Talk:Fascism

Post-Soviet Russia
Marlene Laruelle, a French political scientist, contends in Is Russia Fascist? that although Russia has been labeled as fascist by different western-affiliated parties before and during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, supposedly evidenced by Russia's annexation of Crimea; its historical revisionism; attacks on liberal democratic values; and its support for far-right movements in Europe, Russia has positioned itself as the world's leading antifascist power because of its sacrifices during the Second World War. At the same time, it has highlighted how opponents of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe cooperated with Nazi Germany.

For those who kept reverting my edit, what's wrong with this passage and how can I improve it? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in the revert, but I don't think your addition makes sense. What does the (supposed, here too there would be much to discuss) sacrifices of the USSR in World War II have to do with the Russia of Putin? These are two completely different ages. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They might be two different ages but it's an important part of the Russian history that it determines the Russian political path and its political orientation to this day. History impacts the present. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this would alter them being fascist, though. — Czello 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How not? History is the most important part of the present. It's the reason why a country is the way it is. It's the path that led a country to its place and therefore affects most if not all of its actions. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fighting fascists in the 40s (not out of choice, either) doesn't mean you can't become fascist 80 years on. — Czello 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing is certain but it reduces the possibility of you being one ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it does. However, this is entering WP:NOTAFORUM territory. There's plenty of sources included which argue the case of fascism (through Rashism). — Czello 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. This is not a forum so let's stick to the point. The source mentions that "Russia has positioned itself as the world's leading antifascist power" considering its history. it's a fact that she positioned itself at this position according to the source. Whether she has the right to do that, whether you or anybody else recognize it as one, whether her history gives her the credit for this position is not the point. The point is that Russia consider itself as antifascist and this worth mentioning. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that Russia consider itself as antifascist and this worth mentioning. Well, of course Russia would deny being fascist - it doesn't seem hugely significant. Nonetheless, is this not already mentioned? The article says, efforts to brand opponents as fascist is ultimately an attempt to determine the role of Russia in Europe's future. Unless I'm misinterpreting the meaning of this sentence, it's saying that Russia is attempting to position itself as anti-fascist in the way you described. (Note, this sentence is sourced to the same book - so I think it's effectively a duplication.) — Czello 14:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is significant according to WP:DUEWEIGHT. And it's not a duplication considering that this addition will explain why it denies being one (because of its sacrifices during the Second World War) ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case, how about rewording the current sentence to Laruelle disentangles the basis, significance, and veracity of accusations of fascism in and around Russia through a thorough analysis of the domestic situation in Russia and the Kremlin's foreign policy justifications; she concludes that efforts to brand its opponents as fascist is ultimately an attempt to determine the role of Russia in Europe's future as an antifascist force, influenced by its role in fighting fascism in World War II. This way we can maintain the existing sentence but supplement it with the material you've suggested. (Slight copyedit not included). — Czello 15:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 15:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, I've added it now. — Czello 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it wasn't part of the USSR and wouldn't use the pretext of it being "nazi" if Russia didn't participate in the WWII. That's just one example. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from being WP:OR, this is also beside the point. Surely the discussion here is whether Russia can be labelled fascist - I have yet to see why being invaded in WW2 undoes their current fascistic actions. — Czello 14:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just an example to show you that history affects the present day. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And possibly emboldens Putin to label his opponents as fascist, but not preventing himself being fascist, as many sources state. — Czello 14:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Alex said, I have no idea what that final sentence is supposed to mean. It's whataboutism and completely irrelevant to whether or not Putin's regime is fascist. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 10:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it explains the Russian attitude towards the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't make them any less fascist. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also just noticed this is a copyright violation. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism
An attempt has been made by User:Soapbox Sam to revive the Left-wing fascism article (by deleting the redirect to this article). I have deleted it with an appropriate edit summary and advice to discuss the matter here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. I also note that the article the new editor tried to create was an argument that fascism is left-wing. TFD (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is problematic. At best, it can be stated that some (even famous) people have said it's left-wing. Because the extreme ends of the political spectrum share many characteristics, some people (maybe those people) get confused. Extremism does that.
 * I think there was a difference between the leaders and the common members. The leaders were caught up in power and control and would be willing to admire and become allies with the leaders on the other side, whereas the rank-and-file members were idealists and could clearly see the ideological, philosophical, and political differences between each side. They maintained the purity of their faiths, unlike their leaders. They did not compromise, and they risked their lives for their causes.
 * I suspect that in the early days, definitions were still being hammered out. Now, all experts consider fascism as right-wing, just as socialism is left-wing. The light of history informs definitions. Already during WW2, socialists and communists were the most ardent haters and fighters of Nazis and other fascists, and vice versa. They populated the underground resistance groups and sabotaged the Nazis. Just that fact informs one that they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic would make an interesting article provided we had sufficient secondary sources and followed WP:FRINGE. So far I have only found passing references.
 * In fact, it's only since the war that social scientists have attempted to define the political spectrum. In the inter-war period, left meant Socialists (and later Communists) and right meant their opponents. The terms came to be used this way in the early 20th century and reflects their relative seating at that time. TFD (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's pure bullshit. As our article shows, the left-right distinction comes down to us from the French parliament during their Revolution in the late 18th century. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says that defenders of monarchy sat on the right and their opponents on the left. Over time, legislative blocks came to describe themselves by where they sat in the assembly. For example, the Center Party of German, the forerunner of the CDU, called themselves that because they were seated between the conservatives on the right and liberals on the left. But using the terms left and right to describe ideologies only developed in France in the early 20th century and was adopted in other countries within the following decades.
 * Note that Marx and Engels, Weber, and other political commentators never used the terms "left-wing," "right-wing," etc. because they had not yet been coined. What's the earliest use of those terms that you have found? TFD (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think much of the problem is in terminology. Political ideologies which share many characteristics of fascism, but are in other ways left-leaning are not "left-wing fascism", because fascism is, by definition, a right-wing ideology.  Instead these are left-wing authoritarian systems, just as fascism is a right-wing authoritarian system. Political scientists and historians have long noted the similarities and overlaps between the extreme right and the extreme left (see Horseshoe theory), but this does not make them left and right aspects of the same philosophy, it simply makes them related. Nor, for instance, was Strasserism a truly left-wing form of Nazism.  Yes, it was certainly a bit to the left of Hitler's mainstream, but not sufficiently so to make it "left-wing".  It was merely a sort of leftish variation of a right-wing ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You could build the same case for Donald Trump. He used to be a pro-choice Democrat who supported universal health care. He claims to stand up for the forgotten man over the elites, provided relief during covid, brought in First Step, opposes imperialist wars, etc. Because in politics, successful politicians tell people what they want to hear and may even deliver on some of their promises. Also, these comparisons usually lack context. Fascists continued various programs already in place, just as Trump did. Social security for example, that Reagan had said lead to totalitarianism, remained in place. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really understanding your point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that the case could be made for any political group being left-wing. We are discussing the existence of an article that says fascism was left-wing. TFD (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is most certainly not the case. If you believe that, then your understanding of what left and right mean politically is clearly not a consensus one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say a reasonable case could be made. I am merely saying that the same arguments used to classify fascism as left-wing could be applied to any group, including Trumpists. TFD (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I could make an argument that a coffee mug is a fruit, but the mere existence of the (fatuous) argument does not mean that any attention should be paid to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

On the "popular culture" section
Recently I removed the "In popular culture" section of the article, calling it "hardly relevant to [the] topic" in my edit summary (which I'll concede is fairly vague). This was promptly reverted. I didn't really feel like arguing about it, but on further reflection, I really don't think it's appropriate for this article based on the references used. The section doesn't comply with the MOS's guideline for trivia sections, which states that articles may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth. This article doesn't do that; it's just trivial mentions of a song and a quote from a musician, neither of which are sourced to reliable sources.

The first source is a YouTube upload of an interview with a musician, which is primary, and therefore not reliable; I've removed it due to it being a probable copyright violation, per WP:COPYLINK. The second is a source that summarises Woody Guthrie's career, but mentions nothing about fascism aside from his record label being antifascist. It failed verification, but if you ignore that, it still doesn't comply with the sourcing requirement of the MOS, because the source is a reference work that includes information about class in America, which is only tangentially related to fascism. The second bulletpointed entry about Heaven 17's song doesn't even have any citations, which doesn't demonstrate why it should be included in the article.

Overall, the section needs much better references to warrant inclusion. I think it should be removed from the article entirely, because its relevance to facsism isn't supported by any secondary reliable sources. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no community consensus on Wikipedia for the wholesale removal of "In popular culture" sections from Wikipedia articles, despite the number of activists who really hate them. Our popular culture is an extremely important -- if sometimes ephemeral or embarassing -- part of our society's culture, and Wikipedia should not shut its doors to it simply because it's not "serious" enough to be in an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't adressed any of my concerns here. I'm not advocating for a blanket ban on such material, nor am I saying that the section should be removed "just because". What I am saying is that the section's sources don't justify its inclusion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want to "shut [Wikipedia's] doors" to nonserious material. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal, "in popular culture" sections don't belong on articles about ideologies (in my opinion), as they wouldn't on other serious topics such as Genocide. Regarding content of this particular "in popular culture" section, its contents do seem like MOS:TRIVIA and hardly tangential to the topic; Anti-fascism contains Woody Guthrie since he is more relevant there. There are way too many notable things that could be listed if this section was kept (which again I think it shouldn't be). –Vipz (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with ArcticSeeress and Vipz on this one, at least insofar as we're discussing the appropriateness of the currently extant material. This material does not appear to merit inclusion here. I'm agnostic as to where and when such sections may be warranted as a general rule. Agree that details like Guthrie's guitar are more appropriate for ancillary articles like Anti-fascism per WP:SUMMARY. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree this content is not DUE in the article. Creating a complete section based on this material is hard to justify.  It's not clear that Guthrie's opinion is significant in context the primary topic.  Do sources on fascism cite Guthrie.  This also is, in effect, an entire section which cites just one source. Springee (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do get the feeling that "fascism in popular culture" is a topic that could balloon to be as massive as the rest of the article itself, and I'm not sure what it contributes. I think it's best to do away with it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're mostly in agreement here. has recently contributed some undoubtedly encyclopedic material, but it seems to me to fit better under the heading "popular culture under fascism" than "fascism in popular culture". I'd be curious to hear his perspective on this question. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: the popular culture section should have two subsections: "popular culture under fascism" and "fascism in popular culture"--the first subtopic has a substantial scholarly literature especially on Italy--the second  does not and. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an strong consensus that this material (that is, Fascism in popular culture) isn't warranted in the article. I'll go ahead and remove it seeing as there hasn't been any attempt to justify its inclusion beyond "popular culture sections can be good in general". I'll also remove the bullet points, as it's not really a list section anymore.
 * On a related note: I think it might be better to provide a summary of broad characteristics that popular culture under fascist governments share before introducing specific examples. I'm not familiar with literature regarding this at the moment, so I'll let that lie (or maybe come back to it later). ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the word?
Hello, I read the etymology section but can't work out a timeline for when the actual word came into being. This article says 1922 for first usage, but I don't know how trustworthy it is. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymological Dictionary says: "1921, from Italian partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from Italian fascio 'group, association,' literally 'bundle,' from Latin fasces (see fasces).Fasci 'groups of men organized for political purposes' had been a feature of Sicily since c. 1895, and the 20c. totalitarian sense probably came directly from this but was influenced by the historical Roman fasces, which became the party symbol. As a noun from 1922 in English, earlier in Italian plural fascisti (1921), and until 1923 in English it often appeared in its Italian form, as an Italian word." I you can get hold of an OED in a librry, that's the best source for etymological info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the two dictionaries cited in the "Etymology" section -- Merriam-Websters, and Webster's New College -- are pretty standard and trustworthy reference works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to keep in mind that Etymonline is edited by a single person, one who isn't a trained historical linguist. The website is in essence a hobby project, and whether any particular article on the website holds water or not is entirely dependent on how long the editor spends with it. It's impossible to meaningfully verify any of the information on the page without sifting through their massive sources list posted elsewhere on the site, so I'd err on the side of caution with including this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious if it's worth including the historical significance of the Roman fasces, since it pretty closely correlates to the authoritarian roots of fascism (given that "holding fasces" signified the power of the state). Delukiel (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

An inherent contradiction?
The lead of the article sets out an extremely detailed and very broad definition of fascism, selecting references that support the authors' arguments. Then the next section admits that there is no agreed definition of fascism, and that authoritative (at least, referenced) views of what it is differ to the extent that no broadly agreed definition is possible.

I shall make the radical suggestion that there is no generic or accepted definition of fascism, nor can there be in terms of how the word has entered general usage. The possible exception is the Italian regime of 1922-1943 led by Benito Mussolini which (as I understand it) styled itself Fascism. Other than that, I suggest that all definitions of fascism are essentially descriptions of political and economic systems to which the authors of those definitions are opposed, i.e. expressions of authorial opinion. This is not the purpose of WP.

I do not suggest that all is lost. Authoritarian political systems, for example, can be defined in ways that meet broad agreement, even if individuals disagree whether particular systems are or are not authoritarian. Democracy, Autarky and other politico-economic manifestations can be defined similarly. Fascism can't.

This can be regarded as a plea for humility from WP, i.e. an acceptance that it cannot be the arbiter of a definition that can never achieve more than partisan acceptance. A true definition, I suggest, would be 'a term of abuse for a variety of politico-economic systems, used by parties opposed to them.' You could then go on to include examples. Italian (1922-1943) Fascism would be a separate topic, since there is no causal or other connection. Chrismorey (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would take this more seriously if the next section had not been Etomolgy, which does not discuss anything about no agreed definition. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven deleted my edit. I don't know why.
I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand Slatersteven's question and why he reverted.Nashhinton (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not a question, your wording implies it was once something, but no longer is. I made the point that it has not changed, it is still right-wing popularism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "right-wing popularism" Right-wing populism, not popularism. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Point still stands. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)