Talk:Fascism/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Post-Soviet Russia

From the citations in this section, it seems that there is significant opinion that the Putin regime is not fascist because it is reactionary and not revolutionary. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the current Russian state to dispute that, but I would point out that if we take Nazi Germany as one of the primary examples of fascism, there are a number of interesting factors:

• I think there is little dispute that Nazism was modernizing, but whether or not it was revolutionary or not is, I believe, very strongly disputed between experts on the subject.
• What's not disputed is that the Nazis looked back at an (imaginary) time in Germany history, and sought to restore the values of that time. Thus while their techniques and instrumentalities were modern, their basic viewpoint was reactionary. It seems to me that Putin is attempting to do much the same thing, to restore Russia to Soviet-era power and status, hence his irredentist stance.
• This being the case, it would seem that being reactionary doesn't necessarily disqualify Putin's regime from being fascist as well.

Of course, this is just OR argumentation, and I'm not suggesting that any changes me made in the article at this time, just pointing out a direction which might be fruitful for further research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

As the souces used in the article show, Russia being fascist is a fringe view. It doesn't belong in the article. We could mention that the description of fascist has been used to describe any capitalist regime the author happens to dislike, and leave the details to other articles.

The only way that the categorization works is to expand the definition of fascism. Motyl's four characteristics of fascism for example could have applied to Stalinism, which is a more likely model than fascism.

TFD (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Russia being fascist is a WP:FRINGE view. This is simply false. There is legitimate disagreement among scholars on the matter but neither side can claim a monopoly on the mainstream. TFD, you and I have disagreed about this before, and if necessary I will be willing to continue the conversation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

From the evidence presented in the article I would say that three things are true:

• There is significant dispute between experts over whether Russia is fascist or not.
• The majority view is that it is not.
• The view that Russia is fascist is in the minority, but it is not a "fringe" view. Such a descriptor misrepresents the facts available.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If that were true, one would expect books about fascism to discuss this, which they don't. The most recent book I could find was Beyond the Fascist Century (Springer 2020), which has articles by leading Fascism experts discuss "the first hundred years of fascism and looking ahead to a new era in which fascism studies increasingly faces fresh questions concerning its relevance and the potential reappearance of fascism." If there were any debate, this book would mention it, since it would be a major example of the "reappearance of fascism."

All you have are a few isolated papers that have gained no attention from mainstream fascism scholars. Add to that a number of opinion pieces by non-experts. What they all have in common is that they use definitions of Fascism that have no acceptance in the literature. All they prove is Godwin's law.

TFD (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Not so. If one is interested in grounding oneself in the current debate, a great place to start would be this 2022 exchange in Nationalities Papers from Cambridge University Press:

1. Anton Shekhovtsov, "What Happens When Soft Power Fails" [1]
2. Yoshiko Herrera, "Who’s a Fascist?" [2]
3. Mitchell Orenstein: "Russia: Fascist or Conservative?" [3]
4. Marlene Laruelle: "Is Russia Fascist?: A Response to Yoshiko Herrera, Mitchell Orenstein, and Anton Shekhovtsov" [4]

An earlier exchange can be found in this special issue of Communist and Post-Communist Studies from back in 2016: "Between Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism in Russia: Exploring Vladimir Putin's Regime": [5] The introduction by Taras Kuzio gives a good overview of how the issue stood six years ago.

If one actually takes the time to read through this stuff, it should be clear that subject-matter experts fall along a spectrum on the matter, and that they tend to respect one another's positions, despite their differences. I agree with BMK that the median scholar probably leans toward the skeptical side, but this is decidedly not a case where one side falls outside the scholarly mainstream. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Alternative theoretical formulations. Saying something comes under WP:FRINGE does not necessarily that no sane person supports it, but that it has little or no support in the body of the literature on the topic, which in this case is Fascism. I haven't seen any textbooks on Fascism that discuss their theory. Therefore the discussion fails weight. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that aspects of the subject deserve greater attention than actual experts do.

WP:FRINGE incidentally doesn't stop you from creating an article on the subject, just says it does not belong in this one.

TFD (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The disconnect here appears to be that you imagine fascism expert to be a distinct profession, and that we should expect to find textbooks that will give us a complete picture of mainstream scholarship on the topic. Whereas actual experts range from policy wonks working at think tanks (or in government) to historians who deal with aspects of the fascist experience like Timothy Snyder, and the output of these experts is just as diverse. The best textbook on fascism in my experience is Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism, which is the one I use when teaching the subject to undergrads (the rest of their reading being either primary sources or more advanced secondary texts). And as you may recall, Paxton came out after the January 6th insurrection in favor of calling Trump a fascist. The "thin" / essentialist definition you appear to favor –– the one championed by Roger Griffin among others –– is certainly part of the scholarly conversation, but it is far from the last word. And indeed, historians tend to favor significantly more nuance in their discussions of recurring political forms. History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes, as the saying goes, so there is always going to be a degree of subjectivity in naming the sameness in each iteration. Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Another academic whose work might be useful to look at would be Vladislav Inozemtsev, who has put his life in great peril to criticize the Putin regime from within Russia. See for instance his piece "Putin’s Russia: A Moderate Fascist State": [6] Generalrelative (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't favor any definition, I am just pointing out that the definition you prefer has little or no support in the literature. It could be that the textbooks have it all wrong, but you would have difficulty persuading the faculty board of that, throwing them away and instead using obscure papers, "experts" who don't actually publish in peer reviewed sources or editorials. Of course, they will probably let you add a few of your own picks, but basically you have to teach the core of the topic.

The fact that Vladislav Inozemtsev wrote an editorial for the The American Interest saying that Russia was in the early stages of fascism does not make it a "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources," particularly if he hasn't published any academic papers on it.

Any article is supposed to outline the main points of the topic as would be determined by the body of reliable sources. Packing the article with obscure views distorts the neutrality of the article.

You may believe that generally accepted definitions of fascism are wrong and Putin is a Fascist. But it doesn't matter if you are right or not. It has been said however that if everyone is a fascist then no one is a fascist and it trivializes history.

TFD (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really too bad that you refuse to engage with me as though I might know what I'm talking about. My point is of course not that the textbooks have it all wrong –– I actually endorsed one in my previous comment, so why suggest that that is my argument? My point is rather that relying on textbooks is a suboptimal way to get a handle on a nuanced topic. You may be surprised to learn that many courses at top-tier universities and lib-arts colleges dispense with them altogether. Further, the idea that the 2020 Springer volume you mentioned above should be expected to contain a complete catalogue of the varieties of contemporary fascism betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how academia works. That kind of book is usually put together by early-career researchers who have some kind of social connection with one another or represent a particular school of thought. They are very rarely a balanced tertiary source such that we might use them to assess due weight. Only by comparing a number of sources of various kinds can we do so in a field as varied and contentious as this one. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Weight says that information whould be presented according to its prominence in reliable sources. This is very important because we don't want to give readers a different impression of topics than they would get if they studied a topic in an undergraduate program or what they would read in a reputable encyclopedia or guidebook of politics. Articles are not supposed to draw undue attention to aspects of a subject that receive little attention in mainstream sources.

You could write thousands of pages about fascism and still leave things out. Our task is to render all that information into a short article. But because the number of Wikipedia articles is limitless, we can provide daughter articles where readers can explore their specific interest in the topics.

Of course, it's a challenge to determine what information should be included in order to satisfy weight. One method that policy recommends is WP:TERTIARY: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." In that case we could use textbooks but that does not exhaust possible sources. Another, which you seem to favor is to look at undergraduate course outlines.

Cambridge's Institute of Continuing Education is offering a course called, "Fascism: history and interpretation, 1919-45." The name of the course indicates that post-war Fascism, which is usually called neo-Fascism, is peripheral to the topic. But perhaps you could provide course outlines that devote more than passing reference to Putin.

Or perhaps you have another way to determine weight.

TFD (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's another Cambridge-sourced piece, this time by the S. Richard Hirsch Associate Professor of European Studies at Johns Hopkins University. This is what he had to say about the prominence of the 'pro-' view, in a favorable review of a book that argues against it:

Laruelle quickly shows in the introduction that [the notion that Russia is fascist] is not a canard or a straw man. Many reputable scholars and public intellectuals have drawn parallels between the Putin regime, its actions, and European fascism, including Snyder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander Motyl, Vladimir Inozemtsev, Gary Kasparov, Anna Politkovskaya, Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton. The term "fascism" has become part of the Western discussion on the nature of the Putin regime, even more so since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

So there's a source which directly states that the 'pro-' view is not just very common among scholars/experts, but also widely known in the laity. While weight is usually something we're expected to work out using our own faculties, it's hard to come up with an argument against this view deserving significant weight when an expert scholar who opposes it literally writes that it's a weighty viewpoint. Happy (Slap me) 13:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

While the book may establish the notability of the Putin-Hitler comparison, it doesn't mean it's significant to the topic of Fascism. For example, there are studies about dentists in Nazi Germany.[7][8] There's even a movie about one (Marathon Man) While it could be a notable topic, it receives only passing reference in books and articles about Fascism as a topic and hence is not mentioned in this article. And there are countless other aspects of Fascism that if we added would make the article thousands of pages long.

As for the list of writers mentioned, the ones that are experts are all experts on Eastern Europe rather than Fascism. i don't know to what extent their views have been incorporated into Eastern European studies, but I do no they have little or no weight in Fascism studies. AFAIK, none of them have written any academic papers defending their views.

There have been many discussions about public intellectuals. The outcome IIRC is that we only accept them as experts in their field of expertise and sometimes not even then in their polemical writings.

TFD (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

While the book may establish the notability of the Putin-Hitler comparison, it doesn't mean it's significant to the topic of Fascism. It's specifically about Fascism. You're just plain wrong. Check the link. I'm not going to read further when you open by denying the blatantly obvious like this. Happy (Slap me) 19:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The book is called Is Russia Fascist?: Unraveling Propaganda East and West I assume that means the book is about where Russia is Fascist, rather than being a book about Fascism in general that happens to devote space to modern Russia. Similarly, the articles I linked are about Nazi dentists, not about Fascism generally.

In fact, Laruelle's book is more about the propaganda effort by people like Hillary Clinton to call Russia Fascist, rather than a serious consideration of the question.

TFD (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Happy on this.

TFD, I'm sorry to say that you are so wildly off base here, and apparently either unwilling or unable to comprehend what other people are saying, that you don't seem worth engaging with on this matter. It's a shame because I can tell you care about the encyclopedia deeply. Unless others come along who share your view, or whom you can manage to persuade, it looks like you're just going to have to take the "L" on this one. Hopefully we can manage to collaborate on some other topic in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you think Fascist Russia should have weight to warrant a section. We don't have sections on Ba'athism#Allegations of fascism, Islamofascism, Falangism, Phalangism in Lebanon, the Front National (France), the Sweden Democrats, Peronism, the Italian Social Movement, Trumpism, the Iron Guard, the Estado Novo, Ustaše, Brazilian Integralism, or many of the other possibly Fascist parties or governments that have greater notability?

At one time there were sections about tangentially related parties and these wre removed following Issue of indigenous fascism in post-colonial states - especially in Africa, i.e. Talk:Fascism/Archive 37#"tropical fascism" and "Afro-fascism" (2012). Having sections for everything that could possibly be fascist distracts from the main article and belongs elsewhere.

TFD (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a subject of dispute among scholars and experts on fascism. That very clearly touches upon the core subject; can a regime that idealizes Soviet-era Russia be a fascist regime? Just looking at the definitions, that would seem to be impossible, but according to many reputable scholars, it's actually happening. This debate is about the very definition of Fascism. Happy (Slap me) 23:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We do not say in Wikipedia's voice that Russia is fascist, we report that it is disputed whether it is or not. That is perfectly congruent with WP:WEIGHT. The discussion here is itself indicative of the disparate views on the topic. Removal of the section would require a clear-cut consensus to do so, which is obviously not existing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll be concise. How can you justify weight when it has almost no coverage relative to the topic? TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My advice is that if you don't think it should be there, start an RfC on the matter, and get a consensus to remove it. Given the discussion here, where you are outnumbered 3 to 1, any other attempt to remove it would be unwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have literally provided you with a source that directly answers that question and then answered it in my own words, from a different angle. Continuing to ask it over and over is not helpful. Happy (Slap me) 02:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact you haven't provided an explanation why Putin's Russia deserves a section in this article, while no other example of post-WWII Fascism does. Anyway, I took the discussion to NPOVN. TFD (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no justification for bringing this to NPOVN when the discussion here is still underway. The only possibly reason is that you're not "winning". An RfC would have been a much better -- and more collegial -- solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Springee asks: "For those who wish to include a subsection on Putin's Russia, how much content exists and from a weight POV can it really justify having its own subsection? Other than perhaps a paragraph stating that Putin's form of authoritarianism has aspects that are like classical fascism (and presumably other aspects that are not), what is it about his regime that needs describing in order to form a better understanding of fascism?"

As there is no universally accepted theory of fascism, fascism is generally recognized by the characteristics of regimes that are accepted to be or have been fascist. That being the case, every fascist, or proto-fascist, or quasi-fascist regime which is described and discussed adds to the ongoing understanding of what fascism is, and how it functions under changing circumstances. If discussions says Russian is fascistic because of this, but not fascistic because of that, it reflects back on our understanding of fascism, which is a living thing and cannot be trapped in amber to be studied. There is therefore no excuse to leaving Russia out simply because there is dispute over its nature -- there is, essentially, as there is dispute over the very nature of fascism itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually think that a great way to improve the section would be to expand our discussion of Marlène Laruelle's recent book Is Russia Fascist? into a whole paragraph, including discussion of the reviews I mentioned above. We should also be giving due weight to the important scholars with whom she engages and respectfully disagrees, most notably Timothy Snyder, Alexander Motyl, and Vladislav Inozemtsev. Generalrelative (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

And to answer Springee's question about how much content exists, the answer is: kind of a lot. When a special issue of Communist and Post-Communist Studies on "Exploring Vladimir Putin's Regime" is titled "Between Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism in Russia" [9] that should give you a good sense that the Putin regime's relationship with fascism is a major topic of scholarly concern (even for those who ultimately come down on the "not fascist" side of the debate). Generalrelative (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does it have to be labeled right or left?

this will never happen, there’s no other way to put it at this point. Please stop asking. Dronebogus (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Offtopic post relocated from Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I know that Wiki won't change the introductory phrase "Fascism is a far-right", which is their perogative. However, this refusal in itself is portraying bias, which I thought was not allowed. Why does Fascism have to be labeled right or left, anyway? Why can't it just begin with the definition of Fascism and continue on with its factual history? Why would students want to use Wiki information if any part of it was based on opinion only? I thought that Wiki rules included posting only non-biased articles (same goes for Google)? I never would have guessed that Wiki was biased in any way, and it is very disappointing. Wa6dia (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) It's labelled "far-right" because that's what the vast majority of historians and other scholars identify it as. Leaving it out would make as much sense as leaving out "authoritarian" or "ultra-nationalistic" or any other of the characteristics of fascism. Because fascism has no consistent ideology the way Marxism has, identifying it is sometimes a contentious thing -- which is why we have an article "Definitions of fascism". Leaving out one of the prime characteristics of fascism -- its placement on the political spectrum -- would just make identifying it that much harder. One of the ways in which we try to avoid bias in our articles is by reporting what authoritative sources say, and not writing based on our own personal or collective opinions. The authoritative sources say that fascism is far-right, so that's what the article says. If, on the other hand, people you are listening to are telling you that fascism is not far-right, or that it is far-left instead, I'm afraid that you are being mislead by biased sources. You should try to break away from those and read a book or article about fascism written by an actual authority on the subject, and not generated by those with an agenda. This article, although not written by authorities, is based on what authorities say, so it's not at all a bad way to learn some actual facts about the nature of fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Because wp:rs says it is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Why can't it just begin with the definition of Fascism and continue on with its factual history? "Far-right" is the definition of fascism. — Czello 10:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be calling it Syncretic?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fascism isn't far-right, historically Fascism has been right-leaning on most social issues however on social issues Fascism tends to be more left wing. Syndicalism is a left-wing policy. But fascists don't necessarily have to be far-right, fascists can be moderate too. Syncretic is a much better term than right-wing; right-wing is misleading. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

See the FAQ: Talk:Fascism/FAQ. Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs say, and this appears to be based upon wp:or so any RS say it is "Syncretic"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also how can it be " right-leaning on most social issues" and at the same time "on social issues Fascism tends to be more left wing"? It is also hard to see how being Anti-Gay or racist is very left-wing. So again, you need RS to say it is left wing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s why I said “extremely confusing” in the former hat note. I’m not sure if there’s a “basic logical soundness required” guideline or essay, but if not there should be. Editors shouldn’t have to argue against blatant self-contradictions. Dronebogus (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

There is wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I was hesitant to use something that’s kind of a polite way to say “user is not the brightest bulb and/or is patently insane” Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This question can't be answered, as such this should be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I tried to do that, but it was reverted. Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you hatted the discussion (with a rather tendentious-sounding summary). See my comment on your user talk page. I'll go ahead an close this since there appears to be a consensus to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explain

@Beyond My Ken You reverted my content without explanation. Please explain yourself. X-Editor (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I restored a long-standing version. It's your responsibility to get consensus for your edit now that it has been contested (by me). See WP:BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You failed to explain why you have contested my edit. Why is my edit problematic? X-Editor (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it did not improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: How did it not improve the article? X-Editor (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Your edit was contested, so the status quo ante of the article remains in effect until you get a consensus for the change, and overcome the WP:ONUS for changing it. I don't need to make an argument, but you do. You can continue to badger me if you wish, but it's unlikely to convince other editors that your change is an improvement. My advice would be to make a cogent argument as to why your changes improve the article, and see if other editors agree with you. If and when you do, I'll be happy to respond to your contentions, but for the time being I'll stand with what I've said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, please stop pinging me, it's annoying. I'm obviously watching this talk page, and I'll see any edit that you make to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Fascism" and "fascism"

This article, along with "Fascism and ideology", inconsistently capitalizes the word as either "fascism" or "Fascism". As far as I am aware there isn't a difference between the way the word is being used when it is or is not capitalized. Actually Existing Napoleon (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a recurring problem on Wikipedia - both with fascism and communism. To be clear, the word should only be capitalised if we're talking about a specific party, like Italian Fascist Party. Otherwise it should be lower-case. — Czello 19:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There is disagreement in the literature about when it should be capitalized. The most common usage seems to be to capitalize it only when referring to the Italian Party, just as we only capitalize liberal or conservative if that is the name of the party. Communism is slightly different, because it was international, hence most writers would capitalize it when referring to the various parties collectively. One might write for example, "During WWII, America's enemy in Europe was the fascists, while afterwards it was the Communists." TFD (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, Czello and TFD are both correct here. We should be observing this stylistic distinction throughout the encyclopedia IMHO. And indeed, TFD is right that the distinction is trickier to observe with communism, which, from the beginning, operated as an international. But with regard to this article and others that deal with fascism, it should be pretty straightforward to sort our "F"s from our "f"s. Generalrelative (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and attempted to tidy up the case. In general I have left capitalisations if they are: a reference to a specific organisation (IFP, for example); a reference to a regime (Fascist Italy, similar to how we say Nazi Germany), or a quote. I have made it lower case if it's used as a general term ("fascist policies" or "fascist movements") or a reference to the broad concept ("fascism"). However, there are a lot of ambiguities throughout the text - such as when something is referring to a particular fascist group (proper noun) or fascists in general. I'd encourage editors to peruse and make sure I've not misinterpreted any sentences and that they agree with these changes. — Czello 08:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Actual definition of fascism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

“…exalts nation over individual…” That is the OPPOSITE of right wing Andrew S. (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. DanielRigal (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no. and as DanielRigal says, this is a perennial point Andre🚐 02:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit

• • • • start copying

Change from; (paragraph 4)

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently bad and views imperialism, political violence and war as means to national rejuvenation.[11] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state,[12][13] and for a dirigiste[14][15] economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies.[16] Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[17]

To;

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently bad and views imperialism, political violence and war as means to national rejuvenation.[11] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state,[12][13] and for a dirigiste[14][15] economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies.[16] Nazism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifests as belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other", such as Jews. These Nazi ideologies (Mein Kampf) have motivated Nazi type regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[17]

Add to end of 4th paragraph;

(Although Italy and Germany were dictatorial alliances, and the word fascism has now become synonymous with evil, interestingly fascist doctrine conceived in Italy did not include racial inferiority or superiority but loyalty to the State by all, and Mussolini did not allow for - or practice the establishment of concentration camps for ethnic groups, genocide, or forced sterilization as exhibited in Germany, Russia and the United States [regarding Japanese Americans, American Indians, African Americans, and in the Philippines of 1.4 million during the Spanish American War]. In respect to forced deportations, the Italian Fascist government and military prevented the incarceration of the Jewish community by the Vichy government under Nazi orders in Italian occupied France and allowed for the entry into their zone of other French Jews saving over 40,000 people from deportation to German concentration camps. A larger number is estimated in the other Italian held regions of Croatia, Greece, and Tunisia. [Sources include "Mussolini a new life" by Nicholos Farrell, and Mussolini's Army in the French Riviera, by Emanule Sica, to include their documented sources] Bgg6006 (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • • end copying by Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no value in undoing the generalization about the racism of fascism in order to make the statement specifically about Nazism. While some fascist regimes did not initially make racism a core principal, they all sooner or later adopted it as a de facto principal. The suggested add to the last paragraph is special pleading in favor of fascism and is inappropriate for this article, not because fascism is "evil" per se, but because the historical facts show that every fascist regime has been racist as well as suppressive of both individual and group rights based on the state's perception of the value of the group or person. No such political philosophy should be extolled or excused in Wikipedia's voice.

Although not presented here as an edit request, I'm nevertheless responding as  Not done. Thanks to Dennis for copying the comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicholas Burgess Farrell is a journalist and not an expert on fascism. His views are outside the mainstream. TFD (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Post-Soviet Russia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Marlene Laruelle, a French political scientist, contends in Is Russia Fascist? that although Russia has been labeled as fascist by different western-affiliated parties before and during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, supposedly evidenced by Russia's annexation of Crimea; its historical revisionism; attacks on liberal democratic values; and its support for far-right movements in Europe, Russia has positioned itself as the world's leading antifascist power because of its sacrifices during the Second World War. At the same time, it has highlighted how opponents of the Soviet Union in Central and Eastern Europe cooperated with Nazi Germany.

For those who kept reverting my edit, what's wrong with this passage and how can I improve it? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the revert, but I don't think your addition makes sense. What does the (supposed, here too there would be much to discuss) sacrifices of the USSR in World War II have to do with the Russia of Putin? These are two completely different ages. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

They might be two different ages but it's an important part of the Russian history that it determines the Russian political path and its political orientation to this day. History impacts the present. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

None of this would alter them being fascist, though. — Czello 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

How not? History is the most important part of the present. It's the reason why a country is the way it is. It's the path that led a country to its place and therefore affects most if not all of its actions. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fighting fascists in the 40s (not out of choice, either) doesn't mean you can't become fascist 80 years on. — Czello 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is certain but it reduces the possibility of you being one ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it does. However, this is entering WP:NOTAFORUM territory. There's plenty of sources included which argue the case of fascism (through Rashism). — Czello 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right. This is not a forum so let's stick to the point. The source mentions that "Russia has positioned itself as the world's leading antifascist power" considering its history. it's a fact that she positioned itself at this position according to the source. Whether she has the right to do that, whether you or anybody else recognize it as one, whether her history gives her the credit for this position is not the point. The point is that Russia consider itself as antifascist and this worth mentioning. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is that Russia consider itself as antifascist and this worth mentioning. Well, of course Russia would deny being fascist - it doesn't seem hugely significant. Nonetheless, is this not already mentioned? The article says, efforts to brand opponents as fascist is ultimately an attempt to determine the role of Russia in Europe's future. Unless I'm misinterpreting the meaning of this sentence, it's saying that Russia is attempting to position itself as anti-fascist in the way you described. (Note, this sentence is sourced to the same book - so I think it's effectively a duplication.) — Czello 14:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is significant according to WP:DUEWEIGHT. And it's not a duplication considering that this addition will explain why it denies being one (because of its sacrifices during the Second World War) ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In which case, how about rewording the current sentence to Laruelle disentangles the basis, significance, and veracity of accusations of fascism in and around Russia through a thorough analysis of the domestic situation in Russia and the Kremlin's foreign policy justifications; she concludes that efforts to brand its opponents as fascist is ultimately an attempt to determine the role of Russia in Europe's future as an antifascist force, influenced by its role in fighting fascism in World War II. This way we can maintain the existing sentence but supplement it with the material you've suggested. (Slight copyedit not included). — Czello 15:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 15:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, I've added it now. — Czello 15:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it wasn't part of the USSR and wouldn't use the pretext of it being "nazi" if Russia didn't participate in the WWII. That's just one example. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Aside from being WP:OR, this is also beside the point. Surely the discussion here is whether Russia can be labelled fascist - I have yet to see why being invaded in WW2 undoes their current fascistic actions. — Czello 14:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just an example to show you that history affects the present day. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 14:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And possibly emboldens Putin to label his opponents as fascist, but not preventing himself being fascist, as many sources state. — Czello 14:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what Alex said, I have no idea what that final sentence is supposed to mean. It's whataboutism and completely irrelevant to whether or not Putin's regime is fascist. — Czello 10:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it explains the Russian attitude towards the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't make them any less fascist. — Czello 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've also just noticed this is a copyright violation.[10] — Czello 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Left-wing fascism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An attempt has been made by User:Soapbox Sam to revive the Left-wing fascism article (by deleting the redirect to this article). I have deleted it with an appropriate edit summary and advice to discuss the matter here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I also note that the article the new editor tried to create was an argument that fascism is left-wing. TFD (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is problematic. At best, it can be stated that some (even famous) people have said it's left-wing. Because the extreme ends of the political spectrum share many characteristics, some people (maybe those people) get confused. Extremism does that.

I think there was a difference between the leaders and the common members. The leaders were caught up in power and control and would be willing to admire and become allies with the leaders on the other side, whereas the rank-and-file members were idealists and could clearly see the ideological, philosophical, and political differences between each side. They maintained the purity of their faiths, unlike their leaders. They did not compromise, and they risked their lives for their causes.

I suspect that in the early days, definitions were still being hammered out. Now, all experts consider fascism as right-wing, just as socialism is left-wing. The light of history informs definitions. Already during WW2, socialists and communists were the most ardent haters and fighters of Nazis and other fascists, and vice versa. They populated the underground resistance groups and sabotaged the Nazis. Just that fact informs one that they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The topic would make an interesting article provided we had sufficient secondary sources and followed WP:FRINGE. So far I have only found passing references.

In fact, it's only since the war that social scientists have attempted to define the political spectrum. In the inter-war period, left meant Socialists (and later Communists) and right meant their opponents. The terms came to be used this way in the early 20th century and reflects their relative seating at that time. TFD (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's pure bullshit. As our article shows, the left-right distinction comes down to us from the French parliament during their Revolution in the late 18th century. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it says that defenders of monarchy sat on the right and their opponents on the left. Over time, legislative blocks came to describe themselves by where they sat in the assembly. For example, the Center Party of German, the forerunner of the CDU, called themselves that because they were seated between the conservatives on the right and liberals on the left. But using the terms left and right to describe ideologies only developed in France in the early 20th century and was adopted in other countries within the following decades.

Note that Marx and Engels, Weber, and other political commentators never used the terms "left-wing," "right-wing," etc. because they had not yet been coined. What's the earliest use of those terms that you have found? TFD (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think much of the problem is in terminology. Political ideologies which share many characteristics of fascism, but are in other ways left-leaning are not "left-wing fascism", because fascism is, by definition, a right-wing ideology. Instead these are left-wing authoritarian systems, just as fascism is a right-wing authoritarian system. Political scientists and historians have long noted the similarities and overlaps between the extreme right and the extreme left (see Horseshoe theory), but this does not make them left and right aspects of the same philosophy, it simply makes them related. Nor, for instance, was Strasserism a truly left-wing form of Nazism. Yes, it was certainly a bit to the left of Hitler's mainstream, but not sufficiently so to make it "left-wing". It was merely a sort of leftish variation of a right-wing ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  You could build the same case for Donald Trump. He used to be a pro-choice Democrat who supported universal health care. He claims to stand up for the forgotten man over the elites, provided relief during covid, brought in First Step, opposes imperialist wars, etc. Because in politics, successful politicians tell people what they want to hear and may even deliver on some of their promises. Also, these comparisons usually lack context. Fascists continued various programs already in place, just as Trump did. Social security for example, that Reagan had said lead to totalitarianism, remained in place. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not really understanding your point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that the case could be made for any political group being left-wing. We are discussing the existence of an article that says fascism was left-wing. TFD (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is most certainly not the case. If you believe that, then your understanding of what left and right mean politically is clearly not a consensus one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say a reasonable case could be made. I am merely saying that the same arguments used to classify fascism as left-wing could be applied to any group, including Trumpists. TFD (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I could make an argument that a coffee mug is a fruit, but the mere existence of the (fatuous) argument does not mean that any attention should be paid to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the "popular culture" section

Recently I removed the "In popular culture" section of the article, calling it "hardly relevant to [the] topic" in my edit summary (which I'll concede is fairly vague). This was promptly reverted. I didn't really feel like arguing about it, but on further reflection, I really don't think it's appropriate for this article based on the references used. The section doesn't comply with the MOS's guideline for trivia sections, which states that articles may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth. This article doesn't do that; it's just trivial mentions of a song and a quote from a musician, neither of which are sourced to reliable sources.

The first source is a YouTube upload of an interview with a musician, which is primary, and therefore not reliable; I've removed it due to it being a probable copyright violation, per WP:COPYLINK. The second is a source that summarises Woody Guthrie's career, but mentions nothing about fascism aside from his record label being antifascist. It failed verification, but if you ignore that, it still doesn't comply with the sourcing requirement of the MOS, because the source is a reference work that includes information about class in America, which is only tangentially related to fascism. The second bulletpointed entry about Heaven 17's song doesn't even have any citations, which doesn't demonstrate why it should be included in the article.

Overall, the section needs much better references to warrant inclusion. I think it should be removed from the article entirely, because its relevance to facsism isn't supported by any secondary reliable sources. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no community consensus on Wikipedia for the wholesale removal of "In popular culture" sections from Wikipedia articles, despite the number of activists who really hate them. Our popular culture is an extremely important -- if sometimes ephemeral or embarassing -- part of our society's culture, and Wikipedia should not shut its doors to it simply because it's not "serious" enough to be in an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You haven't adressed any of my concerns here. I'm not advocating for a blanket ban on such material, nor am I saying that the section should be removed "just because". What I am saying is that the section's sources don't justify its inclusion. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want to "shut [Wikipedia's] doors" to nonserious material. ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removal, "in popular culture" sections don't belong on articles about ideologies (in my opinion), as they wouldn't on other serious topics such as Genocide. Regarding content of this particular "in popular culture" section, its contents do seem like MOS:TRIVIA and hardly tangential to the topic; Anti-fascism#United States, World War II contains Woody Guthrie since he is more relevant there. There are way too many notable things that could be listed if this section was kept (which again I think it shouldn't be). –Vipz (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm with ArcticSeeress and Vipz on this one, at least insofar as we're discussing the appropriateness of the currently extant material. This material does not appear to merit inclusion here. I'm agnostic as to where and when such sections may be warranted as a general rule. Agree that details like Guthrie's guitar are more appropriate for ancillary articles like Anti-fascism per WP:SUMMARY. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree this content is not DUE in the article. Creating a complete section based on this material is hard to justify. It's not clear that Guthrie's opinion is significant in context the primary topic. Do sources on fascism cite Guthrie. This also is, in effect, an entire section which cites just one source. Springee (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I do get the feeling that "fascism in popular culture" is a topic that could balloon to be as massive as the rest of the article itself, and I'm not sure what it contributes. I think it's best to do away with it. — Czello ^(music) 07:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like we're mostly in agreement here. Rjensen has recently contributed some undoubtedly encyclopedic material, but it seems to me to fit better under the heading "popular culture under fascism" than "fascism in popular culture". I'd be curious to hear his perspective on this question. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: the popular culture section should have two subsections: "popular culture under fascism" and "fascism in popular culture"--the first subtopic has a substantial scholarly literature especially on Italy--the second does not and. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be an strong consensus that this material (that is, Fascism in popular culture) isn't warranted in the article. I'll go ahead and remove it seeing as there hasn't been any attempt to justify its inclusion beyond "popular culture sections can be good in general". I'll also remove the bullet points, as it's not really a list section anymore.

On a related note: I think it might be better to provide a summary of broad characteristics that popular culture under fascist governments share before introducing specific examples. I'm not familiar with literature regarding this at the moment, so I'll let that lie (or maybe come back to it later). ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the word?

Hello, I read the etymology section but can't work out a timeline for when the actual word came into being. This article says 1922 for first usage, but I don't know how trustworthy it is. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The Online Etymological Dictionary says:

1921, from Italian partito nazionale fascista, the anti-communist political movement organized 1919 under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945); from Italian fascio "group, association," literally "bundle," from Latin fasces (see fasces).

Fasci "groups of men organized for political purposes" had been a feature of Sicily since c. 1895, and the 20c. totalitarian sense probably came directly from this but was influenced by the historical Roman fasces, which became the party symbol. As a noun from 1922 in English, earlier in Italian plural fascisti (1921), and until 1923 in English it often appeared in its Italian form, as an Italian word.

— https://www.etymonline.com/word/fascist

I you can get hold of an OED in a librry, that's the best source for etymological info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the two dictionaries cited in the "Etymology" section -- Merriam-Websters, and Webster's New College -- are pretty standard and trustworthy reference works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind that Etymonline is edited by a single person, one who isn't a trained historical linguist. The website is in essence a hobby project, and whether any particular article on the website holds water or not is entirely dependent on how long the editor spends with it. It's impossible to meaningfully verify any of the information on the page without sifting through their massive sources list posted elsewhere on the site, so I'd err on the side of caution with including this. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious if it's worth including the historical significance of the Roman fasces, since it pretty closely correlates to the authoritarian roots of fascism (given that "holding fasces" signified the power of the state). Delukiel (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven deleted my edit. I don't know why.

I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand Slatersteven's question and why he reverted.Nashhinton (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not a question, your wording implies it was once something, but no longer is. I made the point that it has not changed, it is still right-wing popularism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"right-wing popularism" Right-wing populism, not popularism. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Point still stands. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

An inherent contradiction?

The lead of the article sets out an extremely detailed and very broad definition of fascism, selecting references that support the authors' arguments. Then the next section admits that there is no agreed definition of fascism, and that authoritative (at least, referenced) views of what it is differ to the extent that no broadly agreed definition is possible.

I shall make the radical suggestion that there is no generic or accepted definition of fascism, nor can there be in terms of how the word has entered general usage. The possible exception is the Italian regime of 1922-1943 led by Benito Mussolini which (as I understand it) styled itself Fascism. Other than that, I suggest that all definitions of fascism are essentially descriptions of political and economic systems to which the authors of those definitions are opposed, i.e. expressions of authorial opinion. This is not the purpose of WP.

I do not suggest that all is lost. Authoritarian political systems, for example, can be defined in ways that meet broad agreement, even if individuals disagree whether particular systems are or are not authoritarian. Democracy, Autarky and other politico-economic manifestations can be defined similarly. Fascism can't.

This can be regarded as a plea for humility from WP, i.e. an acceptance that it cannot be the arbiter of a definition that can never achieve more than partisan acceptance. A true definition, I suggest, would be 'a term of abuse for a variety of politico-economic systems, used by parties opposed to them.' You could then go on to include examples. Italian (1922-1943) Fascism would be a separate topic, since there is no causal or other connection. Chrismorey (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I would take this more seriously if the next section had not been Etomolgy, which does not discuss anything about no agreed definition. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Mussolini's government identified fascist movements in 39 countries and invited them to a fascist international, at which 13 attended. Certainly people self-identified as fascist beyond Italy. Mussolini had laid out the central tenets of fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism. Americans abuse the term socialist also, that does not mean it is meaningless. TFD (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

How is Fascism "opposed to … anarchism"?

Wikipedia literally has an entire article dedicated to National Anarchism, known in popular culture as Anarcho-Fascism, yet it manages to claim that Fascism is "opposed to … anarchism". MicholIsUsed (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Anarcho-Fascism is not considered a form of anarchism. TFD (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Meinong's jungle. Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)