Talk:Fascism

Not far-right nor far-left

Fascism couldn't be considered far left or far right, as it's actually very close to the centre of economical spectre. Some sources indeed deem F. as a far-right ideology, but lacks of any valid argumentation. We just better avoid highlighting it's economical stance in the lede. Chronophobos (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Read FAQ. Also this is not a forum. YBSOne (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. I actually once edited it to remove the line about right wing. This is a clearly inaccurate, biased line that should be removed. CAVincent readded it when I removed it. His user page is one sentence, "I live in Seattle, Washington." I think that says all you need to know about CAVincent & where his politics are.Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"his politics" nor his user page have nothing to do about it. Neither does your opinion not based in sources. You should also read FAQ before editing such contentious topic. YBSOne (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a source for the line 'far right'. As an American with far right beliefs, I take exception with that description. Given the Biden administrations attempt to form the "Disinformation Governance Board" & the suppression of news on social media, I would argue that it is the far left in America that displays more fascist values than the far right.Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is bias based on your personal, disinformed opinion rather than reliable sources. YBSOne (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of far-right in the lead sentence has strong consensus behind it. This is discussed in the FAQ and in the talk page archives; for example, this RfC resulted in clear consensus for inclusion. It's possible for consensus to change, but that is not at all evident in this discussion. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and I hope users who are doing so, including Johnny Spasm, will stop edit warring and start the important work of

• gathering sources that dispute "far-right"
• compiling counterarguments against the sources that do
• and reading the prior discussions to avoid reusing arguments that have been countered in the past.

I continue to support inclusion of "far-right", and the sources cited at the end of the first paragraph make it clear that this is a widely discussed fact in many of the best available sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultra-conservativism in National Socialism

The lede of this article says that Fascism is a 'far-right' ideology. The page soon says that Adolf Hitler is a Fascist. The lede of the far-right politics page says that the 'far-right' tends to be 'radically conservative'. The lede of ultraconservativism says that 'ultraconservativism' refers to 'extreme conservativism' and finnaly the lede of conservativism says it 'seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.' We can piece this all together to say that, according to Wikipedia, Adolf Hitler (arguably the creator of National Socialism) seeks to 'preserve traditional institutions, customs and values', but since he is said to be an 'ultraconservative', he wants to basically not change anything of traditional institutions, customs or values.

This is directly contradicted not only by evidence of most Nazi-period historians, but also by Wikipedia itself, which says numerous times that Hitler and the National Socialists desired expansion into Eastern Europe in order to conquer living space (Lebensraum) for the survival of the 'Aryan race'; a 'New Order', which rejects the idea of them desiring to 'preserve traditional institutions'; (though some disagree) the National Socialists also rejected Christianity (or at least it being a fundemental part of their ideology) and thus can not be labaled as desiring to '[preserve traditional] customs'. Finally, the National Socialists did promote '[traditional] values' in the sense that they promoted 'traditional' family dynamics, but, importantly, only in 'Aryan' families. Other than that, traditional (Christian) values like 'you shall not murder' were encouraged, once again, only in the 'Aryan' community.

This is why I believe that the 'far-right' part of the lede for Fascism should either be removed or there should be a disclaimer that only some Fascist movements aspire 'ultraconservativism'. MicholIsUsed (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "conservative" is not used in the lede of this article, and the tension of fascism vs. traditional conservatism is already discussed in the "tenets" section, so I'm not sure what you actually want to be changed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mistake. I guess the word 'far-right' shouldn’t be used in this article then, since as I explained, there is nothing 'ultraconservative' about National Socialism. MicholIsUsed (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please use striking and inserting to amend your comment, so that Writ Keeper's reply still makes sense. As for the rest, please see the FAQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to everything Firefangledfeathers correctly says: "tends to be" is not the same as "equals exactly", so your entire chain of logic falls apart at the first link; "far-right tends to be radically conservative" means it is usually ultraconservative, but does not have to be precisely that. (There are many other problems with your logic, but since this is a talk page for improving the article and not a debating club, I'll leave it at that.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

'tends to be' means that it usually is ultrsconservative. So if it isn’t 'ultraconservative', as 'far-right' ideologies 'tend to be', maybe the page shouldn’t state so confidently that Nazism is 'far-right'. And please explain my othee falsehoods as I am trying to improve the page by this discussion. MicholIsUsed (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, RS say it is a far-right ideology. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is RS? MicholIsUsed (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources. Please re-read the glossary before proceeding. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition shows bias. A much better alternative would be the Merriam-Webster #1 [Fascism]https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/fascism-meaning-and-history.

The right v. left issue is not solvable because it is dependent on the definition of extreme right. It is like + or - infinity in mathematics. They can be considered the same point: fascism is then right wing but anarchism is neither right or left. Or, they can be an infinite distance apart: Then anarchism is right wing but fascism is neither right or left.

I suggest that the article discuss this question rather than taking a position.

Clearly fascism is not left wing. There is a distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian. Tyrerj (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read the notice you had to scroll past to post this. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The position we take is what most RS say, this is one source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably going to come up a few times as John F. Kelly#Donald Trump's comments on Adolf Hitler featured him quoting this article's lead sentence word-for-word. I mean, I can see that it is an ongoing issue but the volume may go up for a few days. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to add more contemporary examples?

I believe it would be quite imprudent to only update this page with examples of people who are only considered fascist in retrospect. Modern populist right-wing surges, spearheaded by the American MAGA movement, meet almost every commonly cited and authoritative definition of fascism.

I honestly believe anything short of adding fascist as a political ideology to the pages of Donald Trump and under the “factions” section of the Republican Party info box’s “ideology” section constitutes neutrality bias. At the very least, there should be discussion about Trump’s role within fascism in the article. Sitbear (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As always, we go by what reliable sources have already reported, not our own opinions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As with the above, we go by RS, and we need to take into account wp:notnews and wp:primary, this is an election year.So we need to rely on proper analysis, and not political rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion happens a lot but in short the label of fascist where Trump is concerned is disputed. We should only add examples where it's more unambiguous. — Czello ^(music) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly disputed, but it is not at all ambiguous. I’ll try to find some reliable sources.Sitbear (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a credible source that has ever called Donald Trump a fascist.Johnny Spasm (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Is his former chief of staff not "credible"? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article calls Fascism right wing. This isn't sourced. I merely posted that I would like to see that sourced, and someone who admits on his own user page that he is a socialist removed it. Simply put, everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and an accusation like that definitely should be.Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought someone with 6,000 edits would be able to read citations by now. The phrase "fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum" (also in the first paragraph) is cited by references #5-7, the last of which has thirteen reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

First seven sources, including multiple books are a source. They just contradict your biased opinion. YBSOne (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, notwithstanding the off-topic aside, I'd be curious to see what specific sources are being proposed to call the MAGA lot fascist. I know what my personal opinion is on the matter but WP will require (probably multiple) high quality and unambiguous sourcing to make such a statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

For instance, [1] This source refers to the MAGA movement as a "a particularly resentful form of majoritarian nationalism" which operates as a big tent including "bitter majoritarian nationalism, then populism, then traditional conservatism, next a Trumpian personality cult, and ending with the alt-right’s extreme white supremacism and fascism." But, while this source says MAGA includes fascists it doesn't say all MAGA adherents are fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The author of this article, published in the Sage journal Leadership, asserts [2] "Trumpism is a form of fascism" quite explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This article posits something of a fascist-populist rhetorcal nexus that contains Trump. [3] Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't get the full text of this article but what I can read suggests it would also support some association of MAGA with fascism. [4] I guess the question is whether sources like these (and you'll note I exclusively stuck to academic sources) are sufficient to meet WP:DUE and to refer to the emerging academic consensus that MAGA is at least permeable to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this article under 1RR

There's an edit notice for this article saying that the one-revert rule applies. This was enacted in 2009 after this discussion. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like WP:AN or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both EdJohnston and Daniel Case have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Meant to ping KrakatoaKatie, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. Katie^talk 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Fascism is NOT Far Right

The editor has been pblocked from the article for persistent disruption.

The intro to this article says that it is right wing. I removed that, it was put back. I put a request for citation, that was removed. Then I got blocked. The irony is amazing. People are acting like fascists on fascism's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) It is well documented and discussed here in great depth as noted in the red box at the top of this page. Your statement that people here act like fascists is a WP:PA which is unwise, particularly when blocked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature. "I don't think it is" is not an argument that needs to be repsonded to over and over and over again. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC) and yet, you have still failed to provide a single evidence to back up your claim. YBSOne (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing

As Just Step Sideways commented above:

This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.

And as Objective3000 notes, we already have a massive page notice which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.

As such I propose that we enact an indefinite WP:Moratorium on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) SerialNumber54129 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If editors are incompetent enough to miss the bloody great red message when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough. If we shut it down with something like

please see the notice at the top of this page
the same comment over and over

seems more likely to be effective. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Wikipedia's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to feel like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming.

A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — Czello ^(music) 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. SerialNumber54129 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That is absolutely the point, agreed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why have discussions been deleted?

Why have most of the discussions on the discussion page of Fascism been removed? MicholIsUsed (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Older discussions are archived. There are links to the archives in the header at the top of the page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 09:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but why was that done? MicholIsUsed (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

To de-clutter the talk page, otherwise they become too big. — Czello ^(music) 09:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it done on other pages too? MicholIsUsed (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, i's common procedure to shift conversations that haven't seen activity in a while (between 1-3 months generally, depending on the article) to an archive page. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's done in this article automatically by a bot. TFD (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If we did not we would have 10,000's of threads for you to wade through, imagine trying to navigate (let alone have your screen scroll) that? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Or download it. This page was created 23 years ago. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Poor record in war

I recently added a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation.

The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic more weight rather than less.

Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.) Sunrise (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also reverted this content as WP:EDITORIALIZING. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in their edit summary, because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in WP:TONE. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning.

That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? Trakking (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

@Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think:

Poor record in war

Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)

This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled differently, but I tried a different summary.

Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary:

In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)

@Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.
--Sunrise (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk.

One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion:

National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (Grosslebensraum) of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are.

Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war.

Best to leave it out. TFD (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)