Talk:Fascism/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Remove "right wing" from lead

So I've been following this discussion for a while without posting in it, because this sort of thing is what often irritates me about Wikipedia. According to the pageviews analysis tool, talk page views increased substantially when "right-wing" was first added around the beginning of March, and haven't declined back to background levels. That amount of controversy suggests we might have done something wrong. It doesn't help that the current content of the page seems to be guarded by several people who dismiss any proposals to change with "no, because RS" without much of a real discussion.

To be clear, I am not saying fascism isn't far-right. Nor am I arguing it should be described as anything else. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the lead sentence. The lead paragraph already has the "far-right" sentence, which can probably stay. But clearly there's a bit more nuance to it, since there's a whole section in the article about the political leanings with a decent amount of content.

It's also worth noting that on articles for undeniably left-wing topics, such as socialism and communism, don't include anything remotely similar to "left-wing" in even their lead paragraphs even though they are clearly far-left. This article throws that at the reader in the very first sentence. This is why I believe the inclusion in the lead sentence is at least partially politically motivated by the viewpoints of many editors here, and would violate NPOV. Highway 89 (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a far more valid reason for removing it (not the traffic, consistency of approach).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually it's not a valid reason at all. Please review WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of other stuff, but I am also aware that if you have two similar (or even related) subjects that are treated by different standards wp:NPOV may also come into play.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE also states: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." The way I see it, there are very real NPOV concerns here when looking at the encyclopedia as a whole. Including this in the lead sentence appears to have been little more than political bait to start arguments, since the rest of the article does a pretty good job explaining the political nuances of fascism. Highway 89 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The text is as it is because that's what reliable sources say -- not because anyone is trying to start an argument. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that both socialism and communism are described by RS as left wing, yet that is not the their opening sentences. This is why I say there is some validity to this point, I cannot see a valid reason for the difference. Now there is an argument for saying "well put it in those articles then", none the less I still find it strange.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course, one thing that the people upset over calling fascism right-wing fail to mention about socialism and communism is that no socialists or communists dispute that their ideologies are left wing. As such, it's less urgent to put it in the lede because a casual reader will already accept socialism is a leftist political position. Literally the only people who dispute that are a few left-comms who have no-true-scotsman'd the entire history of socialism and they would constitute a WP:FRINGE position on socialism. However, the tendency by fascists to try and claim (erroneously) that their political ideology represents a distinct third-position means that, in order to avoid WP:PROFRINGE in this case, it's far more important to situate fascism as it is viewed by academics, clearly and carefully and the academic consensus is that fascism is a far-right ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Far right and right wing are not the same, and we do not link to far right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to my statement. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody was intentionally trying to start an argument when this was changed, and I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm just saying it could be interpreted that way. Sorry for any confusion. Highway 89 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that I'm so sick of people coming in to this page and going against the tenets of WP:PROFRINGE to help and reinforce the in-universe perspective of fascists that their ideology is somehow different from other far-right authoritarians. I understand that most are probably regular old conservatives who are hurt that Fascism gets tied to their ideology while moderates aren't tied in a similar way to socialism. But this misunderstands the point of the designation here (as a WP:FRINGE compliant counter-point to the in-universe statements of fascists), it misunderstands the relationship socialists and communists have to the concept of "the left" (we embrace it), and it misunderstands the permeability of conservatism to fascist entryism compared to that of liberalism to socialist entryism. Frankly socialists rarely try to move into liberal spaces and make them more socialist because historical attempts to do that failed. Generally, rather, the objective with regard to liberalism of socialists is to set a very clearly delineated boundary and to attempt to draw the left-most liberals over it. Regardless of whether one is supportive of the ideologies in question, it's quite a WP:NPOV compliant, neutral fact that socialists and fascists have very different tactics for handling the center-left and the center-right respectively. And this difference requires differences in handling. Simply put, despite both being relatively extreme political ideologies, the objectives, self-understanding, and tactics of socialism and fascism are far too dissimilar to use one as a template for how we handle the other. And frankly centrists want it both ways on Wikipedia considering that any attempt to create Mass killings under capitalist regimes would be PRoDded so fast it'd make your head spin with WP:OSE being used as a central argument why it wasn't relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I said in the RfC on this very topic that it doesn't matter to me whether it's in the first sentence or elsewhere in the lead, and I am still of that opinion. To say that this topic hasn't had "much real discussion," however, is false. It has just taken place before (which is why we have the {round in circles} template message above), so rather than restate the same arguments, editors stick to the consensus pretty strongly.--MattMauler (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we change it to far right, as that seems to be what moist people seem to be really talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a case to point out WP:NOTCENSORED. I find the idea to alter well sourced article content to pamper to some hurt feelings a bit excessive. // Liftarn (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

what we say (and thus I presume what is sourced "radical right-wing"), but we do not link to Radical right, we link to right wing which is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to targeting Radical right rather than right wing. However I don't see it as entirely necessary either; as long as we aren't removing the statement from the lede I'm more neutral about the specifics of the wikilink. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

ETA - Radical Right is, on inspection, a disambiguation page. Far-right politics would seem a better fit if a wikilink change was deemed necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, but I just wanted to avoid any further arguments when we see "radical right is not far right" arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to targeting far-right politics in the first paragraph, but I still think we should leave political stuff like this out of the lead sentence. Highway 89 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want political stuff in the lede of an article about a political ideology you may need to consider not participating in articles about political ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(copied from the top of this page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism and populism

I'm a little concerned by Sourcerery's recent addition of "populist" to the opening sentence of this article, which now presents populism as an intrinsic element of fascism. Now, there are times when fascists have used populism, no doubt about it. But is populism intrinsic to fascism? That may be the view of a few scholars, like Griffin, but I don't think it's fair to say that it is a universally held view. Many scholars (for example Mudde) who have focused on populism have argued that the elitism prevalent in fascism is actually quite antithetical to the intrinsic anti-elitism of populist discourse. I'm more than happy to see populism mentioned in the lede, but I'm not convinced that the current placement is appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm little concerned that you are not being objective when it comes to relationship between populism and fascism. It now appears to me you have insisted in not having sidebar on Populism article mainly because it shows fascism as part of it. I understand you hate fascism, but you would deprave reader on important informations because you don't like it. It is supported by sources and it can be seen in archives of talk page. I'm not saying that's the case with you, just how it appears, you for example have no problems at all with fascism and nationalism sidebar in this article.Sourcerery (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would personally like to get rid of the fascism and nationalism sidebars in this article, but at the end of the day I am not particularly active here at present so will not push that view at the present time. As to the claim that I am not objective, I must stress that my views are merely that we must stick rigidly to the reliable sources written by academic specialists in the relevant scholarly disciplines. I quote, for example, from Roger Eatwell, from his chapter "Fascism and populism" in The Oxford Handbook of Populism:

"Whilst many have made “genuine populism” central to their definition of fascist ideology (Griffin, 1991: 26; 1998: 36), this was not the case with foundational fascism. The main point of contact in practice has been a strategic use of aspects of populist discourse and style in an attempt to boost support—partly linked to the fact that the fascist view of man has encouraged manipulation by charismatic leaders and the use of populist language, though neither are necessary defining features of fascism."

[]y way of final conclusion it is important to re-emphasize the major ideological differences, which lie at the core of foundational populism and fascism. Unlike fascism, populism is a form of democracy, albeit not liberal democracy. It is inconceivable that a populist could espouse the Hitlerjugend slogan: “You are nothing, your nation (Volk) is everything.”

The idea that fascism is intrinsically populist just isn't an unequivocal fact. Clearly, fascist parties and politicians have sometimes used populist discourse; but so have liberals, so have Marxists, so have conservatives, etc. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both used populism. Virtually anyone can use populism. Fascism, however, has very strong elitist tendencies and this elitism really is at odds with the fundamental anti-elitism associated with populism. Now, I'm not saying that we must hide all mention of populism from this article or its lede - I simply think that presenting populism as an intrinsic facet of fascism is at odds with what a great many scholars of both fascism and populism actually say. It's important that we fairly reflect what the RS say . Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, what you are talking about is pre-fascism or Proto-fascism and you have a point there."? In essence, it was an eclectic mix of Social Darwinism, elitism, Futurism and irrationalism, but if one attitude stood out, it was revolt, against reason, rationality and the wholesale legacy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution." I bolded elitism, from Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. You can see fascism being seen as populist in this source as well right from the start I think its on 2nd page, but plenty of times in general. It's great and used in this article.Sourcerery (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite get your point here. Isn't stressing the elitist nature of fascism rather supporting my point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that's proto-fascism and should be on that article, that article is really lacking.Sourcerery (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that supports your definition. While I understand the argument that fascism is form of populism, I don't see it in the literature. That could be because the term populism in its modern sense was revived in the 1970s to describe contemporary extreme right-wing parties, long after the Second World War. Meanwhile, neither the Marxist nor the "consensus" definitions of fascism saw populism as a major element. TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I did, Peter Davies; Derek Lynch (2002). The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. I mentioned already page 2, but here is quote from page 4: "The term ‘proto-fascism’ refers to the ideology of political movements that display signs of fascism, but lack the radicalism and populism usually associated with full-blown fascism." Bolded by source.Sourcerery (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Page 91 of the Routledge Companion goes into additional detail, pointing out that fascist movements used elements of both populism and elitism. Which is why we're saying claiming populism as an intrinsic quality of the ideology is problematic. Please don't WP:CHERRYPICK material within sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It goes in additional detail on Social Darwinism and how it relates to fascism, specifically proto-fascism, or early fascism. It already says Social Darwinism is defining feature of proto-fascism earlier in book "In essence, it was an eclectic mix of Social Darwinism, elitism, Futurism and irrationalism", full quote above. It's same source, how would he say something on page 4 then say something completely opposite on page 91?Sourcerery (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that you are misinterpreting the source and in the process you are WP:CHERRYPICKing the material that fits your WP:POV. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

So then it does not list populism as a "defining feature of proto-fascism"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the source does not say that. The introduction to the source makes mention of populism as a feature in fascist discourse; but nobody is disputing that. Rather we are disputing whether fascism is fundamentally populist. The full scope of the source makes it clear that the inherent tension between populism and elitism within fascism is one of several blatant contradictions of the ideology and reflects on how fundamentally internally-contradictory fascism is as a form of political thought. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure we are reading same source, it emphasizes populist nature of fascism numerous times. Please make sure it's not about proto-fascism because that's common misconception and providing a quote would be great [1].Sourcerery (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This has reached WP:DEADHORSE territory here. You are not accurately reflecting the overall thrust of the source. Full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to provide quotes for your claims like I did.Sourcerery (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look up WP:SEALION at this point. I've already provided a reference. The source is also readily available for other editors to review. I don't intend to engage in endless back-and-forth over it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, hope they read it and see that you don't really understand the topic.Sourcerery (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If I want to make a spag bol I need ingredients, I also need a fire to cook it. But the fire is not part of the ingredients.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say, I can see the point but I am not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be obvious based on this discussion that you don't have consensus to insert populism into the lede, just making certain that's clear to avoid the risk of further slow-edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Just plain wrong definition.

This article is just plain wrong. A Fascist is someone who believes in a political-economic model called Fascism; wherein privately owned businesses are largely controlled by the government. Using fascism to mean bigotry or nationalism is widely misused, and completely inaccurate. Yes, some dictionaries have this wrong too--that's how widely the inaccuracy has spread. Let's not choose to be wrong merely because most people use the wrong definition. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you presented sources to back that claim up, and also addressed all the sources in the article that claim otherwise. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, just taking one of the early sources on the list, "World Fascism: a Historical Encyclopedia" (the first one I looked at since so much of it is available for free on Google Books). In the introduction when they're defining the scope of the encyclopedia, the editor defines fascism thus:

A revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism bent on mobilizing all "healthy" social and political energies to resist the perceived threat of decadence and on acieving the goal of a reborn national or ethnic community. This project involves the regeneration both of the political culture and of the social and ethical culture that underpins it, and in some cases involves the eugenic concept of rebirth based on racial doctrine.

and immediately follows it with

The term ultra-nationalism is absolutely fundamental, and it must be understood as something totally different than traditional nationalism. Modern nationalism in the West is widely understood as based on "civic" concepts of nationality arising from legal processes that grant permanent rights of citizenship and residence even to culturally unassimilated ethnic or religious groups. But ultra-nationalism regards as "mechanistic" and meaningless the notion that the mere granting of a passport or even the acquisition of a language is a sufficient prerequisite for an immigrant's acquiring a nationality. Instead, it promotes an "ethnic," "organic," or "integral" concept of nationality that stresses the primacy of identity, of belonging to a supposedly homogeneous culture, shared history, or race that it sees as undermined by such forces as individualism, consumerism, mass immigration, cosmopolitanism, globalization, and multiculturalism.

This seems to be a reputable reference book, edited by a subject-matter expert and published by an academic publisher, so far as I can tell. Why should we ignore sources like these? Your definition, "privately owned businesses are largely controlled by the government," was an element of some fascist systems (see corporatism) but it isn't the defining element of fascism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Very dubious and wrong when talking about Fascism in general. What is described mostly applies to Nazism, Hitlers version of fascist. Racial element was there to lesser extent in Italian Fascism, but they did hate Slavic people, common with Nazism. But it's tolerance for Jews and their active participation in Italian Fascism disapproves this as defining feature of Fascism, see Margherita Sarfatti. Source is also poorly worded and unclear "...totally different than traditional nationalism. Modern nationalism" well which is it, modern or traditional? Traditional is more focused on ethnic lines and language, culture.Sourcerery (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That view, popular after the Second World War, especially among former Fascists, hasn't stood the test of time and is not supported in the current literature. TFD (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is, it is even supported in this article already with sources listed.Sourcerery (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Subsequent scholarship shows a greater degree of racism and anti-Semitism in Italian Fascism which began to affect policy with the Italian racial laws of 1938. See for example The Italian Executioners: The Genocide of the Jews of Italy. p. ix: "An important part of Italians' ability to distance themselves from this past has been the creation of the myth of the "good Italian.""[2] TFD (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Mussolini rejected Nordic theory and believed in Mediterranean race. He even said: "Thirty centuries of history allow us to look with supreme pity on certain doctrines which are preached beyond the Alps by the descendants of those who were illiterate when Rome had Caesar, Virgil and Augustus". By 1938, Italy was in effect Nazi puppet state and they did enforce Nordic racial doctrine that is true.Sourcerery (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Mussolini began removing Jews from public service in 1934 (The Jews in Mussolini's Italy: From Equality to Persecution), p. 101)[3] began an anti-Semitic propaganda campaign in 1936, and had previously spoken about the international Jewish conspiracy. There is no evidence that Mussolini was pressured to enact these laws. And while Mussolini initially rejected Nordic superiority, since Italians were not considered Nordic, he supported Aryan superiority. His anti-Semitism of course evolved and only became racial in the 1930s. Before then, he accepted Jews who were not part of the international conspiracy. TFD (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are mixing Nordic view and Fascist view of Aryan race#Italian Fascism. Fascist would often fail to enforce anti Jewish laws. Majority of racism of fascism was directed toward Serbs, Slovenians and Croats Italian Fascism and racism.Sourcerery (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You just said above that Fascists did not hate Slavic people. As I said, earlier views about fascism have changed. It doesn't matter what Wikipedia articles say, since we rely on external sources. Can you explain what change you want to make to the definition and provide a source? TFD (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said that, not sure you even read my posts.Sourcerery (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I just want to point out that there is a Definitions of fascism page. There isn't much of a focus on the economic side of fascism, but feel free to add something, if you have references. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Fascist corporatism.Sourcerery (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well we know that Wikipedia is so far left it can't get its head out of its own ass so that's why they're trying to make the right look bad they know for a fact that all the fascism is coming from the left Timskylark (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at the header. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the "radical, right-wing" from the general definition of Fascism

Fascism is not "right winged". Fascists can lean "far left" as well. Using vague and hard to define political party terms in the general definition of the term "fascism" is extremely irresponsible and wrong. Please remove the "right winged" from the definition. You could also remove "radical" as well, seeing as that is more of an opinion than a key general definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.44.164 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Already discussed. There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists. TFD (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How true. I find it hard to imagine that the "far left" (socialists and communists) would be in alliance with, and happy support of the big capitalists in their countries. They are, pretty much by definition, enemies. The alliance of the right wing, fascists, and capitalists is obvious. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fascism is seen as a political movement or political religion than an ideology. Hugh Trevor-Roper put it, "an ill-sorted hodge-podge of ideas" Hitler in fact described his ideas as a Weltanschauung literally meaning world view. In this sense, a worldview is a complete, almost religious, set of attitudes that demand commitment and faith, rather than invite reasoned analysis and debate.

The more I look into this, the more I am convinced that we have made a grave error by adding "right wing" to the definition. It is not supported by reliable sources, which actually support its immediate removal.

From Centrism in Italian politics (PDF Cambridge.org

Underlying the thinking of all centrists is a refusal to side with either of two opposed alternatives conceived of in spatial terms as positions lying on either side of the one occupied by the centrist position itself. This is true whatever the substantive content of the positions we are talking about. Thus, within the Marxist political movement, ‘centrists’ were those whose ideological outlooks reflected a position between the revolutionary and the reformist. Fascism, too, sought to establish its credentials as a centrist force, claiming to offer a ‘thirdway’ between communism and liberalism. Mark Donovan & James L. Newell (2008) Centrism in Italian politics, ModernItaly, 13:4, 381-397, DOI: 10.1080/13532940802367554

From Live Science

Fascism is a complex ideology. There are many definitions of fascism; some people describe it as a type or set of political actions, a political philosophy or a mass movement. Most definitions agree that fascism is authoritarian and promotes nationalism at all costs, but its basic characteristics are a matter of debate. (Nowhere in the article is "right wing" mentioned.) The cite from was written by "Jessie Szalay is a contributing writer for Live Science. She covers animals, health and other general science topics." -- not a RS

The distillation of all that I've seen is: there is no simple definition of fascism. The only accurate description would include nuance, and lots of it. It does not lend itself well to a one-liner (such as the first sentence of the Lede). Even with the nuance required to summarize WP:RS, using "right wing" as a descriptor does not have support. As I mentioned in the RfC, WP's counterparts Britannica and Merriam Webster, uphold my contention: Britannica does not mention "right" in their Lede paragraph; Merriam Webster does not mention "right" whatsoever. The Simple English Wikipedia also makes no mention of "right". What they have in common, as did en.Wikipedia prior to the very recent change, is nuance. There are articles devoted to the fact that "fascism" is not easy to define, yet we are here defending the idea that it is easy, that we have done what scholars could not? petrarchan47คุก 02:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to look harder. (1) Webster unabridged dictionary includes "fascism" under the definition of "right wing." (2) Encyclopaedia Britannica does not use it in the lede but does use "right" a lot: eg "During the Great Depression, thousands of middle-class conservatives fearful of the growing power of the left abandoned traditional right-wing parties and adopted fascism. The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small, since many of the ideas that Hitler exploited in the 1930s had long been common currency within the German right." (3) The Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary defines "fascist" as "a person of the far right in politics". (4) The quotation above from Live Science was written by "Jessie Szalay is a contributing writer for Live Science. She covers animals, health and other general science topics." -- she has a degree in nonfiction writing and is not a very reliable source. (5) The quote from 'Centrism in Italian politics' is about how the fascists positioned themselves in Italian politics before they power, and does not deal with how reliable sources position them in political history in 2019. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It sure isn't easy to define Fascism, and that is actually my entire point. I don't believe any of what you've said justifies the addition to the lede sentence. petrarchan47คุก 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fascists have only come to power with the support of the Right and never with the support of the Left. Mussolini led the National List, which included other right-wing parties. Hitler went into coaltion with the Conservative Party. Their main opposition were Socialist Democrats and Communists. Center parties on the other hand, frequently form coaltions with either the Left or the Right. That's actually the origin of the left-right concept, that political parties would seat themselves in the legislature closest to the parties with which they were most likely to cooperate. Hence the fascists are far right. There are no examples of centrists working with fascists to the exclusion of parties on the left or right. The centrist Liberal Democrats in the UK for example would find more common ground with either the Conservatives on the right or Labour on the left than they would with the far right British National Party. TFD (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's incredibly nuanced, like our previous definition. I appreciate you and your comment. I don't know how it would help with content creation, as we have to rely on outside sources which don't agree that Fascism neatly fits into the "right". The previous version of our Lede paragraph allowed for the fact that not all scholars refer to the "right-left paradigm". I'd be interested in seeing this article include a balanced overview of all reliable sources. It is possible though that the subject creates too much emotion for the majority of editors to remain neutral. This wasn't the case during the Obama years, when we didn't hear the word so often, and I maintain that this article was much more encyclopedic then. Without the emotional charge, Wikipedians in prior years did not argue that it is "right wing", but followed what the sources say - which is that not all scholars agree and that it's not easy or simple to define. So they chose not to create a simplified definition. petrarchan47คุก 01:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The arguments supporting fascism as a right wing ideology are simply not convincing. We would have to change the definition of right wing to make it fit - round peg in a square hole - and that doesn't count the variations of right vs left relative to the interpretations of individual academics, historians, and the prevailing views of the general population in each country. We have an article on Left-wing fascism. There are far too many elements involved to stereotype fascism as either right or left. It is what it is, and it's fascism. Sadly, it's highly unlikely this article will ever be stable as long as contentious material remains in the lead. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not that nuanced. The screaming fanatic in the MAGA hat for example railing about the deep state, the elites and the banksters, while bearing a superficial resemblance to populists on the left, is still on the right. (Go ask him.) TFD (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And how do you classify the screaming fanatics wearing black hoods yelling death to cops or celebrities spewing hatred like the one holding a decapitated head, or another who wanted to blow up the white house? What about the Berkeley riots (again, black hoods) and violence on college campuses, and the radical calls to change the US Constitution and electoral college, or the college administrators refusing to allow free speech by prohibiting certain speakers? When different parties are involved opposition is inevitable, and one party is almost always going to dislike or even hate the other. Resistence to Bush and Obama was far less violent than what we've seen of late. In a nutshell, there is no cut and dried definition of fascism. The definition most people will support is the one that aligns closest to their own. Fascism is its own ideology with different elements mixed in, and I'm of the mind that it is as wrong to stereotype fascism as either right or left as it is to stereotype "protests" in that same manner. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You classify those in your first sentence as anarchists -- the opposite of fascists. After that, sorry, but you appear to have just posted some unconnected thoughts. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The screaming fanatics in black are anarchists, which puts them on the far left. In fact, there are a number of videos of anarchists physically attacking people in MAGA hats. Kathy Griffin is a Clinton supporter, wherever that falls in the political spectrum, it's not on the far right. Whether right-wing, centrist or left-wing supporters are more violent is irrelevant to this discussion. TFD (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's why we go with what RS say, and the widespread opinion is that fascism is difficult to define because it includes both right & left wing elements. Later folks. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fascist: “A person of right-wing authoritarian views” – Oxford English Dictionary. This has been the definition for decades. It was derived from Fascista, a body of Italian nationalists formed to combat Communism. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope:

• "Just as Marxists, liberals, and conservatives differed within and between various countries, so too did fascists." Britannica
• "Fascist: often capitalized : 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." Merriam-Webster

We look at the widespread definitions - not just the Oxford which is only one definition. The more variables brought forward only serves to prove the point that it cannot be defined as either right or left. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Except that none of these "widespread definitions" actually denies that fascism pertains to the right or asserts that it belongs to the left. For this argument to be relevant, there would have to be actual, reliable sources disputing the attribution of fascism to the right, not merely sources that are silent on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Perception. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The first quotation is comparing fascists with "Marxists, liberals, and conservatives" only in the sense that they all had regional/national differences. Well, so does barbecue. That doesn't mean that barbecue is Marxist, liberal, or whatever. (Did Marxism and liberalism also include "acceptance of racism" and "identification with Christianity"?) The second quotation doesn't contradict the OED definition, and in fact defines fascism using qualities of right-wing politics such as nationalism, hierarchicalism, and authoritarianism. (I think we'd give greater weight to the OED over Webster's in any case.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"identification with Christianity" Britannica emphasized the Christian identity of the fascist movement and its opposition to atheists and humanists.:

• "Most fascist movements portrayed themselves as defenders of Christianity and the traditional Christian family against atheists and amoral humanists. This was true of Catholic fascist movements in Poland, Spain, Portugal, France, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. In Romania, Codreanu said he wanted to model his life after the crucified Christ of the Orthodox church, and his Legion of the Archangel Michael, a forerunner of the Iron Guard, officially called for “faith in God” and “love for each other.” "
• "In France, Valois, Taittinger, Renaud, Bucard, and La Rocque were all Catholics, and Doriot, previously an atheist, appealed to Catholic sentiments after he became a fascist. Although Maurras was an agnostic, he defended the Catholic church as a pillar of social order, and there were many Catholics among his followers. The fascist intellectual Robert Brasillach described the Spanish Civil War as a conflict between Catholic fascism and atheistic Marxism. Drieu La Rochelle rejected liberal Catholicism but praised the “virile, male Catholicism” of the Middle Ages and the “warrior Christianity of the Crusades.” "
• "Although fascists in Germany and Italy also posed as protectors of the church, their ideologies contained many elements that conflicted with traditional Christian beliefs, and their policies were sometimes opposed by church leaders. The Nazis criticized the Christian ideals of meekness and guilt on the grounds that they repressed the violent instincts necessary to prevent inferior races from dominating Aryans. Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were “incompatible,” primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.” Bormann’s views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism. Although Hitler was cautious about dangerously alienating Christians during World War II, he sometimes permitted Nazi officials to put pressure on Protestant and Catholic parents to remove their children from religious classes and to register them for ideological instruction instead. In the Nazi schools charged with training Germany’s future elite, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship ceremonies."
• "Despite the many anti-Christian elements in Nazism, the vast majority of Nazis considered themselves to be religious, and most German anti-Semites supported Christianity purged of its “Jewish” elements. The pro-Nazi German Christians, who were part of the Lutheran church in Germany, held that Christ had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan, and male members called themselves “SS men for Christ.” In many German families children began their prayers before meals with the phrase, “Führer, my Führer, bequeathed to me by the Lord.” "
• "In Italy, Mussolini signed a concordat with the papacy, the Lateran Treaty (1929), which, among other things, made Roman Catholicism the state religion of Italy and mandated the teaching of Catholic doctrine in all public primary and secondary schools. Later, many practicing Catholics joined the conservative wing of the Fascist Party. In 1931, however, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, Non abbiamo bisogno, that denounced fascism’s “pagan worship of the State” and its “revolution which snatches the young from the Church and from Jesus Christ, and which inculcates in its own young people hatred, violence and irreverence.” Although many Italian fascists remained Catholic, the regime’s mystique contained pagan elements that glorified the spirit of ancient Rome and the military virtues of its soldiers."
  • Business as usual for Christians to oppress and persecute other people, but this Christian identity says nothing about their position in the political spectrum. Christianity comprises a large number of political movements, from conservative Christian democracy to leftist Christian socialism and Christian communism. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

look at the right-wing options Dictionary of Modern Political Ideologies Page 67 by Michael A. Riff - 1990: gives the context here: The right wing' in a country may well consist of strongly conflicting elements — laisser-faire liberals, anti-Communists, authoritarians, monarchists, jingoes. Fascism (see FASCISM) is certainly a 'right wing' political creed Rjensen (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Look at the left-wing and no-wing options beginning with Left-wing fascism. Rjensen, I'm not challenging the existence of your sources and published opinions that support your POV. I agree with you in that regard. My argument is simply that other sources exist with opposing opinions and different views about what defines fascism. Zeev Sternhell authored "Neither Right Nor Left" (Princeton, 1995). Another definition for the economics of fascism is that it's "socialism with a capitalist veneer" ("The Library of Economics and Liberty"), and on and on ad nauseam. The opposing RS and contentious debate over the varying opinions of academics, historians and researchers are the reason the proposed right wing definition in the lede, in Wikivoice, is noncompliant with NPOV; i.e., the sources cited support a single definition among many, which makes it POV. I see our job as editors to include all significant views, not focus on one POV over another. With regards to the above RfC, keep in mind that NPOV policy states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, although Sternhell called his book Neither Left nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France, he clearly refers to it as the "revolutionary right," distinct from legitimism, orleanism and bonapartism, but nonetheless part of the Right. And he points out that the Right evolves and survives by taking ideas from the Left. (As I pointed out, so has the Trump movement.) Your other source, that calls fascism "socialism with a capitalist veneer" is not reliable. The author, Sheldon Richman is a journalist and contributor to libertarian sites who as far as I know has no relevant academic qualifications and is not published in peer-reviewed academic journals and holds a number of questionable views. In conclusion, no reliable sources exist with opposing opinions. TFD (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In doing the research and reliable sources, I recommend going beyond the title of books and actually looking at some of the contents. This is possible thanks to Google and Amazon. As TFD points out, Sternhell insists that French fascism is based in the right. He states it explicitly on page 1: "It was in France that the radical right soonest acquired the essential characteristics of fascism." Read Zeev Sternhell (1996). Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France. Princeton UP. p. 1. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't participated in the discussion so far (and I won't be able to from now on - too many RL obligations), but I did vote in support of having "right-wing" in the first sentence, and I'd like to also add my perspective here.

The main argument against adding "right-wing" to the first sentence is based on the fact that fascism is a complex and controversial topic and there is no single definition of it that all RS would accept. This is true. But the same argument could be used against calling fascism "a form of... ultranationalism". Not all RS call fascism a form of ultranationalism in their definitions. In fact, the specific term "ultranationalism" does not appear in any of the RS quoted in this discussion so far! And yet we use it in the first sentence, because, while most RS don't explicitly call fascism "ultranationalist" when defining it, almost all RS talk extensively about extreme nationalism as being a core element of fascism. There is a clear scholarly consensus that fascism is a form of ultranationalism, even if most RS don't contain a sentence explicitly saying "fascism is a form of ultranationalism".

The same holds true for the appellation "right-wing". While not all RS explicitly call fascism "right-wing" when defining it, almost all RS that talk about an "extreme right", "far right" or "radical right", include fascism in that political category. So I believe that calling fascism right-wing is just as warranted as calling it ultranationalist. I don't see how the argument about the controversial nature of fascism would apply to the appellation "right-wing" in particular, more than to the other things we say about fascism in the first sentence. Everything about fascism is controversial.

I also think that the first sentence we have right now adequately reflects the lack of a precise consensus on the nature of fascism by keeping things relatively vague and broad. We call fascism "a form of...". That's good. It indicates that what follows are a few general characteristics of fascism. Fascism is a form of radical right-wing authoritarian ultranationalism - but not all radical right-wing authoritarian ultranationalism is fascist. -- Damoclus (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If RS give multiple perspectives, views and definitions than article should reflect that? Also if no RS given calls it ultranationalist than article shouldn't have that word included either.Sourcerery (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of a source that does not call it that although not necessarily in the same words - they may use extreme instead of ultra for example. While different definitions may place different emphases on various aspects, I don't know of any that exclude it. TFD (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

First sentence is clearly not quoting sources. "Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism". You either say ultranationalism or you say radical nationalism, but you don't say both. Sources say radical which applies to words coming before nationalism and nationalism as well. Sources given don't call it right wing either. From quoted source, Paxton 2004 - Anatomy of Fascism - "Italian revolutionaries used the term fascio in the late nineteenth century to evoke the solidarity of committed militants. The peasants who rose against their landlords in Sicily in 1893–94 called themselves the Fasci Siciliani. When in late 1914 a group of left-wing nationalists, soon joined by the socialist outcast Benito Mussolini, sought to bring Italy into World War I on the Allied side, they chose a name designed to communicate both the fervor and the solidarity of their campaign: the Fascio Rivoluzionario d’Azione Interventista (Revolutionary League for Interventionist Action). At the end of World War I, Mussolini coined the term fascismo to describe the mood of the little band of nationalist ex-soldiers and pro-war syndicalist revolutionaries that he was gathering around himself." Page 4. Later in 1930s when fascism was in decline, Mussolini will blame unease alliance with conservatives and bourgeoisie. Sources quoted have nuances that article is lacking. Robert Paxton "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Looks like there is lot original research on this article.Sourcerery (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Finding sources that use the term "ultranationalism" takes seconds.[4] I'm guessing that most sources call it "far right"[5] so if you think that would be better, fine. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Then change sources, because given sources don't.Sourcerery (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug, most tertiary sources do not stereotype it as right wing or left wing. There is also some concern about WP:SYNTH, but the bottomline is the existence of RS that have justifiable challenged other RS that stereotype or label fascism as either right or left wing, and it is noncompliant with NPOV to ignore that argument. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Far right and right wing are both used by RS and both “true”. Far right would likely fit NPOV better as it is more restrictive and would probably be more palatable to those on the right that are not fascist. I’m OK with either. The fact that some right-wing sources point to the German proper name Nationalsozialistische as “proof” that it’s leftist is not NPOV. Ultranationalist is a given. O3000 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Umm, Atsme, that is simply not true. The vast majority of secondary/tertiary sources identity fascism as a right-wing phenomenon. There are a few sources that also discuss "fascism of the left" as a parallel but distinct phenomenon, and there are a few no true scotsman right-wing sources that sepatate Fascism from "true" right-wing politics, but it would be UNDUE to give substantial WEIGHT to either. The right-wing denial that Fascism is "of the right" is essentially a FRINGE position. Newimpartial (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, Newimpartial, I never said what you're alleging I said. If you're going to criticize something I said, then please quote me accurately - "most tertiary sources do not stereotype it as right wing or left wing." If you disagree, feel free to name the reliable tertiary sources that support your position. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you making a distinction between "stereotyping" Fascism as right-wing and "identifying" (my term) or characterizing it as right wing? Because sources for the latter have been amply presented on this Talk page. They include literally all mainstream scholarship on Fascism... Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, the Prod. wooF can you verify revert that you just did by reading quoted sources and then, after you do, self revert. Thank you.Sourcerery (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh so you are gonna disregard quoted sources? Then why are they quoted?Sourcerery (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"He states it explicitly on page 1: "It was in France that the radical right soonest acquired the essential characteristics of fascism." Read Zeev Sternhell (1996)." Jensen, read a little further. Sternhell traces the ideological ancestry of French fascism on page 6: "That conflict did not go back only to the interwar period; it came into being with the appearance, at the end of the ninteenth century, of a radical, popular, and socialistically inclined right, which heraled the way for the fascism of the twenties and thirties. This pre-fascism (which ideologically was already a mature form of fascism) immediately clashed with the conservative right; their collaboration on specific issues for particular purposes cannot conceal their essential opposition. ... The traditional, liberal, and conventional right played the same role toward prefascism and then toward fascism itself that social democracy plays toward communism in times of extreme crisis." The writer traces French fascism's origin to Cercle Proudhon, and from there to Charles Maurras' Maurrassisme and Georges Sorel's Sorelianism. He also traces French fascism's origins further to Georges Ernest Boulanger's Boulangisme (synonymous with Revanchism), and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's own anti-intellectualism and anti-romanticism, and his contempt for bourgeiois and liberal values, for democracy, and for liberalism. Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What you are quoting neither supports definition as right wing, neither as ultranationalist. Read source that has 3 pages given for that one sentence, Paxton (2004), pp. 32, 45, 173. Not one page talks about fascist place on political spectrum, neither it calls it ultranationalist. In fact page 173 talks about neofascism and 1994? Sources given support populist, which is not in sentence for some reason?Sourcerery (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sternhell sees prefascism (sic) as a radical right, in opposition to a conservative right. Then traces its origins. It supports definition as right wing. I did not comment on ultranationalism, as I fail to see the difference between a nationalist movement and an ultranationalist movement. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pre-fascism or proto-fascism belong in Proto-fascism article. edit: Just reading literature on fascism that is quoted here and among literature is Sternhell. Sternhell, Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France;. So what you are claiming is not true. Sourcerery (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." " Nationalism already has expansionist goals, and the ideology has been connected to many secession movements, campaigns for political union, and irredentism, since the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Expansionism and Expansionist nationalism are not somehow unique to fascism. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't support nationalist, in fact my edit did indeed put that definition while removing ultranationalist which has no basis in sources.Sourcerery (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We cannot use Sternhell's book to arrive a different conclusions than he did. He calls inter-war fascism part of the Right. TFD (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree: Remove “radical right-wing”. That was not Benito Mussolini's (founder of the term) definition. Adding “right-wing” gives a false (political) implication and does injustice to an honest and fair education. CloudShy (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Facism is radical far left as it all hinges on government control. Giovanni Gentile is the father of fascism and was a devout socialist and Neo-Hegelist up until his founding of fascism. Gentile was a devout student of the ideologies of Marx and Hegel. Fascistslayer (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fascistslayer: sorry, but drop-in editors such as CloudShy who never edited again and you, although you might edit again, simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. How could you without more experience and knowledge of our policies and guidelines? Please also note that this is not a forum to discuss fascism - just the article. The mainstream consensus today is that fascism is far-right. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References

break

Whether or not “fascism” is or is not “right wing” may be debated, but that really isn’t the issue here. The real issue is that there seems to be a distinct and glaring double standard when it comes to comparing the political leanings of “fascism”, as to how it is worded within the article, to how other articles that could be considered “left wing” are written.

Editor TFD states writes above “There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists”. This viewpoint basically concedes that communism is in and of itself a left wing viewpoint. So when you go to the communism page, if it were written like the fascism page, you would find “radical, left-wing” in the lead in paragraph, right?

Non only is the term “left-wing” not found in the lead in, you won’t find that term on the “communism page” until you go deep into the page, under “Left communism”, roughly the 16th section of the page. The term can also be found buried even further within the page. Yet that is only the beginning of this double standard.

So perhaps we can look at Marxism, another topic that is generally viewed as “left-wing”. Once again, the term “left-wing” is found buried on the page, in fact, not actually part of the page itself at all, at least, not as encyclopedic knowledge, it is only found under the categories at the very bottom. Again, this is not supportive of what is happening on the “fascism” page.

Lets move on now to “socialism”. The term left-wing is in fact mentioned 13 times total (9 times within the content of the article), and it is doubtful that anyone would argue that socialism is NOT left-wing. But even for socialism, you won’t find the term “left-wing” mentioned until deep within the page, no where near the lead in paragraph.

The most telling fact of all about this entire discussion is the fact that Antifa, or “anti-fascism”, is the opposite of “fascism” by the very virtue of the name itself. Yet on the “anti-fascism” page, yet again, you won’t find “left-wing” until you go deep into the page, buried in the second to last paragraph discussing only one aspect of the anti-fascist movement.

But within the “anti-fascism” page you find statements that admit to the idea of anti-fascism having held many different political positions over the years, right in the lead in, quote “holding many different political positions, including social democratic, nationalist, liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, trade unionist, anarchist, socialist, pacifist and centrist viewpoints.”

The obvious question then is this: If those fighting fascism come from so many different political philosophies, then how in good conscience can editors on the fascism page pigeon-hole the ideology of fascism into strictly “right wing”? Is the anti-fascism page, with all of its sources, completely wrong in the description of who all has fought fascism over the years? Or, more likely, are the editors on this page, the fascism page, putting on blinders and tunnel visioning the idea that fascism can “only be right wing” based on the very narrow viewpoints of the editors themselves and a few choice sources that back their own political ideology?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the “anti-fascist” page has to be wrong, or the “fascism” page is wrong. Please explain, and don’t use the cop-out “well, I didn’t write that page” excuse either. Both pages exist on one platform, Wikipedia, meaning they should match. I for one am against labeling any wide range ideology as “left” or “right” within the lead paragraph due to the complexities inherent to each ideology. This needs to be fixed. It looks very foolish, to be perfectly blunt.RTShadow (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Please take your argument about other pages to those pages as it really isn't the same thing. Language is not that simplistic. Fascism and anti-fascist are not necessarily polar opposites. Communism and fascism are not polar opposites. We must look at reliable sources separately in each case. In a simplistic view this may seem contradictory. But, we are not here to perform original research. We just document RS. O3000 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000. Wiki editors are responding to the needs of our readers. In recent years the world has seen a resurgence in many countries of far right wing and neo-fascist politics. (there is far less activity on the far left) Some readers get mixed up so the editors try to help them out by explaining that the reliable sources RS consider fascism on the far right. The job of Wiki editors is to report what the RS say. The articles on left wing topics don't seem to have similar problems so a similar solution is not needed there. Rjensen (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your WP claim is wrong. I specifically stated I do NOT want those pages changed, I have provided those pages as evidence that THIS page is not correct in the presumptions. Also, you did not have an issue with communism being brought into the discussion above, my friend, until such time as the topic did not agree with your viewpoint? “Fascism and anti-fascist are not necessarily polar opposites” would you like to explain, because your statement is contradictory to common sense, to be perfectly honest. Do not use WP incorrectly to attempt to discredit a user simply because you disagree with their viewpoint. Everything I have discussed is in fact valid. I am not asking for changes to other pages, I am using those other pages as evidence that the “Fascism” page itself is not correct and should be changed. You are attempting to use a WP as a weapon to discredit a response because you don’t agree with the viewpoint.RTShadow (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly don’t know what you are talking about, and you have no idea what my "viewpoint" is. O3000 (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"the idea of anti-fascism having held many different political positions over the years" I think this is a situation fitting the old adage "war makes strange bedfellows". People from otherwise different political schools of thought may align against fascism, because they view it as a mutual threat or because their ideologies are essentially opposed to one or more of fascism's aspects. For example, Italian fascism's restrictions or outright banning of "pornography, most forms of birth control and contraceptive devices (with the exception of the condom), homosexuality and prostitution" is not viewed positively by freedom of speech activists, abortion-rights movements, LGBT social movements, and sex workers' rights activists. Movements which are not usually allied to each other will still be unlikely to favor fascism's return to power. Dimadick (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RTShadow, that's a good point but there is a good answer. In the 1970s olitical scientists identified major "ideological families" of parties, which included communists, socialists, greens, liberals, Christian democrats, conservatives and "extreme right" parties. This last category presented difficulty, because unlike all the other families, its members did not necessarily have a shared history, literature or self-identification. Since then a new family has emerged, combining post-Communists, Trotskyists and left-wing social democrats and this political family is variously known as left, far left or radical left parties. The articles on these parties do in fact refer to their categorization. See for example, Syriza ("coalition of left-wing and radical left parties") or Podemos ("left-wing populist party"). TFD (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None of that matters - we go by the prevailing view in RS and that happens to be that it cannot be easily defined - and the reason for that is because it has so many different meanings. To say it any other way is POV and noncompliant with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, it's as simple as this. No. We are not going to obfuscate what fascism is. And we get somebody new asking us to do that once a week or so which is why we have the big warning box up at the top of the page. It's frankly exhausting having to go over and over and over this. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If it were as simple as what you say, the article would be stable but it's not, and the reason it's not is because it's not accurate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) False. It's not stable because Conservatives generally don't like fascism being put into their tent and, based on the spurious logic of people like Dinesh D'Sousa have desperately tried to pass the buck for fascism to its most strident opponents. But muddying the waters doesn't change the fact that top-tier sources, and reality, concur - fascism is a far-right political ideology. It is. It just is. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gointomexico (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion in right-wing blogs claiming fascism is left-wing. But if we were to give credence to their views we would have re-write articles on evolution, global warming, the moon-landing, water fluoridation, vaccines, the holocaust etc. etc. TFD (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you said that, TFD...😳 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't be. The reason I am familiar with them is my interest in extreme right politics. TFD (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we have this discussion over and over. It always ends the same way. RS state fascism is right wing. We follow RS. O3000 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, if you are looking for doughnut theory to be included in the lede on fascism, the website for that idea is not Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I was alerted to this conversation by the OP. Those touting the "It's right wing and no one who's anyone disagrees" need to cite sources. We had a "Request for Comment (RfC)" asking whether sources support the change made to WP's definition of Fascism, and the result was a weak consensus. Changing the definition of a term in the encyclopedia should have the type of consensus editors are claiming this has - but it does not. In fact, of the main sources, only Oxford and Wikipedia call "fascism" right wing. Prior to the RfC, our own article Definitions of Fascism had a Lede section that read:

What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.

A significant number of scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, it referred to a totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism which existed in Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Many scholars use the word "fascism" without capitalization in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) which was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify what Roger Griffin calls a "fascist minimum"—that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political movement must meet in order to be considered "fascist". According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked both left, moderate right wing and the opposition in the radical right in order to maintain power.

Other sources that don't include "right wing" in their definitions are:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica

• Merriam Webster

The Atlantic's take:

[Fascism was the 3rd most-searched word on Merriam Dictionary in 2015], between socialism and racism, which is just where fascism began in the 1920s. Now, many political commentators, especially on the left, detect a fascist moment in the Western democracies. But is fascism an accurate heuristic for the populist movements in the United States and Europe that have arisen in recent years, or is invoking the term just a kneejerk way of condemning political opponents? And if it’s inaccurate, might the word still represent a useful case study on the debased value of political language?

The problem, as they might say at Merriam-Webster, is in the definition. Scholars of fascism do not agree on what fascism means The Elusive Definition of 'Fascist'

Thanks for the ping, petrarchan47คุก 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic is not due any weight here. It's an opinion journal and Routledge is pretty damn clear on a definition. Does the OP care to WP:CANVAS anyone else? Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been disputes about the definition of fascism. The only point of agreement among all scholars has been that it is far right. Similarly conservatism has been difficult to define. The only point of agreement is that it is on the right of the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2019 (UT

I'm not an expert of the sources relative to this topic, I just see some logical flaws in this discussion. What perplexes me is that, even if everybody agreed that fascism is right-wing (and I firmly believe that it is), the question to answer should be the following: Should the adjective "right-wing" belong to the very first sentence of the lead, i.e. the definition of fascism as "a form of ultranationalism"? I feel like it's a bit like if in the definition of "Dolphin" we wrote "The dolphin is a grey aquatic mammal": of course everybody agrees that dolphins are grey but it sounds weird to specify that in the definition. In the case of fascism, I think its position on the right-wing must still be reported, maybe somewhere else in the lead section and/or in the rest of the article, but it could be moved out of the first sentence (and the short description) without a major loss of meaningfulness in the definition. Just my two cents. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well the usefulness of the political spectrum itself has been questioned before.: "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between socio-cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community)." Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether political scientists see a left-to-right spectrum as overly-simplified, reliable scholarly sources refer to fascism as far-right. While noting their entryist tendencies and decoherent ideology is appropriate in the body of the article, the lede should summarize clearly. And that's what it does. Regardless of whether conservatives like the connotation that fascism is closer to them than other ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You continue to harp about fascism being "right wing" so that you can avoid the actual topic at hand: you are using a double standard to attach the political leanings of one page (fascism) while ignoring the fact that the same standards are not being used on communism, marxism, socialism (all left leaning, with nothing in the lead in paragraphs), and most notably, anti-fascism. It is one thing to state that it can be defined as right leaning, it is another thing entirely to place the term within the lead paragraph. That definitely implies that, outside of right wing mentality, fascism doesn't exist. Regardless of whether or not that is the intent, that is the appearance that is given. The term should be removed from the lead and discussed within the article, as is the standard on other politically volatile articles on Wikipedia. RTShadow (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As I explained about, it is not use who are doing this but reliable sources and there is actually a reason for it. TFD (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, per WP:OSE just because something is handled in a specific way on one page does not mean a similar situation must be handled in the same way on a different page. Unless you believe there's a specific MOS guideline this page is breaking, it's irrelevant what they do on pages about other political ideologies. I mean, just consider that Mass Killings Under Capitalist Regimes remains to be deemed non note-worthy. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM digression and responses that boil down to no WP:OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur with removal, as Fascism doesn't align particularly well with either ideology. To say that it aligns with a right wing philosophy is political attack. While this is fine normally, it makes Wikipedia look like they are using Orwellian tactics to pursue a singular ideology and impacting Wikipedia's general credibility. Post a link to Wikipedia on Twitter and see how that goes, and this is the source of my concern, credibility. A simple though experiment can fully obliterate the argument that Fascism is a right wing ideology: If conservatism is about the limited role of government (in the USA at least) then more right of conservatism is Libertarian. Somewhere to the right of that would be anarchy. None of these philosophies espouse control that is seen in Fascism, so to make a correlation to right wing philosophy is simply an attempt at political discourse instead of distribution of knowledge. Ask yourself what is to the Right of Fascism? What ideology is to the left of Fascism? Nothing, it stands alone. Others have made the argument that Fascism is a left wing Ideology, but I disagree. Fascism is so far out of the realm of logical political discourse that no ideology can contain it, nor should it. While true liberals in the US and other countries espoused Italian Fascism as the future of Liberal discourse, they eventually disassociated themselves from it. Putting on a spectrum is a logical fallacy. The discourse on the page has descended general into one side arguing logically at times, while the other side is stubbornly refusing to listen to any form of discussion or logic by supporting their position without thought by quoting definitions from arcane dictionaries that noone trusts or believes, straw-men arguments (There are btw no far left fascists any more than there are far right communists) and general logic flaws (The ideological distance traveled from traditional conservatism to Nazism was sometimes small...). I can only assume that this is not what the Wikipedia organization is after, and you will make a decisive action to settle the situation by removing "Right Wing" association from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gointomexico (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Yet more original research. For the love of all that's human, could we please stop with such NOTHERE discussion and confine ourselves to what authorities on the subject (a.k.a. reliable sources) actually say? Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Facism is not a far right ideology, and grew out of or from communism/socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gointomexico (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Please read WP:SOURCETYPES and note the preference for scholarly sources (WP:NEWSORG might also help). The source you cite in your comment is not a reliable source. It's not scholarly; it's clearly marked as an opinion piece, and the author is not an expert--He has a BA and works in finance.--MattMauler (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC) It would be easy to give a point by point rebuttal, but in the end we have to present the conclusions found in reliable sources, not our own, per no synthesis. Please understand however, that I have read all your arguments before. They originally appeared in Cleon Skousen's article for the John Birch Society, "What is Left? What is Right?" In it, he explains how the French revolution was a right-wing revolution against the left-wing monarchy. TFD (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) We go with what RS say, and stop trying to bludgeon your way though.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Fascism doesn't represent a side of politics. It's neutral, the use of fascism is widespread. If you want the proper definition go to Webster's Dictionary. TheSleep13 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This page and talk section are truly a definitive example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. This idea that there is some "general consensus and therefore we will NOT change anything" is appalling. Obviously the amount of discussion regarding this topic shows that there is no general consensus. No one answered any of my questions regarding the placement of "right wing". Might I ask another? Can you provide me with ONE major page, just one, that uses the term "left-wing" within the lead paragraph? I looked myself, I can't find any. The answer "the way other pages are done does not define this page" is like turning and facing the wall in denial, nose in the air. If a multitude of similar pages that discuss ideologies are provided in which the same format is not being used, why then is it okay for this page? You've allowed your personal left-wing bias to cloud your judgment. And before you accuse me of the same, albeit the other side of the political aisle, remember, I'm asking for a fair approach to this article in comparison with every article I can find that would be thought of by the average person as "left-wing".RTShadow (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism definition

Saying that Fascism is right wing is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually is. Quit spreading lies.

Correct definition of FASCISM

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kievmc (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What you claim is the "correct definition" is just the opinion of one person with no article here. We'll go with the scholarship on the subject. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The fasces was not a symbol of collectivism, it symbolized a Roman magistrate's power and jurisdiction. Dimadick (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm really trying to stay away from Wikipedia because this sort of nonsense hurts my head, but I would suggest the new contestant on "but Fascism isn't on the right because that hurts my feelings," should acquaint themselves with WP:POLEMIC. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda_of_Fascist_Italy#Unity Interesting. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The entirety of the wiki entry is written in a communist viewpoint. Why don’t the editors use the description of the fascist party from the inventors and adherents? RamsesRibb (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Followers of an ideology are not necessarily good sources on the reality of that ideology in practice, and that's doubly true with fascism, because the founders and promoters frequently dissembled or changed their minds. One day fascism is anti-capitalist, the next it's a defender of corporations, etc. In any case, this is an encyclopedia, and policy states that articles should be primarily based on secondary sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If by communist you mean anyone who isn't a fascist, the reason Wikipedia presents a communist point of view is that it favors communist sources such as university textbooks over fascist literature as explained in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Wikipedia but you have this wrong totally wrong you should have left wing up there Timskylark (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It's right wing. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

From a real dictonary, the true definitition of 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"

Notice it does not say anything about right wing? Your supposed resources have been indoctrinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.28.247.96 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

• "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice it does not say anything about right wing? So, if I can find some sources that omit to mention that Hitler had a moustache then that means that he didn't? Even if other sources mention that he did? Is this evidence of indoctrination by the powerful and well funded moustache lobby? No. A source that doesn't make a claim either for or against is simply not helpful to either position and it is irrelevant to raise it. So, even if Dimadick's point did not stand, which it does, this would still not get anybody anywhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources say the sea is wet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oxford[6] and Collins[7] use right-wing in the definition. Oxford is probably the most definitive dictionary of the English language. However Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia and uses scholarly sources for summarizing topics rather than dictionaries. TFD (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We're not going to litigate this again

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be said that this article is perfect, and that there is no way to improve it, and those things can -- and should -- be discussed here. But whether "right-wing" should be changed to "left-wing" is not one of those things. That issue is settled and will not be re-discussed on this page, since doing so is essentially not about the article, it is about the attributes of Fascism in general, and therefore violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Any attempts to re-litigate the issue in violation of that policy will be deleted or archived, per the warning on the big pink box above. Those who insist on attempting to do so will be reported to admins for WP:Disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk)

It would be like folks constantly demanding that the Earth is flat. I looked. It isn't. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of the discussions you refer to are a good faith attempt to litigate anything. The goal is rather to astroturf the existence of a "debate". The means of doing so is to saturate the talk page with (at best and most charitably) unsourced assertion. It's far from unique to Wikipedia or even to this topic. One solution is aggressive archiving of the talk page; another I used to sometimes see on pseudo-medical topics is to transplant the edit to the user's talkpage. It's very tempting to try to debate them because it's so trivial to dismantle their argument. No matter how satisfying, that's a mistake. They win the debate simply by participating; their goal is legitimization of doubt, not truth. CIreland (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

To that end I've semi-protected this talkpage for a while - a review of IP and new account edits here doesn't turn up much in the way of serious discussion. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I know that semi-protection of an article talk page isn't often done, but this certainly seems like a circumstance which calls for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an unusual measure, but in this case I think it's justified, given the number of drive-by commentaries and the time it takes to address each one. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think this just feeds their sense of liberal persecution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but who cares about that? The talk page is for improving the article, not therapy for the victims of liberalism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but if they genuinely think this is an improvement it does no harm to at least go "no its not, see the archive" and then close and let nature take its course regards to archiving.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Slatersteven: the talk page has worsened since "right-wing" is in the lead and this is a fact. By the way, one of the motivations that were brought to justify the insertion of "right-wing" in the first sentence (specifically see comments of User:Simonm223 in an archived – although still ongoing – discussion) was indeed related to targeting one specific group of the population i.e. conservatives. I quote: one thing that the people upset over calling fascism right-wing fail to mention about socialism and communism is that no socialists or communists dispute that their ideologies are left wing. As such, it's less urgent to put it in the lede because a casual reader will already accept socialism is a leftist political position. Basically according to the user Wikipedia somehow has a mandate to contrast the (small) number of people who think that fascism is left-wing, while this is not necessary for socialism and communism because nobody thinks those are right-wing. This sounds like a case of WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia should not modify its content just to deal with the intricate psychology of some members of society. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is that left-wing isn’t added to communism or socialism because it has become redundant. This is not the case with fascism due to the long time efforts of those on the right to reposition fascism as left wing. And, I don’t think it is a “small” number of folks that believe fascism is left wing. I think it is a significant number. Ergo, it’s not redundant, but informative to include the language. Indeed, the near constant flow of editors challenging this is evidence that the language is needed and valuable. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia should not be modified considering the feelings of a part of the society, it should be agnostic to all of that. Your point is like saying that if and when the flat-earth society gains more and more members, we should change the lead of Earth to "Earth is a round planet" in order to contrast those people... (by the way, where do you take the data to say they are a "significant number"?) --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue that left wing should be added to the articles on communism and socialism. My point is that it is needed here as so many folks think it is left wing, as evidenced by the constant arguments. As for "my data", I said "I think" not "I know". We are here to inform. We should not make the article less informative because it upsets misinformed readers or to make our jobs easier. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Except we do not say "right wing" we say "radical right wing" but link to the right wing article. Thus is can be argued we are being disingenuous. Either we should say "right wing" or link to the far right article (which is what radical right is a euphemism for).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

When the issue is POV, as it is in this case, it tells us NPOV has not been achieved. The main symptom is instability. POV errors are typically corrected over time, and NPOV is achieved with a balanced infusion of information. Fascism is not a clearcut extreme right-wing view as it has been presented in the lede. There's a false equivalency - right-wing in the US is different from right-wing in Europe. The Oxford definition of fascism: The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. The right-wing nationalists in Europe were not governed by a Constitutional Republic, and those totalitarian governments and monarchies didn't even come close to being the same right-wing as the American GOP. The US is not a democracy, either - we have an electoral college. Americans have preserved individualism over the rule of totalitarianism, the collective or greater good, and/or political elitism (although every government has areas in need of improvement). Merriam Webster - an American dictionary - defines fascism as follows: often capitalized : 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. The differences are stark. See the NYTimes article: “What we found especially interesting is that it encapsulated a trans-Atlantic phenomenon,” she said. “Often, when looking at words, you’ll find one that’s a really big deal in the U.K. but not in the U.S.” ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

All American legislators at the local, state and federal level, all state governors and other state officials, all county official, all city officials, all of them are directly elected. To say the US is "not a democracy" because "we have the Electoral College" is to make an absurd over-generalization. We're a liberal democratic republic where the voting franchise is (now) very broadly construed. That's more of a "democracy" then you're going to find in most of the rest of the world.

In any case, your essay isn't in the least helpful in regard to the subject at hand. Please stop encouraging the crazies bu continuing to discuss this subject. If you must express your opinions about what "right" and "left" mean, please start a blog, here, its a clear violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

So, "no" to any further discussion about changing "right wing" to left wing". When I scroll through the recent archives, I don't see any overt attempt to argue for such a change, but I see many iterations of "fascism is not on the right/left spectrum", "remove right wing from the Lede", and the RfC which came on the heels of the recent addition of "right wing" to the first sentence of the Lede, which questions why the long consensed version of the Lede should not be restored. If fascism is unquestionably defined as right-wing, why wasn't this change made to the Lede until only a few months ago? Why did all the editors sign off on the previous, more nuanced version, by virtue of the fact that there was no discussion about changing it? The RfC result was "weak keep" - weak support for changing the definition of a term (given that WP is the top search result for that term on Google, Alexa, etc.) is an argument for not making the change, and for continued conversation. petrarchan47คุก 23:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)