Talk:Fascism

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

This article actually contradicts itself...[edit]

It begins by saying that Fascism is on the far-right and is against Marxism. It later talks about how Mussolini "organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations". You can only do that if you seize control of the corporations that already exist. The fact that they banned strikes is just what happens when the government takes control of all business. The economic policy was much closer to a modified Socialist, Communist, or Marxist type of government than a Capitalist system. The fact that the Fascists rounded up communists and socialists is more similar to a sibling rivalry than anything else. It is also more a function of the dictatorial regime that wanted to implement its own form of government regulated economy and silence all other views than it is an outright opposition to socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.13.24 (talkcontribs) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal views on political science. We go by the consensus of academic scholarship. Acroterion (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You can use that argument to prove anyone is a leftist. You would need a reliable source (ie, not something from a libertarian blog) that makes this argument. TFD (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How about the argument that Mussolini was arrested on a socialist demonstration that turned violent, wrote extensively about Socialism, edited Italy's leading Socialist newspaper for 5 years, and never disavowed Socialism, can those arguments be used to prove 'anyone is a leftist'? Or just prove Mussolini was? They seem pretty water tight and iron clad, historically. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:A0EF:4C11:1850:361F (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You need a source that makes the same conclusions you do. Read WP:SYNTH for why we cannot use arguments to present conclusions not found in reliable sources. Lots of leftists have moved to the right and some did not renounce socialism when they did so. Frank S. Meyer, Jean Kirkpatrick, and Linda Chavez are examples. Even the conservative president, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat (i.e., liberal) who famously said he did not leave the Democratic Party, they left him. Peter Hitchens considers himself a "social democrat," but is a prominent Conservative. TFD (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Acroterion and TFD, it is apparent to me that the two of you are leftists of some stripe and are interjecting your personal political beliefs here rather than the editor who started this section as you accuse him or her. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Mussolini’s political history and later political paradigm knows that he was the son of a militant socialist and was one himself before breaking with the socialists over the issue of Italy’s participation in WWI in accordance with the Bolshevik anti-nationalist line. (Gees, just read his article if you hadn’t known that!). Although Mussolini discovered his nationalist leanings, he remained a socialist, at least in name, throughout his political career. Thus, fascism (the subject of this article) was the fusion of socialism and nationalism in opposition to the internationalist line of communism. Anton Drexler, a longtime trade unionist, began the German Workers Party (later the National Socialists) as a fascist clone of Italy’s.
Now here lies the rub. Both parties, needing the financial support of industrialists who feared the Marxists, began merely paying lip service to “socialism” and evolved into more classical rightist movements. (So yes, I agree that both should be classified as being on the far right of the political spectrum on a de facto basis.) Hitler would later brutally purge the left wing of his party under the Strasser brothers and Ernst Röhm who actually took the “socialism” part of the party’s name and increasingly nominal socialist agenda seriously. Hitler needed the support of the industrialists and military far more than he needed theirs. The favorite pejorative of leftists today to characterize people like President Trump and his reactionary followers is “fascists,” and they don’t like to be reminded of the historical socialist roots of the political paradigm. Trump, for one, never held socialist leanings of any kind, a fact that no one will dispute. Calling Trump and his followers “Nazis” seems over the top and lacking in credibility, which is why most of their militant detractors prefer “fascists” (an easier PR sell due to ignorance) even though not historically appropriate at all. What the 20th century fascist parties evolved into might actually be more appropriate from the leftist perspective (not mine, which is apolitically objective).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If you're just going to make assumptions that editors who expect you to comply with Wikipedia policy on sourcing must be "leftists of some stripe," there's no point in further discussion. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
If you concede that Wikipedia’s own articles on Mussolini and the Fascist Party of Italy and Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany are adequately sourced, then so are my above comments. The original editor of this section was unjustly chided by you and the other editor for questioning the characterization of fascism as being on the far right, a question that one can easily discern arising from the article itself. My comments—which contain the conclusion that ultimately they were indeed on the far right of the political spectrum—seeks to clarify the issue for him or her. Your chiding of him or her connotes defensiveness (over an assertion of the connectivity of fascism and the political left), thus my leftist assumption of the derivation of your criticism.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be starting from the idea that right-wing politics are inescapably associated with free-market capitalism, which is absolutely not true (after all, monarchism is also considered right-wing.) Right-wing politics just means a desire to order society along hierarchical lines. Which hierarchies they employ, and how they enforce them, is what defines the difference between the many distinct right-wing forms of government. It encompasses everything from free-market capitalists (hierarchy based on who holds capital) to hardcore monarchists (hierarchy based on heredity or landholding) to tinpot dictators to apartheid societies legally stratified by race. (Just like left-wing politics, which favors more egalitarian and equal distribution of power, is sharply divided based on how precisely that equality is achieved and perpetuated - eg. between people who want a powerful government to enforce equality on one hand, vs. anarchists who want no government at all on the other.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
HistoryBuff14, the fact that some "leftists" (and they mostly seem to be anti-leftist pro-big business Democrats) falsely call Trump a fascist is not reason to call fascism a type of socialism. Articles are supposed to be informative not score political points. And whatever the truth actually is, we must follow what sources say and not provide our own opinions or analyses. TFD (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's take it back to zero; ignore all the personal exchanges, the likely political connections people make with non-synonymous terms and go from Aquillion and TFD's basic observations

1. Even when Fascist governments allied themselves with rich industrialists they advocated significant control of market structure and distribution of Capital. In the United States at least this is usually an identifying "Left" *economic* policy

2.Fascism's chief common trait is reactionary nationalism, in the ethnic sense, that advocates "fatherly" Authoritarianism to protect from the "other". This is internationally and historically a "Right" *social* position.

The "Wing" concept taken from the French legislature isn't a great fit for governments that greatly differ from parliamentary systems. Many times, and in the US especially, distinguishing between economic and social policies is overlooked so often that an implicit association becomes difficult to shake.

Saying that National Socialism resembles early Marxism/modern Socialism is absurd. They essentially identify Race as the historical source of misery across classes where Socialism identifies Class as the source across all ethnic lines. They're diametrically opposed.

Saying that National Socialism resembles Libertarianism is absurd. They prescribe strong unbridled authority to solve and protect from society's ills at the expense of individual liberty and actively interfere in the market. They're also diametrically opposed.

Both on ONE axis. Being able to find plenty of racist Socialists or Corporatists who hope to use a lack of government oversight on business to manifest a segragated society doesn't change the meaning of the concepts.

The Nazi's are much more important to history for their social impact than their internal economic policy, so if a "wing" is going to be applied it should probably be Right. But that word really doesn't accurately describe the entire ideology so if it's going to be used it's absolutely worth elaborating or else Wikipedia continues to perpetuate the unwinnable shouting match over whether the resemblance to Soviet Authoritarianism or the Racial Supremacy actually matters more in gleefully painting your enemies as their spiritual successors.

...Sorry. I'm done. That this question was asked and is asked very frequently elsewhere really does convince me it needs to be better explained here. FusionTorch (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and I largely agree. The problem is that this article is about fascism (lower case), a political philosophy, and not the Italian Fascist Party (which initiated the political paradigm) or the National Socialist…Party (which copied it) of Germany. A clear distinction between fascism per se and what these two parties evolved into should be made. The parties were clearly on the far right once seizing power whereas the political philosophy they initially espoused and claimed to adhere to to their end is not. Fascism is a hybrid philosophy that does not fit into the classical left-right political classification.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018[edit]

Your source for classifying fascism as far-right is patently flawed. All traits described are common to all socialist/communist governments and then the text calls it "far-right". This is typical of left wing revisionism. Read Hayek to get a clue. 2600:1008:B12B:D2CF:F05D:BC70:B206:750A (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no actual explicit request for an edit to action here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You need to provide a source where Hayek says fascism is left-wing where he uses the actual terms fascist and left-wing. I think you have him confused with some of his less revered successors in U.S. libertarianism. TFD (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hayek - The road to serfdom -

To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B100:3549:304B:7E0B:32C1:34B9 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The term left-wing is not used. You need to provide a source where Hayek says fascism is left-wing where he uses the actual terms fascist and left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018[edit]

In the last line of the overview: "The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied ..." both "neo-fascist" and "post-fascist" link to the same page: neo-facism. This implies that the pages are different. For the clarity that they have the same meaning, remove the link from the text: "post-fascist." 18atcskd2w (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Makes sense. Looking through the article's history, it appears the link was added during the brief window when a separate stub article existed for "post-fascism". That's old news, and now it's slightly misleading (perhaps it's a soft-boiled WP:EGG) so I have removed the link. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly, if we're going to pick one or the other I'd prefer to use neo-fascism over post-fascism. After all, neo-fascists are still pretty, you know, fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at the edit and I'm fine with that. Never mind my previous comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2018[edit]

The claim is made at the beginning that fascism is opposed to anarchy--and thus placed on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum. This is nonsensical as anarchy is as far right as you can go on the same traditional scale. 47.134.88.208 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done That is not what the article says though, is it? We describe Fascism as being on the far right because that is what the academic consensus is. It has nothing to do with the relative positioning of anarchy. So, even if you were right about anarchy, this argument would not get anywhere but, just for clarification, you were not. Anarchy is pretty much never regarded as far-right. Even the right wing fringe types of anarchism (e.g. anarchocapitalism) are not regarded as far-right and, more generally, anarchy is regarded as of the left. The far-right is fundamentally based on authoritarian, hierarchical power structures. Even if it is hard to get the anarchists to agree about almost anything else, they all agree that they really, really don't like those, which in turn is why the Fascists don't like anarchists. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018[edit]

Has anyone provided a source that shows this "academic consensus" or better yet, a clear classification of fascism as right wing? It seems that, for all of the resistance to accommodate the many reasons given to place fascism on the left, there ought to at least be minimal evidence supporting the current right wing classification this article attempts. Hayek's argument was that the conflict of communism and fascism was an "in house conflict" as they were ideologies that were grouped together. He compared their conflict with a conflict between Catholics and Lutherans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.40.214 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the 16 or 17 citations that deal with this subject? Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Lack of a neutral point of view? - 14 October 2018[edit]

Look, I know fascism is a distorted view of nationalism, but something about how the article's written just doesn't sound neutral. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • [edit conflict] Yeah I'm not going to trout you for this vagueness, but you're not going to tag such important articles based on no evidence whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Um... is this a joke? Either way, this is way, way too vague to be useful. Templates aren't badges of shame, they are intended to facilitate changes to articles, but there's nothing actionable here. How would this problem be resolved, and how would the article be fixed? You will need to be at least a little bit specific. "Something" isn't something we can fix, y'know? So what, exactly, is the problem? Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

/* "Fascism" */[edit]

Hello, just looking for a consensus to change the introduction to a more accurate and detailed manner:

" Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, ethnic nationalism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, dictatorial power and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism promotes strong regimentation of society under traditionalism. Nationalisation of key industries important to the economy, in conjunction with the belief in third positionism to endeavour autarky. There are many varieties of fascism, such as Nazism, each with their own national variant related to a national identity. There is no single definition encapsulating all tenets and varieties, as it is often debated. Commonly speaking, it is opposed to the ideas of Communism, Marxism, Liberalism, globalism and anarchism. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, all though some argue that it is not applicable to such a paradigm. Italian Fascism was the first to emerge during the early 20th-century Europe as a result of World War I, before it spread to other European countries. "

Let us consider if it is acceptable. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talkcontribs) 08:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see the need of changing the current definition, also because it's far better sourced than yours. By the way, fascism is not a "economic and social system", it's an ideology that can be implemented in various systems. Also why stressing so much some minority and marginal views on fascism in the introduction? There is already a whole page about different definitions of fascism. Ritchie92 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a fairly complex definition for the lead. Furthermore, per weight, we need to explain all the various definitions of fascism, beginning with the most accepted one, the new consensus theory. We should also distinguish between fascism as ideology, albeit a vague, contradictory and ex post facto one, and fascism as a political movement. But the details should be detailed elsewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current lead is superior. In particular the suggested change opens the door to those benighted idiots who insist that Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. That, in itself, invalidates this change for consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove all references to exact placement on the left-right political spectrum[edit]

No reliable sources given, an we're getting deep into WP:NOTAFORUM territory at this point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not suggest otherwise. In addition, note that in multiple places the article actually says that fascism takes things from various sides and is against things from various sides. Having an entire section on this misguided question even suggests that this point has actual importance which is completely misleading. I already proposed and edit which removed the few placements outside the particular section and the particular section completely. I guess the main question here is whether there is any good justification for including this stuff. --Technokratisch (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change what the article says, you need a source that makes the same conclusions you do. TFD (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hm, I am not sure what kind of source that would be. I am not adding anything new, I am removing. My question is why is this question discussed on this page? I don't think adding irrelevant information is good practice on Wikipedia. --Technokratisch (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you read the links to policies and guidelines which are posted to the top of your talk page which explain what reliable sources are. You removed reliably sourced information which you said was inaccurate. If it is inaccurate, you need to provide a source that provides alternative facts. Incidentally, this article is on a one revert rule, which means you cannot remove anything from the article more than once in a 24 hour period. TFD (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't say it is inaccurate I say it is irrelevant. I also think that it is a great opportunity for Wikipedia to transcend the partisan argument around this. To go high were others go low. In my view the principle of neutrality requires that non-neutral statements are not only backed up by some citations but also that their inclusion has merit, is relevant, that the reader will gain additional insight from them. What is this merit of this here? I just cannot see it.--Technokratisch (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Except, policy requires that when they go low, we go low and when they go high, we go high. We follow what the experts say. Readers who want the truth can go to the any of a number of blogs that provide alternatives. TFD (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is also a quote from the article on left-right political spectrum and the reference is below:″Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.″[1] --Technokratisch (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
personal views do not carry much weight here. Wiki editors follow the published reliable secondary sources, and these have to be cited on this page before major changes can be discussed. 1) take a look at The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1134609523 2) The Fascist tradition: radical right-wing extremism in modern Europe https://books.google.com/books?id=xVyGAAAAMAAJ 3) Capitalism and Fascism: Three Right-wing Tracts, 1937-1941 https://books.google.com/books?id=WdckAAAAMAAJ 4) on Italy: Fascism Viewed from the Right https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1907166858 5 ) Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1403966591 etc etc Rjensen (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Does that mean I need a source that says the discussion of where fascism falls on the left to right spectrum is irrelevant? Would that be enough? Or is it enough if I find a source that says the discussion of where political ideologies fall on the left to right spectrum is irrelevant? I actually think that the burden of justification here is with those who included this question in the first place. Why is it relevant to the definition and idea of fascism (or indeed any political ideology) where it falls on the left-right spectrum (strangely, with regard to fascism I find myself agreeing with Mussolini here, but then again he may count as an expert on it)? --Technokratisch (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The part you want to remove from the introduction is heavily sourced (I count six different sources). I would suggest finding at least an equal number of sources to support what you're saying against it. Furthermore, even if what you're saying is true, i.e. "political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum", many sources argue that fascism indeed does fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. The fact that some ideologies are not left- or right-wing doesn't mean all ideologies are neither left- nor right-wing. And by the way, fascism is commonly known to be one of the "rightest"-wing idelogies, and has inspired - in some of its positions - most of the modern far-right-wing movements in the world. I think it's going to be ridiculous if Wikipedia doesn't mention that in the first sentences of its description. Last, I'll quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on right-wing politics: "Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition." (supported by nine different sources) which I think clearly suggests that fascism belongs to this category. Ritchie92 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hm, isn't there some Wikipedia principle that says that including information into an article should be justified as opposed to excluding? I just don't see any merit in this whole question. It is just about some weird bragging rights (which is probably why this has recently gained so much attention). If Fascism is anti-anarchist and anti-conservative and anti-communist and-liberal as the article says, in what way can it then be a trivial matter of deciding where it is on the left-right spectrum? And if it is not trivial, what is the point (personally I don't even see any point in the whole left-right spectrum but anyway)? If you give me a good reason why this question should have this prominence in the article I will gladly leave it at that. And no, what it inspired is absolutely not relevant to the question of what it is. You could write a section on what it inspired of course, that could be interesting.--Technokratisch (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
the right-wing issue is not given undeserved "prominence " --it simply repeats the findings of hundreds of scholars. To take another approach requires sources. To erase chunks of fully sourced text borders on vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, lets take a step back, if the section wasn't there, what would be the merit of including it. I am not questioning that this research exists, but I am questioning whether the question has any relevance here? How is including this question not unnecessary breaking of the neutrality stance? And as above, a quote from the article on left-right political spectrum and the reference is below:″Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.″[2] --Technokratisch (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There are literally whole books written about left / right syncretism. My go-to being Against the Fascist Creep by Alexander Reid Ross. However a defining characteristic of this scholarship is to identify that, while fascism pulls in elements of what is generally considered leftist political discourse (EG: Environmentalism) it remains a far right movement. I would suggest that you might be having trouble finding sources to support removal of fascism as a right-wing political philosophy because those sources are not extant except in mis-reading. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Technokratisch: I think you are being contradictory. First you argue that one should include information rather than exclude it, then afterwards you say that in this case you demand a good reason for this information to be included. I am confused. Also, the reasons why you think it's irrelevant, and the fact that deciding whether fascism is right- or left-wing is a "non-trivial matter", these are all your personal opinions. The vast majority of scholars agree on the opposite view. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I am against including irrelevant information I don't see why you misunderstood me but I am with firmly in the as short as possible camp. I also posted a reference to a scholar who argues that left-right dichotomy is overcome. And I maintain that if you make an obviously politically non-neutral statement in a Wikipedia article then you better have a very good justification for including it. That the statement has been made by researchers is not enough. Else we would have to include all statements that have been made by all researchers on fascism. Again the burden of justification is on your side in my opinion. And of all the people that have commented none has even accepted this. How tiring and disappointing. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
At best, the Ruypers quote Technokratisch proposed would represent a huge WP:SYNTH problem since it doesn't mention Fascism at all but appears to be about the left-right spectrum in general. There's also the issue of WP:DUE here. Especially since "some political scientists" is super-vague. Finally, it's unclear from the quote whether Ruypers even supports this conclusion or if this is cherrypicking an argument later shot down.
Or, being brief: no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, upon closer inspection, the source you are proposing appears to be a high school politics textbook, which is a rather weaker source than the six others already supporting the categorization of Fascism as far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


I rest my case. Which is that breaking neutrality on this issue needs justification and nobody can give it (because the whole left-right thing is meaningless). But I accept that you have other opinions. And I don't have more time than the 4 hours I spent on this. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You are resting your case upon the provision of a single quote, which would require WP:SYNTH to include, from an Ontario Secondary School Grade 12 textbook, against a preponderance of academic sources? I am not sure you know what "rest my case" really means, but OK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Technokratisch: The reference you posted refers to the "modern complex world". The fact that nowadays it's difficult to define left and right does not mean that older ideologies cannot be categorized. You say: "the whole left-right thing is meaningless": this is your personal opinion, and does not necessarily apply to the definition of fascism as an ideology. I also do not see how saying that fascism is right-wing is "politically non-neutral". You say: "That the statement has been made by researchers is not enough", well it's actually enough for Wikipedia if the statement is vastly and properly sourced. What would be enough for you? Finally, the justification for the mainstream statement is given by all the references cited there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Well good that Wikipedia is not part of the modern complex world. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If nobody can see the elegance in these omissions and how they would completely pull the rug from under the feet of those anybody that claims that fascism is this or that wing then so be it. I really cannot understand why you all are so fond of this dichotomy. It is 2018. Why include it? Why? Why? Why? Emphasis on why?--Technokratisch (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't care, at all, whether an edit is elegant. We care if it is supported by reliable sources. The categorization of fascism as far-right is supported by reliable sources. The omission of this information is not. It's that simple. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's 2018 and there is no Roman Empire anymore, but still there is an article about it, with details about the "outdated" political positions of that time, does that mean that we should re-write Roman history based on the "modern" political categories? The fact that the right-left dichotomy cannot be always applied to modern politics does not mean that we cannot apply it when it's applicable, i.e. when many reliable sources state it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try it another time. I have held the belief that fascism is right wing throughout my life. However, when recently I started coming accross people arguing that it is in fact left-wing I started thinking about this for the first time myself. And I realized that the whole thing is misguided. Those researchers that argued why the fascists are right-wing are all misguided. Why? Because the whole concept of the left-right spectrum is deeply misguided. I postet a reference to a researcher who says the same. They say it is nowadays misguided which sounds like there was a time when it wasn't. But that is also irrelevant since Wikipedia surely should take a modern perspective on things and not old ones. Now some here want me to produce a reference to some research that says "Classifying fascism on the left-right spectrum is irrelevant." But that is wrong. We don't have to find references for every classification to justify not including it into a Wikipedia article. If anything we need to find references that claim that the classification of fascism according to the left-right spectrum is important. No such reference is in the article and none has been given here so the default should be to leave this classification out until such references are produced. There is now a reference agains it which some are claiming isn't really valid because it is a classroom book. I took it from the article on the left-right political spectrum so if it is found to be insufficient then it should also be removed there I suppose. I am sorry if I got a bit agitated before, I hadn't eaten and I felt that my actual argument wasn't being taken serious at all. This may bave been due to an unclear phrasing. I hope this is more comprehensible. Also, I would be willing to look for further references (e.g. for the uselessness of the dichotomy) but not until I get the impression that others here acknowledge that my argument is sound.--Technokratisch (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope. That's still WP:SYNTH at best. And frankly if we edit based on your opinion of where Fascism is placed on the political spectrum it's WP:OR to boot. Suggest you put down your WP:STICK because this is WP:NOTAFORUM and we've given you our answers on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ruypers, John. Canadian and world politics. Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2005. ISBN 1-55239-097-7

References

  1. ^ Ruypers, p. 56
  2. ^ Ruypers, p. 56