Talk:Fascism

Untitled

Fascism is not "Right-wing". As Right wing or Conservatives usually support a small government ( At least here in the USA)While a left wing or Liberal wants a large government looking over the people

how did militarism lead to nationalism? --melissa 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey doesn't fascism kinda sound like racism, you like racist against my face!!! you know!!!

National socialism and fascism certainly weren't the same thing. And the Franco's regime was conservative authoritarian rather than fascist. I understand it's a "simple" version, but simplicity should be applied to the language, not to the information itself.

The regime that was truly Fascist was that of Mussolini, in Italy. Part of what made the regime was

• Using many symbols.
• Industry/Commerce are organised along the lines of production; people in the same industry are in a group together. That is fundamentally different from the usual modern organisation, where there are labour unions on one side, and those creating the jobs/giving the money on the other. The fascist organisation makes it nearly impossible to point out bad labour conditions, etc.
• Focus on nationalism, coupled with the idea that the "own race" was good. The farther away from the own race people were, the worse they were off. Bottom of the line were usually black people from Africa; mid-way were Slavic people.
• Antisemitism (sometimes)
• Only the best survive, our race has survived, it is therefore the best. Called Social darvinism.
• A totalitarian state (This is true for Italy, and Germany, but not for Austria or Spain)

--Eptalon 10:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon summarizes the historical definition of fascism rather well in his comment. Many people criticize any government action that they don't agree with that they think is too powerful by saying "that's fascist", but the term has a more specific meaning than that. The Japanese internment, as horrible as it was, does not really quite fit. Kansan (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article

It's my opinion that the article should return to this state. The recent changes by Leao et. al are not examples of fascism as the government doing something bad is not the definition of fascism. Thoughts, opinions, comments? Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially because the edit is unsourced. It's somewhat tricky because it says "some have called it fascism", which is undoubtedly true, but it's still not a strong example. Also, there was other unexplained removal of content, such a Portugese leader as an example of fascism. In any event, without a source, I find it difficult to support keeping the material. Kansan (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions in Article

I perceive that a lot of the descriptions of any government in the article are skewed, for instance the United States is a constitutional democratic republic as compared to a plutocracy as described in the article. There needs to be some attention brought to how this article is simplified because while wording may be simplified in some areas, other times it is clouded over by what could be seen as confusing wording or description. This "simple" article is missing a few details to be up to Wikipedia quality. Leatherweapon (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Work needed

If someone wants to improve the article, I feel that possible areas of work are:

• Fascist organizations (or those influenced by fascism) esp. after World War II, esp. if they have some influence in the area where they are active.
• Developments such as the Estado Novo (Salazar) in Protugal, or in Greece.
• US, Japan, Africa?
• More pertinent images--Eptalon (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition Seems Very Weak

the country is considered more important than any one person, group, liberty, or provision

That could be true a lot of different kinds of governments. Communism, for example. What's the difference between a "fascist", a "despot" and a "dictator"? And we have to go all the way back to Hitler and Mussilini for fascists? Was Napoleon a fascist? Are all dictators fascists? Are all fascists dictators? The article is very confusing to me.66.25.171.16 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if Facism differs from Nazi beliefs?

Non democratic goverments are wrong.But before Mussolini decided to join Hitlers Nazi ideas. Wasnt Facism in Italy looked upon by various nations of the World as a "Progressive"? "Making the trains run on time"(In Italy) was one slogan used by thse who admired Facism in Iyatl? Thanks! Eddson storms (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Far-right

Although sources do back this up overwhelmingly, I still invite a discussion about this. Editors keep removing "far-right", even though this is backed up by sources. Presumably there is community consensus to retain it? --IWI (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As none of the anonymous editors have replied, I'm going to continue to revert the removal of "far-right" as unsourced vandalism. If anyone disagrees, just ping me here. --IWI (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In a strict sense 'fascist' only applies to three regimes (one in Italy, one in Germany, and one in Japan). So if we can avoid the 'far-right' we should avoid it...--Eptalon (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Reliable sources overwhelmingly cite it is a far-right ideology, which it is. We can’t really avoid it as it absolutely is the truth. We rely on reliable sources. --IWI (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Conservatism, Liberalism, or socialism have well-defined meanings that can be guessed from the word they are derived from. 'Fasces' are a bundle of rods, which reflect the influence of a Roman magistrate. So the term is not as 'meaningful' as the others I cited. Secondly, most movements which are classified as 'fascist' today did not use that name for themselves. If you take the 'defining characterisrics' of these movements, they are not right wing (nationalist ideology, leader principle, structural changes in the orgaganization of the economy, to some extent antisemitism). --Eptalon (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well we're not here to do our own etymology. We rely on what most reliable sources agree on of what fascism is, and they agree it is far-right. --IWI (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources back up that Fascism is the far right. The equivalent on the far left is communism. People very often use the word in incorrect ways, in fact there is a quote from a Professor in the English version of the article that says Fascism is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times". -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this piece of content has been challenged, I have taken the liberty of adding a source. "Far-right" was probably in the other sources already in the ref section, but now there's one right there for any editor to see it, and I think we'll have firmer ground to say "If you don't think it's far right, then show us a source that says it isn't far right." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have removed right wing from the lead sentence Eptalon. Per nearly every source, fascism *is" right-wing. Saying "it is usually classified as right wing" is not enough. It's like saying socialism is usually classified as left wing. Also pinging Darkfrog24 and Djsasso. --IWI (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear IWI, I needed to remove the statement from the first sentence, to accommodate the views of Arendt and Habermas; I am sure, if I somenoe dug a little, interesting positions by people such as Thedor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, or Martin Heidegger would ocme to light. As I don't hold a PhD in philosophy, I am not the right person to do this. I am also not qualified to question or contradict people such as Arendt or Adorno. Note that the Ausserparlamentarische Opposition (APO) Habermas spoke about was part of a network of left-wing to far-left movements known as "Antifaschistische Aktion" (or Antifa). To sum up: 1) look at the big picture here 2) try not to run into issues with ownership of content. Anyone is free to change any article they like. --Eptalon (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon: I wasn't suggesting you weren't free to edit the article, just that it seemed strange for you to remove what Djsasso readded. Me, Darkfrog, and Djsasso agreed it should remain there. I disagree with its removal and I think this should have been discussed before reverting it back. --IWI (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the edit; I rephrased. --Eptalon (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Point of view??

The simple English version definitely... needs some work. I was thinking of recommending a friend look at it to understand what fascism is, but I'm glad I didn't, because other than the first paragraph it looks, frankly, like it was written by a proponent of fascism trying to make their ideology seem normal. I don't know how else to say it. Time-plated priparadise lost (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Time-plated PriParadise pri paradise

@Time-plated priparadise lost: Yes, there's an identified issue of POV editors changing this article. Somebody keeps trying to remove the assertion that fascism is far-right, for example. Your welcome to help with the efforts of making this article more neutral. --IWI (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul

I added new sources, removed text that I couldn't source, and generally rearranged the article to render the POV more neutral. I invite everyone to check my work and make sure I didn't remove anything that should have stayed. In particular, I did some translating-into-Simple-English of Dr. Britt's fourteen points that could use another eye. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to talk about this edit by @Eptalon:. If fascism is "most commonly classified as right-wing," then it's okay for us to say "right-wing" in the first line. As for the other text Eptalon added, is it relevant that a scholar talked about it in depth without mentioning one way or the other whether it was right-wing? I mean, we already say that fascism is one form of totalitarianism and not the only one. Maybe that text would do better in a "fascism vs other totalitarian systems" section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Darkfrog. Habermas is one of the most influential German philiosophers of the 20th century; Arendt is similarly important (because she was Jewish, she emigrated to the US). Habermas said that the APO used means which are pretty similar to the Fascists they opposed. The APO was one of a handful of anti-fascist (Antifa) movements; they were left-wing to far left. Saying in that context that Fascim is right wing is probably short-sighted. --Eptalon (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes but the APO, by the very name, are not fascist. The very opposite in fact. --IWI (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Erstens habe ich damals nicht gesehen, dass die neuen Formen der Provokation ein sinnvolles, legitimes und sogar notwendiges Mittel sind, um Diskussionen dort, wo sie verweigert werden, zu erzwingen. Zweitens hatte ich damals Angst vor den irrationalistischen Implikationen eines Vorgehens, das unter dem Topos ‚die Spielregeln brechen‘ eingeführt wurde. Diese Befürchtungen hege ich auch heute noch, daher hat sich die Intention meiner damaligen Bemerkung nicht geändert. Freilich würde ich […] heute […] das Etikett des linken Faschismus vermeiden, und zwar nicht nur, weil dieses Etikett das grobe Missverständnis einer Identifizierung des SDS mit den rechten Studenten Anfang der dreißiger Jahre hervorgerufen hat, sondern weil ich inzwischen überhaupt unsicher geworden bin, ob das eigentliche Neue an den gegenwärtigen Revolten durch geistesgeschichtliche Parallelen getroffen werden kann. Drittens halte ich nach wie vor Gewaltanwendung in der gegenwärtigen Situation nicht für ein vertretbares Mittel des politischen Kampfes. In einer Lage hingegen, […] deren Unerträglichkeit keineswegs allgemein ins Bewußtsein getreten ist, […] müssen sich die handelnden Subjekte […] inhumane Folgen ihres Handelns moralisch zurechnen lassen."(Gerhard Bauß: Die Studentenbewegung der sechziger Jahre). Thats what Habermas wrote in a letter. Yes, Habermas is hard to understand, even for native speakers. ROught translation: "First of all, at the time I didn't see that the new forms of provocation are a proper, legitimate and even necessary means to force a discussion, where it was refused. Second, at the time, I feared the irrational implications of a proceeding, which was introduced using the topos of 'breaking the rules of the game'. I still have these fears, for this reason, the intention of the comment I made at the time did not change. I would of course avoid the label of 'left-wing fascism'; not only because the label caused a gross mis-judgement of identifying the SDS with the right-wing students of the start of the 1930s, and becausde today, I am totally unsure if the new things in the current revolts can be captured by intellectual parallels. Third, I still don't think that the use of violence is an adequate means of a political struggle. In such a situation, which isn't commonly seen as unsupportable, the acting subjects must also be responsible for the inhumane consequences of their actions." --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

CHANGE CONFLICT:

The article already says that fascism is not the only kind of totalitarianism. If there is such a thing as left-wing fascism, then perhaps some text explaining the different kinds of fascism would be appropriate.

I think the article should have the adjective "right-wing" or "far-right" in the very first line. We have several sources that say fascism as right wing. Eptalon has provided one source saying that Hannah Arendt discusses fascism without saying one way or the other whether it is right wing. Are there any sources that say fascism is not right wing? Do Habermas and Arendt say "Don't call fascism right wing; here's why not"? If reliable sources really are split on this issue, then the article should say that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing another source, Eptalon, but I don't see Habermas saying "fascism isn't right-wing." He says "don't call these other people 'left-wing fascists' because that makes them sound connected to the 1930s people, who were right-wing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC) (Context: SDS is en:Socialist German Student Union and APO is en:Außerparlamentarische Opposition) Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as my understanding, the term "left-wing fascism" refers to the tendency for some far-left ideologies to take on some attributes of fascism. It is not to suggest that they are fascist though. --IWI (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can put things into perspective now; Habermas is an adept of what is known as en:Frankfurt School today. There's an older school, represented mainly by Horkheimer and Adorno, and there's a newer school, represented by Jürgen Habermas, and Oskar Negt. Adorno/Horkheimer were in the US in the 1930s, and early 1940s (and developed a theory on authority). Anyway, this theory, had a lot of influence on the 1968 movement; In 1967, a policeman shot Benno Ohnesorg, at a demostration in Berlin (against a visit of Shah Reza Palavi). A few days later, Habermas had a public discussion with Rudi Dutschke, who was the spokesperson of the (West-)Berlin student movement. Dutschke was in a mood to escalate, Habermas, then accused him of 'left-wing fascism' (which he later retracted; In the year 1968, Josef Bachmann shot at Dutschke three times, calling him a "dirty communist pig"; Dutschke barely survived his severe injuries. Bachmann had contacts to a neonazi group; and the attempt to Dutschke's life was probably planned (by a bigger group); Dutschke developed epilepsy. Bachmann committed suicide in prison, in 1970. Dutschke died of an epileptic seizure in his bath, in 1979. --Eptalon (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. Eptalon is giving good answers to the wrong question.

Eptalon is addressing "Is fascism complicated and do the works of reputable scholars show any connection to left-wing political philosophy and non-fascist totalitarianism?" But right now we want to address "Should we say 'fascism is right-wing' in the very first sentence of the article?"

Eptalon, I think if you had any sources that said "fascism is not right-wing; that word is misleading/bad," you would have said so, right? So let's put "right-wing" back for now. If sources saying this term is not good come up, we can always remove it then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eptalon:, You clearly know a lot about fascism, but nothing you have provided has suggested that fascism is not right wing, nor even suggested saying so is misleading. The issue is whether to include "far-right/right-wing" in the lead sentence, which I see no reason not to. --IWI (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Do what you feel is right. The book "Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft" was first published in 1951 (as "The Burdern of Our Time", in Great Britain; later renamed to "The Origins of Totalitarianism";1955, for the German Version). Many see it as her main work. A French bookshop ("Fnac"), and the newspaper "Le Monde" did a poll in 1999, to determine the "books of the centry" (see the List on EnWP). In that list the book is at 93rd place. Anyway, Arendt compares Stalinism to other regimes of the the time; she does not use the term "right-wing" to classify fascism. Note also, that at that time, stalinist regimes still existed (Stalin died 1953;Franco died in the 1970s; the "estado novo", the Portuguese version, existed until 1974). Depending on when the works you are referring to were published it sounds a bit like calling Mark Twain racist, because in his works, he uses the word "Nigger" - Anyway, I am the only one taking the position that we should avoid the term "right-wing", if possible.--Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, something else perhaps: When fascist regimes came to power, one of the first things they did was create a unique party (which was the only one allowed). Salazar's regime was authoritarian, coservative and nationalist (if I take Portuguese Wikipedia). If there's only one party, speaking about it being right (or left-) wing is moot. If I asked you to characterize the government of Zimbabwe (under preesident Robert Mugabe), that of Yemen, or the current goverment of Ethiopia (under President Isaias Afwerki), would you use terms such as "right-wing" or "left-wing"? --Eptalon (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Being only one party does not make being right or left wing moot. Right or left-wing refers to the types of ideologies that they follow. If there is only one party they don't suddenly start believing ideologies from both ends of the political spectrum. And yes to to answer your question about the Isaias Afwerki government, that party is an extreme left-wing party. -Djsasso (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)