Talk:Fascism/Archive 27

Political Spectrum proposal mark 2
Okay, here's my summary of what has come out of the discussion so far:

a I think that's easily incorporated.
 * No need to separate off "extreme right" from the other similar expressions used (per Jmabel, with others appearing to agree)


 * Who is that does the "normally describing"? (raised by SlamDiego)

It appears to be a mixture of historians, sociologists and political theorists, looking at Eatwell's endnotes. However, I don't think "historians, sociologists and poltical theorists normally describe" would be quite right, on the grounds that egyptologists, for example, may understandably have no particular way of describing fascism. What Eatwell's sources have in common is that they are "specialists on the subject", aleit that they come from different fields. This is the wording I would propose.


 * We should say why it is "extreme right" (per Soxwon, R-41 and UNSC Trooper)

There seem to be two parts to this. Firstly, that some working defintion of "extreme right" is needed. I'd say this is easily acheived by wikilinking the phrase "extreme right". Secondly, that that right-wing characteristics of fascism should be given mention. I broadly agree with UNSC Trooper's list, but would note that we need an RS for everything that goes in such a list. We will also need to be sensible about how long such a list would be. I would propose to everyone who cares about this issue: begin bringing your sources to the talk page, starting from now.


 * We should give details of what aspects of fascism might be considered "left-wing" (per Soxwon and Jmabel - with Jmabel and others taking a more conservative - in the other sense - view as to what these will be)

Again, I think this is a question of "bring forth the sources".

For sources regarding both right-wing and left-wing aspects, I think that it is important that sources are totally explicit in saying "fascism is left/right wing because...". Phrases like "fascists were conservative" or "fascists believed in redistribution" will probably be no help to us, because neither phrase directly tells us anything about the position of fascism on the spectrum, without the need for us to add our own OR.

A further note: I agree with The Four Deuces that Marxist influences on fascism are in no way eveidence with regard to it position on the spectrum. As has been said, all kinds of right-wing movements have Marxist influences and adherents who are former Marxists. This tells us nothing. I think there is a place for that information on the page, but not in this section.

For both right and left aspects, I think this is detail for the body of the section. I would hope that the lead para can be agreed without having to have agreed comprehensive right and left lists.


 * How significant are the dissenting views on this matter? (more significant that the current proposal implies, per Vision Thing and, possibly, R-41 - less significant per Jmabel, The Four Deuces and Mdw0)

Difficult to know what to propose here. It seems to me like we need a source characterising the significance of minority views (eg sources that say "large minority", "fringe view" or something similar). Absent that, we just seem to have a difference of opinion amongst editors.


 * Lastly - thanks for commenting, but please note the following is not proposed as an endpoint, just a staging post - please keep commenting.

Mark 2 proposal (not actually that much different so far, but please keep commenting):


 * 'Specialists on the subject normally describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far-right or 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.'

--FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly take exception (and I haven't been the only one objecting - there is no consensus of editors here) to any statement that it is the normal, prevailing or consensus view that fascism is right wing. Just as some editors have come up with a cite or two that says fascism is normally viewed as right wing, there are those that say the current consensus holds it is a hybrid of socialism: The consensus view is that “fascist ideology represents a synthesis of nationalism and socialism.” here at pp. 22, 19 and The consensus is that there is a “symmetry of fascist and socialist thought”. p. 27. Also here.: “Consensus historians have bolstered their positions by defining fascism a priori as socially and economically radical, thus excluding from consideration some of the most significant right wing authoritarian movements in France during the 1920s and 1930s.” And  here: “The consensus school has interpreted fascism as a radical, left-leaning, anti-capitalist phenomenon with significant proletarian support…” [emphasis added]  While some editors advocate stating that there is a consensus that fascism is right-wing, the literature actually indicates that that purported consensus (promoted mostly in the 60s by Marxist scholars) has waned and no longer prevails. It is not the consensus. Moreover, if we are going to be reporting on former prevailing views we should include the view of just after the war and into the fifies that lumped fascism and communism together and of the interwar period that fascism was a synthesis which was neither left nor right.Mamalujo (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mamlujo. To briefly deal with the sources you present...
 * The first one doesn't refer to a consensus, but the the view of Sternhell, who himself doesn't actually claim that fascism is left-wing as such, but that it is partly socialist. He's already acknowledged as a noteworthy dissenter from the standard view.
 * The second one (p27 of the same book) also doesn't claim fascism to be left wing, it says that the "an alleged symmetry of fascist and socialist thought rarely amounts to anything more than a recognition that both groups have sought to change society..."
 * The third and forth are a bit more interesting, but there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, these are both specifically about the attitudes of French historians to French Fascism of the 1930s. Secondly "consensus historian" is a term of art. It doesn't mean a historian who is part of a consensus, it means a historian who believes in the existence of an ongoing consensus within a society . I would concede the use of the word "dominated" in your source though. This appears to mean that in France there has been a dominant school of thought regarding fascism as "left-leaning". I think that is significant, at least. I wonder what other editors make of this. The endnoted text may be worth looking into as well. It is in French, but it is online here:
 * Your last cite makes the point that, in the post-war years, Nazism and Communism were "lumped together" by some as "totalitarian". I don't doubt the truth in that, but I also don't think it says anything about the position of either on the political spectrum.
 * Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read the source again. It is referring to a consensus.  It is under the heading "The new consensus" (p. 19) and it is referring to a consensus definition of generic fascism.  On p. 22: "The belief that fascist ideology represents a synthesis of nationalism and socialism, (sic) is the second element of the historians' definition."  With regard to the second cite p. 27 you have misread.  I am not saying the book claims fascism to be left wing; the author is a Marxist and claims fascism is right wing, but he is attacking the liberal historians of the consensus. Renton, the author of the book, a Marxist and not a part of the consensus, is critiquing the consensus view that there is a symmetry between fascism and socialism.  He does not agree with the new consensus, but he is not saying there is no consensus or that the consensus does not allege the symmetry between fascism and socialism.  He is specifically saying the consensus alleges that symmetry but that he disagrees with them. With regard to the third and fourth sources, consensus historian may or may not be a term of art but that is beside the point.  The sources are plainly using “consensus” in its colloquial sense  - just two examples:  speaking of a “consensus view” and “A number of non-French historians have challenged this consensus.” p. 266.  The fact that they are speaking about fascism in France is absolutely beside the point.  We are speaking about the nature of generic fascism – some editors claim the normal view is that it is right wing.  How then can the consensus view be that it is left wing in France?  Is communism right wing in France?  All of this makes it plain that an assertion in the article that fascism is “normally” viewed as right wing is untenable.  There is more, and if I must I will further demonstrate the folly of insisting the article give a scholarly consensus regarding fascism's location on a political spectrum, whether it be "right wing" or otherwise.Mamalujo (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, Mamalujo. The text referred to is called The Right in France.  That it is including an in-depth look at socialism at all is indicative of a general sense that Fascism would be covered by a book called The Right in France.  I would add that furthermore, other than that one sentence describing historians viewing fascism as "left-leaning," the whole tenor of the page available from Google Books shows an assumption of Fascism as a phenomenon of the right, suggesting that perhaps it is being discussed as left leaning only within the context of being a right wing movement.  Finally, note that the argument here is not about whether fascism is right wing or left wing.  It's about what "French fascism" consists of.  Did French fascism only consist of tiny movements like Jacques Doriot's PPF or Marcel Déat's RNP?  If so, it might be fair to describe it as "left-leaning" in the sense that Doriot was an ex-communist and Déat an ex-Socialist and that both maintained many of the ideas of their original political ideology within their fascist movements.  Or did French fascism also include (as Nolte and others suggest) homegrown right wing authoritarian movements like the Action Française and the other extra-parliamentary ligues of the 1930s?  If so, that description is inaccurate.  You seem to be cherry-picking a single sentence here from a larger work which does not at all support your argument.  Which, I suppose, is would doing a keyword search of Google Books is supposed to do, but that doesn't mean we should condone such things. john k (talk)
 * As well as asumptions made as to what extreme right views may be, there are certain aspects of the radical left that fascism embodies that may not be 'left' at all, but merely an assumption regarding a modern viewpoint of radical behaviour. Is revolutionary drive an aspect of the radical left, or merely of radicalism, left AND right? In any case its a sideshow of a sideshow and that paragraph looks fine to me. Mdw0 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When discussing the "new consensus" view I think it is best that we stick with the article by Eatwell. Mamalujo has found a few quotes that may appear to contradict Eatwell's understanding of the his own consensus view but I do not think they are appropriate here.  One of them is a quote from an article in the French Right about the post-war National Front.  The article provides as a refererence a journal article in French that discusses Eatwell's theory.  The discussion of what Eatwell actually meant as opposed to what he actually said is interesting but not helpful.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you prolly mean Sternhell rather than Eatwell, FD. It's actually even more complicated than that, I think, but let's not go into it.
 * I agree that it would not be helpful to get bogged down in side-issues. However, I think I should express my bottom line with regard to Mamalujo's sources.
 * 1) Renton. Whatever this source does say, it doesn't say anything about the position of fascism on the political spectrum, so I don't think it needs discussing here. What it does say is well covered elsewhere in the article anyway, particularly in the quote from Roger Griffin in the "Definitions" section.
 * 2) The Right in France. I grant that this is a valid source for a reference in the body of the section to "a dominant interpretation amongst French historians that fascism was left-leaning". I think I'm being very generous with this concession. The introduction to this book: gives a good overview of the issues involved, if anyone finds this an interesting topic. Part of Dobry's essay (the one previously linked in French) can be read in the same book. Note his introductory comment, starting: "...the immunity thesis has been increasingly reluctant to manifest itself...". ie: it is no longer dominant in any event.
 * Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you say Renton's book doesn't say anything about the political spectrum. It makes me think you are being willfully ignorant or disengenuous, but I will put that aside and assume good faith.  His commentary on the consensus in fascism studies is explicitly arguing that the consensus is wrong and that fascism is right wing.  The consensus says there is a symmetry between fascism and socialism and that there was a continuity from socialism through proto-fascism into fascism.  He disagrees.  Read the first paragraph on p. 27.  He is unequivocally arguing against the consensus which rejected the simplistic characterizing of fascism as right wing.Mamalujo (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that these sources say anything except about a dominant school of analysis of French fascism - and this seems, in particular, to be a view which has come under attack more recently. Furthermore, the whole point of this school of analysis would appear to be that French fascism was unsuccessful because it remained "left-leaning."  Fascists in Italy and Germany took power by allying with the traditional right.  This course, say the "consensus historians" of France, was unavailable to French fascists, thus leaving them as tiny fringe groups.  But it is very problematic to generalize from France (a country where Fascism never came to power) to fascism as a whole. john k (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mamalujo: The section you cited in Renton talks about the views of four historians; Payne, Eatwell, Sternhell and Griffin; who each posit - not unreasonably - that there are elements in fascism which can be traced to or associated with socialism. My impression is that no-one who has been been involved in these discussions would dismiss this general idea. What Renton's book (or, at least, the passages you have cited) does not do is tell us what conclusions can be drawn from this, if any, as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum. We might draw conclusions for ourselves, but these belong in our own heads and on the talk page, otherwise it is WP:OR.
 * For a comparison, many have argued similarities, influences etc between Marxism and neoliberalism. For example, the theories of Karl Popper, basically Marxist, were enormously infuential on Hayek, Milton Friedman and even Margaret Thatcher. The Chicago School based much of its theorising around the Marxist/Comptian analysis of competition formulated by Durkheim. Does this make neoliberalism Marxist? Well, don't think about it too long, because it would be OR in any case.
 * You draw particular attention to the bit about a "symmetry between fascism and socialism". You appear to think this means fascism might be left wing. But I would draw a contrary interpetation. "Symmetry", to my mind, involves the idea that they behave similarly but are on opposite sides. You don't have to agree. As to which of our views belongs in the article: neither, they both belong in our heads until one of us finds an RS that agrees with us.
 * Cheers.--FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The notion that Popper was “basically Marxist” would have disturbed, amused, or outraged Popper, whose epistemology was largely a reaction to the way in which Marxists of his day refused to see falsification of their predictions as proof of anything but their own mistaken application of Marxist theory, and whose political prescriptions were quite liberal. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but we're about to go wildly off topic. You get the basic point. "Socialist" or "left-wing" can be substituted for "Marxist", if you like. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic point, as I interpretted it, was sound. This specific claims about historical influences were at best quite problematic. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues I think we should clarify is whether fascism was an ideology or a type of government. The "consensus" historians (and I question just how much consensus there is about their views) define fascism as an ideology developed by the Fascists (1919-1921) and later copied (maybe) by the Nazis but not adopted by any other party that later came to power. Although the consensus historians say nothing about the place of fascist ideology policitical spectrum they state that it is generally considered extemely right-wing and that fascist government was right-wing. This entire article seems to follow the consensus historians' definition. There is no discussion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, the Second World War or the Holocaust in this article. We already have separate articles for Fascism and ideology and Definitions of fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone here has presented in this discussion any scholarly definitions of what left-wing and right-wing mean. If we had a clear picture of what they meant by the views of multiple scholars, then a more enlightened discussion can take place. But now all that is going on is a discussion based on semantics, please find multiple scholarly sources on what left-wing and right-wing mean and present them on the discussion board. Then an informed discussion can take place.--R-41 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could present your view. I presented mine long ago, which was the definition Lipset gave in Political Man and which I assumed was the standard definition.  However you challenged that definition and I would be appreciative if you could state what you consider it to be.  Here is what I said:  User_talk:R-41.  Here is what you replied:  User_talk:The_Four_Deuces and User_talk:The_Four_Deuces.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One definition that tries to summarize views of political scientist on political spectrum says that: "The right of the spectrum is usually associated with tradition, individualism, liberty and free enterprise with the left asserts change, equality, collectivism and the common ownership of the resources." -- Vision Thing -- 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Individualism is a liberal ideal, though. So that makes the aforementioned definition somewhat erroneous. Following that definition, fascism would fit the left's characteristics: change (social progressivism), equality and collectivism (nationalism), and common ownership of resources (corporatism, more or less). --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

R-41, I'm unlear as to why you think brigning forward defintions of "right-wing" will help. If you are saying this because it appears to you that some people have a poor understanding of the term, then maybe those people should be encouraged to better inform themselves. Perhaps they could start by looking at Right-wing politics.

If, on the other hand, you are proposing that we should proceed by first deciding on an agreed defintion of "right-wing" and then holding a debate to decide whether or not fascism fits the bill, then this would be an excercise in collective WP:OR, and so I do not think it would be useful in terms of the current discussion.

For what it is worth though, I don't think a working defintion for our purposes needs to be at all complicated. My own version would be: "Right-wing politics opposes egalitarianism and supports instead the maintenance of social hierarchy". --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then if it's original research to find a definition of left-wing and right-wing to apply to the information on the political spectrum in this article, then it is pointless to even debate the position on the political spectrum because according to sources the vast majority of scholars say that fascism is right-wing, other conclusions are lesser arguments. We must then say the following "Most scholars define fascism as right-wing though some define it as left-wing and others define it as centrist." That is the only conclusion that can then be drawn from the vast array of sources available.--R-41 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * n Political Man (1960), p. 222, Lipset wrote "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes." User:Vision Thing's reference to the positions right and left are "usually associated with" today is consistent with this definition.  Lipset coined the term "radical right" in "The Sources of the 'Radical Right'" (1955):  "This group is characterized as radical because it desires to make far-reaching changes in [national] institutions, and because it seeks to eliminate from [national] political life those persons and institutions which threaten either its values, or its economic interests."  There is also the literal definition of the Right, the parties that sit on the right side of European parliamentary bodies.  The Nazis for example sat on the far right of the Reichstag, and European parliaments continue to seat neo-fascists on the far right.


 * Incidentally fascists did not support "equality" or "common ownership of resources".


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lipset's definition of “right” is the sort popular with many, but rather obviously not the sort that most self-styled “conservatives” would use — unless they were willing to deny that conservatism were right-wing.
 * Is the “political spectrum” section is going to be prefaced with explicit definitions of “left” and “right”? Or is this all just a struggle to see who gets to spin the associations?
 * As to your assertion that fascists did not support common ownership of resources, that's at best misleading. Ownership is not a façade of title; it is actual right of control.  While fascists rejected equal representation of members within what they regarded as the community; they imputed to that community the actual right of control.  It would be plainly false to deny that fascists did not support communal ownership of resources. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a violation of WP:OR to decide on a definition of “left” and of “right” unless the definition were a sort of invention by the editors. Essentially, the proper formula would be to select a preëstablished definition, associated with some set of authorities, and make it very plain in the section that the definition of those authorities were being used.
 * Possibly, more than one “notable” set of definitions could be presented, with fascism's resulting categorization noted for each. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That definition happens to summarize what right-wing meant during the period in question, and it as it would be understood in the academic community studying fascism. The Nolan Chart and Cleon Skousen's theories had yet to be published and modern American conservatism did not yet exist.  The idea that fascists abolished private property de facto is a valid but minority opinion that should not be given undue emphasis.  (I think the Austrian view was that under fascism private property would disappear, not that it did.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If a definition that prevailed in the interwar period and no longer prevails in common political discourse is to be used, then it is especially important that the definition be explicitly provided and attributed.
 * Your earlier claim was baldly that fascists did not support “common ownership of resources”; you did not make a claim about what some alleged mainstream did or did not acknowledge. It's neither a fringe theory that actual ownership is right of control, nor that fascists sought to take control of resources by a combination of nationalization and regulation. (The Austrian School is hardly unique in acknowledging that fascists supported communal ownership of resouces.) If you want to claim that a mainstream looks away when it comes to the logical combination of these two points, well, that may be; a survey of the literature would be required to determine that point.  But it's simple ad hominem to wave-away the explosion of your original claim as “fringe”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the proposed paragraph. It is simple, concise and it gives what seems to me to be correct weight to the three viewpoints. Obviously there is a lot it doesn't say but it gives the reader a good general idea of what the situation is and subsequent paragraphs can elaborate on each viewpoint and explain how they are predicated on significantly different understandings of left and right. I think it is very important that complicated matters like this are presented in a way that general readers can follow, not just as a confusing stream of conflicting ideas and terminology. I am not really knowledgeable enough to pronounce on the more subtle arguments above but I would like to make the unsubtle point that not everything labelled as a "consensus" actually is one (see my forthcoming book, Broccoli: The World's Favourite Vegetable) and that the consensus that really matters is that of international mainstream academics, although the popular consensus is also of interest. I will admit that my understanding comes through the school system and the media rather than serious study of this, so I can only really pronounce on popular perceptions, but maybe this is worth throwing into the pot anyway: In the UK, it is taught in schools, and pretty much universally accepted by the mainstream media, that Fascism is basically a right wing ideology when placed within the conventional left-right continuum. This has been the case for a long time. Few right wing people (politicians, commentators, columnists, etc) in the UK seem to feel the need to try to offload Fascism onto the Left in order to repudiate it. Those that do are taken about as seriously as those Socialists that occasionally claimed that Stalin was right wing as a way to repudiate him. Of course, the more you read about he subject the more you realise that there is more to it that the simple classification of "right wing", but that still forms the starting point of most people's thinking here. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent perceptions are elsewhere, particularly in continental Europe. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If people want to know what "right-wing" means they can click on the piped links. I appreciate that John Birchers consider themselves right-wing and argue that the French monarchy and fascists were left-wing and the French Revolution was led by right-wingers.  But that remains a minority opinion.  (BTW I changed "fringe" to "valid but minority" out of politeness.)  But Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. (please see WP:Weight).  Incidentally, if one clicks extreme right, far right, radical right, or ultra-right, one finds an article that clearly includes fascism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As to your last point, I remind you that Wikipedia itself is not a “reliable source”.
 * As to changing “fringe” to “valid but minority”: First note that making that change in that manner after I replied to it represents a falsification whose effect is to make my comment seem delusional. The proper way to effect a change is with at strike-through.  Second, you've simply replaced a harsh ad hominem argument with a mild ad hominem.  The point remains that any claim that the fascists did not support communal ownership of resources is easily falsified.  Invocation of WP:OR or of WP:UNDUE is utterly irrelevant to the refutation of bald claims made here.  Again, if you instead want to claim something such as “Mainstream scholarship does not note that fascists supported communal ownership of property”, then you may have a case.  But any bald claim that the fascists did not support communal ownership of property holds no water. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually changed "fringe" to "valid but minority" before you replied to it, as is apparent in the edit history. (You must have had an edit conflict.)  I appreciate that there are different ways of looking at issues relating to how right-wing fascism really was, and agree that the article should mention all of these.  The only question is what weight should be given to the different views.  While Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, it contains internal links that enable to readers to easily find additional information on terms used in articles (which is why the links exist).  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slam, it does not really look like Four Deuces was attempting to make you look delusional. Nor is "fringe theory" normally an ad hominem epithet, but merely a way of designating a minority or tiny-minority view which opposes a clear mainstream. It can be incorrect, but I fail to see how it's an attack. Either way, it's best (here on the article Talk page, anyway) to focus on topical discussion rather than dwell on perceived slights from another editor. At this point, I'm not sure what you are arguing: are you saying that Fascism is not normally viewed as a right-wing ideology? Or are you merely concerned about how the wording in the article will reflect opinions that this classification is incorrect/simplistic/whatever or that it should be classified as something else? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't speaking to motive; I was speaking to behavior. Editing a comment after a reply should be done in a way that does not distort interpretation of the reply.
 * Whether “fringe” or “minority” are normally ad hominem argument isn't particularly relevant. Again, the Four Deuces made a bald claim of fact; the claim was exploded; the refutation was then waved it away based upon a claim that it is a fringe or minority view-point — the factuality of which subsequent claim has not been established but is in any case irrelevant. (I have repeatedly noted the distinction between his bald claim, and a claim that the mainstream has not acknowledged fascistic support for communal ownership.)
 * The principal issue isn't one of perceived slights per se; it is of rejecting fallacious modes of discourse.
 * And that gets to what I've mostly been arguing so far: that fallacious argument about classification should be rejected.
 * I've already presented an honest formula for how to write the section: Report the definitions of “left”, “right”, and “center” from “notable” sources, with in-text attribution to those sources, and report how those sources classify fascism. Plainly, I'm not arguing that the article should assert that fascism is left-wing nor that it should deny that it is either left-wing or right-wing.
 * As to where I think that fascism ought to be classified, that's not particularly important to how the article is written; I would follow scientific protocols, and the article is not an exercise in science. However, the protocols of Wikipedia don't require me to smile and nod at nonsense on the Talk page. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a more complicated version but it is a best compromise between two sides that I have managed to compose:

''Question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre is a contentious issue for specialist on the subject. While it is normally described as "extreme right" such terminology is often used erratically  and scholarly consensus is that fascism was influenced by both left and right. A good number of historians see fascism as "a doctrine of the revolutionary centre" or as a mixture of left and right. Moreover, a number of scholars highlight aspects of fascist ideology which are typically associated with the left.'' -- Vision Thing -- 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is acceptable. For one, I think it formerly was normally characterized as right wing and I think the new consensus has changed that.  The current view is that it is synthesis, syncretic, sui generis.  Also, the former normative view that it was right wing was among anglophone scholars.  Plainly the consensus among francophone scholars is that it was left wing.  There is also the problem that the normative view was different in the interwar period, during the war, and after the war.  The once prevailing view that fascism was right wing was the fourth of five prevailing views in the historiography of fascism studies.Mamalujo (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mamlujo: You need a source to back up your contention. You can't validy object on the basis that you think it is wrong, only on the basis that there is a source that says it is wrong.
 * Vision thing: I don't think there's anything factually inaccurate, but its a question of what is the right emphasis. The fact that there is a hegonomic view on the question should not be demoted in order to give greater prominence to the fact that there is contention. The first sentence should give the most basic and important facts. The lead in an article on evolution would not begin: "Question of whether Charles Darwin's theories have any validity is a contentious issue for specialist on the subject". Also the left-right influence refence is appropriate for the body but not for the lead para, since it is not a determiner as to where fascism lies on the spectrum, as discussed above(your para gives the misleading impression that it might be). Also the word "erratically" would need explaining (ie in what way erratically).--FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate slightly, the first sentence would reflect what an impartial commentator would say if they were allowed only one short response to the question: "what's the academic view as to where fascism lies on the political spectrum". They would say: "most think it is right wing". They would not say: "it is a contentious matter", because that would not be a fair representation.--FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't the first sentence instead reflect what an impartial commentator would say if allowed only one short answer to the question “Where does fascism lie on the political spectrum?”?
 * Your analogy with biological evolution is problematic because very different protocols drive consensus in biology, and far more in the way of a common taxonomy. (It's not as if one biologist might nearly reverse the meanings of “parent” and “offspring”.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, for WP purposes that is saying the same thing, because POV is irrelevant, we need to refer to sources. (I think the answer is the same in any case). The paragraph should be constructed in such a way that if you take the first sentence you get the essential info. If you take the second, you get more detail. And so on. If the first sentence does not, in iteself, give an accurate sumamry, then the thing has been constructed wrongly.
 * I'm not sure I understand the second point you make. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the proposition that the point-of-view should be neutral isn't the same claim as that it is somehow irrelevant, and Vision Thing appears to be providing a source for the point that the classificaion is contentious. He appears to begin by answering the question “Where does fascism lie on the political spectrum?” much as I would answer some question where there was no controversy and I had not formed an opinion.  As far as the logic is concerned, the fact that the matter is contentious is more significant than a claim that presently most scholars have at least used the label “right” for fascism.
 * When biologist talk about the theory of evolution, they basically have a shared taxonomy — the labels mean pretty much the same thing to everyone. That simply doesn't obtain here.  And if biologists used terms in ways that conflicted with lay usage, then the Wikipedia article would either explain the technical jargon, or avoid it.  Here, we have scholars who don't all use the same labels for the same things, and what some here are insisting is the standard usage amongst scholars certainly isn't the same as that amonst lay-people yet there's an insistence that these labels not be explained here.  Further, biologists arrive at conceptual and theoretical consensus differently than do social thinkers.  The analogy between how biologic theory should be treated and how labels and taxonomies of social thought should be treated is weak. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...much as I would answer some question where there was no controversy and I had not formed an opinion" - would you really answer a question where there was "no controversy" by saying "this is a contentious issue"?
 * VT isn't so much providing a source as promoting a source so that it occupies the first sentence. Amongst editors generally, though, there seems to be an overwhelming view that "academics see fascism as right wing" is the correct place to put the main focus, and a number feel that the version of the paragraph proposed already gave too much attention to minority views. Whilst this isn't necessarily decisive (event though it is overwhelming), to ignore the consensus and propose an alternative para which gives more attention to minority views, to the point of giving them the main billing, looks like a case of WP:IDHT.
 * I still don't undertstand your point about taxonomy. None of the sources propose any alternative understanding of the standard left-right spectrum. Is it your contention that they are inconsistent in this respect? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I miswrote. The “no” was an artefact of recomposing and not fully removing the replaced expression.
 * No one made the claim that the reason for Vision Thing was primarily to provide a source; the point is that the assertion with which he begins is one for which he has provided a source.
 * I do not agree with your assertion about there being some overwhelming consensus here. My perception is that there are two groups of editors, each relatively few in number, who actually give a d_mn.
 * Moreover, Vision Thing proposes to accept the proposition that a majority of specialists classify fascism as right-wing; he simply proposes to begin by noting that the issue is contentious.
 * Rather than editing disruptively, Vision Thing appears to me to have been trying to get this thrashed-out on the Talk page.  I don't fully agree with his proposal (as anyone ought to infer), but it strikes me as an act of good faith.
 * I don't know how more simply I can spell this out:
 * The theory of evolution is not a taxonomy, whereäs it is taxonomy and the presentation of taxonomic classification that is being argued here. One could explain the theory of evolution without the taxonomy of biologists; alternately, one could grossly mislead readers about the theory of evolution by expressing truths with poorly or malevolently selected jargon.
 * The difference amongst specialists about the classification of fascism is in part a difference in the underlying definitions of “left” and “right” being used. Part of the reason for the dispute is a failure of some to be explicit about their definitions.
 * There isn't a standard left-right spectrum. And certainly the notion cited from Lipset doesn't fit the lay-taxonomies which most readers will bring to the article with them.  It would be actively abusive to classify fascism as left-wing or as right-wing or as center if the reader isn't told in this article what those terms should be taken to mean here. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Current works do not support the claim, hence would be a disservice to readers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese "para-Fascism"
The article says that Japan is "para-fascist" because it lacked a revolutionary goal. However, I am sure I have read Alexandre Kojeve writing that Japan has, in fact, been considerably more succesful in overcoming the difficulty of the nihilism deriving from the modernist "end of history" conundrum, than either Europe or America have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.106.25 (talk) 24 June, 2009
 * The article is discussing the militarist government during WWII not contemporary politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll
A straw poll as I think we've pretty much argued all that can be argued and we need to reach some sort of conclusion. I propose we form a paragraph that says that it was right-wing for the most part, but that mentions it's left-wing characteristics and adaptability. ''Fascism is defined as ultimately being a right-wing, authoritarian system that combined the dissident views of socialists with the nationalism of early 19th century Europe. However, it's placement on the left-right political spectrum has been described as problematic due to the conflicting and competing left-wing and right-wing characteristics. Some of its left-wing characteristics include the movement's initation residing in labour and syndicalist organizations and the self-denial of marxism. Scholars speculate as to the reason for the ambiguous nature and some claim that Fascism is not truly right-wing.''

Is this acceptable? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That it was first considered "right" is proper, but that it is in current terms not uniformly placed anywhere specific is also true.  Thus "Early fascism was generally considered part of the right, but later groups were self-odentified as centre, or even left-wing in outlook.  There is also debate as to whenter fascism, per se, is "left, right, or centre."  is probably defendable.  Collect (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Wikilinks to articles on iffily-defined concepts are like linking to Jell-o -- one big issue is that the current articles, however admirable they are or were, are not going to be static, and next week might be entirely different from the meanings sought to be given here. Hence I feel that giving emphasis to the "political spectrum" will never be an accurate depiction of Fascism as a total political system. It tool a long time to agree than using a dozen or more things Fascism opposes made no sense -- it makes no sense to discuss a political spectrum which is not considered irrelevsnt by a slew of historians and political scientists. Collect (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed conclusion asserts a classification as bald fact, instead of associating it with a school or schools of thought, and provides no explanation of what is meant by “right-wing” and by “left-wing”.  It basically presents a hopelessly unclear proposition as unquestioned truth. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So you want us to provide definitions for words that have their own articles? Should we just eliminate the practice of Wikilink? And really your argument is based on one or two scholars whilst a majority, both contemporary and historic, agree that fascism, while having marxist characteristics, is indeed right-wing. Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Articles on the various meanings of the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” don't explain what they mean here, or coming from the pen of this-or-that specific scholar. You might as well link to a disambiguation page, and hope for the reader to guess the correct path.  And, no, I'm not basing my argument on one or two scholars. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply ...There is one "right-wing" and one "left-wing" article. They are working to cover all the major viewpoints on these subjects, we can't and shouldn't try to do that here. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist. As for the scholars, alright, so there may be a third, it's still in the minority. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: While there is only one article for each, these articles do not have just one definition, nor should they, which is why I advisedly said “You might as well link to a disambiguation page”. No one has suggested that we try to provide every definition of “right-wing” and “left-wing”; I have said that we need to make it plain which definitions are actually used here.  I'm not creating a problem; rather, various parties, for varying reasons, are refusing to acknowledge a problem that is plainly present. (And, if you wanted to debate this, then you should have joined the active threads, instead of starting a new section that you've made wholly redundant.  Your supposed straw poll operationalizes as just another forking of the proposals.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll -> straw man -> fascist-like. Also the intro with quotes from Mussolini is very bad, we should stick with the scholars.--Sum (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously, but I would also make the point that the straw poll sort of duplicates what we have been doing over the past week or so.
 * We have been discussing a proposed lead paragraph which does exactly what Soxwon proposes. 13 editors supported this proposal. Some had other comments, but none agreed with the grounds for oppositon presented. 4 opposed the proposal (on the respective grounds that fascism is sui generis, "right and left" have no clear commonly-agreed meaning, primary emphasis should be given to the existence of minority views and the scholarly view has shifted significantly since 1992). 1 was equivocal (R-41 - please say if you think this is misrepresenting you). 1 participated but expressed no opinion.
 * My view is that we already have enough of a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one suggested a "minority view be given primary emphasis" etc. Misstating positions is not going to get anywhere. And the shift in usage of "political spectrum" dates back to Nolan's work -- well before 1992.  Making such claims as to the views of others does not promote consensus, and certainly does not affect the fact that current professional views are that "political spectrum" is ill-applied to the conceptes of Fascism.   And consensus can not rationally override verifiability per WP:V. Collect (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vision Thing proposed an alternative wording which gave primary emphasis not to a particular minority view, but to the existence of minority views in general ("...contentious issue..."). The reference to 1992 is germane to your own recent comment, where you seem to be suggesting that the depiction given as an authority (Eatwell) is now out of date. It was published in 1992, so you appeared to me to be saying that the view has changed since then. Apologies if I am misunderstanding - perhaps you can clarify what you meant. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading what I write is better than using your own inferences. Really. The death of the "political spectrum" occurred before 1992.   There arem in fact, two isses -- what part of the political sxpectrum, if it is applicable, did Mussolini belong in? And, more importantly, since this is an article about all Fascism, what part of the political spectrum, if applicable, does fascism qua fascism belong in?  For the former, "right" was generally accepted at the time. For the latter, the issue is far more complex, and "right" is clearly the "wrong" answer -- since most recent political scientists now dispute the use of a "political spectrum" as being generally applicable to "Fascism."  Collect (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect: he clearly stated that he was unsure of what you meant. He clearly stated what it was that he thought you meant. He clearly apologized if he was mistaken. He clearly asked you to please clarify what you meant, in order to correct him, if he was mistaken. Despite all that, your immediate response was to criticize him for trying to figure out what you meant. How could this possibly be seen as constructive or even sensible? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I clearly made no personal attack, and I would think that interjecting yourself into a colloquy without furnishing any real input is not a wise use of talkpage space. My posts had been quite succinct and clear, as you should well note.  Thank you most kindly.  The multi-dimensional models used to supercede the single line "spectrum" date back to 1970 or ealier, which I think is before 1992.  Collect (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He attempted to state your position, and asked you to correct him if he had misunderstood. You responded with a fairly scathing rebuke in which you appeared to nonsensically complain that it was inappropriate for him to have attempted to state your position. This did not make sense and it was inappropriate for you to respond by complaining about his comment, when there had been nothing wrong with his comment. It was a simple question to which you responded with unprovoked snark and sarcasm. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay, no offence taken. Please understand, though, Collect, that I need to be able to understand your position in order to be able to respond to it. Is it fair to say that your position is that you place low value on the Eatwell source on the grounds that "most recent political scientists now dispute the use of a political spectrum as being generally applicable to fascism"? If so, then what you need to do next is produce an RS that states this. Until you do that, you'll understand, surely, the reasons why Eatwell's view has to be taken more seriously than yours.
 * A couple of notes of caution, which have been mentioned previously:
 * Beware of WP:SYN. You need to provide one or more sources that explicitly make the same claim you are making. Eight sources none of which actually make the claim won't cut it.
 * Note that the existence of multi-dimensional models of viewing political positions in relation to one another in no way invalidates the concepts of left and right. Indeed, most popular multi-dimensional models, far from rejecting the standard l-r spectrum, actually adopt and incorporate it.
 * Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um -- the way WP works is by looking at reliable sources, not by assertion of expertise in the field by the editors. As a result, the 18 cites I gave before would seem to carry significant weight, and we have neither the expertise nor ability to aver that Eatwell is in any way superior to the others. As no one has furnished more than 18 sources for their position, I would aver that 18 counts as significant. Unless, of course, you wish to state special expertise in the field? Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Drawing a conclusion of your own from 18 cites, none of which in themeselves support your conclusion is WP:SYN. The number of sources you are able to provide doesn't prove anything more than how much time you have spent googling. Please give it some thought. --FormerIP (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment To Former IP, instead of counting those for against, etc., as you've done above, why don't we let the editors themselves state their support or opposition in this straw poll. Mamalujo (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not stopping them. I'm just pointing out that we've basically already done this once. And I don't mind saying once again, it was 13-4 in favour of the proposal with two abstaining/undecided.--FormerIP (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no current consensus that fascism is right wing. The source which purports to say so is merely an off the cuff statement about one author’s view of the scholarly landscape prior to the currently dominant approach. Almost all commentators state that placing it on a left right "political spectrum" is problematic.  Almost all admit that fascism incorporates elements of right and left.  Many scholars, particularly a consensus among French scholars, characterize fascism as leftist. And the current (anglophone) consensus does not employ an approach which emphasizes left or right but does speak of fascism's symmetry with socialism.  Characterizing the predominant view of scholars re fascism being left or right is a slippery task, especially in a field with such flux and disagreement. Such a task obviously is a POV magnet, will result in unending reverts by editors who did not participate in this discussion, and is arguably not NPOV but a product of editor bias.  The article should just summarize what the various approaches are.  Mamalujo (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose as noted above by a number of editors. The lede sentence should only state that there is no absolute position agreed upon. Collect (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you are going to have a straw pole, you need to propose specific language to use. The specific language used in the straw poll is imprecise and I would oppose using anything like it in the article, even though I largely agree with the basic premise.  I'd also like to note that Mamalujo, above, is taking material completely out of context and citing it in a deeply misleading way.  There is absolutely no consensus among French scholars that fascism is leftist.  That's simply absurd.  Scholars of French fascism (not the same thing, by the way, as French scholars) have generally seen French fascism as having left wing elements as compared with other French right-wing movements.  This view does not really say that, in the larger context of the political spectrum as a whole, fascism is left wing, and it has no bearing on interpretations of fascism in other countries, because it is specifically focused on French fascism.  (Moreover, it is based on a very narrow definition of fascism which excludes the more traditionally right-wing movements from its definition - a definition which has been disputed).  So, anyway, terrible poll question, general support of some statement of fascism as being generally seen as a right wing phenomenon, and Mamalujo still making misleading arguments. john k (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think calling the poll question "terrible" is a bit strong. It seems to me like a good faith attempt to capture what the issue is. That said, I don't think the discussion it has encouraged so far is going to get us anywhere. We seem to be just retreading old ground.
 * I personally find the French "consensus school" thing quite interesting and probably worthy of a mention in the article. Perhaps you disagree and perhaps it is me being a nerd. In any event, I would suggest it should be parked for now because, whatever anyone's view is on the issue in general, the French consensus school view is clearly not the main feature. It can be added in later. It is a particularly tricky thing to get one's head around, I think, and, with all the arguments going on at present, it would be better put to one side and dealt with later. To do it proper justice is probably going to require referring to sources in French, and that would alienate most people involved in the current discussion, I imagine. --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly it was a good faith attempt, I just don't think it was a very successful attempt, nor do I think Soxwon's current version is much better. As to the French "consensus school," I think the key point is that Mamalujo's use of it is misleading, as are most of his other "citations."  Mamalujo apparently believes that articles can be sourced by searching particular phrases on Google Books and then grabbing any out of context quote that seems to justify views that he already holds.  Beyond that, I don't know that sources in French would necessarily be required - as I said before, the argument is not that historians who come from France think that Fascism is left wing, it's that historians who study France have dealt with fascism in France in this way.  I would add my sense, without being completely certain, that the "consensus school" is not exactly calling French fascism left-wing, just noting its roots on the left.  Further, it seems pretty clear that this "consensus school" is not actually a consensus - the citations provided make it clear that this was a consensus several decades ago, but that it has come under some challenge. john k (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the proposal to something more definite. I've tried to incorporate all views, but any suggestions are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)
 * So, is this a straw poll where that upon which people are voting changes in the middle of the vote? (In any event, you don't seem to have tried very hard to address the problem that “left-wing” and “right-wing” are undefined here.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I have turned my vague proposal into something more definite at the request of several editors. And that "problem" appears to be your own conjecture. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've modified the proposal during the ostensible poll, before there was a clear close to the poll on the original proposal; you're simply fostering confusion.
 * My objection isn't a conjecture, and I'm not the only editor making it. (And, even if I were, your pretense to have “tried to incorporate all views” is exploded.)
 * You were ostensibly trying to bring debate to an end, but what you've done is just to fork it. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Soxwon - this seems to be worse than the proposed language we were discussing earlier - Former IP's language of 20:34 22 June 2009 above seems much better to me than this, and as such I oppose the proposal. john k (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What do we need to say?
I think the big question here is what points the discussion of fascism's place on the political spectrum needs to get across. Roughly in order of importance, I'd suggest the following:
 * 1) That fascism has conventionally been seen as a right-wing phenomenon
 * 2) That specialists are frequently uncomfortable with seeing fascism as simply on the right, and that some, at least, have rejected its placement on the right at all
 * 3) That fascist movements were frequently, but not always, founded by figures whose political background was on the left (e.g. Mussolini in Italy, Doriot and Déat in France, Mosley in Britain), and that all fascist movements incorporated at least some elements of left-wing thought and practice into their ideologies and organizations
 * 4) That, to the extent that fascism has self-identified its place on the political spectrum, this has typically been as being on the right.
 * 5) That the issue is complicated by the question of what types of regime, precisely, are to be considered fascist, and that a variety of undisputedly right-wing regimes (e.g. Vichy, Franco's Spain, the various authoritarian right wing regimes in eastern Europe in the interwar period, Salazar's Portugal, and so forth) have sometimes been classified as fascist, although most specialists would tend to reject that label.
 * 6) That explicit fascists in power have always had to do so in some sort of formal or informal coalition with the non-fascist right, but that non-fascist right wing regimes have also frequently suppressed or ignored fascist movements.
 * 7) That a relatively small number of commenters, frequently non-fascist liberal-conservative right-wing types, have tried to identify fascism as being a phenomenon of the left

I think that we should be very clear not to conflate Point 2 - that many specialists are uncomfortable putting fascism on the political spectrum as a right wing movement - with Point 8 - that some conservatives like to point out that the Nazi Party was called the "National Socialist Party" - and I fear that distinction has been being elided by a lot of the people who are opposed to saying that fascism has typically been seen to be on the right.

I'm not sure how to get all this across, or what the best way of doing so is, but I think it would make sense to try to get a sense of where we all agree and disagree. john k (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one point that I can think and have mentioned, it was given an ambiguous nature so that it could be adapted to the situation at hand. Soxwon (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, from the straw poll we had three votes opposing and one vote supporting (two if you count the proposal). Doesn't look like we yet have any consensus for stating that fascism is normally seen as right wing. Mamalujo (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We also had several ppl complain about the wording and what the straw poll was, so you can't say there isn't either. Especially from the number of ppl in the other discussions who said there was. Soxwon (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are probably some editors who have not commented because they are in disbelief that anyone would dispute the claim that fascism is ordinarily seen as right-wing. No offense to Slam, Mama, et al, but you're pushing a fringe view, and it may be difficult for some people to take the discussion seriously. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone is in disbelief that is probably because he didn't read any books on Fascism. I think it would be better if we would focus less on personal opinions of editors about place of fascism on political spectrum, and more on opinions of scholars. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. A contrary opinion by even 100% of all the reputable scholars would not change the fact that laypeople ordinarily see fascism as right-wing. That's why, for instance, that's what it says in the dictionary.


 * If there truly is a demonstrable scholarly consensus that fascism cannot or should not be classified as right-wing (and, I think we've yet to see any synthesizing source which directly supports this claim), then by all means that should be represented, but not to the point of omitting the traditional lay view entirely. If it's something less than a consensus, or even a minority view, then that really should only be discussed in the body of the article. And, again, individual citations of individual authors who are themselves asserting a proper placement of fascism into or outside of a spectrum are not helpful. Again, what we need is a reputable synthesizing source, and for a claim this broad I would think it would be preferable to take sourcing from something along the scope of a mainstream "survey" view of the subject. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Factchecker atyourservice, please try to identify where I have denied that fascism is ordinarily seen by lay-people or by scholars as “right-wing”. I take major offense at your actively misrepresenting what I've been saying, and I strongly encourage you to stop editing with the name “Factchecker”, as you plainly don't check the facts. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Again --  the "common perception" of Mussolini was that his Fascism was on the right. That "fascism" as a movement is now viewed by many political scientists as not being readily placed on any left-right spectrum, and that many now reject such a linear spectrum for fascism at all. That some aspects of fascism are found "left, right and centre" and that there is significant debate about any placement of fascism as a whole on any political spectrum. Also that multi-dimensional political models are now in wide use. We should also be aware that the simple definition of "left" and "right" differs widely from nation to nation, and that which is "right" in one nation may be considered "left" in others. Lastly we should be aware that Fascism has as its greatest for Libertarianism, which is generally considered in the US to be "right." Collect (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please help me understand what you are saying.


 * Are you saying that currently the popular understanding of fascism is not that it refers to right-wing, authoritarian ideology or government?
 * Are you saying that currently the prevailing academic opinion of fascism is that it cannot or should not be classified as right-wing?
 * Are you saying that currently the prevailing academic opinion of fascism is that it defies placement within a traditional left-right spectrum?


 * I think the best way to proceed is for us to reach some kind of agreement on whether this view, that fascism is not right-wing, is a minority view. My current belief, susceptible to persuasion, is that it is a minority view. Although I admit that this is in accord with everything I have ever learned about fascism – which, admittedly, is not much – I feel that the OED adequately substantiates this view by defining fascism, in various versions, as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government", "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice", and "loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism".


 * So, do you feel that these view(s) that you advocate are minority or majority views, and of what, or whom? And whatever the prevalence you claim, is there some source which directly claims how prevalent the view is? Or are there only many sources supporting the particular view but saying nothing about its prevalence among political scientists/historians/whomever? Moreover, is there any reason why the lead of this article should not state that fascism (lower-case, i.e. not Mussolini, but the general concept) is generally understood as right-wing? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also that multi-dimensional political models are now in wide use. Seriously? Can we disregard the views of anybody who mentions multi-dimensional political models? So far as I can tell, multi-dimensional political models are used by libertarians, and pretty much nobody else. Certainly they are utterly useless for historical analysis - I can't think of a historian who would use such a thing. The basic problem with these models is that they do ridiculous things like imagine that the economic right is defined by its commitment to the free market, which is a nonsensical view that would basically exclude all nineteenth century right wing groups from being considered right wing. Obviously a left right spectrum that goes back to the French Revolution can't really be seen to have much uniformity in policy views, and it's absurd to try to define it in that way. It's always a relative spectrum. And in what possible sense is Fascism's greatest foe libertarianism? Putting aside the fact that there was no such thing as libertarianism in the interwar period when fascism is actually a significant political movement, I'd think that the socialists who fought fascist thugs in the streets while the capitalists invited Hitler and Mussolini to take over would disagree with this. Collect's whole post strikes me as libertarian nonsense. john k (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Going slightly off topic) Collect, much of what you have just said is reasonable, subject to the use of the word "many", which I would characterise as POV in any context where its use is anything other than indisputable. "A number" or "some" would be preferable. 18 sources does not necessarily equal "many".
 * I take exception to your last sentence though. You say "Fascism has as its greatest for Libertarianism". There's an obvious typo there. I think the correct spelling is "ally". I can assure you that contemporary European neo-fascism does not see American Libertarianism as a "foe". That's not relevant here, but please try to avoid proseletising. --FormerIP (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently, your framework lumps libertarians together with fascists. I daresay that some of the allegedly disruptive editors here have been trying to prevent such lumping being accomplished by stealth. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I don't think anyone has suggested mentioning Libertarianism in the article. Let's not be drawn into an irrelevant area of discussion. I think Factchecker's comments above are the ones that should be addressed.--FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider Fascism (authoritarianism) as being Authoritarian in nature. I fail to see how Libertarianism can be construed as anything other than Anti-Authoritarianism. As for "many" I offered before to give about two hundred cites if required to reach the status of "many" -- would that many meet your requirements for "many"? Collect (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. "Many" is a subjective judgement. It would be OR, unless you have a source for it or unless it is so obvious that no-one could reasonably object. "Fascism" gets about 6.6 million Google results, so I think "many" would need to at least register on that sort of scale. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the first editor I have found ever to suggest that one needs on the order of 6 million cites to make a claim of "many" holding a view.  I, personally, would suggest that when I post two hundred cites that this would meet the requirement for "many" for most editors. In fact, I find that eighteen cites counts as "many" in most areas on WP. But thanks for pointing out that your requirement is six million cites . Collect (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh plz, be rational and stop making nonsensical arguments. IP's simply pointing out that if you are trying to justify "many" by the number of sources, then you're going to need an awful lot of them. I think we should go for quality rather than quantity. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The point that you make is not on the contrary. I doubt that anyone has expected Libertarianism would be mentioned in this article, but pushing for a classification here of fascism as “right-wing” while libertarianism is elseswhere classified as “right-wing” insinuates an association between the two, especially if both are further classified as “extreme”.  Again, I suspect that it is just this structure of insinuation that some of the editors here are attempting to block.  And ejaculations here that libertarianism is fascism's greatest ally certainly aren't going to allay their concerns. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is as silly as it is inane. Saying that fascism isn't right-wing b/c libertarianism happens to be on the right side of the scale is probably one of the best examples of a red herring and guilt by association. So what it they're both on the right-wing side of things? If it's left-wing does that make liberalism fascist? Your argument doesn't take into account degree on the political scale and is completely illogical. Soxwon (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, find where I have said that libertarianism is right-wing, or apologize. The silliness here is entirely yours. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then there is nothing to argue about so why are you bringing Libertarianism into this discussion? Soxwon (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring it into the discussion, and you still haven't apologized. Do we need am RfC? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, then why are you arguing it if there's nothing to argue about? And I think another RfC is going to be absurd as this will be what, the third one? Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say “it” (in “why are you arguing it”), to what are you referring? I was making the point, as I stated, that FormerIP's claim that libertarianism is the greatest ally of fascism would confirm the concerns of some editors that classifying fascism as “right-wing” was part of a programme to effect such conflation.  Your apology is quite over-due.  The RfC would concern your mode of argument — personal attack founded on misrepresentation — which is extremely objectionable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SlamDiego, I could accuse you of the same thing. You are putting words in other ppl's mouths, and then taking each and every comment the wrong way. IP said that contemporary neo-fascism doesn't see American Libertarianism as a foe. You then responded by accusing him of having a POV agenda (lumping together fascists and libertarians) which was not the intent of IP's comment at all. You and Collect then continued to hammer away at a meaningless point that has no value to the discussion. I refuse to apologize and ask that you both drop the irrelevant and useless "libertarian" point. Soxwon (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you could legitimately accuse me if the same thing, that wouldn't legitimize your engaging in it. And I didn't misrepresent FormerIP.  In th e same comment, prior to what you quote, he wrote
 * Since you refuse to cease personal attacks founded upon misrepresentation, I am raising a complaint at WP:ANI. I'll provide a link on your user talk page. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This has gotten very very silly. What on earth does libertarianism have to do with anything? As far as libertarianism and fascism, I think you can say that obviously libertarianism's hatred of the state does not mesh well with traditional fascism's glorification of it. On the other hand, in the United States, at least, actual neo-fascist groups tend to hate the currently existing state, which can, on the fringes, lead to some overlap with radical libertarian groups - especially when the 2nd amendment comes into it. You can start to see this with the kind of racist loons who populated the far fringes of the Ron Paul movement. That isn't to say that mainstream libertarianism is tainted with fascism - that's obviously nonsense - but it's just as ridiculous to say that libertarianism is fascism's greatest foe. Even ignoring this, this is particularly silly. Libertarianism didn't even exist during fascism's hey-day, and there's really no reason to talk about it. The whole argument here seems to be based around the fact that libertarians think they ought to be the center of the universe, when in fact they are a tiny fringe movement that happens to be overwhelmingly overrepresented on the internet.

A further point: the basic libertarian arguments against "Fascism" being considered right wing frequently also seem to work against, well, the whole of traditional conservatism. Nineteenth century continental conservatives don't look very much like libertarians, either. Neither, for that matter, do nineteenth century British Tories, who were usually more in favor of government involvement in the economy than Liberals, who held to doctrinaire laissez faire policies until quite late. The libertarian attack seems to focus on fascism, because it is seen as the most odious movement associated with the right, but the same arguments apply elsewhere. Must the right now be divested of Charles X and Clemens von Metternich and Tsar Nicholas I and Otto von Bismarck, as well? I think everyone can recognize that these figures were a) indisputably on the right; and b) indisputably very, very, different from libertarians. This might mean that libertarians shouldn't be considered to be on the right (certainly, like fascists, libertarians should not be considered to be simply on the right - although obviously largely for different reasons), but it might also mean that "left" and "right" are very broad concepts, and that each one can incorporate very different types of political movement that have very little in common with each other. Those on the left seem to understand this, mostly - most people have little trouble agreeing that both Stalin and Cobden, who basically would have agreed on absolutely nothing, should both be seen as being on the left in the context of their own political milieu. Allowing this does not tar Cobden (or, for that matter, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown) with the sins of Stalinism. Similarly, admitting the idea that fascism is largely seen as being on the right does not tar John McCain and Angela Merkel with the sins of Hitler. Is this really so difficult a concept? john k (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism strikes me as being more like social Darwinism combined with Anarchy, combined with the pie-in-the-sky view that intelligent adults should be left alone to work things out (hey, it's always worked before). When I was in school, the extremes of politics used to be characterized as Communism on the left and Fascism on the right, with Democracy sitting square in the middle. Except it wasn't a line, it was a circle - with Democracy at the top and Fascism and Communism coming together at the bottom, because from a practical standpoint they were the same thing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that one can properly refer to “ the basic libertarian arguments against ‘Fascism’ being considered right wing”. While there is defining agreement amongst libertarians about the desired political order, and even about acceptable and unacceptable means of achieving that order, there isn't agreement about the conceptual framework within which to classify political ideologies more generally.  Compare Tuccille's circle to Nolan's Chart.  Some libertarians happily embrace the label “right”; many are actively offended by it.
 * Again, what is needed is to explicitly identify to the reader what definitions are being used by whom (for whichever “notable” labellings are reported). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think defining what the term right-wing means to different groups would be best left on the right-wing page. Soxwon (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some readers would be confused, and many others would be actively misled by leaving the relevant meaning unidentified. (I've made this point repeatedly, and have previously made it directly to you.) Again, the definition of “right” presented as the ostensible standard amongst scholars of fascism is completely alien to the typical lay-person. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right that I am over-generalizing. At any rate, any effort to come up with hard and fast definition of "left" and "right" in the political context is doomed to failure, at least if you're trying to go by policy positions.  In its original meaning in the French Revolution, the right supported the monarchy and the left wanted a republic.  For quite a while, the basic distinction between left and right, in continental Europe at least, had to do with this basic issue - how much power should be held by a hereditary monarch?  The left thought that there should be none, and favored a republic; the right thought that all political power rightfully belonged to the monarch (actually, it sometimes got a bit more complicated than that, in terms of right wing aristocratic types who felt that the king's power should be limited in traditional ways by traditional corporate bodies, but that over-complicates things, probably); the center felt that the monarch's powers should be limited in a constitutional monarchy.  However, as economic issues began to gain importance over the course of the century, other issues came to be overlaid over the basic dispute about monarchy.  In particular, the left split, with some advocating socialism, and others free market capitalism.  Often times those on the left who supported capitalism would ally with centrists and even right wingers to defeat the socialist threat (as during the June Days and the Commune in France, most notably).  But the monarchy issue did not die until well into the twentieth century, even in France, so that these two kinds of left/right dispute coexisted uncomfortably for at least a century.  After the overthrow of monarchies (which happened first in France, but had, by 1918, occurred in many countries), the political right also had to adapt.  Frequently, the advocacy of the traditional monarchies began to be supplanted by a general advocacy of the state, of the military, and of the nation - but still in the context of an opposition to liberal, parliamentary institutions and to socialism, and still generally supportive of the traditional social order, of the established Church (whatever that might be in the given country), and other traditional conservative concerns.  It was this kind of right winger who generally found fascism to be attractive.  At around the same time, we start to see splintering in the socialist left, first over the question of revolution vs. reform, then over support or opposition to World War I, and finally over opinions on the Russian Revolution.  These came to be fairly complicated, and Leninist Communism's place as the furthest "left" position on the political spectrum largely arose because communism was furthest from the reformist social democracy which was gradually starting to seem hardly distinguishable from left-liberalism (also largely a new development of the early twentieth century, which saw liberals beginning to see the necessity of a social welfare state).


 * So, in short, "left" and "right" need to be viewed as historical markers whose exact meanings fluctuated over time. For pretty much the whole period since they were first devised in 1791, they have remained very important ways by which people have sought to understand and categorize political movements, but they simply cannot be seen as static terms with any kind of universal meaning.  At the most basic level, a movement is "left-wing" or "right-wing" because of its historical origins and its self-conception, not because of any particular policies it advocates. john k (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the classical view, so to speak, Hitler = right and Stalin = left. Both were equally charming characters. If Libertarianism is more associated with the right (which I would say is true) then it's because the right has kind of usurped it, albeit by championing only a subset of its tenets. Those who call themselves libertarians talk about limited government, which neither Democrats nor Republicans have done a very good job of achieving once they got in power. But there are other things. A true libertarian would oppose all drug laws, on the grounds that the government does not have the right to tell you what to ingest into your body. But you won't find many rightists supporting that notion. I would also say true libertarians take a very liberal view of religion. Most rightists (though not all) tend to embrace traditional religion. Both of those points would be leftist views. True libertarians believe in minimal government control. Left and right both believe in government control, just on different topics. The fact is, a true libertarian tends to be ignored by the electorate, because very few voters agree with the full Libertarian "platform". Jesse Ventura, who was elected "by accident", might be the closest thing we've had to a true libertarian in office in recent times, and those who followed that situation saw how well that worked out: by the time his term was up, he had nearly everyone, left and right, annoyed with him. The ones who liked him and stuck with him were - TAH DAH - true libertarians. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * John, I have no dog in the fight of whether the label “left” or “right” or “center” is to be used. My position is
 * that the parties applying the labels should be explicitly identified;
 * that the label(s) used should be explicitly defined (whether they are to defined by policy or by objective or in some other manner should be determined by which labellers are cited);
 * that the matter should be acknowledged ab initio as contentious.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Off topic) Just for the sake of clarity, I did not mean, in my comments above, to conflate right Libertatianism with fascism. I was responding to the comment "Fascism has as its greatest foe Libertarianism", which I felt was inaccurate and an attempt to proseletise. People might be able to guess that I don't really hold with Libertarianism, but its more to the point that I don't think it is relevant to the discussion here. IMO fascists and libertarians do share a hardline "Social Darwinist" view that success is always virtuous and that those who are not successful deserve what they get. This does not make them the same thing, of course. I think there is a serious OT point that neo-fasicst movements at the present time are happy to take pages from the Libertarian playbook where they think this can win them recruits. This isn't necessarily the fault of Libertarians and it doesn't make Libertarians fascist. However, I think it is something that Libertarians should be aware of and monitoring. If the Libertarian agenda gets hi-jacked by fascists, then that is not good for Libertarianism and it is not good for people. End of sermon. --FormerIP (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every major political movement has taken pages from the Libertarian playbook. Your caricature of Libertarians as all “Social Darwinist”  is simply false, even if we allow the perverse conflation of Spencer and Sumner with Haeckel that Hofstadter effected. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-Libertarian view of obsolescence of "Left-Right" line - from 1948
''The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. This dilemma drove Prof. DeWitt C. Poole to an inspired suggestion. Right and Left, he said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left-fascism and communism-meeting at the bottom. You can then look at the circle in two ways: with respect to property, fascism and the moderate Right are side by side against communism and the moderate Left; with respect to liberty, the moderate Right and moderate Left are side by side against fascism and communism.

''If we will understand further that the non-Communist Left and the non-Fascist Right share a common faith in free political society-a faith that the differences between them over economic issues can be best worked out by discussion and debate under law-we might even stop talking of Left and Right as if nothing lay in between. ''

1948 by the noted Libertarian(?) A. M. Schlesinger.

We have a specific well-known historian more than 50 years ago making the case that "Left-Right" lines do not work anf that Communism and Fascism abut each other. Collect (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And proposed as part of any lede on Fascism and the politiccal spectrum.  I suggest it is fairly balanced in its statements. Collect (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Collect. That's a great source, but it doesn't really say what you're saying it says.


 * It says that one historian has made a compelling proposition that left and right should be conceived along a circle rather than a line so that some note can be taken of similarities between moderate leftist and moderate rightist views of liberty, and between extreme leftist and extreme rightist views of property. It does not suggest the the concepts of "left" and "right" are themselves flawed. Furthermore, we are given no clue as to the prevalence of this "circular" view, presenting problems on how we would weight such a view without some additional source. Finally, this is far too detailed a discussion for the lede. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It says that Arthur Schlesinger back in 1948 agreed that a left-right "spectrum" failed.  This means the "line" was found invalid more than fifty years before 1991, the line you averred, that this was written by one of the preeminent historians in the US,  and that this view was held by other historians, and that this was not a "libertarian" view.  Which seems quite a significant fact.   As it substanyially addresses all the issues raised here, it is not too "complex" for a lede on an admittedly complex topic.  Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Collect. It does not say that at all. It says that Schlesinger agreed that analysis of fascism illustrated the problems of conceiving of left and right along a line, and noted an interesting alternative proposal – that the left-right spectrum be placed along a circle rather than along a line.


 * It does not say generally that the left-right spectrum failed. It does not say that the left-right spectrum is obsolete. It does not particularly say that a "linear spectrum" is "invalid", merely that some historians agree that it is problematic for at least one category of analysis.


 * It also does not say that this view was held by other historians other than the singular historian who was cited. It certainly makes no pretense of ranking the promininence of this view.


 * Again, the source does not say what you are saying it says. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, your source does not say that the left-right spectrum "failed", as Factchecker has already pointed out. It talks about an example where someone has proposed a diagramatic form which carries additional information as well as information about where ideologies lie in terms of left and right. This is not exactly a dramatic revelation. The source itself describes fascism and communism as "the extremes of Right and Left", which runs rather counter to the point you are trying to make. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) How else can you interpret The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. ?

In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. seems to me to indicate that Schlesinger said that "fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in bewteen." Can you offer an alternative reading of that sentence?

''If we will understand further that the non-Communist Left and the non-Fascist Right share a common faith in free political society-a faith that the differences between them over economic issues can be best worked out by discussion and debate under law-we might even stop talking of Left and Right as if nothing lay in between. '' then seems to me, at least, to indicate that Schlesinger does feels that the "common faith in a free political society" is what separates the Communists and Fascists from everyine else. Again, I would like to hear an alternative explanation.

Lastly, I represent that Schlesinger was not a "Libertarian" and was absolutely a well-respected historian, and recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes and other awards. Collect (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I stated above exactly how it is correctly interpreted. Schlesinger is saying that analysis of fascism illustrates problems with the line, not the spectrum itself. See above. And, ''in Schlesinger's own words", fascism and communism are only similar to each other "IN CERTAIN BASIC RESPECTS". It is entirely beyond me how you could pretend to make a "logical" jump from that claim to "fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in bewteen". And again, none of this substantiates the claim that fascism is not normally seen as right-wing. PS, Everyone knows how illustrious Schlesinger is. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Schlesinger's precise quote was '"In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between."' You seem upset that I actually quoted him when you say my quote was wrong .  We state at the start of the article "authoritarian" which is clearly one of the "basic aspects" Schlesinger uses, "single party" ditto,  "nationalist" ditto, and so on.   The term "basic" does not mean "trivial similarites" it means "basic" similarities.    Collect (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would put the emphasis on the word "certain" in "certain basic respects". Also, "more like each other than they are like anything in bewteen" seems to me to acknowledge their distance apart from one another on the l-r political spectrum. What else can this "between" be reasonably supposed to be referring to? --FormerIP (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that Schlesinger is basically admitting the traditional understanding of the left right spectrum - with communism on the left and fascism on the right - and then proposing, however, that the two extremes actually bend back to be similar to one another. This is very different from the multi-dimensional Nolan Chart style libertarian business. I would also add that Schlesinger, as a historian of the United States, a country which has never seen viable communist or fascist movements, would seem a poor choice as a specialist to quote. The point of Schlesinger is not to dispute that fascism is on the right wing of the classic political spectrum, but to suggest that the classic political spectrum itself is somewhat problematic due to these supposed similarities of communism and fascism. john k (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)