Talk:Neo-fascism

Unsourced opposition to Capitalism
User:G.M. Sir Lawrence is about to engage in WP:Edit warring, by repeteadly adding the same unsourced information about neo-fascism being anti-capitalist. First of all, please write a summary when editing. Second, you have to provide WP:RS to support the edit. I'm referring to this edit and the ones before. I'll revert it back again if other users agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to put a RS even if actually there're not RS for opposition to Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Liberal democracy too. Plus I think it's questionable also "opposition to socialism" cause Neofascism takes often inspiration from forms of patriotic and national socialism. Ritchie92 speaks Italian so I suggest the reading of this voice in the Italian Wikipedia's version. --G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that other things are not sourced does not mean that you're right to add random things to the page. Also we don't take other languages WPs to be a RS. Also, please, are we still saying that "national socialism" is socialism? Just for the presence of the word "socialism" in their name it doesn't mean that Nazis were socialist. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain if you edited the article while not logged in, but considering the IP seems to have been making an edit specific to one of your concerns I'd like to put a friendly reminder that editors should avoid editing while not logged in. I'm assuming this is either a coincidence or an accident, so please take this message in good faith. That said, there are plenty of sources that talk about neo-fascism as being against marxism, communism, socialism and liberal democracy. I would, as I often do for issues related to this ideology, recommend Against the Fascist Creep as an excellent starting point, particularly for neo-fash movements. There are, of course, many other sources for this. However, starting with Mussolini's tenure, Fascism has never been at odds with Capitalism, and the introduction of Christian Dominionist, Neo-Confederate and Freeman of the Land doctrines into fascism in the Neo-Fascist movement of the United States has only moved Fascism closer to Capitalism, it certainly has not made Neo-Fascism into anything resembling an Anti-Capitalist doctrine. Again Against the Fascist Creep is a good source, so is the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right, which is generally treated as a top-tier source by Wikipedia for issues surrounding far-right political movements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, I agree. I have made this edit to clarify that, although I would not be opposed to remove any mention of opposition to capitalism. As you noted above and as I noted in the edit summary, there are neo-fascist groups that actually support free-market capitalism and neoliberalism. The claim of fascist opposition to capitalism and anti-capitalist rhetoric, usually interlinked with racial and antisemitic dog whistles, is a tactic made by neo-fascists themselves to gain support from working and lower-middle class people. No matter how many times they claim fascism to be a third way between free-market capitalism and "communism", their fascist corporatism is still capitalism. Davide King (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

POV that has not sense in this thread at all as I've already explained. Most of neofascist historical and active movements in Europe, South America and even North America define themselves anti-capitalist. There're several National Bolshevik organizations around the world; does this mean we have to cut off "Opposition to communism"? --G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Nazi called themselves National Socialists, does that mean they were socialists? They essentially define capitalism as free-market capitalism, so of course they oppose that. But that does not mean they are actually anti-capitalists if they support private property and a bunch of other capitalist characteristics. If fascists are anti-capitalists for wanting a corporatist mixed-economy or dirigisme, then so was the post-war consensus. Either way, all of this is moot because the books you provided as sources are about CasaPound and the New Right, not neo-fascism as a whole. Davide King (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and seem to agree with me and also opposed your changes, so I suggest you not to edit warring and get consensus for your addition. It does not support what you think it does. By the way, there is no mention of National Bolshevism, so your point is moot and the name does not really mean anything; again, just see National Socialism. Davide King (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? Eurocommunist parties are not anti-capitalist? Definition of Capitalism is complex and free market capitalism is one of its features. Your idea to use a really specific definition of Capitalism according to some scholars, it’s not different to use rare libertarian US alt-right movements as an example of “pro free market capitalism neo-fascists”. Three users POV edits are still POV edits.  G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That you think we are three POV-users is, ironically, your POV. As we write at Capitalism, markets are only one feature and have existed before capitalism, so being against free-market capitalism or neoliberalism does not mean being against the capitalist system as a whole, it means being against one type of capitalism (does libertarian socialists being against state socialism mean they are anti-socialists and vice versa?), otherwise anyone but economic liberals and American libertarians is anti-capitalist. Do you see it makes no sense this way? Either way, as I already wrote, all this is beside the point, since the sources you provided are about CasaPound and the New Right, not neo-fascism. The fact that fascist regimes have in practice always preserved the capitalist system, in the case of Germany even going against Western capitalist countries that strove for more intervention while the Nazis underwent a privatisation programs and only returned to intervention due the crisis in the 1930s and in preparation for war, just goes to prove all of its anti-capitalist rhetoric was just that, rhetoric to gain working-class support. I say you are the one pushing a POV unsupported by scholarly analysis. Davide King (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And using a scholarly definition of capitalism, not a dictionary one, is actually good. Davide King (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)