Talk:Fascism/Archive 26

Position in the political spectrum - cont.
I have started a new section because the old section is now too long.

The Vision Thing has mentioned Eatwell's definition of fascism which is actually already in the article under the section "Definitions". However we are discussing another section called "Fascism in the political spectrum" which is different. The consensus view, which Eatwell mentions, is that fascists were right-wing. If Vision Thing disagrees, please provide something that supports your opinion. BTW I think that Vision Thing may not understand what the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" mean. Academics were not trying to place fascism on any contemporary American ideological scale. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks OK now (?). Collect, I notice you added to the end of the section, which looks fine (are all those cites really needed, though?). I think the "defintions" section in general could do with a modest tidy, which I'd propose to have a go at in the near future (retaining NPOV, of course!). For example, think that some material in "Spectrum" really belongs in the previous sub-section. Just a heads up so that people can comment if I make changes they don't think are appropriate. Thanks. --89.240.189.28 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Jewish fascism" listed fourth -- anti-Semitic bias?
It seems odd to me that "Jewish fascism" appears fourth after Italian, German, and Romanian. "Jewish fascism" to the extent it existed, never held state power, and likely never comprised more than a few thousand people. Why then discuss it right after the European Axis powers while listing Spanish fascism last? Why no discussion of Arab fascism reflected in the movements of Nasser and other Arab dictators?

I suggest the editors review the listing and description of various fascist movement for anti-Semitic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section has far too much weight. It does not even say what type of support this group had or whether it influenced any future political thinking.  Also there were fascist governments in numerous countries that are not mentioned here and many countries had fascist groups that had some influence in the 20s and 30s.  Nasser and other Arab leaders do not qualify as fascists in the article because it is only about parties closely related to fascism which excludes most political figures after the Second World War.  I think however there should be a section on Arab fascism in Palestine.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting -- where have you seen a discussion of "Arab fascism" (not Lebanese) other than a general pejorative one? Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should only stick to what sources say are the main variants of fascism? For example, Payne in A history of fascism as major variants (beside Italian and German) discusses cases from Austria, Hungary, Romania and Spain. -- Vision Thing -- 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Else we could end up getting back the melange of sections on every world dictator or "bad group"  this article once had. Collect (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of fascist groups that existed in other countries, e.g., the Silvershirts in the US although no reason to give them their own sections. They already have their own articles. Maybe there could be a list. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was a Palestinian collaborator of the Axis, and is frequently mentioned by hardcore supporters of Israel today. I don' think that he established any specifically fascist organization though. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the principle that the article should reflect the sources, but the sources may differ and disagree themselves, so there will still be a question. The book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science has chapters devoted to at least ten movements which are not featured in the artcle at present, as far as I can see. So it may be that the net should be cast wider, not more narrowly.


 * Agree also, though, that the Revisionist Maximalist section appears in the article in a way that gives it probably undue prominence (although the material in it is good). Perhaps trying to sort out which movements had what degree of political influence and/or historical importance(from virtual irrelevance at one end of the scale to marching-across-Europe on the other) might be the way forward.


 * I don't think trying to identify an Arab for inclusion in the name of "balance" is the best solution. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with you here. But almost all fascist movements in Europe had some impact on the Second World War - the Falange was involved with Franco in the Spanish Civil War, the Romanian fascists helped the Germans occupy part of Russia, etc. I think I'll propose a tentative listing of major fascist movements here:


 * Italian Fascism
 * National Socialism (Nazism)
 * Japanese fascism (the fascist branches of the Statist movement in Japan)
 * Iron Guard
 * Falange
 * Serbian fascism
 * British Union of Fascists


 * How does it sound? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add the Arrow Cross and the leading French movements - especially the Parti Populaire Français and the National Popular Rally; not sure if the Action Française or the Croix de Feu/RPF would qualify as fascist. Also the Ustashe was more explicitly fascist than any movement in Serbia. john k (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't claim to be able to give the most authoratative view, but I would agree that thise you list should be in the article. However, I think a discussion about drawing up a definitive list could well go on until the world explodes.


 * I would prefer to see categorisation around something concrete. The following is just for example:
 * Movements that gained complete political control in a particular place;
 * Movements that gained significant poltical power in a particular place (eg as part of a coalition);
 * Movements that enjoyed a respectable level of public support (I use "respectable" advisedly);
 * Fringe movements.


 * From there, there can be discussions on a case-by-case basis about what should go where.


 * BTW, I am the same IP as above. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. I don't think the fringe parties need much mention though.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing
Please can you discuss changes you would like to make in talk. The material you are inserting is not at all supported by the sources cited, whereas the material you are deleting is properly sourced and other editors appear to agree that it is. As I indicated a couple of days ago, the minor objection you raised can be sorted, I think, through discussion, but they are no reason for deleting properly sourced material in favour of the opposite.

In summary, please discuss changes you would like to make here. Thank you. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum (still) and Fascist Negations
The assertion that "most" scholars put fascism on the extreme right is unsourced and contrary to most of the sources in the section. In fact, most of the authorities cited in the section say that fascist ideology incorporates elements of both right and left and that trying to peg it at one spot on a political spectrum is not very useful. Lacquer supports this synthesis, syncretist or sui generis view: "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either" in fact he says calling it right wing is "simplistic". Stanley Payne supports the same approach: “fascists “were unique (sui generis) in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center." (parenthetical added) Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition p. 8. He goes on to say that this was complicated by the need to find political allies.  He notes that they more often allied with the right but also allied with the left. The “[m]any scholars [who] accept fascism as a search for a third way between capitalism and communism” as the section says (nine sources are cited) also support the idea that it is neither firmly left nor right. Roger Griffin notes, "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 (sui generis) ‘beyond left and right’." (parenthetical added) As the article says, Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center". As noted in the section, von Mises and Sternhell see fascism as a type of socialism. As you can see, most of the sources in the section plainly DO NOT put fascism on the far right but say that it is problematic to do so. The intro should say just that.

On another but related point, after the 1980s almost all works on fascism include the fascist negations, this article has a fatal flaw if it fails to do so. The article should simply state them, as it had stably in the past for a long period, in the classic form as formulated by Payne: anti-liberalism, anti-conservatism and anti-communism. I am going to edit the article accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed above. The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right, even in writings that challenge its position on the right.  Curiously even the writers who challenge whether fascism is right-wing consistently refer to it as right-wing.  Also, I think that the Austrian economists do not equate socialism with left-wing.  There can be socialism on the right as well, e.g., Bismarck's State Socialism.  If you want to challenge the intro paragraph then please provide a reliable source that states most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing.


 * Negations are mentioned under "Definitions", but I have no objection to adding more detail about this to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, what you call the "agreed version" is not an agreed version. Seems at this point, indeed, that you do not have consensus behind it.  A number of different editors now have removed it, and only you and an IP insist on it (I count four editors opposed to the "agreed version" and only you and the same 200(?) IPs in favor. Last I checked, that makes it the "disagreed version."  Collect (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You set up an RfC on the matter and numerous editors commented and I suppose they assumed that the matter was closed. If you like I can call them all back.  Perhaps it is now time to request mediation.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Numerous"?? Nope. Mainly you. And there was no RfC on your "agreed version" which has quite clearly been shown as a "disagreed version" IPOF.  Mediation is not need when 4 registered editors disagree with a single one.  And the single editor does not even claim to have an RS for the claims. Collect (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Four Deuces you say, "The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right", but you can see from my post that almost all the sources in the section specifically do not say that. Which sources say it is part of the right?  The only one in the section who appears to say so (and I have not yet verified the assertion) is Eugen Weber.  All of the others cast doubt on the ability of political scientists and historians to place fascism firmly in one place on a right left spectrum.Mamalujo (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:SYN: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.  We cannot take a poll of academics to determine what they believe and must rely on reliable sources (WP:RS) to inform us what the normal view is.  The fact that this section is devoted primarily to dissenting views is irrelevant.  However as I stated the dissenting views accept that fascism is normally considered right-wing and even use the term themselves:


 * Zeev Sternhell, Neither right nor left, p. 29, calls fascists the revolutionary right "...the revolutionary right won a resounding victory in Germany and Italy..."


 * If you look at most books about fascism they are described as right-wing with no explanation needed, e.g., The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, The Fascist tradition: radical right-wing extremism in modern Europe, The color of fascism: Lawrence Dennis, racial passing, and the rise of right-wing extremism in the United States


 * You may not agree with they are right-wing, and you may be right, but Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. (WP:UNDUE)


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to read your sources more carefully. The Routledge Companion at page 2 specifically says that fascism inhereted its anticaptialist stance from socialism and anarchism and that the "question of whether fascism was essentially right wing is not so open and shut" and that such "ambiguities and paradoxes are not 'merely academic' preocupations". You are quite wrong that most books about fascism say it is right wing with no explanation needed.  Obviously, The Routledge Companian raises the ambiguity at the very beginning of the book.  The other books you mention have the contradiction or ambiguity right in the title: "radical right-wing" or "revolutionary right".  Why do you think Sternhells book is called "Neither Right nor Left"?  Most scholars point out that it is the radicalism/revolutionary natue  and socialism of fascism which are two of its major left wing elements.  Paxton, Payne, Griffin, Laquer and Eatwell, just to name a few of the most prominent scholars in fascism studies, all hold that fascism cannot be placed firmly on the right wing.Mamalujo (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum
Following discussion about the lede sentence, a very broad consensus was reached, despite one contrarian position and therefore I have inserted the proposed sentences. However it is now important that we improve the section. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I now have added a reference for this. Also I removed another lede section which appeared to be redundant.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you removed 7K of material which was fully cited and which contained your "sine qua non" of "right wing" in it as well. KL<Leaving, mirover, a completely inaccurate claim for a cite which does not support the claim.  Care to explain how a person who asked for "reliable sources" can so casually delete so many all in one swoop? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is not necessary to provide numerous sources for a statement. But the sources did not support the text anyway.  Also we had already formed a consensus on what the lede sentence/paragraph for this section should be.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all.  And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The new lede does not say that fascism is "'right-wing' only". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ask for a third opinion here. "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." There is an on-going discussion here involving more than two people. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the lead, is it appropriate to describe fascism solely as a right-wing ideology, or should its relationship to the political spectrum be more nuanced? The issue is treated in more detail at Fascism. Please reserve this section for outside comments. Discussion from previously engaged editors may be found in the preceding sections." - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * → from WP:3O: While the above two editors have dominated discussion in recent weeks, this really does seem to be a larger dispute than is appropriate for offering a third opinion. For what my minimally-researched opinion is worth, it might be worth stating in the lead that fascism is commonly described as ultra right wing, but note that there are problems with trying to sort complex political ideas on a linear spectrum and briefly state two or three major points of divergence from usual right wing thought. In the body, the position can be fully nuanced. I suggest opening a Request for comment using something along the lines of the following text:
 * ... Except that there is currently an RfC active at . Given that there have been comments to that section today, opening another one might not be constructive. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard seems beside the point. Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might help if this is phrased as a WP:WEIGHT issue. It might also help to distinguish between academic and lay uses of the term. The former is likely to be significantly more precise, but the latter usage more common. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" section now reads:
 * Most academics describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right". However, there exist dissenting views that fascism represents "radical centrism" or a mixture of "authoritarian conservatism" and "right-wing nationalism". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may more typically be associated with the left.
 * That is different from "desrib(ing) fascism solely as a right-wing ideology".
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces, you are distorting what the source says. Eatwell says that "right-wing terminology is often used erratically" and "left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies", finishing with "the fascist state was 'the synthesis and unity of all values". -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between Eatwell's description of mainstream opinions and his own views. He said that fascism "is normally seen as 'extreme right'", then outlined his personal views.  Lipset and all the other historians who dispute the place in the spectrum acknowledge the mainstream view.  If you can find a source that says that most academics do not describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right", then I will re-consider.  In the meantime I am reinserting the text.  Please note also that this is not a discussion about where fascism fits in the political spectrum, or Eatwell's opinions but about how it is commonly seen.


 * Also, please do not use terms like "you are distorting". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Eatwell doesn't mention academics;
 * 2) "normally" is not "most";
 * 3) You are free to place the sentence "According to Roger Eatwell, fascism is normally seen..." somewhere in the second paragraph with a rest of such views. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you not think that the "normal view" should be presented in the first paragraph? As it is the first paragraph presents the views of Mussolini.  I see no reason why Mussolini's views should take priority over the normal view in this article.


 * What do you think of the following as an opening paragraph, citing Eatwell?
 * [Fascism] is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'. However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology as failing to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC).


 * To Vision Thing's objections:


 * 1) I don't think it can reasonably be doubted that Eatwell's essay is dealing with academic sources. To take the quote out of context and just say "most" would give the impression that "most people" are of the view described, which is something that we cannot say for sure.
 * 2) Think that to make a distinction between "normally" and "most" in this case is splitting hairs to quite an extreme degree. Are you able to give a rationale for the distinction? Perhaps the sentence could start "Fasicsm is normally viewed by academics as...", but I really don't think that's necessary or particuarly useful to either side of this discussion. It would just be saying the same thing in slightly more words.
 * 3) Giving Eatwell's name within the quote would be appropriate in the context of him being the originator or an idea or in the context of what he says being controversial. Neither of these things appears to tbe the case, so to give his name would give a misleading impression - Eatwell has only really been chosen as a source because the text is online, not because the statement is particularly owned by him. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To Four Deuces' rewrite:


 * though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as - don't think this adds anything. From the variants there, the reader can already see that the termninology is used erratically (although I also think this word is a bit loaded). Also, I don't think it is clear whether "right-wing terminology" is supposed to denote terminology used when referring to the right-wing or terminology used by adherents to the right wing.


 * However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology ... - is Eatwell a notable enough figure for his personal opinion to form part of the lead when no-one else's does? I'm not saying that I know for a fact that he isn't, but there is no Wikipedia article on him, for example. Might it be slightly better to say "Some writers, such as Roger Eatwell..." and then say something more general, rather than quoting him more-or-less word for word? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and have restored your suggested phrasing. However please not that one editor has removed it twice already.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The new version is pretty good, but describing fascism as a combination of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism does not dissent from describing fascism as far right. Also, there was no need for the excess of quotation marks.Spylab (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we were discussing the first paragraph of the "Political spectrum" section. No one has yet come up not the new lead for the article.  Perhaps you could look at that and comment.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the current version:
 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left
 * However, by way of comment rather than objection, I would point out a consequence of not designating authoritarian+consevative+right-wing+nationalist as a dissenting definition of fascism. It is hard to object to the suggestion that, for example, the US Patriot Act fits these four criteria. Does this make it a fascist piece of legislation? I'm not too uncomfortable with this idea, but would note the potential for controversy. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: Overall, this discussion has gone on a long time. Many users have commented, but you have only found support from one other. I'll admit to not being a disinterested party. However, I would suggest that, whilst you should continue to invite discussion about the matter if you wish to, it is no longer reasonable for you to just delete content which is agreed by other users. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Collect, just noticed that you only performed one revert, so TFD must have been refering to another user.--78.148.160.141 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a consensus among academics, it is that Fascism is an anti-conservative ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's more than doubtful, but it might be worth dicsussing if you can find an RS that makes that claim.--78.144.92.135 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the opening para which had been deleted with the notation "not supported by source". Vision Thing, can you provide a better phrasing for this paragraph?  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Most academics" should be removed. My impression is that Eatwell talks about general public, and it is much better to use his wording ("normally"). Also, because "right-wing" is today usually associated with conservatism it should be stressed that fascism is anti-conservative. Roger Griffin says: "The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right..." So scholarly consensus is that fascism is a form of revolutionary, trans-class, anti-liberal and anti-conservative nationalism that was heavily influenced by both left and right. -- Vision  Thing -- 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and also feel the deleted material with eighteen sources should be re-added to the section as well. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: I would agree to including something about fascism and conservatism, including views that dissociate the two (although it should also be noted that there are views which do the opposite). However, it isn't clear to me where this should go - I'm not sure if the "political spectrum" section is the appropriate place, although maybe it is. The wording you cite is already heavily quoted in the preceding section.

What should be noted is that the quote from Griffin isn't a challenge to what Eatwell says. I'm going to restore the section lead. If you have concerns about the specific wording, then that is not grounds for deleting the whole paragraph.

I don't think that the argument that Eatwell is talking about "the general public" can be easily sustained. His essay does not include any non-academic views. He is dealing with "attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology". It is clear that this means he is dealing with academic work, not bar-room discussions or people's private thoughts. If you think otherwise, you should say why.

In terms of "normally" vs "most", my only reason for preferring "most" is economy of style. If there's a consensus, then I would agree to go with "normally". --89.241.143.113 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And in terms of SPA, you are undoubtedly one. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, would you mind striking through this completely irrelevant and, apparently, completely unprovoked ad hominem comment? And sticking to topical discussion? Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I note your comment, Collect. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try for another four years, perhaps?
" Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all. And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "

"Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) . "

Picking dates at random, starting roughly in the center of the years in question, far enough apart that I felt sure that they would be different, I find eight versions, although I am quite sure there are many more, and it would be scores of edits, if one counts the tentative edits during Talk page discussions, on the way to the longer-running versions.

As it was random, the below are not diffs, and thus do not reflect who made the changes or exactly what changes were made, but are just the state of the page at intervals.


 * 21 Oct 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=166130801
 * 01 Mar 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=111876635
 * 31 Jul 06 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=66782122
 * 30 Dec 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=33288247
 * 30 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=29726099
 * 12 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=28146801
 * 31 Jul 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=19972021
 * 30 May 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=14455891

Anarchangel (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Just to clarify we are discussing the lede for the "Political Spectrum" section.) None of the versions cited  above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When the "Political spectrum" section was created 14 July 2008 by User:Gennarous the lead sentence read "The place of fascism on the political spectrum remains a particularly debated subject.". The actual sentence had been inserted into the article by the same editor earlier in the day.  On 17 January 2009 User:Collect changed this to "Fascism has been described as left, right, and center."  So User:Collect's statement that this "had been stable for four years" is incorrect.  I would also point out that glancing at this discussion page shows that there had been no consensus for that change and that the new wording misrepresented the sources cited.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Try looking at the article history going back four years -- not just at its position for one day or so. And not just for a specific "Political Spectrum" section.    F'rinstance in 2005:  "Many scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. See: Fascism and ideology"" Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. " (December 2005)  And so on.  The facts remain -- and your generous removal of eighteen reliable sources seems to indicate more than you might desire.   As for your limited claim that I was the one who used the current phrasing, you elide the fact that it was arrived at by consensus -- and the one used was the one which you proposed IIRC .    That you now dislike your own wording is interesting.   The term "left, right and center" derives from Lipset -- who was cited here well before I made any edits IIRC.  October 08 "The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. Fascist leaders themselves produced different definitions of what part of the political spectrum their movement stood, in 1932, Mussolini professed about the twentieth century saying "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century".[34] However many Italian Fascists like Benito Mussolini were ex-socialists and ex-syndicalists, and upon the Fascists being ousted and then reinstalled in the German puppet Italian Social Republic, Mussolini and the Fascists professed to be a left-wing movement.[35]"  June 08 "According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement."  and so on ad nauseam.  The dichotomies were recognized very early on in the article, and seem to be what you would like to erase -- even your own compromise which no longer suits you . Collect (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

March 2004: "Is Fascism a doctrine of the Left or Right? Fascism is generally regarded as somehow the opposite to socialism or communism. Mussolini himself characterized it as such in a 1932 paper entitled What Is Fascism?: "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production...."  Fascism is the synthesis of the Hegelian dialectic. If the thesis is capitalism and the antithesis is communism, then the synthesis is Fascism. Capitalism says the individual owns property and controls property. Communism says the state owns property and controls property. Fascism, being the synthesis of the two, is that the individual owns property but the state controls it."

May 2005: The origin and ideology of Fascism Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. The adoption of this term by the Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of them in radical left politics. (See Fascio for more on this movement and its evolution.)

June 2005 " This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum, and the definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves."

November 2005 (note the section title which you aver dates only back less than a year in the article) Fascism and the political spectrum Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing to right-wing positions as suited their purposes. This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum. Some scholars argue that Italian Fascism, unlike some other contemporary movements, did not grow out of a strict theoretical basis. Layton describes Fascism as "not even a rational system of thought", and as "unique but not original". Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. In one sense, fascism can be considered to be a new ideological development that transcends the right/left framework.

Some historians and theorists regard fascism and "Soviet Communism" (or more specifically, Stalinism) as being similar, lumping them together under the term "totalitarianism". Friedrich Hayek argues that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual. Hayek would note that the economic preferences of the fascists mirrored those of the socialists and communists. For example all three put in place capital controls, wage and price controls as means of controlling the economy (and subsequently the people as Hayek’s Road To Serfdom claimed). The rhetorical differences he saw are only found in why these economic preferences are put in place; to protect the lower class in class warfare, or to protect the interest of the state. Such rhetorical differences are negligible compared to the real outcomes of the very similar state economic control used by the three supposedly dissimilar ideologies. Likewise, claims that classic liberals, neoliberals, or even neoconservatives, are fascists is equally ridiculous given that their economic preferences are those of openness, free trade, and limited government interference; the exact opposite economic preferences fascists.

March 2007: Fascists have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.[4]

And so on. Note particularly that the article had a "political spectrum" section long before last year. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My disagreement is not with presenting different views but with the wording of the lede sentence/paragraph of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Your wording violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Make your case for each anagram in the puzzle -- but I aver that it is a proper lede, as the purpose of the lede sentence is to summarize the succeeding content. Each source is inline for the material to which it relates, and quotes are used as needed. Thus no violatin of RS (they are each and every one reliable sources), V (each and every one is verifiable), SYN (I make no conclusions from the various direct statements cited), OR (as it is all V and RS and not SYN, it is not OR), and as for "undue" -- it is undue to elide material which contradicts your own favoured position.  Undue does not apply to seeking NPOV which, I note, is the only acronym missing in the laundry list.   Care to try telling us why eighteen reliable sources do not belong in an article? Collect (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I and numerous other editors have made this case many times. Your lead misrepresents facts and is not supported by the sources and therefore violates all these policies.  If you are unclear on the meaning of WP policies may I suggest that you discuss this matter with someone else.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that what was said in the past was said in the past. It is not as if changes have been proposed without discussion. In fact, it was you who most recently brought up the idea of changing the section, Collect. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Use the History tab to see where and when the changes occurred. Also note the RfC on the lede which was removed, which had been in place for some time.  As for casting aspersions, this is not the place at all.  Collect (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope? I don't understand you. In any event, the History tab refers to the past. Legwarmers, eating weavils and Hitler all used to be popular, but it doesn't mean that they were right. The history of this artcile is ignorable. The RFC is still there, and BTW it is what brought me here, in case you think you are still waiting on a response--78.144.216.40 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See the earlier posts in this section where it was claimed that I had lied about what had been in the article.   Santayana still applies. Collect (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, no-one has accused you of lying. You made a claim about the past stability of material in the article which doesn't seem to have stood up to examination. I'm sure this will have been just an honest mistake on your part. Let's forget about it. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Try "None of the versions cited above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it."  Which certainly does make the accusation.  Are you defending that statement?   I gave examples dating back over four years -- so my "claim" was formally proven, contrary to those who insist that it was never there. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide one example of this article more than one year old that has a "Political Spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did --- did you miss the post above which cited a section named "Fascism and the political spectrum" from November 2005? Seems that 2005 is actually more than one year ago, no matter what calendar you are using. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, Four Deuces did not say that you had lied, he said you were wrong, which you were. Honestly, I don't think this is worthy of further discussion. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He also managed to think November 2005 was less than a year ago. Thank you most kindly.  BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious.   Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate. If you suspect me of something, say what it is. I would rather concentrate on talking about the article.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your very first edit ever according to your contributuon history was at 22:57 on 13 June. In less than one half hour, you have made seven edits to the article and talk page. You had been here 4 minutes when your edit summary was "Restore lead para - Vision Thing: if you have objections should should explain them (not just state them) in talk.) " which rather implies you are not a new user at all.   This is all fact.  No need to "insinuate" anything at all.   Do you have any questions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address. I thought that was obvious. Nothing sinister. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most such stay in a fairly narrow range -- which other ones have you edited under here? Collect (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I *think* I am every IP since 'Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case'. Genuine apologies if you didn't realise this, but I have consistently indicated it by refering to my earlier posts. I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to get an account, which I'd say is up to me.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, can you please provide a link to the "Political spectrum" section which you say existed in November 2005. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now done my own research and such a section did exist in 2005 and said "Fascism tends to be associated with the political right". However it was later deleted, so Collect's understanding that the section has consistently represented his views over a four year period would appear to be an honest mistake.  in fact the section only represented Collect's views after he added them in January of this year.  BTW I think that there are only 12 quotes that Collect uses to support his view, not 18, as Collect states.  Collect used "reflist" and therefore obtained sources that were footnotes to other sections.  However it really is not very helpful to have numerous references if none of them support your premises.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect has now made claims against the IP editor. Please direct any such claims to the administrators, they have no place here.  The editors will review and block editors who edit in bad faith, but it is not relevant to our discussion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I ask that you redact your PAs here. I have neither made nor insinuated anything improperly here about anyone.  As for the material which appeared in 2005, I am glad you found it -- the material existed at many times prior to my ever edititng here at all, and your claim that it was I who added the cites to that section or that it only referred to a disagreement after I started editing was wrong.  And since "reflist" added cites when used for the RfC -- and there was absolutely no way to avoid that on the Talk page, and my statement as to the number of refs in the RfC was correct (I counted the superscripts, and used that for the count -- it does seem that it was correct) the issue of "reflist" is joyfully irrelevant.  And since quotes from each cite are given which appear strongly to support the use of each cite for the claims being made, your "proof by assertion" fails. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, please strike through your above comment. Unfounded accusations of personal attacks are, themselves, personal attacks – fully irrelevant to the article and out of place on its talk page. Thanks so much. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long
A lot of this article contains detail that is already contained in other articles. I suggest that much of the article can be reduced and readers who are interested can click the piped links to get further information. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you failed to see how long the article once was.  I still consider most of the "not core tenet" stuff to be useless in the article. Saying some fascists work with a church, some don't, seems not to prove much. Ditto positions on sexuality which, to all intents and purposes, are indistinguishable from contemporary governments of all stripes. Ditto the conflicting positions on "welfare."  If it is not a genuine core tenet, it does not belong, IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in that case, perhaps a new article on fascism's relations to church, sexuality, welfare economy should be written in order to relieve this article of idle information? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can show some unique qualifying claims, sure. Right now the sections are "some do and some don't" which makes for a rather wishy-washy set of sections. The aspect you cite which is specific to fascism is apparently control of the economy through the government. The other non-core stuff is pretty much as valid as "Brown eyes in fascism" would be while noting the preponderance of brown-eyed fascist leaders.  Collect (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wherever possible, think we should be guided by sources, rather than by our own logic, even if that logic might be sound. "Some do some don't" doesn't necessarily mean the material is superfluous or irrelevant. For example, fascists differed in their attitudes to race. That does not mean, though, that racial politics are irrelevant to an article on fascism (and most, if not all, of the sources will support this). Collect, I think what you say would be good for an article entitled "Core tenets of fascism".

I think it would be good to cut down some of the sections, but this should be done carefully with tweasers rather than with a sythe. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is "some fascists are racists" and "some fascists are not racists" adds up to "fascists are part of the universal set" which is, logically, a worthless statement.  The title of this particular article is "Fascism" and including attributes which are meaningless to the basic topic is futile.   There is enough solid material for the article that we do not need to add useless stuff to it. Collect (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the statement could take various forms, assuming it is a fair statement in the first place. "Fascists show a greater tendency towards racism than the population at large", for example, or "fascists are equally racist compared to the general population, but are distinguished by the basis of their racism in arguments about bilology" would say something worthwhile about fascism (I'm not necessarily making wither of those claims here). That's the problem with applying our own logic rather than relying on sources. Not everyone might agree. Which is why it would be better to rely on sources as a guide to what is relevant and what isn't. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually no source has ever been proposed for any claim about fascists having a greater propensity for racism than the general population.  The requirement that a reliable source be found where it is clear from the current section that no general statement is true seems conclusive. Collect (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good starting point in reducing article's length would be to remove following sub-sections: Integralism, Revisionist Maximalism, Rexism and 4th of August Regime. They are not main variants of (para)fascism and article won't lose anything on its quality if we remove them. -- Vision Thing -- 07:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree but think they should be put in a list with links to their main articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the sections. You insert a list with links as you see fit. -- Vision Thing -- 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism RfC
Due to new disputes over the intro for Fascism I will now write to all persons who partipated in the RfC. If I have left anyone out, please tell me. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest you write to all substantial editors since January 2009 -- a number may not have written in the RfC but may well be interested in this. Collect (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now written to all editors except IPs who appear on this page. If I have omitted anyone please inform me.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the RFC is a little premature. As it is almost every source in the section contradicts the intro which Four Deuces proposes.  I think the first step for someone advocating that intro would be to cite some reliable sources (And I think for reliable sources we need historians and political scientists who deal with fascism, because there is a tendency for non-specialists to peg fascism as right wing).  As it is, without any sources which support the intro, how can any commenter support the position.  That would come down to a simple vote (I like, I don't like) which disregards the sources.  Such would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.Mamalujo (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please click here: Talk:Fascism and read the on-going discussion of the RfC, which is about to expire.  All of your points have been discussed at length and I would ask that you read the discussion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would also note the option of using the close of the section which has eighteen sources provided. Collect (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments: (a) standard dictionary definitions link fascism with rightwing authoritarianism. End of story - there's your headline for the morning paper. (b) historians argue endlessly about the definition of fascism/rightwing/authoritarianism/etc. They get paid to argue (i.e. come up with interesting ideas) and not to repeat what everybody knows, which is - insofar as those words are used in the generally accepted way - fascism is right-wing. However the generally accepted use of those words carries much legitimate argument. So of course there will be a wide variety of views by historians, and those can be reported, ideally based on some easily accessible academic survey work. However a wide variety of views should not confuse anybody into missing the core idea. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is useful:

'has been hailed as authoritative, from many sundry quarters. The New York Times described the book as “so thorough and in the end, so convincing that it may well become the most authoritative,” while Terry Eagleton called it a “lucid, engagingly readable study.” Foreign Affairs said the book will be authoritative “for a long time to come.”'(Douglas W. Greene (2008), The Bourgeois Origins of Fascist Repression: On Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism, Socialism and Democracy, Volume 22, Issue 2 July 2008, pages 109 - 120) Greene summarises Paxton as saying 'fascism is a rejection of the Western European Enlightenment. As Mussolini himself put it, “Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies … [Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who can not be leveled by … universal suffrage.” The first fascists rejected the Enlightenment principles of rationality and equality, in particular its democratic theory in support of universal suffrage, and singled out for attack the Enlightenment tradition's self-avowed successors: all the secular democratic and revolutionary socialist political parties, from Latin Europe to Russia. ... Socialists, from reformists to revolutionaries, have always emphasized that, despite their vehement rhetoric, fascists were never anti-capitalist - a crucial point underscored in Paxton's research.' All of that places fascism very firmly on the side of right-wing authoritarianism. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts are simple here... 1) academics debate where to place Facism on the political spectrum, 2) the vast majority of the non-accademic world places it firmly on the right. We must account for both of these veiwpoints, and should do so in the Lede if we do not want constant debate on this issue.  Please stop trying to prove that one viewpoint is more correct than the other... Accept that BOTH are correct. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you've missed out fact (3), that most academics take fascism's link with the right either for granted or as a starting point for debate. Disembrangler (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are two versions of the lead of the section Position in the political spectrum in play (1, 2). I think we should take a step back and leave that section alone until we can reach some kind of consensus.

My objections to the first version is mention of "most academics", wording not present in the source, and attempt to link fascism with conservatism (according to the scholarly consensus fascism is ant-conservative ). -- Vision Thing -- 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph that you removed does not attempt to "link fascism with conservatism", it merely said "Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism." Conservatism and the extreme right are not synonymous.  The quote from Griffin does not say that "fascism is anti-conservative", rather that fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism.  However we cannot "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."  (See:  WP:SYN.)  Please provide a source that explicitly states that most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have intention to introduce claim that "most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing" in the article. However, you want to say that most academics do consider fascism to be right-wing and you don't have a source which explicitly states that. Also, it is true that some academics call fascism a mixture of conservatism and nationalism, but some also call it a mixture of socialism and nationalism, and that somehow didn't make it in the first version of the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What the Four Deuces and Disembrangler have been saying. In particular, I agree with Disembrangler that Paxton's definition is a) very useful; and b) pretty firmly places fascism on the right. Another source which pretty clearly puts fascism on the right is Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism - the first face of fascism is the Action Française, which was a French monarchist movement. As Disembrangler says - the point of departure for most academics is that fascism is on the right. Obviously, at that point it's necessary to complicate the picture, because fascism isn't simply on the right - Hitler was not Franz von Papen. In terms of linking fascism with conservatism - well, if the shoe fits. Conservatism is a term that has had many meanings over the past two centuries. What we in the anglosphere call "conservatism" today is what might be described as "liberal-conservatism" - a form of conservatism which accepts liberalism as the basis for government. Authoritarian conservatism is an entirely different beast, and does indeed have connections to fascism. While it would be wrong to say that fascism is authoritarian conservatism, it would be completely correct to state that fascists came to power usually through the machinations of authoritarian conservatives, that when in power they almost always acted in cooperation with authoritarian conservatives in their countries (e.g. Vittorio Emanuele, Hindenburg, Papen, Pétain, Antonescu, Franco), and that authoritarian conservatives typically saw a lot to like in fascism. john k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be true to say that fascists, especially early, on drew largely from socialists and communists, competed with them for the same supporters, and that many of the early leaders, includidng specifically Mussolini, were socialists. It is also true to say that fascism incorporated socialism/syndicalism or corporatism.  With regard to Paxton, see my comments below.  He explicitly does not place fascism on the right.Mamalujo (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to identify the sort of academics or scholars because they tend to do different things based upon discipline. (For example, most historians make some claims that most economists would regard as actively ridiculous.) So, with respect to claims placing fascists somewhere or nowhere on a left-right spectrum, is it historians doing this? sociologists? political scientists? philosophers? economists? English teachers? all of the above? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any claim that “most academics” or “most scholars” do X needs to identify the sort of academic or scholar, and needs to provide citation to support the claim that most of them do X.


 * The editors above who are saying that the Paxton excerpt places fascism firmly on the right are sorely mistaken and are puting their own gloss or interpretation on the passage. Indeed, Paxton plainly holds with the scholarly consensus that placing fascism on a simple left right political spectrum is a taxonomical problem.  "It becomes hard to locate fascism on the familiar Right-Left political map.  Did the fascist leaders themselves know, at the beginning.  When Mussolini called his friends together at the  Piazza San Sepolcro in March 1919, it was not entirely clear whether he was trying to compete with his former colleagues in the Italian Socialist Party on the Left or to attack them frontally from the right.  Where on the Italian political spectrum would what he still sometimes called "national sydicalism" find its place? Indeed, fascism always retained that ambiguity." p. 11.  He goes on to say that fascists themselves considered fascism "neither Right nor Left" and also rejected what they saw as the soft, complacent middle.  On the same page, he says that the radicalism and revolutionary nature of fascism "often set fascists into conflict with conservatives rooted in families, churches, social rank, and property".  Just another fascism scholar who says fascism has elements of both right and left and doesn't fit well on the spectrum.  The more we go through this the more sources we will find that say just that.  Almost all the sources on fascism say fascism had "right" elements - it was authoritarian and did maintain some status quo, but it also had left elements - it was socialist/syndicalist expanded government and was revolutionary and sought totally remake society. Mamalujo (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's a taxonomical problem. Fascist movements often (or even usually) arose out of left-wing or quasi-left-wing movements, and maintained much of the style of the left.  Fascists were not simply reactionary right-wingers in the Hindenburg/Papen mode.  Fascists were anti-conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-socialist, all at once.  But their political alliances were inevitably with the right, and, as Paxton says, facist regimes worked in "uneasy but effective cooperation with traditional elites."  Fascism may have been a weird amalgam of left and right wing elements, but that amalgam was largely put into service of the goals of the right.  It's not even about maintaining the status quo - it's that Fascists and the traditional right agreed that various parts of the "status quo" needed to be gotten rid of - particularly parliamentary democracy, but frequently also all kinds of other things.  Looked at in isolation, sure, fascism has elements of both left and right and arguably defies categorization.  But when you look at the way fascist regimes actually operated, it is difficult to say that they were not ultimately on the right, and that, whatever disagreements they might have had with traditional conservatives, ultimately their goals were in many ways complementary, which cannot be said of their relationships with liberals and with socialists.  It's been a long time since I've read either Paxton or Payne, but my memory is that Payne's basic issue, at least, was that the distinction between fascism and the traditional right had nothing to do with fascism being further to the right than the traditional right.  Fascism was not further to the right than the reactionary non-fascist right.  And this was because what distinguished fascism from other political ideologies didn't really fit into the normal left/right dichotomy.  I suppose I've rambled on enough, but I think it's wrong to say that people like Paxton and Payne are arguing that fascism is not on the right.  They're arguing that fascism is not simply on the right, that calling it a right wing phenomenon is an over-simplification that misses importance nuance.  Maybe this is just hair-splitting on my part, but I think that's a significant distinction. Their whole argument rests, more or less, on saying that the left/right dichotomy, as a whole, is oversimplistic.  I find it irritating to see them drawn out on behalf of what is effectively the tired old "But don't you see, it's national socialism!" argument. john k (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I think needs to be done, is to mention the left-wing ideas syntesized into the right-wing end product. For instance, the ideas of revolution, over-throwing the Bourgeoisie, and the national-syndicalist roots of the movement are all important to its development, but that these ultimately led to a authortarian society. It might even be considered a revision of Marxism that "incorpates the anti-conformist left-wing extremists" with the "nationalist right-wingers." So yes, it was ultimately right-wing. But to simply label it right-wing misses too much, and so I think we should back track and cover the left-wing parts of it as well. Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mamalujo that editors should not add their own gloss to sources. For that reason, even though I I agree with John K's interpretation of it, the Paxton quote cannot be used directly in support of the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", because it dosn't explictly say that.


 * However, Mamalujo, I think you are also missing the point a bit. Finding sources that question where fascism should be placed on the poltical spectrum does not contradict the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", even if you were to find a hundred. All you will have done is prove that there are excpetions to the rule, which nobody denies.


 * The stamement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)" can only be supported by a source that specifically says that, and one has been proposed:


 * 'Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as "extreme-right", though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is also conceived as "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right".' -


 * It seems to me that the main question is whether this source is usable or not. For example, is it unreliable or does it fail to support the statement it is cited for? --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like there are three objections:


 * 1) It source not include the word "academic" (I don't think it needs to, since the essay clearly only considers academic work. Sources don't need to use all the words they are cited in support of, as long as they are not misrepresented).
 * 2) A contradicting objection that "academic" is not specific enough (I tend to think we should only be as specific as the source is - looking at the endnotes, Eatwell appears to be drawing on the work of historians, political scientists and, perhaps, sociologists. Would "specialists on the subject" be an acceptable alternative to "academics"?).
 * 3) That word "conservative" should not be used because it is misleading (I don't think it is misleading and it is in the source, but I think i can live without it).

As a holding position then, would there be any objections (and if so what would they be?) to:


 * It is normal to position fascism as extreme right, although the terms "radical right", "far right" and "ultra right" are also used. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents "radical centrism".[fn]

The only thing I would see as missing from this is the reference to "acadmics" or something similar. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the sizeable body that are pushing for the inclusion of the left-wing portions of the ideology, as has been demonstrated in several sources such as the one I posted. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am, and I agree with what you say (subject to considerations of due weight). The proposed lead originally added:
 * Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

There is no source for this, but I don't get the impression that it is contentious, and I would support its inclusion. More specific information could also be added in the following paragraphs (eg certain modes of rhetoric, policies and influences which are cited by sources as being rooted in the left). --78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah good, good. The source I gave has an entire section detailing Marxist influences that can be seen and would be good for that purpose. Soxwon (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as long as due weight is not forgotten. If we go into detail on left-wing influences, it is appropriate to do the same with right wing ones. Furthermore, I notice that there isn't an "influences" section, which perhaps there should be, rather than overcrowding the "political spectrum" section. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Position and rejection of left-right spectrum
I've been through and removed some of the footnotes from the "political spectrum" section. They were too many in number and so I've removed ones that were duplicative or not related to the wording for which they were cited. For example, the quote from Linehan as the end of the section was backed by ten footnotes. All that is really needed is to provide a footnote for the source of Linehan's statement. Citing everyone who has cited or agreed with him is not necessary.

Whilst I was at it, I changed two sentences:


 * I took out "Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third position between capitalism in parliamentary democracies and communism." This was backed by nine citations of books, but none of the references included page numbers (which they should according to WP:CITE). Third Position refers to a specific post-war form of nationalism which many writers are likely to view as fascist or neofascist. However, it would seem very unlikely that any of the nine sources would back the statement that "fascism (is) a search for a Third position".


 * I changed "The entire aptness of a left-right Political spectrum has also been challenged by many current historians" to "Many political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum". A couple of the six sources given did appear to reject the left-right model, but were personal opinions given by individual non-specialists (an economics journalist and a technology journalist). Other sources noted the popularity of various models, but not a rejection of a conceptual "right-left" continuum. The "horseshoe" model, for example, still has a left and a right, it is just a particular non-linear shape.

I also added a reference for the statement "A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether", since I felt it needed one. --78.144.100.103 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please restore the footnotes -- that sentence had been challenged repeatedly until the added cites wee given. Also note that some of the cites definitely did reject any "spectrum" at all, so I would appreciate the reversion to the priot state. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I've made a mistake in removing any particular footnotes, then please say which and why.

Please note, though, that stacking an assertion with superflous cites simply to discourage editors from challenging or removing it is probably WP:PUFFERY and WP:Bombardment.

If you are concerned about the last sentence of the section, I think it is less likely to be challenged now, since it has been rephrased to make it (IMO) true and verifiable. It may still be open to challenge on the grounds that it is tangential, I reckon, however.--78.149.108.242 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful in the section to briefly explain the political spectrum used by social and political scientists because a lot of people understand it in non-standard ways. Lipset provided a discription in Political Man with the reasons why fascism is generally considered to be right-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits
Why on earth have you reverted this, Soxwon? Your edit summary says: "return to last stable version until RfC's conclusion". However, the RfC has expired. In any event, there is no rule that the fact that an RfC is happening is grounds for reverting or trying to hold a page in stasis. The RfC was about the lead, not the footnotes, in any case.--78.149.108.242 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: perhaps you are concerned about edits by 72.219.171.189 (this user is not me, by the way). If that's the case, please consider only reverting material that you think you have good reason to (eg because it is too radical a change without discussion). That might, for example, mean reverting to this version:, although I am not making a specific recommendation, and note there was a legit image removal in-between. Thanks. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the version by Four Deuces, as the debate is still ongoing. By making extensive changes the way you did, we no longer are commenting on the same version, and a lot of the discussion is rendered meaningless. I think we should keep it in stasis until concensus has been firmly reached, so we're not debating the changes we want to make and then adding in the changes you have made. Soxwon (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No way Soxwon. If you really think the page should be kept in stasis, then there is a process for achieving that, and you should request a full indefinite block. For good reason, though, that is considered a radical measure. What I don't think you should do is try to issue a fiat against futher revisions. Particularly since it is not clear when a consensus will be acheived. Which means you appear to be arbitrarily deciding that the article should stay put...possibly forever. I don't agree with this, but I'll do you a barnstar if you can achieve it. (You'll have to wait until the end of forever, of course ;) ).

The revisions I made were to remove clearly excessive footnotes. The version you have reverted to have one footnote for approximately every eleven words of text. There are approximately three times as many words in the footnotes to the section as there are in the section itself (!). I didn't remove any useful footnotes, just duplicates and footnotes in serious non-compliance with WP:CITE (ie they had no page numbers and were highly dubious).

No-one is debating the contents of the footnotes, just the lead paragraph, which isn't actually in the article at present, so the argument that says "we won't know what we're talking about" makes no sense to me.

Please do not revert again unless you have specific reasons why the edits you are reverting deserve it. Many thanks. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what I was saying was that we are still discussing the political spectrum issues and making such large changes over those affected areas leaves a lot of the commentary useless as they have nothing to refer to. I think that more changes should wait until we have some sort of consensus (I'll wait for others to comment however, though I know Collect also agreed with me). I also do not like the way you have organized the paragraphs in the repetitive "Some scholars" believe at the beginning of every paragraph. Soxwon (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't re-organise any paragraphs. All I did was remove footnotes and make the two alterations mentioned above. As I said, there are edits since I made mine and it may be these you have a problem with. I think you are reverting further than is justified. Please don't throw the baby out. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you self-reverted, Soxwon. Thanks, I appreciate it. --FormerIP (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposed to Rationalism?
Although many Fascist movements were Anti-Intellectual, I think that it is not safe to say they were against Rationalism. All you have to do is look at anything related to Giovanni Gentile to find Fascism was rooted in Logic. Although this didn't transfer to many Fascist movements beyond Italian Fascism, I don't believe that this is something that is a core tenet of Fascism, as they make it seem by putting it at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.48.190 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is supposed to present mainstream opinion first, followed by opposing views and supported by secondary sources. If you want to present Giovanni Gentile's views then please provide a reliable secondary source (i.e., a book by an expert that discusses his views) that explains what credence is given to them.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not have many books, but I can show you in Wikipedia's own article that he used an immense amount of thinking that went into Giovanni Gentile's thought(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile). Now, if you want to represent all forms of Fascism, I would say that Anti-Rationalism is a trend and not a requirement, and if you want to represent Fascism as it was in Italy, or originally, then you would say it is quite the opposite. To quote the article on Giovanni Gentile: "Gentile had believed so firmly in the philosophical concreteness of Fascism as having a dialectical intelligence surpassing intellectual scrutiny, that he presumed intellectual opposition could only reinforce and give credence to help the truth of his conception of Fascism as a superior and liberally thinking polity."

Also, notice that it also states the following: "Gentile sought to make his philosophy become the basis of Fascism in much the same manner Marx had developed his philosophy as the basis of Communism. However, with Gentile & with Fascism, the 'problem of the party' existed, and existed by the fact that the Fascist party came to be organically rather than from a tract or pre-made doctrine of thought."

To support this again, an example from his life: In 1944 he was killed by a group of anti-fascist partisans led by Bruno Fanciullacci,[3] while returning from the Prefecture in Florence, where, ironically or perhaps poignantly, he had argued for the release of anti-fascist intellectuals." Is we may agree that the article on Giovanni Gentile is at least somewhat correct and trust the sources it sites, then when can not just assume but know that Fascism is not a Necessary(note that I say necessary not common) Trait of Fascism. In this article, you say "Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism[10], rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, and communism."

By saying this, you are implying that every single form of Fascism must be opposed to Rationalism, or it is by default not Fascism. This is obviously not true if we take one examination at Giovanni Gentile's Thought and Fascist Italy. As already stated, it allowed different views to come together in the Dialectic.--24.101.48.190 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum Proposal
Hi everybody. Here is a slightly refined version of the proposed lead I put forward a couple of weeks ago. It would be good if people could comment, even if you don't have much to say. If you have objections, please explain them as best you can and propose alternative wording if that is what you think is needed.

I have an idea that it would be good to notify people who have expressed a view in past discussions on this subject. It would be about 30 people. What do people think of this?

NOTE: '''I've contacted editors who have previously expressed an opionion on this, going back over 2 years. I make a polite request that no-one jump the gun by inserting the proposed paragraph, even if a consensus appears to be emerging. I would like the opportunity to respond to comments made first.'''--FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" sub-section:


 * Fascism is normally described as extreme right, although writers also use the terms "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right". However, there exists a dissenting view that sees fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre".[fn] Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

The source which it is claimed supports this reads as follows.


 * Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as "extreme-right", though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is also conceived as "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right"...others have seen fascism as "neither left nor right", as a doctrine of the revolutionary centre. -

Note that the third sentence of the proposed paragraph is not supported by this source. However, I get the impression that there are no strong objectors to it.

Please please comment. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. And getting more input on this proposal may be helpful. Disembrangler (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is fine. I think the other two sentences could be rephrased.  I think it places too much emphasis on the centrist analysis.  You might also phrase the paragraph in such a way as to allow for other opinions not specifically mentioned.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's alright, though I think that there should be a mention of why it's classified as extreme right in a very brief manner (ultra-nationalism and totalitarianism). Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I got a message on my user talk page asking for my comments, so here they are for what they may be worth.
 * 1) The distinction between "extreme right", "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right" is a distinction without a difference. There is no need for an "although". Once could simply write, "Fascism is normally described as 'extreme right', 'radical right', 'far-right' or 'ultra-right'."
 * 2) Per Soxwon, I would follow with a summary sentence of why it is classified there. I'd be inclined to say "This characterization derives from fascist support for ultra-nationalism and militarism, and rejection of liberal democracy, parliamentary government, and independent labor unions."
 * 3) Past that, I'm not sure how best to word things, except that whatever we say we should make it clear that those who call fascism "centrist" or "left" are in a small minority, especially among non-fascists.
 * 4) Also, it seems to me that it should be made clear that many of the "left" aspects of fascism are found more in the rhetoric of fascists when out of power than their behavior in power. For two obvious examples, consider Gregor Strasser's faction in the Nazi Party, or the left Peronists who found themselves cruelly betrayed each time Peron regained control of Argentina. No doubt that Hitler and Peron both found it useful to have people who could convincingly (and presumably sincerely) reach out to the workers, but had far less use for them once in power. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposed passage does not indicate by whom Fascism is “normally described” as right-wing. Is this the normal description from lay-people? from historians? from social theorists? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good overall, and I agree with Jmabel's suggestions.Spylab (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jmabel's comments here - except that it was Otto, rather than Gregor, Strasser who was the leftist. john k (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My 2c regarding the spectrum is that fascism needs to be characterised as ultra right because that is how its viewed by the rest of the groups in the spectrum and by a good proportion of the fascist groups themselves. That aspect needs to be the leading point. The idea of a radical centre is interesting and should be mentioned but as an aside. Since the definition of fascism is itself so broad, picking out a few aspects of some groups and saying fascism exhibits facets of left-wing ideology is drawing too long a bow. My impression of those trying to characterise fascism as left comes from those who want to distance fascism from modern right-wing politics and to sully radical left-wingers with the stain of fascism. The argument that certain communist dictatorships are fascist doesn't really hold, as that situation is less a case of fascism being left-wing than that those dictatorships were actually ultra-right parading as communist. Look at it this way - how many proud fascists would be happy to be characterised as left wing? Not many, as there are certain fascist groups whose only commonality is that they were anti-communist. Mdw0 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * “that is how its viewed by the rest of the groups in the spectrum”
 * A logical implication of this assertion is that those here who object to classifying fascism as right-wing are themselves either fascist or not on “the spectrum”.
 * I'm quite sure that most of those objecting are not fascist, and that some of them do fit fairly well on a left-right spectrum (though some will not). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The logical implication is that those who try to say fascism is somehow left-wing are really right-wingers who dont like to see that fsacism is the radical extension of their views, the same way that communism is the radical extension of left-wing views. Mdw0 (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that wasn't a logical implication, though the thought seemed to be lurking there. As to the claim itself, a rather isomorphic thought is running around here: that those who try to say fascism is somehow right-wing are really left-wingers who don't like to see that fascism is another radical extension of their views, along with communism.  Certainly non-fascists of almost any sort don't like to find the fascists lumped-in with them.  We cannot argue that fascists are right-wing because the rest of the right-wing doesn't want to admit kinship any more than we can argue that fascism is left-wing because the left-wing doesn't want to admit kinship. We certainly should not claim that fascism is right-wing because the left-wing says that it is and the right-wing objections are to be rejected as self-interested; any more than we should claim that it is left-wing because the right-wing says that it is and the left-wing objections are to be rejected as self-interested. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it is a logical inference from the statement, which shows the statement has a bias. The biased view is that people with certain viewpoints dont like to see the radical extension of their views, left OR right. It would take a fantastic blindness to try to associate the extremes of both biases and try to associate those extremes with their centrist opponents' views. It is true that just because left-wingers say fascism is right-wing just because they say it is. If you want to compare fascism with extreme right-wing views, with an aim tio verifying fascisms place on the spectrum, something that needs to be asked is - what would an extreme right-wing viewpoint be? Mdw0 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A logical implication follows necessarily from the premises, and your subsequent assertion did not follow necessarily. As to your claim about bias, you ae grossly begging the question in insisting that fascism is right wing because it is the extreme of the right wing.
 * And you are further failing to understand that those who insist that fascism represents centrism place it in the center of a one-dimensional, right-left spectrum, but place that right-left spectrum into a continuum of two or more dimensions. Look at the Nolan Chart, an example of a two-dimensional model with an embedded left-right spectrum; everything from “populism” to libertarianism is along the center of its left-right spectrum.  Presumably, those who insist that fascism represents the extreme center locate it somewhere in the “populist” square.  Now, the Nolan Chart shown at Wikipedia  places the left-right spectrum running from one corner to another, but Nolan's original article in fact drew the left-right line differently.  The difference is an artefact of people having various ideas about just where the whole left-right spectrum lies, including the extremes.  But the extreme right in any case would represent a call (perhaps incoherent) for free markets but strict regulation of things such as religious and sexual conduct.  Someone rejecting the Nolan Chart but still seeing the left-right spectrum as inadequate might answer that question differently, while still not imputing to the “extreme right” some of the essential features of fascism.
 * I strongly suggest that you give a lot more thought to your pronouncements before presenting them. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you first mentioned the logical implication but not a full one - you'd omitted a possibility that I suggested might be included as well. I didnt actually say that fascism was extreme right wing here - I posited that rather than trying to define a broad range of fascists that have some similar tenets to the radical left, it might also be helpful to think about what the radical right is and what that viewpoint is. Is it fascist or not?
 * Using more dimensions is something of an intellectual cheat. You could have a spectrum where red joins purple and have a 'ring' effect where fascism and communism's similarities have them joining up. If this 'political spectrum' thing is to be mentioned at all there must be a certain consensus. Why is it that fascists are placed on the right wing? It cant be just that they are generally anti-communist, because the conservatives and capitalists are anti-communist too. It is much more than just economics, but more because fascists have a clear deliniation between who is of the elite group and who is excluded, and the way the excluded are treated. Fascism cant allow free markets because of the strict control over who has money and power. I didnt mention radical centrism except to say that there should be a mention of it because the idea is interesting, so what I'm failing to understand about it is why you think I'm not understanding it when I never mentioned it. Maybe you should stop thinking about your pronouncements when they go beyond fantasy in italics. Mdw0 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone care at all what the Nolan Chart says? It's a piece of Libertarian propaganda that has little relationship to either how political groups have perceived themselves or much of anything else.  john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently the Nolan Chart illustrates how some members of at least one political group perceive themselves, and perceive the fascists. We are discussing the claim of whether one could coherently see the fascists as radical centrists, and the Nolan Chart illustrates the essential structure of such perception — seeing the one-dimensional spectrum as embedded in more dimensions. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, stop inserting comments into mine (or those of anyone else). You make the discussion difficult for anyone else to follow by orphaning paragraphs.
 * I didn't claim to present every logical implication of your earlier comment. It remains the fact, as I wrote, “A logical implication of this assertion is that those here who object to classifying fascism as right-wing are themselves either fascist or not on ‘the spectrum’.”  And that implication is simply false.  The views of some person might fall on the spectrum, and be plainly non-fascistic, yet not believe that the views of fascists did.  While it was not surprising that you would want to make a different, in some ways weaker claim about bias, what you actually wrote did not allow for the possibility of opponents who were non-fascist and on the left-right spectrum; and what you actually wrote didn't have that other claim about bias as a logical implication.
 * It is using fewer dimensions which is the cheat, as it forces-together at a single point ideologies that are markedly different one from another. (At some level, using two dimensions is likewise inadequate.) And, yes, various authors have proposed a circle, which again embeds the one-dimensional spectrum into a two-dimensional framework. The point, again, is that there isn't “fantastic blindness” in associating the views of fascists with the center.  The fact that the fascists are plainly very different from others who fall in the center (in the case of the Nolan Chart, this would include both moderates and Libertarians) doesn't mean that one gets to dump them either on the far left or on the far right.
 * Indeed one “certain consensus” places the fascists upon the far right. Other consensuses have not.  You want to reject one group as self-interested but, as I have already noted, the other group is as well.  As to your claim that fascists are placed at the far right “more because fascists have a clear deliniation between who is of the elite group and who is excluded, and the way the excluded are treated”, it insists on projecting policies of exclusion on the political right when such are quite alien to most of those in the West who would classify themselves as “conservative”. (Egalitarianism and elitism are not jointly exhaustive.) The fantasy here is yours. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism of my comment above by Mdw0 has been reverted, and Mdw0 has been warned against further vandalism. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * “how many proud fascists would be happy to be characterised as left wing?”
 * I don't know, but Goebbels openly considered himself to be part of the Nazi Party left-wing. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At one time he did. By 1933, he wasn't on speaking terms with the Strassers, who were to have no influence whatever on the government of the Third Reich. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He was saying, right up to the end, that he considered himself part of the party's left wing. Certainly people can have shared or similar ultimate objectives without being on speaking terms.  But the point is that fascists can be happy to be characterized as left wing (contra Mdw0); whether Goebbels was accurate in this self-characterization is irrelevant. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this issue, but surely "the left-wing of the Nazi party" does not mean the same as "the left". Edward Heath was on the left of the British Consevative Party, but that does not make him left wing per se. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would not mean the same thing, but I was dealing with Mdw0's question, which concerns fascists being comfortable being identified as left-wing. The point here is not to attempt to “prove” from self-identification that any fascists are left-wing; that would be about as worthless an ostensible proof as that which was tucked into his rhetorical question. (Exactly because “left” and “right” have very different meanings across place and time, mere self-application of one of these labels is by itself meaningless.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "Proposed lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" sub-section" is fine. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a positive step forward. I agree with Jmabel's comments.  I think that in the body it is important to state who identifies Fascism as right wing, and who identifies it as left wing, and who reject either identification - and JUST as important, provide enough context so we know why people hold these different positions - does it reflect their own political loyalties or agendas, or is it politicians versus hstorians, or what? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The user The Four Deuces asked me to throw in my views on this matter of whether fascism is left=wing, right-wing or centre, etc. I think people have to understand what left-wing and right-wing means before applying such terms. Once that is done three questions need to be addressed here. One: Can fascism be defined as a whole to be left-wing or right-wing? Two: Are parts of fascism left-wing and other parts right-wing? Three: Is the left-wing versus right-wing spectrum analysis sufficient to describe fascism's ideological position? Fascism is a radical nationalist movement above all and I doubt that nationalism can be universally defined as politically left-wing or right-wing. Secondly, even specific policies of fascism, such as the economic policy of corporatism are politically ambiguous as absolutists, conservatives, progressives, reactionaries and socialists have all supported corporatism in some form. Fascism's anti-liberalism is not neccessarily only a right-wing conservative view, as fascism claimed to have affinity to the left-wing radical anarcho-syndicalist Georges Sorel who completely rejected liberalism. As can be seen, picking a position for fascism on the political spectrum is difficult, as it appeared to try to tap into support from both the left and the right.--R-41 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascism's aim to overthrow the status quo may have attracted some radical left wingers, but wanting dramatic revolution is a feature of radicals in general, both left and right. Just because the radical left supported some of the same things that the fascists supported, that doesnt make fascism left wing. Mdw0 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm trying to say, I don't know if it's left-wing or right-wing. Fascism's main appeal was to militant and radical nationalism. Clear definitions of what constitutes left-wing and right-wing need to be understood.--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then how do you account for the many ties to syndicalism such as Robert Michels? Such close associations with a "right-wing" system doesn't seem logical. In addition, you have many ties to marxism with Zeev Sternhell claiming that Marxism was a key part to fascism. For instance, Marxism had bene unable to bring about the violent changes predicted due to the free market system. As such, Fascism's radical change was a way to artificially facilitate the crisis and make the changes while keeping the capitalist system in tact. You see a lot of other Marxist characteristics as well, such as anti-materialism and the class warefare aspects. Finally, one of the natural stepping stones to Fascism (at least according to the Sorelian school) was national syndicalism. These incorporations of left and Marxist ideology do indeed make fascism left-wing. All this can be gleaned from the Fascist Reader Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Writers who disagree point out that most fascists were not former Socialists and those who were, like Michels, had become disillusioned with Socialism. I cannot think of any who were actually former Communists. Hayek had also been a Socialist and many American conservatives were also once left-wing, but American conservatism is generally not considered left-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no Marxist aspect in fascism. That's absurd. Marxism and fascism did, indeed, seek to bring change to society, but with different tools and with a different aim in mind. While Marxism wanted to completely change the way society works and implement a utopian economic system, fascism aimed to revolutionize the nation and, in some cases, the human spirit, preserving social Darwinistic class differences but tying them together within the state, something Marxism wasn't too fond of.
 * Like R41 said, we need to understand the definitions of right and left in order to categorize fascism. Therefore, I'm going to try to list what, as I see them, the left and right characterstics of fascism are:
 * Left-wing aspects: Anti-capitalist propaganda (emphasis on propaganda); the radical revolutionary nature of most fascist movements; desire to combine leftist syndicalism and socialism with nationalism (National syndicalism and National socialism, respectively); a fairly leftist position in the early days in power before drifting towards the right, particularly the Italian Fascist Party
 * Far right aspects: Ultra-nationalism invoked through terrorist means, in most cases; outright hatred towards Marxism and pacifism; imperialistic aims to expand a nation's territory; extreme militarism; aggressive racism (white nationalist movements); extreme religious affinity, in some cases (Iron Guard and Rexism); violence directed towards the working class left-wing while in power (Night of the Long Knives, the poverty-stricken agricultural class during Mussolini's reign, disbandment of labor unions, etc.); merging of corporations within the state, giving corporations a large amount of authority (that'd hardly be present in left-wing regimes, right?); conservative stance on moral issues such as abortion; affinity towards the right-wing upper class, in most cases.
 * That said, I agree with the current summary.--UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Source that R-41 provided, and which says that fascist position in the political spectrum is a contentious issue for scholars/historians, should be incorporated into the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I just add that we should certainly indicate that when Fascists themselves have defined their place on the political spectrum, they have normally considered themselves as being on the right. Here's Mussolini, for instance: It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. Most non-fascist contemporaries also tended to see the Nazis as a phenomenon of the right - thus their alliances with traditional right-wingers. Fascism may have been the bastard child of socialism (and in most cases it was - although much less so in the Nazi case than pretty much any other), but it was firmly and almost universally considered to belong in some sense to the right during the interwar period. You know who someone is by who they associate with, and fascists everywhere tended to ally with the traditional right. Modern scholars may complicate this picture, but it is necessary to paint the basic picture of fascism as being on the right in order to even understand what those scholars are talking about. john k (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Think that's great nutshell job. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is generally considered a right-wing or far-right ideology. Although I agree that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are so general to be almost meaningless, it is worth noting that 'centrist' is just as meaningless. As these terms are understood, fascists are seen, and self identify as right, or far-right. Intentional obfuscation by maverick scholars notwithstanding.  Felix Felix talk 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Generally considered" is now incorrect in current works, hence would be a gross misuse of the lede to make such a claim. If this is to be a current article, it should reflect current opinions. Collect (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)