuff to a new editor about both the real world and WP practice; more cynically, I'm tending to assume that a lot of the new accounts that turn up repeatedly to rehash this debate are just the same person trolling over and over. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Littlegreen5300 is committing the same fallacy here that I sometimes hear from right wing writers who wish to distance themselves from the bad actions of the right in the past. The fallacy here is that the difference between liberal and conservative is based on how much government they want. This is false. Modern day Conservatives support limits on abortion and gay marriage and an expanded military, all of which requires expanded government. Conservatives also focus much more on patriotism, something that it shares with Fascism more than Liberalism does. Modern day Liberals support abortion rights, gay marriage, and lower levels of military spending, all of which expand liberty beyond what Conservatives advocate. And as mentioned above, three centuries ago Conservatives were far more likely to support a strong monarchy than Liberals were, so it was Liberals advocating for more liberty (hence the name). The true difference between Liberals and Conservatives is whether they advocate for change or not. A Liberal seeks to change society in order to improve it. A Conservative seeks to keep society the way it is or to turn it back to what it was in the past, which they see as better. That is the one difference that has held true for every case of Liberalism and Conservatism, regardless of country or time period. Because that is what the terms ultimately mean. Hibernia86 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead, again[edit]

A recent edit used the Oxford Companion to Comparative Politics as a source (not exactly accurately, it seems), which I haven't seen before. Its section on fascism looks like a useful overview of the topic that would help with refactoring the lead. As noted previously, the current version is full of rambling theorising about World War 1 and claims about what fascists supposedly "believed". It could be much more succinct on the significance of the war and also be clearer about what characterised fascism, particularly in practice as opposed to purported ideology or beliefs. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017[edit]

Where is your basis for facists being "Right wing" or "extreme right wing"? This is an inaccurate term since those who lean right want smaller government and are against autocracy and a strong central government. Claiming "right wingers" are facists is a smear tactic by Leftists to distract independent thinkers. I reject group think and I am no pleader for any politician. But when your wikipedia definition lies outright about who and what a facist is I must speak up. Facists were Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin for example. They were all ultra leftists and did not believe in freedom for the massses. Get it right and remove your slant or we will oust you your boldfaced ideological lies. (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dude. Read a history book. And maybe also a dictionary.
Seriously though. Those words you use don't mean what you think they do. Check out the references if you think we are wrong and you will see the real situation. In the meantime, you can forget your stupid threats to "oust" anything. That is not how things work round here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove reference to "right wing" political spectrum[edit]

The addition of the statement about fascism being on the right end of the political left-right spectrum is misleading and incorrect, as well as self serving to liberals who currently incorrectly consider anyone on the conservative side of politics to be fascist. Particularly given the recent behavior of left leaning liberals stifling free speech on college campuses, this redefining of the word is peculiar and not fooling anyone with a real dictionary. In 2017, the behavior of the left fits the definition of fascism very well. It's better to just leave the association with the left or the right out of the definition. Or you are going to end up with an entire generation of misinformed millennials throwing that word around at anything that they disagree with or that is conservative. JRReynolds (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See above. There is consensus, and there are reliable sources cited in the article, for the association of fascism with the far-right. General Ization Talk 04:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well... this is just fun! Let me say: although fascism does (I think, I don't know to much about the topic) follow a socialist-like economic system, other tennents of fascism, like nationalism and anti-elitism (see our page for far-right politics) are consistent with far-right politics. Additionally, the "third way" system means that it combines parts of capitalism too, shifting it a bit to the right. This culminates in its description as far-right politics. And, for the record, I do not believe that conservatism is Nazism/fascism, and I think that anybody who thinks that is plain wrong and obviously hasn't read the page. (this is more of an argument, but see the above, as it is also correct) RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, and the same goes for describing liberals as such. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Provide professionally-published mainstream academic sources that demonstrate mainstream academia's assessment of that matter is somehow not represented by the plethora of sources from Routledge, Oxford University Press, Princeton University Press and many other reputable publishers cited in this article. If you can't, then read Psychological projection and think long and hard about your accusations regarding "misinformed millennials" and who is "redefining [...] the word". Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah! But we can't take the word of the professionals, as they are part of the cabal (that is non-existent) of people trying to brainwash millennials! I mean, all the editor is trying to do is bring up some serious biases! :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've thought long and hard about my accusations regarding misinformed millennial's, and I have determined that I am correct. Thank you for the suggestion. Also, I think you probably could have just left your response as "I don't know much about the topic," and left it at that. And you must be joking about mainstream academic resources being reliable and unbiased. JRReynolds (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream academic sources are our standard for reliability here. We don't care what you believe you know, we stick to mainstream academia. If you have a problem with that, you should find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)