Talk:Fascism/Archive 47

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018
From the end of the first paragraph it should read - Fascism is a political philosophy philosophized by Giovanni Gentile. Widely regarded by people of the political Right to be "the man the Left does not want you to meet". Because after studying Gentile, you very quickly discover that Fascism was never actually a right-wing ideology at all. It was a political Philosophy philosophized by a Socialist (Giovanni Gentile) that was inspired by Liberals (Benedetto Croce) and enacted by Socialists (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or NAZI Party)). Mussolini was the first to politically introduce Fascism and although a life-long Socialist, is regarded to have changed mindset to that of the Fascists shortly after having been removed from Italy's Socialist magazine Avanti. In fact, Mussolini left the Socialist magazine with several other Socialist editors due to a disagreement between himself and the publisher over Italy's involvement in the war in Libya. Mussolini still remained a Socialist after having left the publication, if anything, he just got much more extreme, thus the Fascism. Some people say Fascism was right-wing because the people who enacted it's ideals, such as the Nazi's, were Nationalistic, militaristic, and/or Racist. Although this is true, the NAZI's were all those things, the idea that Nationalism, Militarism and whether or not your Racist has anything to do with where you sit on a political spectrum is completely nonsensical. Your position on this traditional left-right spectrum is actually ultimately defined, first and foremost, by economics. It's also got a lot to do with how exactly it is you believe society needs to change; The left believe it's the institutions, and the right believe it's the individual. In summary, left-wing political choreographers have misconstrued the true definition of political philosophies for nearly a century now and so it will continue to be said that Fascism belongs on the far political right, when in fact, the evidence does, unfortunately for the Left, point toward them. 194.74.3.138 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the FAQ on Talk:Nazism and also the two most relevant policies here: WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you still want to rant after that then you can do it on your own blog or a political forum of your choice. This unreferenced screed has no place in an encyclopaedia--DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018
Please change: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" To: "Historically, fascist movements formed in opposition to other ideologies, such as liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism by encouraging revolutionary elements on the left while courting conservative elements on the right," adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Original statement is only partly accurate; while several of the sources (specifically, Davies and Lynch; Stackelberg) do place Fascism on the far-right of the political spectrum, they are specific theoretical models in response to the more nuanced views in the field. Based on the sources that cover a diverse array of historians and models, the revision is more accurate. Additionally, the citations include an inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.

Please change: "Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum" To: "Because of its varied, historical emergence on both sides of the political spectrum, scholars have struggled to place Fascism in a fixed position," again adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.

Please change: "Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[46][47]" To: "Scholarship that places it on the far right generally focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." Rationale: Many historians avoid trying to place Fascism on the political spectrum and argue that it is impossible to do. Stackelberg is an exception who deliberately makes the attempt in his book. This change clarifies the sentence as a specific effort by historians rather than a consensus view.

Please change: "Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be" To: "Roderick Stackelberg notes that most historians "regard fascism as a mixture of left and right, or a movement that is 'neither left nor right.'" While he places fascism on the political right, he notes the difficulty in reconciling the contemporary praise in National Socialism as a movement from the left, considered "highly creative and progressive national culture" with the emergence of Nazism, which he says is a "radical variant of fascism." Stackelberg, Roderick Hitler's Germany, Routledge, 1999, pp. 4. Rationale: Again, Stackelberg's statements were specific to his effort in his book, not representative of a consensus view from Historians on placement of Fascism in a political spectrum.

Please change: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities [44]" To: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by an eventual push toward authoritarian structures as a relief to perceived economic, social, or political inequities." adding Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York: Routledge, 2003. p. 24-25 and removing "Historians Weigh In On Our Fascist Fears About Trump's America". thefader.com. Retrieved 22 October 2017. Rationale: The original claim source had a clear bias and publication outside of peer-reviewed scholarship; revisions reflect established scholarship from Aristotle Kallis' summary of historical models of fascism. Contributor451 (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I reread Passmore just now and in my opinion he's not useful for this encyclopedia. not only does Passmore reject everybody else's definition of fascism, he even rejects his own definition in the first edition of his book.  that leaves no definition to help our readers--and in my opinion our readers are not good candidates to read through the political history of dozens of different countries to come up with their own definition of fascism.  absent Passmore, I think Contributor451's suggestions do not add up.  I would reject them. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ These changes are much too complex to be dealt with in a simple edit request. They need to be discussed (separately) on this talk page and a consensus for each change gathered before the change can be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me just note that were you an auto-confirmed editor, and made all these changes without prior consensus, the probability is that they would have been reverted and sent back to the talk page for consensus as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the feedback; I'm new to Wikipedia and want to be respectful of the process. I apologize if the suggestions were too long for this forum. I'll do my best to revisit them individually on the talk page. Contributor451 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect placement on left-right spectrum
Fascism is not strictly a right-wing ideology; if not at least bipartisan, it is more left-wing. Oktayey (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. We do not use original research.
 * Academic sources point out that fascism's opposition to globalism, social liberalism, communism, and egalitarian socialism rather place it well outside the left-wing.
 * Before you try to cite "similarities with communism," the term you are looking for is "totalitarianism," which is bipartisan. Fascism is specifically right-wing totalitarianism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm of a mind to propose that any editor who suggests that Fascism or Nazism is left-wing rather than right-wing should be automatically indef blocked for disruptive editing. It'll never fly (and probably shouldn't at that), but, boy, would it make life a lot easier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...I mean, we could just establish local consensus for that here, and not draw attention to it on other boards. >_> Because, ya know, there's so many other issues that need to be worked on in those other places, we don't need to waste people's time with getting wider consensus if we've already got local, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I doubt anyone would notice at all! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A FAQ on top might be useful - at least as a reference to use in situations like these.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a FAQ on the subject on Talk:Nazism which could serve as a model, but I'll have to check tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we either want a common FAQ for Nazism, Fascism and Right Wing Politics, or individual FAQs with quite a lot of overlap. Anything would be helpful. Either way the Nazism FAQ is a good place to start.
 * I feel your frustration but the problem with blocking people is that we can't know what is going on in these people's minds. My guess is that there are a number of options. Off the top if my head, I suggest, in increasing order of size:
 * Intentional revisionists hoping to rehabilitate Nazism/Fascism. (I'd be amazed if we saw more than one of these a year.)
 * Trolls merely hoping to be dankly disruptive. (These get reverted and blocked on sight and are barely noticed.)
 * Intentional revisionists hoping to slander all left wing politics, no matter how moderate, as Fascist. (We see a fair few of these.)
 * People who have been deceived and weaponised by revisionists without themselves even knowing what revisionism is
 * Now, that last group are probably the largest group and they are the ones we need to show a little kindness to. For all the danger that they represent to Wikipedia (and to the world in general) these people are also unwitting victims. They fall down the wrong rabbit hole on YouTube (which is incredibly easy to do in a world where something like PragerU can look more professional/polished/authentic than genuine educational content from, say, Khan Academy, to anybody who lacks the contextual knowledge or fact checking skills to tell them apart). Blocking them on sight would just be sending them back into their silo with all their prejudices confirmed. It would solve our problem in the short term but it would not bode well for anybody's future. Some of these people might actually read a FAQ and some of them might actually learn from it. If even a tiny handful of them is moved to think "Hmmm. I'm not sure now. I'll go to the library and look at a history book." then that is a small win for the whole world. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * An FAQ might help, and the one at Talk:Nazism is a much better model than the more longstanding one at Talk:Nazi Party, which is way too long and also written in places in such a way as to simply invite more debate, by arguing in too much detail, and often slightly confusingly, about the "why".  N-HH  talk / edits  11:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How Fascist Is the US?
This is the title of an article by Jack D. Douglas in which he propose other parameters to define a fascist society in which US can be seen as one. May be those ideas (he is not the only author talking about that) should have at least a little space in this article. --El Hoy (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * it's a primary source (all speculation) -- you need evidence from independent reliable secondary sources that lots of observers agree with him. Otherwise it's a fringe view. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given both the author and the venue in which this was published, calling this "fringe" is being polite. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2018
change "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." to

To "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarianism,[1] characterized by dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, nationalism,[2] and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

I believe the current wording unnecessarily restricts the scope of Fascism -

Although nationalism is a very important characteristic to note, I oppose that Fascism MUST include Nationalism as the current wording prescribes.

I believe Dictatorial power and suppression of opposition are also more primary characteristics of General Fascism whereas Nationalism is more prominent in some instances than others. Scmartinez23 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing it. Can you give an actual example of unambiguous Fascism that is not heavily based on nationalism (whether for a real or an imagined nation)? Without nationalism, I think all we have is a description of generic totalitarianism rather than of Fascism in particular. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ No reliable sources presented to support argument, just personal opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit requests should only be used in semi-protected articles for non-controversial edits. However, I think the lead should be rephrased. It should explicitly state that it is referring to the so-called "consensus theory," which identifies fascism as a form of nationalism. There are other definitions. For example, the historic left-wing view was that it was a reaction to perceived threats to capitalism. TFD (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but everything we write is supposed to be the consensus view of the subject experts, so I don't see much point in saying so explicitly in this case. Besides, one is a characteristic and the other is a cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thumbnail for this article is highly misrepresentave and non-related
The historical French painting of Liberty Leading the People is extremely inappropriate for a thumbnail to represent this article. This is because there is no correlation between the painting or the social movements associated with the painting to fascism. JoeAmazon (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAmazon (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not for this article. It's for the series on Revolution that it's categorised under.Sumanuil (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is the thumbnail that shows when I typed fascism into the search field and the suggestions for your search words start displaying. So imagine that - when a person types fascism they see a thumbnail of Liberty Leading the People. Second of all, what is fascism doing under revolution? JoeAmazon (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Lots of historians (led by George Mosse) emphasize that fascism was a popular mass movement aggressively attacking the status quo.--which is what the Delacroix painting illustrates. 1) Fascism, Architecture, and the Claiming of Modern Milan, 1922-1943 by Lucy M. Maulsby - 2014: "fascism began as a urban political movement, and its initial supporters were disgruntled war veterans, ... The Fasciodi Combattimento (the name Mussolini gave to his organization) fostered a rough and revolutionary popular image." 2) Italian historian De Felice emphasized Mussolini's roots in Revolutionary movements. He argued fascism in its early phase had a "clear Revolutionary agenda" see https://books.google.com/books?id=3C8ABwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303 3) Elise K. Tipton - 1990 - ‎says, "European fascist movements invariably described themselves as revolutionary" 4) A James Gregor says, "The first fascists... articulated the rationale for political violence as ancillary to their revolutionary enterprise" see https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqlgBwP86YoC&pg=PA152 Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Lady Liberty? Excuse me but we are talking about a Greek goddess. This is the same figure that is the Statue of Liberty. So classical liberalism is now associated with fascism? Well golly gee I guess fascism really is a left wing ideology. You just opened up a can of worms. JoeAmazon (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's the wrong thumbnail period. The thumbnail should not be the thumbnail for revolution, it should match the thumbnail for the portal on fascism. Why wouldn't it? Take a look at the thumbnail for the series on fascism and tell me why it shouldn't be the image displayed next to fascism in a wiki search field. JoeAmazon (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not the right venue to discuss this. Please take your complaint to Template talk:Revolution sidebar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you might wrong because this is about the thumbnail displayed for the article on fascism. This is the correct place right? JoeAmazon (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Please go to Template talk:Revolution sidebar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

H624

Even if we are not talking about the revolution sidebar? Where is the thumbnail for the fascism article edited? I repeat for the article on fascism. Not revolution. JoeAmazon (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The thumbnail is part of Revolution sidebar which has its own talkpage for it. So, as Beyond My Ken said, go there and discuss it there, not here.--Biografer (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'll head over there but I have a feeling I'll get sent back here. Wish me luck. JoeAmazon (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I went there and it's about the revolution sidebar. I'm talking about this here fascism article. JoeAmazon (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I got it done. I posted over at the revolution sidebar but it's about this here article on fascism. We'll see how it goes. Thank you. JoeAmazon (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the right place. Pretty bare over there. JoeAmazon (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. There is no "thumbnail" for this article, per se. I don't know what you're seeing because when I type "Fascism" into the seach box, I just get sent to the article. If I type "Fascism" and specify "Search", there's just a list of articles, with no thumbnails. Maybe you're using a mobile device, maybe you're using a different interface than mine, in any case we do not set what it is you are seeing. Presumably the system has an algorithm which determines what is displayed. If so, then what it is displaying it is picking up from the Revolution sidebar, not from the article proper. That's why you need to discuss the issue of the image on the Revolution sidebar on its talk page and not here, because what you are seeing is not under the control of Wikipedia editors of this article. You could also take your complaint to WP:Village pump (technical) where they'll know more about how the system selects the thumbnail that you're seeing. In any case it is not something we can do anything about, so there is no point in continuing to talk about it here.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Something tells me that he does use mobile device, since I tried to use mine and the image of fasces is not present, but everything else is. In fact, all of the infoboxes and sidebars are missing from my mobile device, but they are seem to be present when I use my laptop or desktop. I however, wont bring this issue here, but fyi.--Biografer (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Fascist Decor" and Lebanon
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party of Lebanon has been accused by Daniel Pipes of being fascist, with its flag being one key piece of evidence, while defenders of the SSNP have pointed to the name of their adversaries, the Phalange, as evidence that it is fascist. Strikes me that both examples fit that quote. Should something on this be added? Ricardianman (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Daniel Pipes is a partisan and not a reliable source. Anything added to the article needs to be supported by a citation from a neutral reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you could find a better source, it could be briefly mentioned in "Post–World War II (1945–present)." TFD (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2018
The etymology section is lacking more information pertaining to the evolution of the word from the 1920's-1930's. I recommend adding the following to your existing article section:

"1922, originally used in English in 1920

Note: Copyvio redacted. 68.88.28.30 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Firstly, you provided a definition of the term, not an explanation of the etymology. Secondly, you copied and pasted this information from your source, which is not permitted. Please review Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations. Thank you. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Revolutionary?
What explains the revolutionary sidebox on this article?

Fascism could definitely be described as radical but both Italian fascism and National(ist) Socialism appear to have been characterized by reactionary cultural views.

Not only that, but fascism is recognized today as possibly having been syncretic like third position and consequentialist, which would make it some kind of ideological chameleon.

The article itself has seven counts of the word reactionary and, even if it says that revolutionary action was supported, the question is whether fascism wanted to get rid of the current status quo or sought to return to a previous one.

Palingenetic ultranationalism and a slogan such as "Make Germany great again" would suggest the latter.

Looking forward to your thoughts about this as the revolutionary label by itself may be misleading in conflating it with the kind of revolution that marked Russian-style communism.--JamesPoulson (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as a reactionary revolution. See in particular Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary? by Martyn Houdsen.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting. It is a bit confusing because "reactionary" can also be understood as counter-revolutionary. So it would be revolutionary in the sense of drastic change or overthrowing of a government/social order but still have a goal of wanting to go back to some mythical golden past? --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * the risk is thinking revolution = left. but more generally it means a radical change. the current emphasis in the RS stresses revolution from the right --fascists had a lower middle class base and projected a dream image of a new society not a return to the old --the old system in Italy & Germany etc was controlled by the aristocracy which the fascists did NOT want back in power. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It could be that the return to the old wasn't so far back seeing the concepts of Heroic capitalism and Supercapitalism?
 * With that said, we are talking here about regimes that routinely used propaganda. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One of the things which made them revolutionary - they wanted an entirely new social system, not just a new government. It's also often forgotten that Il Duce was a rabid socialist before he embraced Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea was to have hierarchy or classes collaborate through "corporazione" or guilds.


 * Mussolini did come from a socialist background but it seems he became anti-socialist with this quote: "The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists.". --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, both "reactionary" and "revolutionary" are relative, and not absolute terms. After a Communist revolution, those who want to return to the old system are indeed reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries.  But once Communism is well-entrenched for many decades, someone who wishes to overthrow it to create a democracy could properly be called a revolutionary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's cite some recent historians: 1) David Roberts reports “The increasingly accepted notion that fascism was not merely reactionary but revolutionary, competing with Marxism,” in Journal of Modern Italian Studies. March 2011 p 239. 2) “the program of national regeneration that Romanian fascists positioned at the center of their revolutionary project during the interwar period.” Is the topic for Marius Turda, in Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions Dec 2008, p437+;  3) Riley & Desai, in Comparative Studies in Society & History Oct 2007, p815+ try to “Explain a specific form of conservative modernization called passive revolution that is exemplified by the violent passive revolution of Italian Fascism, 1919-38.  4) in The Anatomy of Fascism (2004) Robert Paxton argues “Fascism’s goal of not merely capturing power but transforming society completely was perfectly suited to the times, since it sought not to exclude people from politics but rather to involve them in a mass revolutionary project.” Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

specific anti-modern versus vague non-information
the fascists appealed to cultural conservatives by opposing new trends in the 1920s, such as freer sex, flappers, homosexuality and new gender roles. I added the statement: Though Fascism adopted a number of anti-modern positions designed to appeal to people upset with the new trends in sexuality and women's rights, but it got deleted and replaced with a meaningless statement Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries which mentions no positions whatever and refers to mysterious "reactionaries" not otherwise identified. The edit comment is "That isn't the only group of people they were appealing to and the only reasons." -- but the editor is unwilling to tell us what group of people and policies he has in mind. Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your sentence had been reinstated on 7 July 2018, I have added "(see reactionaries)" at the end of your sentence, this shows the specific ideas and people fascism tried to appeal to, whilst also showing there are others that had reactionary views that fascism also appealed to. I hope this is a good solution. Cdjp1 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "See XXXX" is not Wikistyle, so I removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, thank you for correcting it. Cdjp1 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the term reactionary is too strong. A lot of people across the political spectrum would have opposed at least some aspects of the permissiveness that developed following the First World War. TFD (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why I wrote "especially those with a reactionary point of view", to include reactionaries, but not exclude those with conservative view but who were not knee-jerkers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Who were these reactionaries? I know that Spain had the Carlists but don't think Germany had any equivalent. TFD (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Every country in every time period has reactionaries -- besides, it's Italy that's being referred to not Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * reactionaries was the usual term for people who opposed the new standards for women/gender/sexuality--every country had them but in for example US, Britain. France they were not very vocal about return to old morality (the US had the KKK that lasted a couple years and could pass no laws and almost vanished by 1929). In Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan they were quite strong.  Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018
Change "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" to " fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum but the tenants of fascism are actually closer to today's far-left policies such as large central government, redistribution of wealth, and censorship or policing of speech". 12.195.127.74 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Msnicki (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources for the first sentence of intro do not say "ultranationalism"
Looking at the sources of the first sentence, quotes have been provided in the citation of the section of text referring to the statement in that sentence, it does not speak of "ultranationalism", it speaks of "nationalism". If you wish to change the first sentence to say it supported ultranationalism with a good citation that supports that then that is fine, but it appears that this was changed to say "ultranationalism" without taking into account what the sources actually say.

Please decide whether to make a new sentence with citations that speak of ultranationalism or otherwise have the current sentence reflect what the current sources actually say - it should be fairly easy to do so since they are quoted in the citations unless those quotes are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * I have removed my concerns here based on what Rjensen has said below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)


 * My advice: read a book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You have no reason to be rude to me over the point I made. I said that current content in the intro is not matching what was used in the citations. I never said that I opposed someone putting in a new sentence with new citations that say that it was ultranationalist. When someone reads something, they hope that the content matches the citations, it does not. I am not personally interested in solving this problem because I have little expertise on the topic - all I did was read the intro and I looked at the citation that shows a quote from it and it does not match what is said in the sentence - it just mentions nationalism, I have posted here to let the issue be known to someone who knows more about the history than I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)


 * The thing is this: if you admittedly don't know what you're talking about, stop talking about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I can talk about one thing I know for certain because I can read with my two eyes: the first two citations that quote the sections of text being referred to do not match up with the content in that sentence citing them, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * One doesn't read with one's eyes, one reads with one's mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know that you could have politely addressed the issue where I was mistaken like the person below did to which I have rescinded my concerns, instead of being obnoxiously rude with no reasons given from you to me demonstrating that I am mistaken - only insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * the lede summarizes the text and "ultranationalism" is covered further on at note 37. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, that is a fair explanation, I retract my concern addressed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018
The article states that fascism is anti-conservative and then also states that it is conservative. This is impossible and illogical. Stating that fascism is conservative should be omitted from the page. Apache9a (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It states that it has opposition to conservatism in general (in that it does not want to maintain the status quo) but is otherwise socially conservative. Please provide a reliable source demonstrating that the reliable sources in the article are wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fascists want to overthrow anything that isn't their particular version of Fascism, including other forms of conservative governance. They're still conservatives. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Fascism"
Below is a part of my edit 'redefining' fascism. I have added a better and more accurate description, yet it was taken down! Please if all seems "fine" may someone revert/redo my edit and make it final? Cheers.

" Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.[5] Fascism came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe[6] when the first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries.[6] There are many varieties of fascism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[7] Though being opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, is common. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][8][9][10][11][12]

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We are not interested in your "redefinition" of fascism. We are interested in how reliable, published sources define it, as determined by cited sources. Please stop inserting your personal definition. See Original research.  General Ization Talk  15:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)"
 * In addition, any decision to change the definition of "fascism" as it appears here will be determined by consensus, not by simply overwriting or replacing the existing definition. You can make a case for it here on the Talk page, including the specific sources you would cite to support it, but do not make the change in the article itself until you have achieved consensus.  General Ization  Talk  15:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I'd note you aren't likely to get far going to editor's personal talk pages and asking them to self-revert to your preferred version with no Wikipedia Policy rationale. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This article actually contradicts itself...
It begins by saying that Fascism is on the far-right and is against Marxism. It later talks about how Mussolini "organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations". You can only do that if you seize control of the corporations that already exist. The fact that they banned strikes is just what happens when the government takes control of all business. The economic policy was much closer to a modified Socialist, Communist, or Marxist type of government than a Capitalist system. The fact that the Fascists rounded up communists and socialists is more similar to a sibling rivalry than anything else. It is also more a function of the dictatorial regime that wanted to implement its own form of government regulated economy and silence all other views than it is an outright opposition to socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.13.24 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a forum for your personal views on political science. We go by the consensus of academic scholarship.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You can use that argument to prove anyone is a leftist. You would need a reliable source (ie, not something from a libertarian blog) that makes this argument. TFD (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How about the argument that Mussolini was arrested on a socialist demonstration that turned violent, wrote extensively about Socialism, edited Italy's leading Socialist newspaper for 5 years, and never disavowed Socialism, can those arguments be used to prove 'anyone is a leftist'? Or just prove Mussolini was? They seem pretty water tight and iron clad, historically. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:A0EF:4C11:1850:361F (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You need a source that makes the same conclusions you do. Read WP:SYNTH for why we cannot use arguments to present conclusions not found in reliable sources. Lots of leftists have moved to the right and some did not renounce socialism when they did so. Frank S. Meyer, Jean Kirkpatrick, and Linda Chavez are examples. Even the conservative president, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat (i.e., liberal) who famously said he did not leave the Democratic Party, they left him. Peter Hitchens considers himself a "social democrat," but is a prominent Conservative. TFD (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Acroterion and TFD, it is apparent to me that the two of you are leftists of some stripe and are interjecting your personal political beliefs here rather than the editor who started this section as you accuse him or her.  Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Mussolini’s political history and later political paradigm knows that he was the son of a militant socialist and was one himself before breaking with the socialists over the issue of Italy’s participation in WWI in accordance with the Bolshevik anti-nationalist line.  (Gees, just read his article if you hadn’t known that!).  Although Mussolini discovered his nationalist leanings, he remained a socialist, at least in name, throughout his political career.  Thus, fascism (the subject of this article) was the fusion of socialism and nationalism in opposition to the internationalist line of communism.  Anton Drexler, a longtime trade unionist, began the German Workers Party (later the National Socialists) as a fascist clone of Italy’s.


 * Now here lies the rub. Both parties, needing the financial support of industrialists who feared the Marxists, began merely paying lip service to “socialism” and evolved into more classical rightist movements.  (So yes, I agree that both should be classified as being on the far right of the political spectrum on a de facto basis.) Hitler would later brutally purge the left wing of his party under the Strasser brothers and Ernst Röhm who actually took the “socialism” part of the party’s name and increasingly nominal socialist agenda seriously.  Hitler needed the support of the industrialists and military far more than he needed theirs.  The favorite pejorative of leftists today to characterize people like President Trump and his reactionary followers is “fascists,” and they don’t like to be reminded of the historical socialist roots of the political paradigm.  Trump, for one, never held socialist leanings of any kind, a fact that no one will dispute.  Calling Trump and his followers “Nazis” seems over the top and lacking in credibility, which is why most of their militant detractors prefer “fascists” (an easier PR sell due to ignorance) even though not historically appropriate at all.  What the 20th century fascist parties evolved into might actually be more appropriate from the leftist perspective (not mine, which is apolitically objective).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're just going to make assumptions that editors who expect you to comply with Wikipedia policy on sourcing must be "leftists of some stripe," there's no point in further discussion.   Acroterion   (talk)   23:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you concede that Wikipedia’s own articles on Mussolini and the Fascist Party of Italy and Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany are adequately sourced, then so are my above comments. The original editor of this section was unjustly chided by you and the other editor for questioning the characterization of fascism as being on the far right, a question that one can easily discern arising from the article itself.  My comments—which contain the conclusion that ultimately they were indeed on the far right of the political spectrum—seeks to clarify the issue for him or her.  Your chiding of him or her connotes defensiveness (over an assertion of the connectivity of fascism and the political left), thus my leftist assumption of the derivation of your criticism.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be starting from the idea that right-wing politics are inescapably associated with free-market capitalism, which is absolutely not true (after all, monarchism is also considered right-wing.) Right-wing politics just means a desire to order society along hierarchical lines. Which hierarchies they employ, and how they enforce them, is what defines the difference between the many distinct right-wing forms of government.  It encompasses everything from free-market capitalists (hierarchy based on who holds capital) to hardcore monarchists (hierarchy based on heredity or landholding)  to tinpot dictators to apartheid societies legally stratified by race.  (Just like left-wing politics, which favors more egalitarian and equal distribution of power, is sharply divided based on how precisely that equality is achieved and perpetuated - eg. between people who want a powerful government to enforce equality on one hand, vs. anarchists who want no government at all on the other.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuff14, the fact that some "leftists" (and they mostly seem to be anti-leftist pro-big business Democrats) falsely call Trump a fascist is not reason to call fascism a type of socialism. Articles are supposed to be informative not score political points. And whatever the truth actually is, we must follow what sources say and not provide our own opinions or analyses. TFD (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018
Your source for classifying fascism as far-right is patently flawed. All traits described are common to all socialist/communist governments and then the text calls it "far-right". This is typical of left wing revisionism. Read Hayek to get a clue. 2600:1008:B12B:D2CF:F05D:BC70:B206:750A (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no actual explicit request for an edit to action here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to provide a source where Hayek says fascism is left-wing where he uses the actual terms fascist and left-wing. I think you have him confused with some of his less revered successors in U.S. libertarianism. TFD (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hayek - The road to serfdom -

To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B100:3549:304B:7E0B:32C1:34B9 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The term left-wing is not used. You need to provide a source where Hayek says fascism is left-wing where he uses the actual terms fascist and left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Yes check.svg Done. Makes sense. Looking through the article's history, it appears the link was added during the brief window when a separate stub article existed for "post-fascism". That's old news, and now it's slightly misleading (perhaps it's a soft-boiled WP:EGG) so I have removed the link. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if we're going to pick one or the other I'd prefer to use neo-fascism over post-fascism. After all, neo-fascists are still pretty, you know, fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit and I'm fine with that. Never mind my previous comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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


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

Lack of a neutral point of view? - 14 October 2018
Look, I know fascism is a distorted view of nationalism, but something about how the article's written just doesn't sound neutral. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Yeah I'm not going to trout you for this vagueness, but you're not going to tag such important articles based on no evidence whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um... is this a joke? Either way, this is way, way too vague to be useful. Templates aren't badges of shame, they are intended to facilitate changes to articles, but there's nothing actionable here. How would this problem be resolved, and how would the article be fixed? You will need to be at least a little bit specific. "Something" isn't something we can fix, y'know? So what, exactly, is the problem? Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


 * Oppose. I don't see the need of changing the current definition, also because it's far better sourced than yours. By the way, fascism is not a "economic and social system", it's an ideology that can be implemented in various systems. Also why stressing so much some minority and marginal views on fascism in the introduction? There is already a whole page about different definitions of fascism. Ritchie92 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a fairly complex definition for the lead. Furthermore, per weight, we need to explain all the various definitions of fascism, beginning with the most accepted one, the new consensus theory. We should also distinguish between fascism as ideology, albeit a vague, contradictory and ex post facto one, and fascism as a political movement. But the details should be detailed elsewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current lead is superior. In particular the suggested change opens the door to those benighted idiots who insist that Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon.  That, in itself, invalidates this change for consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove all references to exact placement on the left-right political spectrum
Political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not suggest otherwise. In addition, note that in multiple places the article actually says that fascism takes things from various sides and is against things from various sides. Having an entire section on this misguided question even suggests that this point has actual importance which is completely misleading. I already proposed and edit which removed the few placements outside the particular section and the particular section completely. I guess the main question here is whether there is any good justification for including this stuff. --Technokratisch (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to change what the article says, you need a source that makes the same conclusions you do. TFD (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I am not sure what kind of source that would be. I am not adding anything new, I am removing. My question is why is this question discussed on this page? I don't think adding irrelevant information is good practice on Wikipedia. --Technokratisch (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the links to policies and guidelines which are posted to the top of your talk page which explain what reliable sources are. You removed reliably sourced information which you said was inaccurate. If it is inaccurate, you need to provide a source that provides alternative facts. Incidentally, this article is on a one revert rule, which means you cannot remove anything from the article more than once in a 24 hour period. TFD (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't say it is inaccurate I say it is irrelevant. I also think that it is a great opportunity for Wikipedia to transcend the partisan argument around this. To go high were others go low. In my view the principle of neutrality requires that non-neutral statements are not only backed up by some citations but also that their inclusion has merit, is relevant, that the reader will gain additional insight from them. What is this merit of this here? I just cannot see it.--Technokratisch (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except, policy requires that when they go low, we go low and when they go high, we go high. We follow what the experts say. Readers who want the truth can go to the any of a number of blogs that provide alternatives. TFD (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is also a quote from the article on left-right political spectrum and the reference is below:″Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.″ --Technokratisch (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * personal views do not carry much weight here. Wiki editors follow the published reliable secondary sources, and these have to be cited on this page before major changes can be discussed. 1) take a look at The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1134609523 2) The Fascist tradition: radical right-wing extremism in modern Europe https://books.google.com/books?id=xVyGAAAAMAAJ 3) Capitalism and Fascism: Three Right-wing Tracts, 1937-1941 https://books.google.com/books?id=WdckAAAAMAAJ 4) on Italy: Fascism Viewed from the Right https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1907166858 5 ) Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1403966591 etc etc Rjensen (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that mean I need a source that says the discussion of where fascism falls on the left to right spectrum is irrelevant? Would that be enough? Or is it enough if I find a source that says the discussion of where political ideologies fall on the left to right spectrum is irrelevant? I actually think that the burden of justification here is with those who included this question in the first place. Why is it relevant to the definition and idea of fascism (or indeed any political ideology) where it falls on the left-right spectrum (strangely, with regard to fascism I find myself agreeing with Mussolini here, but then again he may count as an expert on it)? --Technokratisch (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The part you want to remove from the introduction is heavily sourced (I count six different sources). I would suggest finding at least an equal number of sources to support what you're saying against it. Furthermore, even if what you're saying is true, i.e. "political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum", many sources argue that fascism indeed does fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. The fact that some ideologies are not left- or right-wing doesn't mean all ideologies are neither left- nor right-wing. And by the way, fascism is commonly known to be one of the "rightest"-wing idelogies, and has inspired - in some of its positions - most of the modern far-right-wing movements in the world. I think it's going to be ridiculous if Wikipedia doesn't mention that in the first sentences of its description. Last, I'll quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on right-wing politics: "Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition." (supported by nine different sources) which I think clearly suggests that fascism belongs to this category. Ritchie92 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, isn't there some Wikipedia principle that says that including information into an article should be justified as opposed to excluding? I just don't see any merit in this whole question. It is just about some weird bragging rights (which is probably why this has recently gained so much attention). If Fascism is anti-anarchist and anti-conservative and anti-communist and-liberal as the article says, in what way can it then be a trivial matter of deciding where it is on the left-right spectrum? And if it is not trivial, what is the point (personally I don't even see any point in the whole left-right spectrum but anyway)? If you give me a good reason why this question should have this prominence in the article I will gladly leave it at that. And no, what it inspired is absolutely not relevant to the question of what it is. You could write a section on what it inspired of course, that could be interesting.--Technokratisch (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the right-wing issue is not given undeserved "prominence " --it simply repeats the findings of hundreds of scholars. To take another approach requires sources. To erase chunks of fully sourced text borders on vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets take a step back, if the section wasn't there, what would be the merit of including it. I am not questioning that this research exists, but I am questioning whether the question has any relevance here? How is including this question not unnecessary breaking of the neutrality stance? And as above, a quote from the article on left-right political spectrum and the reference is below:″Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.″ --Technokratisch (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are literally whole books written about left / right syncretism. My go-to being Against the Fascist Creep by Alexander Reid Ross. However a defining characteristic of this scholarship is to identify that, while fascism pulls in elements of what is generally considered leftist political discourse (EG: Environmentalism) it remains a far right movement. I would suggest that you might be having trouble finding sources to support removal of fascism as a right-wing political philosophy because those sources are not extant except in mis-reading. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are being contradictory. First you argue that one should include information rather than exclude it, then afterwards you say that in this case you demand a good reason for this information to be included. I am confused. Also, the reasons why you think it's irrelevant, and the fact that deciding whether fascism is right- or left-wing is a "non-trivial matter", these are all your personal opinions. The vast majority of scholars agree on the opposite view. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am against including irrelevant information I don't see why you misunderstood me but I am with firmly in the as short as possible camp. I also posted a reference to a scholar who argues that left-right dichotomy is overcome. And I maintain that if you make an obviously politically non-neutral statement in a Wikipedia article then you better have a very good justification for including it. That the statement has been made by researchers is not enough. Else we would have to include all statements that have been made by all researchers on fascism. Again the burden of justification is on your side in my opinion. And of all the people that have commented none has even accepted this. How tiring and disappointing. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At best, the Ruypers quote proposed would represent a huge WP:SYNTH problem since it doesn't mention Fascism at all but appears to be about the left-right spectrum in general. There's also the issue of WP:DUE here. Especially since "some political scientists" is super-vague. Finally, it's unclear from the quote whether Ruypers even supports this conclusion or if this is cherrypicking an argument later shot down.


 * Or, being brief: no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, upon closer inspection, the source you are proposing appears to be a high school politics textbook, which is a rather weaker source than the six others already supporting the categorization of Fascism as far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case. Which is that breaking neutrality on this issue needs justification and nobody can give it (because the whole left-right thing is meaningless). But I accept that you have other opinions. And I don't have more time than the 4 hours I spent on this. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are resting your case upon the provision of a single quote, which would require WP:SYNTH to include, from an Ontario Secondary School Grade 12 textbook, against a preponderance of academic sources? I am not sure you know what "rest my case" really means, but OK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference you posted refers to the "modern complex world". The fact that nowadays it's difficult to define left and right does not mean that older ideologies cannot be categorized. You say: "the whole left-right thing is meaningless": this is your personal opinion, and does not necessarily apply to the definition of fascism as an ideology. I also do not see how saying that fascism is right-wing is "politically non-neutral". You say: "That the statement has been made by researchers is not enough", well it's actually enough for Wikipedia if the statement is vastly and properly sourced. What would be enough for you? Finally, the justification for the mainstream statement is given by all the references cited there. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well good that Wikipedia is not part of the modern complex world. --Technokratisch (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If nobody can see the elegance in these omissions and how they would completely pull the rug from under the feet of those anybody that claims that fascism is this or that wing then so be it. I really cannot understand why you all are so fond of this dichotomy. It is 2018. Why include it? Why? Why? Why? Emphasis on why?--Technokratisch (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't care, at all, whether an edit is elegant. We care if it is supported by reliable sources. The categorization of fascism as far-right is supported by reliable sources. The omission of this information is not. It's that simple. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it's 2018 and there is no Roman Empire anymore, but still there is an article about it, with details about the "outdated" political positions of that time, does that mean that we should re-write Roman history based on the "modern" political categories? The fact that the right-left dichotomy cannot be always applied to modern politics does not mean that we cannot apply it when it's applicable, i.e. when many reliable sources state it. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll try it another time. I have held the belief that fascism is right wing throughout my life. However, when recently I started coming accross people arguing that it is in fact left-wing I started thinking about this for the first time myself. And I realized that the whole thing is misguided. Those researchers that argued why the fascists are right-wing are all misguided. Why? Because the whole concept of the left-right spectrum is deeply misguided. I postet a reference to a researcher who says the same. They say it is nowadays misguided which sounds like there was a time when it wasn't. But that is also irrelevant since Wikipedia surely should take a modern perspective on things and not old ones. Now some here want me to produce a reference to some research that says "Classifying fascism on the left-right spectrum is irrelevant." But that is wrong. We don't have to find references for every classification to justify not including it into a Wikipedia article. If anything we need to find references that claim that the classification of fascism according to the left-right spectrum is important. No such reference is in the article and none has been given here so the default should be to leave this classification out until such references are produced. There is now a reference agains it which some are claiming isn't really valid because it is a classroom book. I took it from the article on the left-right political spectrum so if it is found to be insufficient then it should also be removed there I suppose. I am sorry if I got a bit agitated before, I hadn't eaten and I felt that my actual argument wasn't being taken serious at all. This may bave been due to an unclear phrasing. I hope this is more comprehensible. Also, I would be willing to look for further references (e.g. for the uselessness of the dichotomy) but not until I get the impression that others here acknowledge that my argument is sound.--Technokratisch (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's still WP:SYNTH at best. And frankly if we edit based on your opinion of where Fascism is placed on the political spectrum it's WP:OR to boot. Suggest you put down your WP:STICK because this is WP:NOTAFORUM and we've given you our answers on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ruypers, John. Canadian and world politics. Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2005. ISBN 1-55239-097-7

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019
(x Remove) Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. --- (y Add)Fascism a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Large government overseeing is familiar as the far-left political goal like Communism (China for example) and in socialism (as in Venezuela currently (2018-current)). As socialists & communist see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). Hilter, a known Fascist, created his government and party know as National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) or short for Nazi. As there party's actions dictated, Hitler took over Germany's economy, military and people by appointing himself a soul leader or Führer ; they were socialist extremist, practiced socialistic views while holding Germany people hostage of economic growth: therefor Fascism considered far-left on the political spectrum along with liberalism, Marxism and anarchism. 2600:8802:901:E400:9CFD:6D4A:A58:1623 (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * negative--lacks reliable secondary sources. in the old days "far left" meant the end of all forms capitalism and seizure of the property and power from all rich people. That did not happen in fascist countries. Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Giovanni Gentile and Italian Fascism?
Doesn't Giovanni Gentile get a mention in these various articles about Fascism, whether "left" or "right" forms of Fascism?

I refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA and https://www.wnd.com/2017/08/fascisms-karl-marx-man-the-left-doesnt-want-you-to-meet/

It is history nonetheless, and it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Both of these are so far from reliable sources that it's obvious to me you've never read WP:reliable sources to understand exactly what we mean by that. PragerU, author of the video, is a conservative/right-wing propaganda outfit, and WorldNetDaily (WND) is a right-wing/far-right fake news website. What they say is useless to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * His article "The Doctrine of Fascism" is listed as a primary source. What specific contributions to you want to add? Also, as pointed out to you earlier, you need to use reliable sources. In this case you provided a link to a conspiracy theory website. TFD (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If Gentile is a central character in the history of Fascism, then why isn't he listed in the main History section of this article? Would Italian Fascism have occurred if Gentile was not involved? I accept that those sources are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a whole page about Gentile with reliable sources in it you could use. Giovanni Gentile Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can see that. My question is: why isn't he included in the main history section of the article - especially since there's an article about the person. I mean, I'm wondering why the history section doesn't contain a link or mention given that the person was part of that particular moment in that history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. 31.53.201.227 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Because one academic who Mussolini was fond of is not seen as sufficiently significant enough to get much coverage on the main article per WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The article states: "... he was influential in providing an intellectual foundation for Italian Fascism, and ghostwrote part of The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) with Benito Mussolini.". Isn't that sufficiently significant enough to get much coverage? It seems to me, if Wikipedia is to serve as a tool for unbiased facts in the face of fake news and misleading information, then it ought to provide a balanced and accurate view of the context. But, by whose standard is he deemed insignificant? He is listed as a primary source. If Mussolini derived a lot of his 'intellectual reasoning' from Gentile, then surely this is significant enough to provide context. Above, we see how important it is to have valid sources of information. Gentile is classed as such, but is he not significant enough to be mentioned in context to facts and history, i.e. that his ideas contributed to the development of (Italian) Fascism. It's no wonder perhaps that people are led to believe that Gentile was a socialist. Wikipedia is a much more accurate, authoritative, balanced source of information than WND, of course. PS, the WP:DUE info is very interesting. The article for Gentile states: "influential". If Mussolini based his ideology on Gentile's philosophy, then Italian Fascism is as much a product of Gentile's mind as it is Mussolini's, as such he is central to that history and he should appear within the history section of the Fascism article. That's a reasonable conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please "sign" your comments by putting four carets (i.e. ~ ) at the end. The system will automatically add a time and date stamp with your IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a mention of Gentile in relation to his ghostwriting of The Doctrine of Fascism, which I think is pretty much all that is merited for this minor figure. From examining the article on Gentile, it looks to me that the claims made there as to Gentile's centrality to Italian Fascism are a bit overblown, and that the probability is that Mussolini used him when he needed to (as in the writing of the book) but otherwise did not feel himself bound to Gentile's philosophy.  I imagine the situation being somewhat like Hitler's with Rosenberg, but probably somewhat less so.In any case, I don't think Gentile requires much more coverage in the article than that.  If others disagree, feel free to add what you think is appropriate, keeping in mind, of course, WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. Honestly fascist academics were kind of a dime a dozen in Italy between the wars, and about the only thing I can think of that differentiates Gentile from Julius Evola and the rest of their ilk is that Gentile met a fitting end while Evola managed to escape justice. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention. 31.53.201.227 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Fascism Being Left-Wing
I was told I needed references supporting the fact that fascism is an left-wing extreme. So... here

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/history-of-left-wing-fascism

Tell me if I need more sources. If so I can find them.

Chris Roe234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to check these pages out, if you haven't already: Definitions of fascism and Left-wing fascism. Have fun. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You might also check out this article: Heartland Institute. They aren't exactly what would be considered a reliable source on topics like this. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  21:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not a reliable source. The Institute argued that smoking was safe and global warming is a hoax. Instead of looking for sources that support a certain viewpoint, it is better to identify the leading authorities on the subject and see what they write for books and articles published by reliable publishers. TFD (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Upgraded to Fascism in America 2019, I guess?
Jumpoutboy (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

I don't see why "fascism" can't just exist as defined this way:

"a form of radical athoritarianism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and/or/sometimes the economy."

Because then I can apply it to, Antifa, and the left in general.

Otherwise, can you tell me what Antifa is or the radical left when they use force to silence opposition and violently oppose political opposition within the society in a non-nationalist form of anarchy hard to define or understand? A movement seeming to stand for it's own conceptual moral authoritarian and dictatorial power through forcible suppression of nationalist patriotic opposition. They mobilize in regimental protest order that is devoid of independent thought and sing a party phrase. Are they communist social anarchist, and why do we have to confine fascist to a right-hand political wing in order to give them a talking point in that protest? I'm confused why the fascist definition seems to be antiquated in a 1950's Webster format that doesn't match the current applicable use of the term that society seems to have chosen unanimously as a reversal of meaning to address Antifa and the left in general.

Can you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So, you're looking for a way to redefine fascism according to an agenda to apply it to the left? Wikipedia goes by published scholarly sources according to a broad historical perspective, not according to of-the-moment hyperpartisan revisionism.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Those numbers in square-brackets after the sentences in the lead are citations, which reflect similar citations and things cited to them in the article. We have to go by what they say. Fascism doesn't just mean "bad stuff" or "authoritarianism"; it refers to something fairly specific.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit clash with Aquillion, who makes some similar points)
 * Jumpoutboy, "Fascism" means the same thing now as it did in the 1950s. Your 1950s dictionary was probably defining it correctly and a good modern dictionary will define it pretty much the same way. You seem to want to redefine "fascism" as "bad" for purely tactical reasons so you can use it as term to describe things that you think are bad but which have little or nothing to do with actual Fascism. If you want to say that certain things are bad then just use the word "bad". That way people will know what you mean.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a court of appeal for people who don't like what it says in the dictionary. We are not going to turn language on its head just to suit your (or anybody else's) political goals. Your problem with Antifa is not our problem.
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agenda.... Lets examine agenda when we talk citations. Who are we sighting in those bracketed numbers, are they proponents of the left themselves, and if so, why do they get the authority to choose whether fascism is a right-wingers policy? Rhetorical, as I won't get an honest or unbiased answer about that.

Moving along... The summation of the definition as stated is for one place in time, and ere the agenda may reside, agenda is secondary to a factual observation about the polity in question. In short, America, the United States thereof, being the place, the observance being the application by leftists of fascism to the right in this nation.

Has it not struck anyone here, that to call an ultra-nationalist in America a fascist is an intellectual and political oxymoron? As America from the historic narrative has always been patriotic/ultra-national. Ergo, to be on the right as an American is to back the precepts and ordinances of the Constitution, and thereby, support leftist activism's right to exist, and to protest the very institutions we uphold.

One literally can not be fascist in that regard, when the nationalism espoused is the full support of liberal democracy and republican libertarian dogma. If that is defined as opposite to fascism according to my dated 50's dictionary, which apparently is a good source to put into brackets, then it can not by definition be fascism at all.

Hence, application of the term where it can not only be applied in social commentary, but also be observed in the persona non grata, seeking to apply the term and any leftist group or opinion seeking to keep it the "right's" burden in perception.

Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, for not knowing how to sign my posts and all, this is the first thing I have ever typed on a wiki page.Jumpoutboy (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the first paragraph
While fascism is ethnically and culturally far-right, the article fails to mention that it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the state, and while businesses may technically be private, they are heavily influenced by a central government. The article literally implies it in the first paragraph with: "characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."

This is also why it has been argued that it is in some way incompatable with the left-right spectrum, because it is made up of ideas from both the extreme right and left.

Although due to the current sociopolitical paradigm in the western world as of today, I doubt that this inconsistency will be taken into account or even recognised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 (talk • contribs)


 * it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the stat That is not a left-wing political philosophy, and if you want to see the article changed, you need reliable sources to support your change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's far right because that is what sources say it is. If you disagree you need a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Italian Fascist inclusion of corporate syndicates into government is the opposite of leftist economic policy. There's a difference between collective ownership and central control. With the significance of monopsonies such as Amazon on the American economy, there's a strong case that the United States has a de-facto centrally controlled economy; albeit not by the government. But the few think pieces that have tried to present Jeff Bezos as the next coming of Lenin have all been pretty bad takes. But more importantly, by far, we follow reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)