Talk:Fascism/Archive 46
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Fascism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Adapt final sentence in first paragraph for accuracy
The sources provided for the right wing and oppositional claims refute them. According to our primary source "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" both found on the first page of Roger Griffin's book. These source quotes sit in direct contravention to the claims made in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the page. The secondary source also makes no affirmations to the "Right Wing" claim. On these grounds, I propose removal and editing to the sentence. Rocckker13 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- "It's on p. 8 according to the citation. Your argument appears to be with his reasoning. Funny that you think because fascism opposed conservatism it cannot be right-wing, but don't worry about its opposition to Communists. The opposition was different too - the Conservatives were forced to merge into the Nazi Party, while Communists were killed or put in concentration camps. :TFD (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- They aren't my thoughts, they are Roger Griffin's, they are two different quotes to address the inadequacies sentence and they were quoted verbatim. Page 8 discusses German sociologist Johann Plenge and his take on the newly forming National Socialism in Germany as well as the October Revolution of 1917 but makes no references to right/left wing or opposition to other systems of government. :Rocckker13 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Roger Griffin argues repeatedly that fascism is part of the right wing of European politics. see Griffin, Roger. "Revolution from the right: fascism." in Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (2000): 185-201. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again Roger Griffin: "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." (Pg 2 of "Fascism.") "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence."(Pg 3 "Fascism") Further from Aristotle Kallis who is the author of the second sourced used to cite the claim "For Mosse, as later for Zeev Sternhell and Roger Eatwell, fascism’s appeal lay exactly in its ability to fuse highly disparate elements from both right and left, both revolutionary and authoritarian political traditions, into novel syncretic and convincing ideological hybrids." :::These are direct quotes from the authors used to cite the statement in question, either the sources are wrong and the statement should be all together removed or the statement is wrong should be flxed. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody is denying, and the article does not attempt to hide, that some left wing ideas went into fascism or that some people came to fascism from the left. Certainly there were many people who were confused about where it lay in the run up to its heyday (and all that nonsense where they claimed to be "the third position" was designed to exploit this confusion) but we have coalesced around a consensus since 1945 with only a very few genuinely notable academics disagreeing that fascism is of the far right. This is enough to make us say "is usually placed" (emphasis mine) rather than "is placed" but does not justify more than that. Where I think you are making a really big mistake in reading the source is in failing to distinguish tactics from ideology. If Fascism adopted some tactics from Anarchism, for example, then that does not tell you that the ideologies were related, just that the same tactic worked for both. By analogy, consider that allied soldiers enthusiastically adopted the Jerrycan in WWII. That does not indicate that they had any affinity with Nazi ideology. They simply spotted an enemy innovation that worked well and adopted it without any ideological baggage. I think you are also failing to distinguish between when the sources talk about the perception of fascism in the run up to its heyday and the consensus post WWII.
- So what can we do with this wording? I think we need to make two separate points.
- That the post-WWII academic consensus puts Fascism on the far right. (Already covered in the article. Mentioned in the lead. Explored more under Definitions. Does not seem to need urgent improvement.)
- That fascism pitched itself (with intentional dishonesty) variously as right, "third position" and maybe even left in the hope of gaining support from disparate people who had little in common (but maybe their gullibility). (Not mentioned in the lead but covered under Definitions. Does not seem to need urgent improvement.)
- So, I'm not saying that it can't be improved at all but I am saying that I don't think there is much wrong with it as it is and that taking a reference to fascism being on the far right out of the lead section would be omitting a basic fact in such a perverse way as to discredit Wikipedia and to make one question the motivations of the omission.
- On a personal note, let me say that, here in the UK, when I tell people that there are people constantly attempting to remove the description of fascism and Nazism as far right from Wikipedia their jaws drop and they ask me "Why are you arguing with neo-Nazis on Wikipeda?" I try to explain that this does not seem to be the case in most cases but they find it hard to understand that anybody other than somebody trying to whitewash fascism would do this. They are shocked that basic facts are now considered to be up for grabs to the extent that this is even being discussed. This is true even among people who are moderately right wing themselves. On the one hand it does no harm to take our long-held beliefs down off the shelf one in a while, dust them off and check them for cracks, but on the other hand it does show that this argument is deeply into fringe territory. Those who would argue against fascism being on the far right are arguing with the history books and the dictionaries. While many individual people may be doing this in confused good faith (e.g. a lot of the IP editors) the motivations behind this seem deeply suspect to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- My guess is that some Americans who identify themselves with the American "right" (like the GOP) are actually libertarians strongly opposed to a powerful government. We all agree that fascism involved a very strong intrusive government. So these folks are indeed uncomfortable with fascism = right. The fascism we're dealing with is European, and in Europe and other countries like Australia & Japan libertarianism is called "Liberal" or "classical liberal". It's a famous switch in language that took place in USA in 1930s (New Deal took over the term "liberal" much to the annoyance of people like Herbert Hoover) but there was no switch in Europe. So the "right" in Europe includes neo-fascism, but the right in the US does not (I'm skipping over ALT-RIGHT in USA--I still think that it's a very small fringe.) Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I get why they are uncomfortable and I sympathise to some extent. I have seen people on the left wanting to reject Stalinism as an ideology of the left as they don't feel comfortable with that. That doesn't fly either. Feeling uncomfortable is no excuse to falsify history. The normal conservative right needs to understand that we are not having a dig at them and we need to take care not to give that impression. The far right is not about normal people at all. It is about extremists. After all, many of the greatest enemies of fascism were from the right too. Churchill and de Gaulle spring instantly to mind.
- I am not entirely convinced by this language flip idea in the USA. I think the "alt-right" in the USA is proof that this effect on terminology is nowhere near as solid as is claimed (although I'm not dismissing it entirely). Anyway, Fascism is primarily of Europe so it makes sense to use European terminology (with appropriate explanations so that nobody else gets confused) when we talk about it.
- My main concern with the language flip idea is that people are trying to flip it even further so that everything good is intrinsically defined as being right wing and hence left becomes all things bad. That is tactical language abuse for political ends akin to Orwell's Newspeak. For anybody who defines "right" (or "left", or pretty much anything else) as "sugar and spice and all things nice", understanding politics is going to be impossible and I fear that that is exactly what is intended. I'm afraid that we can't ignore that there is an element of deliberate bad faith in much of the editing that seeks to remove "far right" from this article and to insert "left" into the article on Nazism. That is revisionist propaganda and I fear that our "alt-right" friends are a few steps behind this even if most of the anonymous editors that they send us seem more likely to be people confused by them than people intentionally seeking to falsify articles. Let me be clear that I'm not having a dig at Rocckker13 here. I can't tell what any individual editor's intentions are, only what the wider phenomenon is. Besides, his behaviour is noticeably different from the army of anonymous editors I am talking about as he is actually looking at the sources. Misunderstanding them in some respects, maybe, but that is very different from the uncorroborated demands for incorrect changes that we normally get. Much as I disagree with him, I would not want him to think that I am telling him to shut up and go away. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again, there is nothing political about this. If a word's meaning has changed over the years that's more than acceptable, but the sources do not reflect that in the slightest. I have quoted the two sources used to support the claim a total of 6 different times now and only gotten one sourced rebuttal. Either the sources are wrong and should be changed or the statement is unfounded and should be better reflected by its source. I would like to add that the Marxism and Liberalism pages make no reference at all to right or left except Marxism in category section at the very bottom of its page. Though you may conclude those to be universal fact, Wikipedia lives and dies by a standard of neutrality. If this idea is so contentious either properly support or just remove it and let the article do the talking for itself. --Rocckker13 (talk) 3:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that having read the definitions placement on the spectrum section I think that they do an incredible job of addressing the complexities of the issue, something lost or glossed over in the introduction. It even has a larger and more complete Roger Griffin Quote: "Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence". Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence." If the term is colloquially spoken about in a particular way or even commonly done so we have sections that address that and do so at length. The initial blurb is incorrect considering the sourcing in one way or another and redundant considering these sections on the page. I think it should be removed, at no cost to the integrity of the page. --Rocckker13 (talk) 4:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- U.S. neo-Nazis and their allies are in the news right now (they are protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee) and the media routinely refer to them as "right-wing." They even call themselves "Unite the Right." They support the right-wing U.S. president Donald Trump and oppose what they call the Left. No reliable sources call them leftists or centrists or moderates. If you don't like that, take it up with the news media, and once you are successful, return to this page. TFD (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- This has absolutely no bearing on the conversation at large. Not only does it not address any of the points that have been made by anyone thus far, but it betrays an agenda in you that has not been exhibited by anyone else in this section of the talk page. I should not need to talk about bias, and have not done so until now. Either refute the points made by me or support them, but do so in a way that addresses their content rather than some tangent about the news media and current events. Rocckker13 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- On Roger Griffin -- his interpretation of fascism is controversial and has not been widely accepted by the RS. However he repeatedly calls fascism right wing--his 1991 The Nature of Fascism is part of the "Themes in right-wing ideology and politics series." "In his most recent work, Modernism and Fascism (2007), [Griffen] the professor at Oxford Brookes University exposes how right-wing radicalism was not so much the conservative reflex against the consequences of modernity but a revolutionary modernist project." for more see https://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA4 Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, Roger Griffin was the first cited source for the statement, I bring him up because not only was his quote on oppositional governmental structures to Fascism misrepresented, but that the work cited, which was published in 1995 states that Fascism's placement on a left-right spectrum is contentious at best and that the academic consensus is that it pulled from both left and right ideas. That portion of the quote which is fully quoted paragraphs up is as follows: "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." and dated at 1995 superseding your 1991 find. Further, I have a blog post from Roger Griffin himself in 2010 saying: "To repeat (since Goldberg perversely writes as if it is not the case): the core of the partial new consensus that has emerged since 1991 (partly, but only partly, as a result of my work in this field) is not that fascism was mainly right wing or left wing, but that it was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’." -this is a direct response to another piece of literature covering fascism and the totality of the blog can be found here, (http://roger-griffin.blogspot.com/2010/01/review-liberal-fascism.html). Further, the second quote you reference is sourced from and E-News letter entitled Ku Leuven which can be found verbatim here: (https://www.kuleuven.be/english/newsletter/newsflash/roger_griffin.html) though I am not outright discrediting the source of the quote I question how it in any contravenes what I or Roger have previously posited about Fascism. Finally the book you presented by George Michael references Roger Griffin's work to support their point, but never quotes from it. Much like the references that have been made here to the titles of Griffin's books this is a shallow connection at best, his larger body of work speaks to the contrary of the points made in this book. Additionally George Michael is not sourced once in the 250+ sources used in this article, let alone as the citation for the statement we are talking about. Rocckker13 (talk) 2:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- My guess is that some Americans who identify themselves with the American "right" (like the GOP) are actually libertarians strongly opposed to a powerful government. We all agree that fascism involved a very strong intrusive government. So these folks are indeed uncomfortable with fascism = right. The fascism we're dealing with is European, and in Europe and other countries like Australia & Japan libertarianism is called "Liberal" or "classical liberal". It's a famous switch in language that took place in USA in 1930s (New Deal took over the term "liberal" much to the annoyance of people like Herbert Hoover) but there was no switch in Europe. So the "right" in Europe includes neo-fascism, but the right in the US does not (I'm skipping over ALT-RIGHT in USA--I still think that it's a very small fringe.) Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Again Roger Griffin: "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." (Pg 2 of "Fascism.") "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence."(Pg 3 "Fascism") Further from Aristotle Kallis who is the author of the second sourced used to cite the claim "For Mosse, as later for Zeev Sternhell and Roger Eatwell, fascism’s appeal lay exactly in its ability to fuse highly disparate elements from both right and left, both revolutionary and authoritarian political traditions, into novel syncretic and convincing ideological hybrids." :::These are direct quotes from the authors used to cite the statement in question, either the sources are wrong and the statement should be all together removed or the statement is wrong should be flxed. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Roger Griffin argues repeatedly that fascism is part of the right wing of European politics. see Griffin, Roger. "Revolution from the right: fascism." in Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (2000): 185-201. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Right-wing isn't an ideology, it merely means opposition to the Left, of which fascists were the most extreme example. TFD (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is simply false, go read any of the paragraphs or quotes I've posted, or even the article which refutes this statement. Further, what is this statement even in reference to? Nobody is talking about right-wing as an ideology, just a misrepresentation of a source and a sentence which could be improved. This is the second time you have posted a tangent that neither grapples with the content of anyone's argument nor has any sourcing of its own. I want to end up with a consensus somewhere, but to forgo any part of anyone's argument and post unrelated blurbs is distracting and unhelpful. Rocckker13 (talk) 3:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- What's false? TFD (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fascism is not the direct polar antithesis to the left nor is it the most extreme end for right wing politics. It is a conglomerate system that assimilates tenements of both to achieve its own ends. As I posted yesterday here are two direct quotes from Roger Griffin, the man cited 21 times in this article and specifically for the sentence in contention, you could scroll to the top of this section or read any of what has been posted so far to have seen these quotes: "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy". Again from Griffin and my third paragraph, "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence." As stated, these have been posted before, if you have sourced or founded rebuttals to any of the points I have made over the past day I ask that you make them known, in any other case I urge you to read the conversation that has been going on before commenting. Rocckker13 (talk) 4:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- the wiki statement is " fascism is usually placed on the far-right" and that includes Roger Griffin. see R. Griffin (2008). A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 202. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- From the very same book, "Like Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, and millions of other demobilized soldiers after 1918 - many of whom were to become, like the first three, revolutionary nationalists forming the spine of most interwar fascist movements - little attention was paid to whether the intellectual currency of these new ideas had derived from the 'left' or 'right'. Largely on this account (but also due to the rhetoric of many fascist ideologues), it has been frequently noted that fascist movements attempted to forge a 'third way' between communism and liberalism; one touted as a more spiritual alternative to these competing, supposedly materialistic ideological systems" describing the engineering of fascism again, "Once the full implications of seeing fascism’s definitional core as a belief in ‘national and/or racial revolution’ are grasped, the question of fascism’s evolution after 1945 changes radically. In particular, the issue of how fascism ‘naturally’ manifests itself as a political and historical entity takes on a dimension not readily perceived on the basis of ideal types constructed exclusively through a study of the extreme right in inter-war Europe, such as Ernst Nolte’s ‘metapolitical’ definition, James Gregor’s ‘developmental dictatorship’ model, Ze’ev Sternhell’s concept of a fusion of anti-Marxist socialism and tribal nationalism which made it ‘neither right, nor left’, or Wolfgang Wippermann’s ‘real type’ based on Italian Fascism. The key to this reassessment of twentieth- century fascist ideology lies in the realisation of just how historically contingent the Fascist and Nazi forms of fascism were, even if these continue to exert such a powerful influence on historical memory and imagination." describing fascism's modern evolution something not able to be perceived exclusively through a study of extreme right but rather an amalgam type which is further expounded upon here "Instead the new consensus stresses that a leap of ‘idealising abstraction’ is necessary to select significant generic attributes from the welter of empirical ‘facts’ on the phenomena characterising Nazism and Fascism. Ze’ev Sternhell expressed this with great lucidity in his groundbreaking analysis of French fascism, Ni droite, ni gauche (‘neither Right nor Left’): It falls to the researcher to extract the common denominator, the fascist ‘minimum’ which is shared not only by different movements and ideologies which claim to be fascist, but also those which reject the adjective but nevertheless belong to the same family." These are all examples from your chosen literature that expand the issue past right or left wing and do not even take into account the author's 2010 quote formally stating that his work is commonly misrepresented and addressing that which I posted as a response to your previous source.
- Regardless, the full statement in the article is "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." which closely resembles these two statements from the cited source "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" and "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." but misrepresents the content of them. If the sources are wrong they should be removed and if they are correct they need to be reflected properly or the statement removed. Rocckker13 (talk) 6:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- The text is supported when Griffin says "Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" it says COMMONLY not ALWAYS. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, this has come round again. The lead is meant to summarise. The statement that fascism is "usually" regarded as a phenomenon of the right in mainstream political classification is an accurate summary of what most serious writers, including Griffin, say, as shown above. The fact that some fringe commentators (and yes, a few serious academics too) want to rewrite those standards or challenge that orthodoxy is not really relevant. Indeed, most acknowledge that is exactly what they are trying to do when they do it. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Griffin is a professor that has spent his career on this subject in some degree or another, are we just going to forgo the second half of that statement where he more evenly puts "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." The full 3 sentence quote in the primer of the sourced literature paints a different picture than what is currently being expressed in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I am in no way attempting to challenge the ideas of right-wing fascism, it exists and should be represented but is more thoroughly in a later part of the article. Not only is this portion of the quote misrepresented but Griffin came back in 2010 (his latest quote on the subject to date) to clarify after another writer named Goldberg attempted to paint fascism as a problem common to the left wing: "To repeat (since Goldberg perversely writes as if it is not the case): the core of the partial new consensus that has emerged since 1991 (partly, but only partly, as a result of my work in this field) is not that fascism was mainly right wing or left wing, but that it was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’." both are wrong interpretations and misrepresent his work in his own words, and this is only the evidence against the "commonly right wing" part of the claim. The claim in question is this "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." which very closely resembles this quote from the primer of the text "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" but does so in a way that misrepresents its content by omitting data. Instead of making appeals to ambiguous authority to support your claims I'd much prefer if we had a discussion about the cited and sourced literature. As when I started this, I propose just quoting directly from the source, or removing the sentence entirely as it is covered in better detail in the definition and placement on the spectrum sections. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are quoting a book review and providing an interpretation not in the text. The book review is really only helpful as a source for Goldberg's book, and you need to read Griffin's writings about fascism. For example in a 2012 article he repeatly refers to fascism as right wing and refers to Nazism, which he considers a form of fascism, as "the most virulent European right in history to date."[1] The statement that fascism drew from left and right is true and is true of all right-wing groups. For example, Donald Trump has a picture of Andrew Jackson in his office whom he admires as a populist. TFD (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, I started by quoting his 1995 book Fascism verbatim offering no more interpretation than Roger Griffin provides with his own words. I only provided Griffin's review of Goldberg's book to highlight Griffin's more thorough and modern representation of his thoughts, particularly in response to a piece of literature that to Griffin's dismay, paints fascism as a commonly left wing issue. The texts were included in their initial postings above and can be read for full effect. I've read Griffin's works, if you read any number of the paragraphs above you can see that I have quoted from them exhaustively. At no point was there any interpreting being done. As for your new 2012 source the full quotation is included here "Finally, a victim of the most virulent European right in history to date, the Auschwitz survivor and witness Primo Levi warned:
- 'A new fascism, with its trail of intolerance, of abuse, and of servitude, can be born outside our country and imported into it, walking on tiptoe and calling itself by other names, or it can loose itself from without with such violence that it routs all defenses. At that point, wise counsel no longer serves, and one must find the strength to resist. Even in this contingency, the memory of what happened in the heart of Europe, not very long ago, can serve as a warning and support.'" In which Griffin quotes an Auschwitz survivor as one of 4 quotes that he considers "testimonies to the need for scholars never to grow complacent in their understanding of what fascism was and is." the section and article culminates in this: "If liberal academics left and right can overcome their tendency to confuse a narrow obsession with defending their ‘patch’ with individualism and originality, then we can work collaboratively to learn from each other in the investigation of illiberalism in all its old and new forms as a constantly evolving, mutating challenge to human rights and dignity. Collectively and cumulatively we may then produce, instead of futile family squabbles, not only knowledge but understanding, not just strengthening liberal academia but liberal society. For as Kafka reminds us: ‘Only in the choir may there be a certain element of truth.’" A statement further supporting his misrepresentation in the sentence we are talking about. Further, in a 2012 piece from Griffin entitled 'Modernity, Modernism, and Fascism. A "Mazeway Resynthesis" Griffin speaks at some length about modernism's torrid ties to Fascism and historians common characterization of it as right leaning and hesitance to consider it left: (Speaking first of Nietzsche's "The Will to Power") 'This socially transformative mode of modernism which acts as a “countermovement” to modernity construed as decadence—the central theme of Nietzsche’s entire oeuvre—we propose to call “programmatic.” It is this revolutionary permutation driven by the quest for an alternative modernity that was the subject of the catalogue to the exhibition on modernist design held in London in the spring of 2006. Its organizer, Christopher Wilk, characterized modernism as “a loose collection of ideas ” covering a range of movements and styles in many countries, especially those flourishing in key cities in Germany and Holland, as well as in Paris, Prague, and, later, New York. He goes on:All these sites were stages for an espousal of the new and, often an equally vociferous rejection of history and tradition; a utopian desire to create a better world, to reinvent the world from scratch; an almost messianic belief in the power and potential of the machine and industrial technology. [ . . . ] All these principles were frequently combined with social and political beliefs (largely left-leaning) which held that art and design could, and should, transform society. Given the axiomatic assumption of modernism’s predominantly left-wing orientation articulated by Wilk, it is little wonder that fascist modernism was conspicuously underrepresented in the exhibition he organized when compared to its Bolshevik counterpart. In contrast, my article can be seen as an attempt to persuade cultural and political historians to treat fascism not as an oxymoron to be resolved or an aberration to be explained, but as a full-fledged, internally consistent variant of programmatic modernism. In doing so it aims to counteract the persistent reluctance to recognize in fascism a sustained drive towards an alternative modernity and towards a revolutionary futurity. This reluctance is epitomized in Wilk’s allusion to “largely left-leaning” beliefs in the prospect of social transformation. It is a preconception that in the past has misled historians to treat right-wing modernism, or even right-wing modernity, as deviations from the “true” path of human progress and emancipation."
- I am again not arguing that fascism cannot be right wing only that by Griffin's own admission, the scholarly consensus sits that it is a transcendent system. More so to the point, the last sentence in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article misrepresents the content of its cited source on two counts, and either needs to be taken out or fixed. Rocckker13 (talk) 5:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- It has been 5 days, and I have not seen a response, cited or otherwise, to my last rebuttal. If I do not see one by 7 days I intend to reach out to an admin and failing that make the proposed change myself.Rocckker13 (talk) 3:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ultimatums rarely end well, and walls of text are seldom convincing either. Labeling fascism as 'transcendent' is absurd, and far worse, is validating a fringe perspective. There are parties and groups that try to present themselves as third positionists, but these claims are never consistent in what that would actually mean in practice, nor is this accepted by many sources. This is recognized by sources as a tactic, not as a fact. From post-war Strasserism to the American Freedom Party, this claim has been recognized by reliable sources and largely dismissed as a way to make far-right views seem more palatable.
...usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum
is a crystal clear simple summary of a slightly complicated issue. This is good and appropriate language for the lede of a lengthy article. Most sources call it far-right, and virtually all sources admit that it's usually called far-right by others. That must be the starting point, and that's what the lede is for. Any expansion of this should reflect due weight, and dissecting one academic's works to figure out exactly what he meant is just plain old original research, being generous. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)- Walls of text alone would be rather ineffective, but my walls of text are lengthy due to the extensive amount of direct quoting I provide. The second most sourced man in the entire article, and main cited source for the statement in question is misrepresented by that statement on a number of accounts both within the cited source and upon more modern reiterations by him. You can read through any one of my paragraphs to find quotes from him to this effect including the first one within this discussion. If you then continue to think that his views are fringe, the article will require extensive alterations to remove or properly frame his view point. Further, the majority of responses I have gotten here in this discussion are opinion based rather than cited or sourced, and rarely seem to have read through any of the prior discussion. As I take the time to read through and respond with sourcing to every response here, I feel as though it would be more effective for others to grapple with the sources and cite rebuttals rather than offering un-cited appeals. rocckker13 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of these sources is what is being disputed, and this isn't necessarily a reflection on the sources themselves. That is what I mean by WP:OR. Griffin's comments on Wilk's comments on modernism (and by extension progressivism) as an eventual comment on fascism... well, it's pretty tangled. Even still this isn't persuasive. Griffin does support that fascism originated from both left and right ideas, but that's a misdirection. The left-right continuum has always been an imperfect simplification, and fascism is mostly viewed as far-right, regardless of the lofty ideas it cribbed from in the beginning. Griffin emphasizes, again and again, that fascism is a reaction against liberalism first, and tradition second. It is a revolutionary movement to replace liberal democracy with something else. The Nature of Fascism repeatedly takes it as a given that fascism is far-right (or ultra-right). Griffin does explain that it's complicated (p. 49 & 50) but also agrees that it's seen as far-right by historians for several reasons. I haven't seen anything you've presented which persuasively challenges that.
- Please, at a bare minimum, break up walls of text into properly indented paragraphs. Otherwise don't be surprised if people are reluctant to give them full attention. It might be appealing to think you're doing more than your fair share here, but this shows disregard for the people you're trying to collaborate with. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have not once offered an interpretation of the sources, nor have I claimed to do any original research. I have simply read the cited documents and provided direct quotations from those documents to support a case of misrepresentation. My quotation of Griffin's 2012 work regarding Wilks was meant as a counter point to the previous comment written by TFD who provided a partial quotation from a 2012 work of his trying to build a foundation for the claim that Griffin has infact stated what he is credited for saying in the introductory blurb. The part that was being responded to is here 'For example in a 2012 article he repeatedly refers to fascism as right wing and refers to Nazism, which he considers a form of fascism, as "the most virulent European right in history to date."' This was a response and not the lynch pin to my argument but more so, upon reading it back, it seems to be the latest example of a sort of a back and forth of dated one-ups-man-ships trying to give credence to either side of the conversation. To add to that trend the that source you cite, "The Nature of Fascism", is an earlier work of Griffins than the one cited dated at 1991 vs the cited 1995. Within the two pages you cite you can see the beginnings of his later thoughts on fascism, a grappling with its spectrum placement he makes clearer as the years go on. From 50, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian Knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own 'beyond left and right'. After all, like radical Catholicism in the inter-war period and present-day ecologism and feminism, it claims to fight for a new vision, a Third Way pioneering a radical break with all traditional ideologies and parties, a point which we have seen is central to Sternhell's conception of fascism (Sternhell, 1979 and 1987)." Although his conclusion in this work is ultimately comfortable with the reader gathering that Fascism is a sub category of the "Ultra-right," only if it is given "specifically populist connotations" Griffin adds, it is neither the cited source nor his most recent musings on the subject.
- As I understand, at least partially, where you are coming from I'll try to make these responses more ascetically pleasing, although I am not used to the format of these talk sections and as I'm sure you could gather from the person I began this conversation with, I am not particularly skilled in it either.
- This is the statement in question: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." this statement is the amalgam of two quotes from our cited source, 'Fascism' 1995, "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." (Pg 2 of "Fascism.") and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" also found on page 2. I want to add that on page 8, which is cited page, there is no information relating to the previous statement. Starting from the easier quotation, the second quote is utterly misrepresented by selective omission obscuring its intention. The initial edit I made to this page was replacing the statement with "Roger Griffin has said...", and then quoting this second quote directly as I thought it was an appropriate way to maintain the integrity of the article and remedy this issue. This was before I learned about talk pages or consensus procedure. The first quote is the fuller quotation surrounding what is misrepresented in the latter part of the statement. Griffin goes to great lengths within the book and specifically this quote to paint a holistic picture of the ideology and distilling it down to a singular portion of a larger quote and then citing him for it is disingenuous at best. From the same book but a page later, "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence."(Pg 3 "Fascism"). Griffin later reiterated his thoughts on the matter in 2010 as a response to being misrepresented and cited by Goldberg in "Liberal Fascism" who tried to paint the ideology as exclusively Left wing. That quote is as follows: "To repeat (since Goldberg perversely writes as if it is not the case): the core of the partial new consensus that has emerged since 1991 (partly, but only partly, as a result of my work in this field) is not that fascism was mainly right wing or left wing, but that it was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’." Further, although the left-right spectrum is certainly an outdated model, it is only an addition to the case here. As stated paragraphs above few other political ideologies have branding within that spectrum on Wikipedia. As examples from the Wikipedia political portal: Fascism does, Liberalism doesn't; Conservatism does; Communism doesn't; Nazism does; Anarchy, Libertarianism, and Socialism don't (but do make references to both left and right in lower sections not dissimilar from fascism's spectrum section); Left and right wing populism contain it within their titles, and feminism/men's rights make no reference to it. These were just the categories as posed in Wikipedia's politics portal. Of the 10 articles (excluding the two that state it within their titles) only 3 make reference to spectrum leaning in their initial paragraph. My initial idea was to rectify the misquotation within the statement by just directly and fully quoting the author, but another solution would be to remove the statement entirely at no cost to the integrity of the article as the 'Position in the political spectrum' section does an incredible job of fully representing the issue that surrounds its placement.
- To your last point, I have repeatedly offered cited and sourced responses to people, responding to their arguments rather than their person, and been met with thinly veiled accusations on my intentions or my character that offer no sourcing either to that claim nor to the larger edit being talked about. Yours is no exception. I have no disregard for anyone on this site or within this conversation thus far, only for statements that offer opinions or accusations without anything to back them up. rocckker13 (talk) 5:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Walls of text alone would be rather ineffective, but my walls of text are lengthy due to the extensive amount of direct quoting I provide. The second most sourced man in the entire article, and main cited source for the statement in question is misrepresented by that statement on a number of accounts both within the cited source and upon more modern reiterations by him. You can read through any one of my paragraphs to find quotes from him to this effect including the first one within this discussion. If you then continue to think that his views are fringe, the article will require extensive alterations to remove or properly frame his view point. Further, the majority of responses I have gotten here in this discussion are opinion based rather than cited or sourced, and rarely seem to have read through any of the prior discussion. As I take the time to read through and respond with sourcing to every response here, I feel as though it would be more effective for others to grapple with the sources and cite rebuttals rather than offering un-cited appeals. rocckker13 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ultimatums rarely end well, and walls of text are seldom convincing either. Labeling fascism as 'transcendent' is absurd, and far worse, is validating a fringe perspective. There are parties and groups that try to present themselves as third positionists, but these claims are never consistent in what that would actually mean in practice, nor is this accepted by many sources. This is recognized by sources as a tactic, not as a fact. From post-war Strasserism to the American Freedom Party, this claim has been recognized by reliable sources and largely dismissed as a way to make far-right views seem more palatable.
- The text is supported when Griffin says "Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" it says COMMONLY not ALWAYS. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless, the full statement in the article is "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." which closely resembles these two statements from the cited source "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" and "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." but misrepresents the content of them. If the sources are wrong they should be removed and if they are correct they need to be reflected properly or the statement removed. Rocckker13 (talk) 6:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017
 | This edit request to Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bold text Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-left within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5] 207.203.97.108 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As the author cites in the rest of the article. Fascism is a Socialist, far left political / economic model.
- Reliable sources do not categorize fascism as far left. TFD (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
why is National Socialism considered Fascist?
This is a scholarly article, and the colloquial use of "fascist" as a stand in for "authoritarian government" should not be used here. The article explicitly states that Nazis were Fascist, but does not include any sources or citations for that claim. These are two similar, but distinct ideologies. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.157.232 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017
- While it's not simple, it's not that complicated, either. Even colloquially, Fascism doesn't just mean "authoritarian government". Can you point to any place it's used as such in this article? Fascism and Nazism overlap very, very closely, as countless sources support. Those sources are found both here (in the body of the article, where they belong), and at Nazism, Nazi party and many others. German fascism redirects to Nazism, which is entirely appropriate, since Nazism is the German version of Fascism, just as Falangism is the Spanish version, etc. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fascism as used in this article refers to the ideology first promoted by Mussolini and his party of which Nazism is considered a form by experts, although it had differences. TFD (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reading the English language translation suggests that "national socialism" is a form of socialism. The intention in the German language is that it's a form of nationalism, says that all of society is to be nationalized and under control of the national party. In Europe "socialism" is always linked to a base among blue-collar workers, And to opposition to capitalism. The Nazi base was widespread in terms of class, it was strongest among the lower middle class, and it supported capitalism and private ownership. Rjensen (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent Edit By Rjensen
this revision has what looks like original research. At no point in the source material (here) is the word 'right' even mentioned in the context of right-wing. While it may be that 'rich landowners and industrialist' are 'traditionally on the right', the source does not support that. Lanybaggins (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's common knowledge that 'rich landowners and industrialist' are 'traditionally on the right'. I'm sure that Lanybaggins and the other editors here know that simple fact. In case they are ignorant of it I added a source. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will assume good faith in that you didn't mean to suggest those who disagree with you are ignorant. I would disagree that your assertion is 'common knowledge', and look forward to seeing the source you say you are going to add. Thanks. Lanybaggins (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's common knowledge that 'rich landowners and industrialist' are 'traditionally on the right'. I'm sure that Lanybaggins and the other editors here know that simple fact. In case they are ignorant of it I added a source. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Social Welfare Under Economy
This section is poorly written.
"Fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, but they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons towards those not considered racially embodied with pure German blood."
The "German" section is an example of the first but the sentence is structured to imply that all fascists cared about German "blood" and not their own nationalistic identity. These statements should either be broken or conjoined after removing the pronoun "they."
As written it is confusing, and while it fits a reductionist Nazi-centric view of fascism, it certainly goes well beyond Franco or Salazar who were certainly considered fascist in a pre-WW2 historic sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:E:522C:B889:84AA:9917:28EF (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Myths about "left" policies -- they were conservative policies used by fascists much later
There are myths about the left & fascism such as those represented in a deleted text today. 1) Gun control (supported by fascism) is "Left." No -- it's pretty conservative. In England the Game Act of 1671 confined gun ownership to the richest 2 percent of the population--the top land owners. Itg was strictly enforced. [See Gun Culture in Early Modern England (2015) by Schwoerer]. 2. Control of smoking = left. nope. It was a major issue in England in 1600-- King James I wrote a 28 page pamphlet "Counterblaste to Tobacco" (1603) that denounced tobacco as a major threat to the health of his subjects. He issued many edicts but the government was too weak to enforce them as addicts had money and Virginia had tobacco. [see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3491446?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ] 3) harsher punishment for animal abuse that was a major theme in England and the US in the late 19th century. Pat Thane says "British laws were established to protect animals and children from violence long before laws were enacted to protect wives from spousal abuse." [History Today Dec 2010, pp 33-35 4) High tariffs--that was advocated in US by conservative leaders Alexander Hamilton (and supported by President Washington) and later became signature issues for Henry Clay, Abe Lincoln and William McKinley. Not much "leftism" there--it's also Trump in 2017. 5) "massive public works programs" they were a favorite in Ancient Rome (their roads & aqueducts and coliseums are still famous). 6) wartime command economy in WW2 -- used by all major countries. Milton Friedman played a big role--he was a major supporter and wrote the justifications to Congress spoken by his boss was an aide to Secty of Treasury Morgenthau.Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. It is misleading to compare fascist policies with those of today's parties rather than those of the period in which they flourished. I removed a passage from Mussolini's speech where he says "We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism."[2] It was part of a speech where he explains that socialism is unrealistic, has failed in Russia and then praises the free enterprise system.[3] The text is therefore out of context and there is no secondary sourcing to explain what he meant. TFD (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Fascism is not on the right side of the spectrum as citations 4 and 5 state.
This book explains how Fascism is on the left side of the spectrum and not the right: Goldberg, J. (2009). Liberal fascism: the secret history of the American left, from Mussolini to the politics of change. New York: Broadway Books.
Mussolini : the father of fascism -- Adolf Hitler : man of the left -- Woodrow Wilson and the birth of liberal fascism -- Franklin Roosevelt's fascist New Deal -- The 1960s : fascism takes to the streets -- From Kennedy's myth to Johnson's dream : liberal fascism and the cult of the state -- Liberal racism : the eugenic ghost in the fascist machine -- Liberal fascist economics -- Brave new world : Hillary Clinton and the meaning of liberal fascism -- The new age : we're all fascists now -- Afterword : the tempting of conservatism.
Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightinglittlebear (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Goldberg's polemical rhetoric has not convinced any experts on political history. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's not pursue this any further. Fightinglittlebear, while we're glad you're citing a book, on Wikipedia we use reliable books written by experts. This is not one of those. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- The History Channel invited a number of the leading fascism experts to comment on the book, which you can read here. The response was so negative that per weight, we must ignore it. TFD (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fascism experts as in left to far-left leaning university faculty. Echo chamber much? How about basing the article on facts instead of the opinion of a few politically motivated activists? How about at least showing both sides and each side's merits? - How is this not an unactionable item Grayfell? The action is right there: instead of having the article represent the left-wing opinion, stack the facts up and show both sides, both of which are visibly supported by quite a few people, may they be scholars or otherwise. Truth is not a question of popularity and it is especially not of popularity in a left-wing echo chamber, as the liberal arts fields have been shown to be an extreme example of. User:mr soros 00:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects the academic consensus of a topic in proportion to due weight. Blowing-off a vague group of sources by saying that they are "politically motivated" completely misses the point. If you have a reliable source, bring it forth for discussion, otherwise expecting Wikipedia to reflect "both sides", as if their were only two sides each deserving attention, is textbook false balance. We do not give credence to WP:FRINGE perspectives, and so far no reliable sources have been brought forth. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- If any conservative voice, however serious, is considered fringe by wikipedians, I think that shows clear political motivation, don't you? Academic consensus is fine as long as you trust that group, however, if it is shown that the group has clear political motivations and is not interested in truth, I think the results brought forth by said group need to be taken with a grain of salt. In an academic climate where 95% of faculty support only one political party, I think the time has come for questioning topics on which we trusted their "consensus". If we talk only about ideals of each side, isn't it true that socialism is considered left-wing, while conservatism is considered right-wing? If it is, how do you explain that the nazi party, clearly representing revolutionary socialist ideals like big government (regulation, intervention, market control, nationalization), equality, classism and welfare, is placed on the right side of the political spectrum? The big difference between the bolsheviks and nazis is that one is international communist while the other is national. If this is the case, how can fascism be on the right? Mr soros (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2017
- Where, exactly, is this "serious conservative voice"? Regardless of ideology, this book isn't taken seriously by experts. No reliable source, at all, has been proposed. The rest of this is the same tired talking points that have already been addressed more times than I can count, both on Wikipedia's talk pages, and by reliable sources. The supposed "big difference" is a comical simplification. Hitler pandered to socialists early on in order to consolidate power. Centralizing power in the hands of as few people as possible is not ideologically compatible with socialism. Nazism was deeply classist and anti-equality (do I really even need to say this?) and applied welfare selectively as a reward, or as a tool of validation for its racist, xenophobic ideology. Nazi welfare was never intended to be offered to those who needed it most. It was intended to help the Nazis exterminate other humans who where perceived as being a threat, or a drain on resources. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not just one book that places the nazis on the left. It's just not the left to far-left leaning scholars. Also, don't forget who won the war and got to write the books. You are portraying this as if the nazi's primary goal was to exterminate people, when it actually was to improve german low to middle class people's condition, taking from nations and ethnic groups deemed inferior. How is this description of hitler's rise to power and use of socialist ideals any different than the bolsheviks in russia, or maoists in china (and I could go on)? The question is not whether they reached the ideal, idyllical equal society they promised, but what ideas they used to confuse and manipulate people. All of what you have said about the nazi welfare system is true about the soviet one as well. They took from nations, ethnic groups and classes they deemed didn't need what they had and ended up not giving the riches to the ones they promised them to. This is not conservative nor capitalist behaviour, it is revolutionary, socialist and classist.--Mr soros (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the true intentions of the Nazis is not supported by any sources, and your understanding of socialism seems incomplete, at best. Is it a contest to see who's atrocities were worse? No, absolutely not. The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal, so this is a non sequitur. Sources do not, as a general rule, describe them as definitionally leftist the way they do the Marxists. They don't because the Nazis discarded even the pretense of socialism when they came to power. Of course the Soviets and Maoists did despicable things, but they did them with a left-wing rationalization. This cannot be said of the Nazis, who's stated goal was to elevate one class of people above all others on Earth. If you want to say that the end results were similar, you're not alone in that assessment, but that doesn't mean the automatically belong on the same portion of this limited, arbitrary spectrum. Regardless, you'll still need a reliable source to include this here. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, I am surprised and shocked that you pass judgment on my understanding of socialism while uttering the phrase "No, absolutely not. The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal". This is exactly as if I were to deny the holocaust. This is so hurtful to the people who suffered under bolshevik and other communists' reign. If you don't call the atrocities committed by most left-wing dictatorships genocide what do you call them exactly? What needs to be done by a regime for it to be called genocide by Mr Grayfell if murdering millions because of ethnicity or social class can not? --Mr soros (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The Nazis were not left wing as a consequence of being genocidal. Being genocidal doesn't make them left-wing anymore than it makes them right-wing. Neither left nor right wing ideologies have a monopoly on atrocities. It's semantics to quibble over whether or not Stalin's purges were technically genocide or not, but the main point is that ideological position has no bearing on whether or not these things were terrible. I was not claiming that the left is incapable of genocide. "Mr. Grayfell"? Again, if you want to grandstand and make assumptions about other people's opinions, do it elsewhere. If you want to have a conversation with me, another human being who is willing to have a conversation with you, do so. I don't think too many other people are paying close attention, here, so I'm likely the most sympathetic ear you have for this point. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please explain, then, what you mean by "The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal, so this is a non sequitur."? Excuse me for, as you say, grandstanding, but as a survivor of such a system I was apalled by what you said about genocide and still don't understand how else you meant it than what I understood. It was personal and I apologise and am hoping for a clarification. As far as ideologies go, the nazis promised the people the same sort of things as the communists: welfare, getting rid of oppressors etc. for a whole group of people. Would you say they are collectivist promises? If so, how can you put it on the right side of the spectrum which is described as individualist, conservative and a proponent of free enterprise? The question, as I understand it, that we are discussing, is not whether or not these political parties fulfilled their populist promises, the answer in both cases is no. The question is whether the ideals used to make those promises are collectivist, classist and revolutionary. If they are, they belong to the left side of the spectrum. --Mr soros (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- We’re getting to the root cause of the problem here. If you use your own custom definition of words, then you can “prove” whatever you want, and we’ll be talking at cross-purposes forever. Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 16:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please point out the word for which I am using my own custom definition? I have used the definitions of left and right wing from the wikipedia articles Political spectrum and Political compass from which I take that individualist views of economy are right-wing while collectivist ones are left-wing. --Mr soros (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- "individualist views of economy are right-wing" only in the USA. In Europe individualistic views are called "liberal". Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure I agree. The center, be it right or left wing, is liberal in europe, but has different views on how the economy should be run. The left talks about social services, welfare and such while the right talks about cutting taxes, red tape an d bureaucracy to encourage entrepreneurship. --Mr soros (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mr soros is now talking about the issues of 2017-- but the article is about the 1920s and 1930s when the right in Europe was not talking about taxes, red tape & bureaucracy, It was then talking about tradition, religion, hierarchy, militarism, hated minorities, and nationalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am talking about individualism versus collectivism, but you are right, in the context of 2017. Are you implying that Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao didn't talk (and not just talk) about hated minorities? That they were not nationalists? That Hitler and Mussolini were not anti-christian, that they were not marxists? The burden of proof lies on your side as even the wikipedia article Benito Mussolini clearly states he was Marxist and anti-christian. I think I have clearly stated why I think the article should put fascism on the left side of the political spectrum, not classify it on this spectrum or alternatively explain that certain forms of fascism were obviously left wing. Can someon please explain why there is so much resistance to this and why everyone on this talk page considers it right-wing? --Mr soros (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT --Mr soros (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Attacks on Jews (all across Europe) and attacks on Catholics & Poles (in Prussia and elsewhere) were central to most (not all) right wing parties ion Europe 1880s-1945. None of the Socialist or Communist parties in Europe did so. (though you do get nasty quotes from Marx and Stalin was preparing to purge Jews from top ranks of Communist Party when he died.) It's repeating in 2017, eg attacks on Muslims from alt-right in many European countries. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just so we are clear: you are claiming that the reason to classify fascists to the right is their persecution of jews, which distinguishes early 20th century european right-wing paries from the left? --Mr soros (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- anti-semitism was one of a dozen or so right-wing markers--it was common -- i'd say it appears in about 2/3 of the European right parties (1880s-1940s), and was rare among parties on the left at that time. (you can find a few on the left--Adolf Stocker's Christian Social Party (Germany) party while on the left got 1% of the vote in 1878, for example, but then it moved to the right. [Georg Ritter von Schonerer]] started out vaguely the left in Austria but he moved right and focused on attacking Jews. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So you have picked antisemitism, which is unfortunate since jews were persecuted under many communist dictatorships, such as Lenin's and Stalin's soviet union. You talk about muslims being persecuted, which is again unfortunate since the communists were completely intolerant of religions, and were persecuted and exterminated in the soviet union. Should we then reclassify the soviets as right-wing fascists? --Mr soros (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- right-wing Russia under the Tsars was intensely anti-semitic. Lenin was not at all. Stalin was getting ready to launch an attack on Jews when he died, and his plan was then immediately dropped. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand you have a very limited definition of antisemitism. Jews were persecuted just like other religious minorities in Soviet russia, be it under Lenin or Stalin. Only the jews that renounced their religion and culture did not get persecuted. --Mr soros (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Jews were persecuted just like other religious minorities that's simply false--the huge murderous pogroms that murdered tens of thousands of Jews immediately ended. Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Instead, millions of religious people were murdered, accused, among other things, of fascism. --Mr soros (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Jews were persecuted just like other religious minorities that's simply false--the huge murderous pogroms that murdered tens of thousands of Jews immediately ended. Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I understand you have a very limited definition of antisemitism. Jews were persecuted just like other religious minorities in Soviet russia, be it under Lenin or Stalin. Only the jews that renounced their religion and culture did not get persecuted. --Mr soros (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- right-wing Russia under the Tsars was intensely anti-semitic. Lenin was not at all. Stalin was getting ready to launch an attack on Jews when he died, and his plan was then immediately dropped. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- So you have picked antisemitism, which is unfortunate since jews were persecuted under many communist dictatorships, such as Lenin's and Stalin's soviet union. You talk about muslims being persecuted, which is again unfortunate since the communists were completely intolerant of religions, and were persecuted and exterminated in the soviet union. Should we then reclassify the soviets as right-wing fascists? --Mr soros (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- anti-semitism was one of a dozen or so right-wing markers--it was common -- i'd say it appears in about 2/3 of the European right parties (1880s-1940s), and was rare among parties on the left at that time. (you can find a few on the left--Adolf Stocker's Christian Social Party (Germany) party while on the left got 1% of the vote in 1878, for example, but then it moved to the right. [Georg Ritter von Schonerer]] started out vaguely the left in Austria but he moved right and focused on attacking Jews. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just so we are clear: you are claiming that the reason to classify fascists to the right is their persecution of jews, which distinguishes early 20th century european right-wing paries from the left? --Mr soros (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Attacks on Jews (all across Europe) and attacks on Catholics & Poles (in Prussia and elsewhere) were central to most (not all) right wing parties ion Europe 1880s-1945. None of the Socialist or Communist parties in Europe did so. (though you do get nasty quotes from Marx and Stalin was preparing to purge Jews from top ranks of Communist Party when he died.) It's repeating in 2017, eg attacks on Muslims from alt-right in many European countries. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am talking about individualism versus collectivism, but you are right, in the context of 2017. Are you implying that Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao didn't talk (and not just talk) about hated minorities? That they were not nationalists? That Hitler and Mussolini were not anti-christian, that they were not marxists? The burden of proof lies on your side as even the wikipedia article Benito Mussolini clearly states he was Marxist and anti-christian. I think I have clearly stated why I think the article should put fascism on the left side of the political spectrum, not classify it on this spectrum or alternatively explain that certain forms of fascism were obviously left wing. Can someon please explain why there is so much resistance to this and why everyone on this talk page considers it right-wing? --Mr soros (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT --Mr soros (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mr soros is now talking about the issues of 2017-- but the article is about the 1920s and 1930s when the right in Europe was not talking about taxes, red tape & bureaucracy, It was then talking about tradition, religion, hierarchy, militarism, hated minorities, and nationalism. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure I agree. The center, be it right or left wing, is liberal in europe, but has different views on how the economy should be run. The left talks about social services, welfare and such while the right talks about cutting taxes, red tape an d bureaucracy to encourage entrepreneurship. --Mr soros (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- "individualist views of economy are right-wing" only in the USA. In Europe individualistic views are called "liberal". Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please point out the word for which I am using my own custom definition? I have used the definitions of left and right wing from the wikipedia articles Political spectrum and Political compass from which I take that individualist views of economy are right-wing while collectivist ones are left-wing. --Mr soros (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- We’re getting to the root cause of the problem here. If you use your own custom definition of words, then you can “prove” whatever you want, and we’ll be talking at cross-purposes forever. Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 16:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please explain, then, what you mean by "The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal, so this is a non sequitur."? Excuse me for, as you say, grandstanding, but as a survivor of such a system I was apalled by what you said about genocide and still don't understand how else you meant it than what I understood. It was personal and I apologise and am hoping for a clarification. As far as ideologies go, the nazis promised the people the same sort of things as the communists: welfare, getting rid of oppressors etc. for a whole group of people. Would you say they are collectivist promises? If so, how can you put it on the right side of the spectrum which is described as individualist, conservative and a proponent of free enterprise? The question, as I understand it, that we are discussing, is not whether or not these political parties fulfilled their populist promises, the answer in both cases is no. The question is whether the ideals used to make those promises are collectivist, classist and revolutionary. If they are, they belong to the left side of the spectrum. --Mr soros (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The Nazis were not left wing as a consequence of being genocidal. Being genocidal doesn't make them left-wing anymore than it makes them right-wing. Neither left nor right wing ideologies have a monopoly on atrocities. It's semantics to quibble over whether or not Stalin's purges were technically genocide or not, but the main point is that ideological position has no bearing on whether or not these things were terrible. I was not claiming that the left is incapable of genocide. "Mr. Grayfell"? Again, if you want to grandstand and make assumptions about other people's opinions, do it elsewhere. If you want to have a conversation with me, another human being who is willing to have a conversation with you, do so. I don't think too many other people are paying close attention, here, so I'm likely the most sympathetic ear you have for this point. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, I am surprised and shocked that you pass judgment on my understanding of socialism while uttering the phrase "No, absolutely not. The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal". This is exactly as if I were to deny the holocaust. This is so hurtful to the people who suffered under bolshevik and other communists' reign. If you don't call the atrocities committed by most left-wing dictatorships genocide what do you call them exactly? What needs to be done by a regime for it to be called genocide by Mr Grayfell if murdering millions because of ethnicity or social class can not? --Mr soros (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the true intentions of the Nazis is not supported by any sources, and your understanding of socialism seems incomplete, at best. Is it a contest to see who's atrocities were worse? No, absolutely not. The Nazi's are not leftist because they were genocidal, so this is a non sequitur. Sources do not, as a general rule, describe them as definitionally leftist the way they do the Marxists. They don't because the Nazis discarded even the pretense of socialism when they came to power. Of course the Soviets and Maoists did despicable things, but they did them with a left-wing rationalization. This cannot be said of the Nazis, who's stated goal was to elevate one class of people above all others on Earth. If you want to say that the end results were similar, you're not alone in that assessment, but that doesn't mean the automatically belong on the same portion of this limited, arbitrary spectrum. Regardless, you'll still need a reliable source to include this here. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not just one book that places the nazis on the left. It's just not the left to far-left leaning scholars. Also, don't forget who won the war and got to write the books. You are portraying this as if the nazi's primary goal was to exterminate people, when it actually was to improve german low to middle class people's condition, taking from nations and ethnic groups deemed inferior. How is this description of hitler's rise to power and use of socialist ideals any different than the bolsheviks in russia, or maoists in china (and I could go on)? The question is not whether they reached the ideal, idyllical equal society they promised, but what ideas they used to confuse and manipulate people. All of what you have said about the nazi welfare system is true about the soviet one as well. They took from nations, ethnic groups and classes they deemed didn't need what they had and ended up not giving the riches to the ones they promised them to. This is not conservative nor capitalist behaviour, it is revolutionary, socialist and classist.--Mr soros (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where, exactly, is this "serious conservative voice"? Regardless of ideology, this book isn't taken seriously by experts. No reliable source, at all, has been proposed. The rest of this is the same tired talking points that have already been addressed more times than I can count, both on Wikipedia's talk pages, and by reliable sources. The supposed "big difference" is a comical simplification. Hitler pandered to socialists early on in order to consolidate power. Centralizing power in the hands of as few people as possible is not ideologically compatible with socialism. Nazism was deeply classist and anti-equality (do I really even need to say this?) and applied welfare selectively as a reward, or as a tool of validation for its racist, xenophobic ideology. Nazi welfare was never intended to be offered to those who needed it most. It was intended to help the Nazis exterminate other humans who where perceived as being a threat, or a drain on resources. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- If any conservative voice, however serious, is considered fringe by wikipedians, I think that shows clear political motivation, don't you? Academic consensus is fine as long as you trust that group, however, if it is shown that the group has clear political motivations and is not interested in truth, I think the results brought forth by said group need to be taken with a grain of salt. In an academic climate where 95% of faculty support only one political party, I think the time has come for questioning topics on which we trusted their "consensus". If we talk only about ideals of each side, isn't it true that socialism is considered left-wing, while conservatism is considered right-wing? If it is, how do you explain that the nazi party, clearly representing revolutionary socialist ideals like big government (regulation, intervention, market control, nationalization), equality, classism and welfare, is placed on the right side of the political spectrum? The big difference between the bolsheviks and nazis is that one is international communist while the other is national. If this is the case, how can fascism be on the right? Mr soros (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2017
- Wikipedia reflects the academic consensus of a topic in proportion to due weight. Blowing-off a vague group of sources by saying that they are "politically motivated" completely misses the point. If you have a reliable source, bring it forth for discussion, otherwise expecting Wikipedia to reflect "both sides", as if their were only two sides each deserving attention, is textbook false balance. We do not give credence to WP:FRINGE perspectives, and so far no reliable sources have been brought forth. Grayfell (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Fascism experts as in left to far-left leaning university faculty. Echo chamber much? How about basing the article on facts instead of the opinion of a few politically motivated activists? How about at least showing both sides and each side's merits? - How is this not an unactionable item Grayfell? The action is right there: instead of having the article represent the left-wing opinion, stack the facts up and show both sides, both of which are visibly supported by quite a few people, may they be scholars or otherwise. Truth is not a question of popularity and it is especially not of popularity in a left-wing echo chamber, as the liberal arts fields have been shown to be an extreme example of. User:mr soros 00:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but the dictionary definition of fascism doesnt specify left or rightwing. And based on every definition of the word, fascism can clearly be used by anyone on any part of the political spectrum. To declare that its right-wing only is entirely politically motivated. 1919 Benito Mussolini described fascism as a movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left". 69.165.154.15 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Some do, such as Oxford, "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."[4] But we generally use textbooks rather than dictionaries to define topics. And we certainly don't use fascists who were notorious for dishonesty and inconsistency. Note Mussolini also wrote (in "The Doctrine of Fascism,") "this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century." That's why we rely on experts to interpret and weigh his words. TFD (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is this really still being 'debated'? There have been so many examples listed on this talk page (search the archives) that show that there is no consensus for the last line of the first paragraph. Yet, it remains.Lanybaggins (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Some do, such as Oxford, "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."[4] But we generally use textbooks rather than dictionaries to define topics. And we certainly don't use fascists who were notorious for dishonesty and inconsistency. Note Mussolini also wrote (in "The Doctrine of Fascism,") "this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century." That's why we rely on experts to interpret and weigh his words. TFD (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is there some sort of off-Wiki discussion suggesting people come here to make this article look like the Conservapedia one? Doug Weller talk 13:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes there is. Far-left wing political activists are trying to redefine words and use them against citizens. Also, we have started a discussion, and as far as I am concerned, I have only made contributions to the discussion, not edited the article. And please keep your ad-hominems to yourself. Are you saying conservapedia can't get an article right, or that there can't be truth in a conservapedia article? Doesn't that proove my point? Mr Soros 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Generally no, Conservapedia has a very poor track record for accuracy. Does the Conservapedia article include any reliable sources that this one does not? If so, let's seem them. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really read conservapedia at all, I try to read wikipedia. So are you saying that a website that probably has billions of visitors and millions of editors has higher standards and quality than one that doesn't even have one thousandth of that? Is that surprising to you? Does it mean the articles can't have truth in them?--Mr soros (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where, exactly, did anyone say anything like that? Are you interested in what we're saying, or are you more interested in telling us what our own opinions are? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's "true" by your standard, what matters is that it's true according to reliable sources. Any site can be correct, including Conservapedia, but we only use reliable sources for content here. Are you sensing a theme? If you know of such sources, bring them forth for discussion, otherwise we're both wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- If all sources brought forth are considered unreliable because a left-wing scholar has deemed them as such, what does it say about this article? If I cited Dinesh D'Souza would you take that more seriously? If not, what would you? A book written by a left leaning scholar from a university, accepted and acclaimed by left wing university faculty? --Mr soros (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- "All the sources"? Which sources? This one book? Dinesh D'Souza is not automatically a reliable source for something as broad as this entire topic. Not because he is right-wing, but because he is not an expert in history, and also has a questionable reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as demonstrated by his felony conviction etc. If you want to mention a specific published quote of his where he discusses this, please do so and we can go from there. Otherwise naming him doesn't really help, because people are not really sources in isolation, it's their published works that are of interest. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, not one book. I would like to point you to the wikipedia pages Left-wing fascism and Red fascism for sources. for example, I quote from the Red fascism page:
- "During the period while the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was in force, Benito Mussolini positively reviewed Stalinism as having transformed Soviet Bolshevism into a Slavic fascism."[1]
- "Despite ideological differences, Adolf Hitler admired Stalin and his politics and believed that Stalin was in effect transforming Soviet Bolshevism into a form of National Socialism."[2]
- "a September 18, 1939 editorial, The New York Times reacted to the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact by declaring that "Hitlerism is brown communism, Stalinism is red fascism".[3]
- --Mr soros (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, not one book. I would like to point you to the wikipedia pages Left-wing fascism and Red fascism for sources. for example, I quote from the Red fascism page:
- "All the sources"? Which sources? This one book? Dinesh D'Souza is not automatically a reliable source for something as broad as this entire topic. Not because he is right-wing, but because he is not an expert in history, and also has a questionable reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as demonstrated by his felony conviction etc. If you want to mention a specific published quote of his where he discusses this, please do so and we can go from there. Otherwise naming him doesn't really help, because people are not really sources in isolation, it's their published works that are of interest. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- If all sources brought forth are considered unreliable because a left-wing scholar has deemed them as such, what does it say about this article? If I cited Dinesh D'Souza would you take that more seriously? If not, what would you? A book written by a left leaning scholar from a university, accepted and acclaimed by left wing university faculty? --Mr soros (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where, exactly, did anyone say anything like that? Are you interested in what we're saying, or are you more interested in telling us what our own opinions are? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's "true" by your standard, what matters is that it's true according to reliable sources. Any site can be correct, including Conservapedia, but we only use reliable sources for content here. Are you sensing a theme? If you know of such sources, bring them forth for discussion, otherwise we're both wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really read conservapedia at all, I try to read wikipedia. So are you saying that a website that probably has billions of visitors and millions of editors has higher standards and quality than one that doesn't even have one thousandth of that? Is that surprising to you? Does it mean the articles can't have truth in them?--Mr soros (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Generally no, Conservapedia has a very poor track record for accuracy. Does the Conservapedia article include any reliable sources that this one does not? If so, let's seem them. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes there is. Far-left wing political activists are trying to redefine words and use them against citizens. Also, we have started a discussion, and as far as I am concerned, I have only made contributions to the discussion, not edited the article. And please keep your ad-hominems to yourself. Are you saying conservapedia can't get an article right, or that there can't be truth in a conservapedia article? Doesn't that proove my point? Mr Soros 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is there some sort of off-Wiki discussion suggesting people come here to make this article look like the Conservapedia one? Doug Weller talk 13:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In 1934 Hitler said " “It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist,” predicted Hitler to Rauschning in the spring of 1934,M “but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism." The article isn't representing Hitler accurately. He knew that both of them hated the liberal democracies. Mussolini fawning over Stalin isn't relevant here. Nor is a newspaper editorial which in any case was just saying the liberal democracies had two enemies, Stalinism and Fascism. The article on Left-wing fascism is pretty poor. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- So I think we pretty much agree. Both the fascists and the communists hated the liberal democratic systems for pretty much the same reasons: the rich who they didn't think should be rich weren't robbed of their earnings. But again, this is now 5 sources that have been dismissed by simply saying they are not serious. The article Definitions of fascism uses, among others, mussolini's definition, so why is a quote from mussolini so easily dismissed here? --Mr soros (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- These sources are not all being dismissed for the same reasons. I don't think they are being 'dismissed' at all, really. There are multiple problems, here.
- You've mixed up the sources, and that's indicating a deeper problem. Nowhere does the second source listed above support the claim its attached to, and it's not used by the Red Fascism article, anyway. You cannot just copypaste sources, you need to verify them with your own eyes.
- Using a selective quote to come to a specific conclusion not made by that quote is a form of original research, which is not part of Wikipedia's purpose. Hitler and Mussolini (and Stalin, for that matter) are not necessarily reliable. All sources must be judged in context. So do we want to say, with clear attribution, that Mussolini and Hitler both compared Stalin's rule to "Slavic Fascism" during the two-year period of the pact? This is based on a couple of quotes from people who were fundamentally inconsistent and unreliable. Their opinions would only be relevant because they were prominent fascists, not because they were impartial, or because they knew what they were talking about. Power does not bestow reliability or expertise.
- As for the NYT editorial, an almost eighty-year old editorial commenting on a pact which ended two years later might be of historical interest, but is not a reflection on the modern scholarly consensus. It's also a WP:PRIMARY source, and would be better contextualized by a secondary source. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't we wasting time here debating with an article who says Hitler and Mussolini were Marxists (yes, early on he was Marxist but then abandoned Marxism). Hitler a Marxist? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence. He was also pro-christian early on but then renounced the church. I don't see you arguing that in this discussion. Nowhere have I said hitler was Marxist, his social and political views were slightly different, nevertheless he did call himself socialist, used a socialist platform and promised redistribution of wealth from one class of people to an other. --Mr soros (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- You wrote " Are you implying that Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao didn't talk (and not just talk) about hated minorities? That they were not nationalists? That Hitler and Mussolini were not anti-christian, that they were not marxists?" How else am I meant to interpret that. Hitler persecuted socialists. If you don't think Nazism was far-right, go argue it there. I didn't contradict myself by the way. Again, you are wasting our time by such claims. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT --Mr soros (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence. He was also pro-christian early on but then renounced the church. I don't see you arguing that in this discussion. Nowhere have I said hitler was Marxist, his social and political views were slightly different, nevertheless he did call himself socialist, used a socialist platform and promised redistribution of wealth from one class of people to an other. --Mr soros (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Aren't we wasting time here debating with an article who says Hitler and Mussolini were Marxists (yes, early on he was Marxist but then abandoned Marxism). Hitler a Marxist? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow! What a lot of verbiage and all to so little effect. If people want to dissent from the mainstream view that Fascism was/is a far right ideology then they can. What they can not do is insist that their personal dissension trumps the academic consensus when it comes to writing this and related articles. As Doug Weller correctly points out, this is a waste of time. The reason it is a waste of time is not that the dissenting argument is poor, although I do think that it is pretty woeful. The reason that the this is so utterly futile is that this is simply the wrong venue to try to overturn the academic consensus. We don't do original research on Wikipedia. Anybody with a Great Truth to tell should not be starting off here. Convince the world first and then we will put it in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- I hope you will find a way to moderate your views. Thank you all for your time. --Mr soros (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
References
Should Giovanni Gentile be included when talking about fascist ideology?
Specifically should it be included when talking about Fascist Italy and Benito Mussolini? I find it odd that the man who ghostwrote the Doctrine of Fascism doesn't get mentioned once in the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magcynic (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- yes indeed .there is a major book by a leading expert A. James Gregor Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism (2001) at https://www.amazon.com/Giovanni-Gentile-Philosopher-James-Gregor/dp/0765805936/ Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to ban extremist political symbols from templates
There is a discussion at the Village Pump that may be relevant to this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica less biased than this article?
This article makes no apparent effort in the beginning to emphasize the clash of opinions between scholars, whereas Encyclopedia Britannica does.
"usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."
Here's an excerpt:
There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters. Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on its fear of communist revolution and even of left-centrist electoral victories.
One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in important respects. In Italy, for example, anti-Semitism was officially rejected before 1934, and it was not until 1938 that Mussolini enacted a series of anti-Semitic measures in order to solidify his new military alliance with Hitler. Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their willingness to make changes in official party positions in order to win elections or consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism themselves bring to their studies different political and cultural attitudes, which often have a bearing on the importance they assign to one or another aspect of fascist ideology or practice. Secular liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.”
For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characteristics-of-fascist-movements
Can we do anything about this?
Zvtok (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- You're going to have to be a lot more specific, but the question is loaded, so the answer is likely "no".
- The lede of an article is a simplified summary of the topic, not a deep-dive into the weeds. This Britannica article is a subsection of a longer overview, and even then it supports the general position that fascism is on the far-right end of the spectrum. The only part of that which directly comments on the left-right spectrum specifically mentions fascism's "anxiety" over even a left-center electoral victory. This only makes sense with that prior assumption. Nothing about this source contradicts Wikipedia's summary of fascism's "usual" placement on the far right.
- Perhaps you have younger eyes than me, but boldfacing 50% of a lengthy quote doesn't make this any easier to read, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Grayfell. EB has a sophisticated, advanced article. 1) it opens with an emphasis on common features: Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people's community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. I suggest we paraphrase or quote that part. 2) note that it repeatedly emphasizes the right-wing extremism of fascism. 3) Major issue: "some historians say X and some say Y" is unacceptable in Wikipedia. We insist on footnotes that tell us WHO makes the points. Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- As do I. Although the EB article does not refer explicitly to the right-left issue on the opening page, it clearly proceeds from the assumption that fascism is a thing of the right as commonly understood. There are two references to the right-wing on that first page; none to the left. Also, as noted, the excerpt quoted above merely addresses the frequent lack of coherence or consistency within fascism (not news), not the right-left question. Finally, I also agree that generally the EB intro is way better than this one, which, as it has been for ages since the days of User:R-41, especially in the middle two paragraphs is badly written and meanders around what fascists supposedly believed and why they purportedly believed it. Per EB, and as long argued, there should be more focus on simply describing what fascism is and the common characteristics (as well as the differences). N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. The article should really be re-written. However, I don't think the EB article should be used as a model, because policy requires that weight be assigned to conflicting views. The article should explain for example which scholars see it as an outgrowth of Jacobinism or a reaction against the Enlightenment, as well as opinions that see influences of both. TFD (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- As do I. Although the EB article does not refer explicitly to the right-left issue on the opening page, it clearly proceeds from the assumption that fascism is a thing of the right as commonly understood. There are two references to the right-wing on that first page; none to the left. Also, as noted, the excerpt quoted above merely addresses the frequent lack of coherence or consistency within fascism (not news), not the right-left question. Finally, I also agree that generally the EB intro is way better than this one, which, as it has been for ages since the days of User:R-41, especially in the middle two paragraphs is badly written and meanders around what fascists supposedly believed and why they purportedly believed it. Per EB, and as long argued, there should be more focus on simply describing what fascism is and the common characteristics (as well as the differences). N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Grayfell. EB has a sophisticated, advanced article. 1) it opens with an emphasis on common features: Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people's community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. I suggest we paraphrase or quote that part. 2) note that it repeatedly emphasizes the right-wing extremism of fascism. 3) Major issue: "some historians say X and some say Y" is unacceptable in Wikipedia. We insist on footnotes that tell us WHO makes the points. Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Jacobinism should be mentioned as well. Zvtok (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017
| This edit request to Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove all words "Right-wing" or anything referring to conservative or the Republican Party. This is False and slander.The falsehoods were in no dictionary 10 years ago. 205.237.158.248 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. Sakura Cartelet Talk 01:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Remove all references to the Republican Party? There aren't any. Not at all. It is not mentioned in the article even once. I suppose we can safely say that all zero such mentions have been entirely removed as requested? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
How is a consensus to be reached? You picked on one part of what he wants changed, but how about removing the right wing part. Hitler was the leader of the NAZI party, which were socialists, which connect more towards the left spectrum and communism. Veritas204 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is, apparently, a popular talking point among some, but reliable sources strongly disagree, and reliable sources are what Wikipedia uses. Do you dispute that
fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum
? We are not here to discuss where you put it, we rely on where historians and political scientists put it. This has been discussed so, so many times on this talk page and many other talk pages. If you have a reliable source, bring it forth, but it's still unlikely to over-ride the many, many reliable sources already used. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Just an extra comment: I feel that some people see an insult where none exists. The original request requested us to remove any association between Fascism and the (presumably United States) Republican Party despite no such association existing in the article in the first place. (I think it might have been added as vandalism, in this or other articles, a few times but such vandalism always gets taken out quickly without any need for a fuss here.) This shows that at least some of those who are making these excessively regular requests are not reading the articles that they request to have changed with any care.
I have two pieces of advice for the people who come here full out outrage about nothing:
- There is no insult in telling the truth that Fascism is/was right wing. Nobody here is saying that normal conservative people are Fascist, or even a little bit Fascist, just because they are right of centre.
- If somebody tells you that Wikipedia is insulting your beliefs then you need to ask whether that is really true before you come here and complain about it. Read the article carefully. Check that the words used actually mean what you have been told that they mean. It could be that the people sending you here are just out to cause trouble and that they don't care if they make you look foolish in the process. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Daniel: I did read the article, and it still doesn’t change the fact that socialism is not right wing. Hitler was a Socialist, and he most certainly was not right wing. Traditional conservatism/right wing views call for smaller government, less programs, and less money being used for government. Socialism on the other hand usually calls for larger governments who spend like there is no limit and want the people reliant on them. Also if you go back and read the original edit request, it wasn’t just to remove the “Republican Party” but to remove the “right wing” from the article. I get the sense however that no matter what facts I ever put forward, you will not change it. You desire an echo chamber, just like most leftists. Veritas204 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your assertions are not elevated just by you calling them "facts". The actual fact that matters here is that the academic consensus is that Fascism is/was right wing, that Nazism was right wing and that Hitler was right wing. Read the books we have referenced if you think that we are making this up. I can assure you that we are not. Now this might sting a bit if you are right wing but, as I have tried to explain before, this is not an insult to other right wing people who are not Fascists. I think it is pointless, but you are free to dissent from the academic consensus if you like, but you are not free to waste our time insisting that your personal opinions should be put into an encyclopaedia read by millions of people as if they trump the writings of almost all the major academics who have written about the subject.
- Our job here on Wikipedia is not to arbitrate truth ourselves (A point which your username suggests that you may have misunderstood?). Our job is to give the best summary that we can of existing scholarly opinion on any given subject. The coherent academic theories that Fascism is not right wing are fairly fringe ones, but we do cover them it to the extent that they merit it in order to give a full view of the subject. The incoherent idea that Fascism can't be right wing because right wing people simply don't want it to be described as such is not an issue for Wikipedia. This is a battle for control of language and that is not what Wikipedia is for. We do not change articles because people wish the academic consensus to be other than it is. If you want to change that then this is simply the wrong venue. If the global academic consensus changes (Hint: It won't!) then we will change the article to match but not otherwise. Please don't take this personally, but this is becoming a waste of time so I think we have to end this here. But if you take one thing away from this it is this: Please read some respectable academic history books. They might not change your mind but at least you will understand what you are disagreeing with. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Greyfell: I saw someone else earlier cote several books that were reliable sources, and everyone dismissed them out of hand because they were opposite to what the echo chamber of the left wants to hear. Veritas204 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you've preemptively dismissed anyone who disagrees with you as being part of an echo chamber, you're not here to build an encyclopedia. I only see one specific book being proposed above. Other sources were briefly discussed, but they were even less useful. As I said above, a handful of contrary sources are
unlikely to over-ride the many, many reliable sources already used.
Tens of thousands of books have been written about fascism and Nazis. They usually place fascism on the far right of the spectrum. Not every single one of these sources does, but theyusually
do, which is already explained in the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Fascism as left wing ideology. There should be balance, although it is NEVER found on Wikipedia! How about adding and as a far left ideology with reference to 'The Road to Serfdom' Hayek - Which in no way can be described as 'Fringe'. Left wing echo chamber criticism is more than fair for this article. Bad job everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:A10C:DBC:BF9E:1CC5 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018
| This edit request to Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from: "The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements." Please change to: The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes erroneously applied to describe parties of the far-right. Fascism is an form of totalitarianism; an ideology of the far-left. Citation: Giovanni Gentile "The Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals", 'Everything within the state; nothing outside of the state.'
The ideology of the political 'Right' and "Far Right" promotes small government and individual freedom. The ideology of the 'Left' and "Far Left" promotes large government and no individual freedom for the masses. Dagneyshrugged (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: The description stands as is. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
False statement in article?
Also, this statement in the article is totally false: Nationalism is the main foundation of fascism.[177] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CE:300:4500:10F0:905A:CA40:D84D (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The statement is sourced to World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. Other citations to nationalism being a primary component of Fascism are sprinkled throughout the article. Do you have a citation from a reliable source that supports your objection? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I see that Rjensen has appropriately altered "main" to "key" and has added additional sourced material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)