Jump to content

Talk:Definitions of fascism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Garbage

This

"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 communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far left" or "extreme left."

is garbage. Change it?

"Fascism has historically attacked communism" - correct. So how can it "primarily attract support from the far-left"? GARBAGE. 86.190.24.69 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) --86.190.24.69 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On my site www.janjitso.blogspot.com I write (in dutch language) about fascism as knowing law but rejecting it for promoting interests of a clique. There is brown fascism excerting violence and sometimes degrading to black fascism with holocaust camps. Red fascism is typical for degenerated communist states and orange fascism -pushing aside art 1 of the universal Declaration on human rights in order to promote interest of the top of a piramidal society- is presently abundant in Holland. In english this may be called yellow fascism, since yellow means cowardish, evading. In former feudalism law often was not well known by the mass of the people, although that art 1 comes to surface in the saying that all men descend from Adam and thus are basically equals. Conservatists do respect law but want it to favour them. In the Netherlands a leftish and a rightish party opposed each other very much before last elections, causing many voters to behave "strategic", choose one of these in order to prevent the other coming to power. However next these parties, VVD and PvdA, formed a coalition! Which is disapproved according opinion polls by two-thirds of the population. New elections therefore should be held to correct the cheating. The present parliament does not want so, because almost all members are orange-fascist, rejecting the mentioned art 1, which also sets power to the sovereign people, expressing this in referenda over main topics. The present head of state is out for status and money, does not maintain law. So the European Parliament has to restore order and make respect art 1 fully. An oath can be demanded, swearing to stick to that art completely and fight the saboteurs, although not taking an eye for a salin out tooth. Present piramidal society stimulates criminals who ask themselves why they should cheer the cronies. Jitso Keizer, march 11, MMXIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.93.67 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

First discussion

My thoughts: I believe that fascism is the forcible means of a particular ideology by war, conquest etc. and not actually a ideology like democracy or communism, and it cannot be classed as either left-wing or right-wing because there are fascist communist regimes and fascist conservative regimes. I hope this makes sense to everyone, my grammer is appalling. BC

Fascim has no definition simply because it , like so many ideologies have no concrete basis. Rather Fascism is whatever one deems it to be apart from congruent historical information agreeable as to 'definition'. It appears to be a word of convience that singularly hopes to portray mulitiple beliefs that are changeable as needs be by the one hoping to present the word as having lasting validity.

There is no definition, because the fascism, which is simply Anti-Comintern Union of Capitalists, is also known under term 'democracy'. That is, when you are both capitalist and anti-communist, you are a fascist. In other words, fascist is right (profit) policy, it is opposed to the left (pro-people). Fascism is dectatorship of bourgeois. Since the Masters of the Universe cannot control population by force in developed countries, they use thought control (propoganda). And it is much easier to deceive the stupid majority when the enslavement is called 'democracy and freedom'. In the world where things are inside out, you are not allowed to call things by their proper names. --Javalenok 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuie Mua Monsignor Marxist maroon? A great deal of the "Classical" Fascists, namely Hitler and Mussolini, DID SEE THEMSELVES AS SOCIALISTS! Don't believe me? Here are some quotes from the Austrian Butcher himself:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

- We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. - The abolition of incomes unearned by work. - The breaking of the slavery of interest - Personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. - We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). - We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. - We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. - We demand the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation - The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). - The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor. - We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army. - The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. - Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest. - To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power “The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and trade union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will… There is more that unites us than divides us from Bolshevism…above all the genuine revolutionary spirit.”

So there you have it, from the horse's (or rather the ass') mouth itself. The main reason that Fascism is even associated with the Right Wing is because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and as Bolsheviks have an unhealthy affliction of painting their enemies as the Absolutist Monarchists they faced (with varying states of actuality), they began to paint the Nazis as Right Wing.

You also apparently are stupid enough to claim the grandiose and black-and-white rationality of Right=Tyranny Left=Pro-People BS. I, despite being a dedicated American Conservative, am not stupid enough to believe that the Right Wing is blameless and incapable of being corrupted, Given how it has given us the "Joys" of thugs like Bismark, Mettenrich, Ivan the Terrible and indeed most of the Czars, etc. But for however many atrocities people and organizations on the Right have commited, there have been a great deal also commited by those on the Left. I could hardly call people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho Chi Mihn "pro-people" even though they were leftist. And also you seem to conveniently forget the some of the first victims of the Fascists were Right-Wing Capitalistic supporters of Democracy. So get your head out of your butt you Marxist buffon You have made no argument whatsoever. ELV

Far right = left????

Political compass On the website Political compass it is argued that parties labelled as 'far right' are actually more leftist than most modern main stream parties. 'Far right' cannot be correct as a nomer because advocating government control (far left) cannot be a polar opposite to advocating government control (far right).

Actually, communism (government control) is the polar opposite of the free market ideology. Communism is primarily an economic ideology whereas fascism is a social ideology. They are not, nor have they ever been (except in rhetoric) polar opposites. The term 'far right' therefore is incorrect and used by parties identifying themselves as 'left' to discredit the 'right'. Unfortunately for them, fascism is all about state control (if not state ownership of the means of production, then certainly state control of them).

Political compass argues that advocates of state control all belong on the left.

It introduces 2 axis: -an economic x-axis (horizontal) where communism (state control) and free market ideology (no state control) are polar opposites -a social y-axis (vertical) where authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

--82.156.49.1 04:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating government control can in fact be an opposite of advocating a different type of government control. The two groups may want the government to control different things, and they may wish to achieve opposite goals. "Government control" is a method, a means to an end. Ideologies may have opposing goals, while using similar means to achieve them.
The Political Compass model is interesting, but has a number of major flaws. For example, the "left-wing", which is supposed to represent state control of the economy, includes the ideology of anarcho-communism, which wants to abolish the state along with private property. Conversely, "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights. -- Nikodemos 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with the first part of this. Communism is revolutionary so more likely to reflect left than right. The old model of left/right needs to be put to the sword and fascism is an excellent example of why. Oswald Mosley described his movement as "extreme centrist"! If you really want to see why the traditional model doesn't work - and you're on the right track - compare libertarian capitalism with libertarian communism. They are virtually the same.Flanker235 (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Political Compass model makes sense, especially when faced with political choice. The traditional right/left scale only gives us a choice between authoritarian type governance; Communist on the left or Fascist on the right with Liberalism or Conservatism somewhere in between. During election time our only choice being what flavor of totalitarianism we want. To keep with current (mis)understanding of the political spectrum, the Compass should be rotated 90 degrees to bring the political axis to the horizontal and the (ideological/economic) axis to vertical. The horizontal line would now have Totalitarianism on the left and Anarchy on the right while the vertical (ideological/economic) line would have profit (capitalistic ideology) at the top and humanist (socialistic ideology) at the bottom. Both Communism and Fascism would be at the far left, but would be widely separated on the vertical axis. Other political platforms would be scattered throughout the biaxial spectrum.Brainworms 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascism could not be on the left for the simple reason that it is (usually) violently anti-communist, anti-socialist. It's not a matter of the size of the government and that term of reference is far too limiting. If we revert to Lenin's "direct democracy" for the moment as an example of communist theory, local representative talk directly to the head of state. Traditional elections would become a thing of the past (I'm not advocating this!). That would substantially reduce the size of government at the expense of traditional democracy. AND - just in case you missed it - result in smaller, not bigger, government.Flanker235 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Communism is not an authoritarian type of governance. That is an oxymoron, since there will be no governance anymore in Communism (except for a few necessary decisions decided by direct democracy), since there will be no more states. The Soviet Union, the DDR and North Korea were/are neither Communist nor Socialist, they were/are State Capitalist, which is a system much closer to Fascism than to Socialism. Secondly, instead of placing different political views on a defined political spectrum, modern observants tend to define the political spectrum through the political views commonly placed on the edges. Communism is put on the one end, Fascism on the other, everything in between is defined in relation to these extremes. This leads to confusion over what values the terms "left" and "right" actually express and to attempts to abandon this dichotomy due to similarities in fascist dictatorships and the regimes of those who wrongfully call themselves Socialist or Communist. The traditional definition of this is that the left represents new ideas and policies, aims at changing society in an unprecedented way and ultimately tries to revolutionize the relations of production, whereas the right tries to preserve the privileges of the current ruling class or attempts to institute an older, already overcome social order. This, coupled with the fact that Fascism is nothing but the most radical way of preserving bourgeois power once it is threatened, namely by fusing state and corporate interests, shows us that the traditional definiton of Communism and Fascism as polar opposites is indeed correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.154.102 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps too original

Perhaps these reflections are too much of original research but it would be nice with some comments. After reading much here about fascism and the talk pages, I made the reflection that maybe we, and scholars of fascism, are missing the point. Perhaps fascism is so hard to define exactly because it is no ideology, but rather a set of tools cynically employed for the sole purpose of obtaining power?

Consider this definition given in the text, which I have here edited so that the definition becomes more transparent in terms of other examples, and not applicable solely to the mid-20th century brand of fascism:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist hostility to civil liberties movements [rather than "socialism and feminism"], for they are seen as prioritizing a group rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of civil liberties and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader [the "mass, militarized party" can not be used as a criteria since some countries, most notably the US, does not have European-style political parties]. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of civil liberties movements, but are prepared to override conservative interests - balanced budget, non-involvement in foreign wars, separation of church and state [complementing or replacing "family, property, religious, the universities, the civil service" as examples] - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the religious movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of religous interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, religious, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

It might be more enlightening to only describe the archetypal fascist state of Mussolini in Wikipedia, and not try to create an ideology where none exists. Only a set of Machievellian-style tools for power-grabbers. These are the Fascist strategy for obtaining and securing control over the entire society, in my humble opinion. It should be evident from the above edit that I consider that the Bush regime has skilfully employed this Fascist strategy - but not the non-existant Fascist ideology. --66.176.20.143 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

doctrine

I'd like to bring to your attention that the doctrine of fascism was only published 10 years after musollini got power as president. one commonly acknowledged feature of fascism is that is has no particular ideology... it would be misleading to use the 'doctrine of fascism' as a definition of it. 82.93.141.171 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to "far right=left????"

This is incorrect in the extreme. Though both the right and left both advocate collective control over the means of production, leftism places little moral control over the people of the society, while fascism places heavy reguatuions on the population.

Muigwithania 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not correct in practice. In theory, yes, but in practice no. The bad idea of equating far right and far left is about the goal of the ideology: while the far right outrightly denies the existence of the individual, the individual and his/her wellbeing carries an important role in the leftist ideologies, but and that's an important but: the individual is defined solely by the collective, in kind of an organically dependent position. The difference between far left and far right is as the difference between paranoic scizophrenia and psychopathy (in practice). Said: Rursus ☻ 07:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Leftist ideologies care about the individual as long as the individual doesn't go against the collective,say by trying to actually own and make decisions about the product of their labor, everything is owned by the group not the individual. So if caring about the individual well being is treating him like a cog in a machine then yes it does. Fascism and Communism both do this they are two sides of the same coin.

Need to expand list of authors

The current list and text is good, but highly idiosyncratic. The major theorists need to be included here, with sections on Laclau, Eatwell, Sternhell, and Orwell, among others. Some of the longest sections are for relatively less-well-known authors, while major scholars have no mention other than in the list I added. Nickodemos: your edit was confrontational, POV, and biased. This is a page in progress. The conservative/libertarian view needs to be mentioned prominently. We need to at least mention world-famous scholars while we wait for folks to have time to write sections on them. Please be patient, and try to work collaboratively. I know you are a better editor than this edit reveals.--Cberlet 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the continuous libertarian POV-pushing on this issue has left me extremely distrustful of any mention of their views. My reason for deleting it (which I should have mentioned on the Talk page) was that there are multiple points of view on the political orientation of fascism, not just the "fascism is right-wing" view and the libertarian "fascism is left-wing" view. It seems logical and NPOV to me to mention the majority view (that fascism is right-wing), while explaining that it is controversial and quite vague. If we are to mention minority views, then we certainly need to mention more than one ("fascism as Third Way" should not be neglected, for example). This, however, would lead us into an off-topic discussion. I see three options here:
  1. My initial idea of mentioning only the majority view while explaining that it is controversial and vague.
  2. Mentioning several minority views.
  3. Giving up trying to mention any views on the political orientation of fascism altogether.
-- Nikodemos 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is exasperating to have to chase down all the endless attempts by libertarians to plonk the same marginal claims on page after page. I just finished moving text from several pages to Fascism and ideology. Hope that expanded entry can be used as a pointer.--Cberlet 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Oligarchy and corporatism

Is there any dispute about which regimes were "fascist"? They should be described by their actual behaviour rather than their claimed ideology. They were Oligarchic and corporatist while pretending to be populist and nationalist (of course there are regimes today that satisfy this description but are not yet called fascist). Fourtildas 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

that damn political donut

politics are kinda like a donut when you think about it. Defining fascism is tricky, it's kinda defined by it's conotations and the definations of those who use it. I'd say that fascism COULD be right or left (economically) but would probably be socially liberal. i'd say a soviet dictatorship is kinda fascist. Stalinism is racist, anti intellectual, anti-semitic, and could be seen as similiar to a fascist regime. but it was communist, sorta, economically.

I'd say that fascism is basically nationalism, but it the goals of a fascist nation tend to be of global proportions. Nationalists want soveriegnty within their borders, and acquiring power from other nations through force might be nice, but fascism wants to spread, just like capitalism and communism.

Ataturk

What about Ataturk the father of Turks? Can someone please define the relation between his thoughts'n action and faschism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.19.226 (talk • contribs)

As far as I know there is nothing saying Ataturk was a fascist and if there is I highly doubt any of it is of serious scholarly quality. - DNewhall 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nationalist?Yes, Militarist?Yes, Fascist?No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

21st Century USA

Diegueno 03:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Why hasn't Laurence W. Britt's definition [1] been added here yet?


Good question. Does/did he exist? No Wikipedia bio. His 14 tenets have been so widely spread that there should be some mention. IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(deleted because I could express it more aptly elsewhere in this talk page). Pbrower2a (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


I have my simple definition of fascism: fascism is the use of Bolshevik methods on behalf of a reactionary ideology.Pbrower2a (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Fascism

I think a section with references to Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism should be included. It is the first major and new analysis of the term and its ideological roots in a long time. Sluhser589 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a simple regurgitation of various ideas long put out by many on the more hardened right, which have never been taken seriously by the intellectual, scholarly (or whatever you wish to call it) community. Goldberg is also not an expert in this field, nor a scholar and his views are handily biased and poorly defined in his "work". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above and would point out that Goldberg's work has been harshly criticized by scholars on both the left and the right. There isn't really anything new in his work ("the fascists were leftists" is an old Internet meme) and his argument is virtually incoherent. 98.217.176.55 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Nolte

Would it be suitable to add Nolte's definition from "Three Faces of Fascism" -- "Fascism is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical and yet typically modified methods, always, however, within the unyielding framework of national self-assertion and autonomy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.192.81 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


The definition I quoted above is from Nolte's book "Three Faces of Fascism", NY & Toronto, c.1969, page 21 -- the quote can be seen in a google books look at "The Fascism Reader" on page 152, where it reprints some of Nolte's book. Nolte's a controversial figure in a number of respects but he's important enough his definition ought to be included.

24.131.192.81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I made some additions into the preceeding sentence introducing Nolte: what terminology (Hegel), and system (Hegelian (historicist) dialectic). Said: Rursus ☻ 09:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the definition?

As far as I can see, there is no definition of fascism in the article. According to my "original research" (personal opinion, don't use in article), the definition should be approximately as follows:

  1. the kind of society proponed: a combined feodalist and small capitalist society (corporativist), where the fascist party fulfills the role formerly carried by the king and nobility,
  2. the values: some kind of rightist "catholic", the subordination of the human under some "higher value", obedience and some kind of "universality" in the validity of the leaders decisions,
  3. the general balance between "transcendence"/"idiosyncracy": strongly idiosyncratic (not extremely, as the Nazis, but comparatively strong), very intolerant against "deviations", f.ex. criticism, minorities, a very crude welfare system with lots of holes, high level of fear and compensatory aggression, rigidity (and thereby brittleness).

Said: Rursus ☻ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

dead link.

  1. 12 ^ Griffin, Roger (1995). Fascism. Oxford University Press. ref refers to a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.176.176 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OLD DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS?

Perhaps there are some contributors that have access to old dictionaries that have a definition of fascism. It would be interesting to add a section that refers to these definitions in date/publication order.

I found one reference. The 1941 edition of the Thorndike Century Senior Dictionary defines fascism as any system of government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and business is regulated by a strong national government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James thirteen (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Paradoxically that could include include the United Kingdom in 1941. Property was still largely privately-owned, but the economy was severely regimented with the objective of staving off defeat by the Fascist powers. If anything the British economy was even more regulated than the economy of Nazi Germany at the time; Nazi Germany was still producing luxury goods.

Sir Winston Churchill was a strong leader and a supreme nationalist. What differed between him and fascists was that civil liberties and due process of the law were still in effect. He was no weak leader, and he was as firm a nationalist as any fascist.

Such shows the weakness of dictionary definitions as authority and why they are not accepted as suitable evidence in Wikipedia of any position: they can easily weaken as exceptions arise. Private ownership of business as a norm clearly distinguishes fascism from Marxism-Leninism, although security of ownership under fascism might be shaky. Civil liberties, a competitive political system, and due process of the law distinguish liberalism from everything else. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Flynn (1944) As we go marching

Polemical work, characterises fascism based on an analysis of Mussolini's Italy:

  1. Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features
  2. Economic demand management...
  3. ...through budget deficits
  4. Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism
  5. Militarism and imperialism
  6. Suspension of rule of law

Certainly worth some treatment in this article, but I won't do it. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversial then and seventy years later. I'll try to be NPOV.

I could start by characterizing freedom as Ludwig von Mises understands it as giving property-owners unconstrained power over what they own, thus allowing maximal freedom for workers as consumers. Employers are free to hire and fire, and if people lose their jobs they might starve. Government may be democratically elected and courts may operate on the principle of due process of law, but government is kept powerless to challenge economic realities. This is not the right place to argue for or against libertarianism.

There is no libertarian state and there has never been one. Since the Great Depression, voters in free countries have come to treat economic stewardship as one of the responsibilities of government. If government must borrow to mitigate an economic meltdown, then democracy may so mandate. Should budget deficits be inevitable under liberal democratic governments and in fascist regimes, then the purposes of those deficits may be different. A democracy may be salving personal distress through public works, expansion of education, and relief. A fascist regime more likely mounts deficits for the enhancement of military prowess, gaudy displays of militant propaganda, and paying off supporters. Public works in a democracy may be intended to reduce regional poverty; in fascist regimes those works are likely to have military purposes -- like facilitating invasions or fostering war production.

Fascism puts more emphasis on production, especially at the expense of consumption, than does democracy. Productivity under fascism has military power as the objective of all aspects of life, and although it gladly allows elites to indulge themselves it usually implies constraint upon mass consumption. Production of commodities such as food, textiles, metals, and fuel may be accelerated, but their use in consumer goods is cut back drastically. Industrial wages may fall despite rising productivity. As Hermann Goering put it: Butter makes us fat; guns make us strong.

Such planning as fascism has for hastening a military buildup is fully consistent with extraordinary profits for war contractors and their suppliers -- but the planning implies a speed-up of work and a longer workweek.

The legislative process is debased. In Nazi Germany the Nazis slowly replaced elected members of the Reichstag with appointed hacks , and the Reichstag met largely to ratify the desires of Hitler. In Italy the Chamber of Deputies voted itself out of existence in favor of 'corporate' representation in which the legislative process represented economic interests. Workers got nominal but meaningless representation. Rule of law and especially checks and balances vanish -- as under Bolshevism.

Wartime America and Britain took on some of the traits that Mises associates with fascism -- but then for survival and not for the grandiose vision of a God-like leader, and then to fend off fascistic enemies. Wartime planning seemed more consistent with national survival than did a purist reverence for the market. Both Britain and America pared consumption extensively. The range of political debate shrank greatly, which is to be expected in a crisis war. But such was ad hoc, to be scrapped at the first opportunity. Rule of law and political checks and balances essential to liberal democracy remained intact. (The incarceration of Japanese-Americans was an anomaly and a huge blunder).Pbrower2a (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Gentile

Giovanni Gentile's ideas, being that he wrote the Doctrine Of Fascism via his philosophy of Actual Idealism definitely need to be added. His corporativism of incorporating all interests under an organic idea of a single person reflect close to organicism but has a deep philosophical underpinning. Definitely should not be overlooked. Maybe even the very most important intellectual view of Fascism as a cohesively different and unique political ideology on per with Communism & systematic legal anarchism forms (systems of rulership without leaders) in terms of its level of academic complexity. 4.242.174.226 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Reason This Isn't Referenced In Main Fascism Article

I noticed that this page isn't linked to from the main Fascism article, any reason why not? Theosis4u (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BIAS

i deleted this because it was biased

The dictionary definition of Fascism doesn't help us much as it associates the word only with the particular eruption of this phenomenon in Europe in the 20th Century. But the fascisti of Mussolini's Italy and the Nazis of Hitler's Germany were manifesting a phenomenon that dates from the first attempts of human beings to figure out their place in the world. The primitive impulse that gives rise to fascism is what happens when a group distinguishes itself from others and then asserts its dominance over them. When this assertion has evolved into a full-blown ideology based on tribal identity, it has evolved into fascism. Fascism is group ego writ large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This would fit all the parameters of ultra-nationalism which Passmore refers to.Flanker235 (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias is a good topic for the word Fascism. Before the second World War, Fascism was a government policy. After the second World War, Fascism was everything bad about government and was used to describe all anti-US governments and groups. In other words, if you are against the US being dominant in world politics, you are a Fascist. There is so much argument over the definition of the word Fascist because everyone wants that word to reflect their opinion. One opinion expressed was that the United States of America has become that which it has fought and that after the USA won the war against Fascism, it became more Fascist than any other country in the world.

James thirteen (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Marxist "definitions"

Some of the "definitions" in the section Marxist definitions refer to theories of how it emerges, and aren't technically definitions. I'll make a subjective short list of the layout of the section:

3rdInt formula: fascism is the extremes of capitalism (IMO theory, not def)
Trotsky's formula: the function of fascism is to... (IMO not def, rather an alleged purpose)
Amadeo Bordiga's formula: fascism .. another form of bourgeois rule (IMO theory, not def)
Encyclopedia of Marxism: right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice", and identifies it as "an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government" (this is IMO a real definition)

I think this a little weird: the Encyclopedia of Marxism presents a pretty good definition that somewhat harmonizes with the other definions in the article, but why should the theories of its origins and its alleged purpose be here. AFAIK they're theories that Marxism actually formulated, but they're theories and technically belongs elsewhere (option 1) ... unless the article should be enhanced (option 2). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist definition

Should not lead the set of definitions.--Chip.berlet (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. These anarcho-capitalist idiots turn everything on its head. They call themselves Libertarians and anyone who disagrees with them are put into the same box and labelled "Collectivists". In true anarcho-capitalist style they have defined fascism as a sort of watered down socialism. ??? DrSparticle (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(realizing that this post is old) I would as a socialy agorist anarcho-objectivist (anarcho-capitalist) want to clearify that most of us don't consider Fascism to be a very specific political system and not "far-left" or "right". Rather than this fascism is simply a "moral argument", a (completely false) justification for violent hierarchy deeply rooted in philosophers like Kant, Plato and even Aristotle.
Usually fascism implies some form of syndical corporativism, not capitalism. (but of course this is still a form of capitalism in marxist terminology as there is still capital in circulation affecting and perhaps, as marxist would see it, being the basis for the system) Fascists would label this national socialist, not because they are trying to trick others that it is classical "socialism", but rather because they consider it "the third way"; a winning combination of systems that according to them is the "natural" order of things.
What most philosophical capitalists (that is "capitalist" in the new terminology that builds on other ideas than those from Richardo, Marx etc) truly consider socialist (this is much more close to the definition put forth by Marx) is the corporativist system, that is controlled by the state for the betterment of the nation. Why must it be for the betterment for the nation? "Why because otherwise the people will become degraded, suffer and be immoral of course! Individuals do not matter. They don't exist exept in the form of the people! Races build nations, not individuals!" will the fascist respond.

78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Marxist and Anarcho-capitalist definitions

We should look for similar sources. I think the suggestion by Rursus makes sense.--Chip.berlet (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini quote

"...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state." -- shouldn't the word 'state' be capitalised the same way in all three occurences, preferably with capital S? The current version matches the source in http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm, but this is itself a translation of a speech transcript, so we might correct this (to my eyes) obvious glitch.

Any other comments or suggestions?

Laurence Britt article---- In the Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry magazine, a political scientist and ex-corporate executive named Laurence Britt wrote an article entitled, "Fascism anyone? The fourteen identifying characteristics of Fascism". In the subtitle of the article, they are called "defining characteristics" (I've shortened the term to "DCs"). In preparation for the article, Britt studied seven Fascist regimes: Papadopoulos' Greece; Suharto's Indonesia; Salazar's Portugal; Pinochet's Chile, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy and, of course, the most brutal Fascist regime ever since Feudalism became known as Fascism after the Industrial Revolution: Nazi Germany. He noted that all seven regimes shared the defining characteristics in common, though he allowed that the degree to which some of them adhered to the "DCs" varied a bit. When you compare the "DCs" to the definitions in the article, you find that there's agreement. While the wording is slightly different, the context is the same. It is for that reason that I consider Mr. Britt's article the pre-eminent or "gold standard" to use to determine whether a regime was/is Fascist in nature. In the four years that followed the publishing of the article, the FRWNJ (Fascist Reich-Wing Nut Job) media began a propaganda campaign (in the Fascist tradition) to try and discredit Britt's work. The campaign failed. In fact, one charge that the Fascist regime of the United States, the Republican Party (they adhere to all 14 of the "DCs" and have since October 2001), tried to make was that Britt wrote the article so he could call the GOP "Fascist". The problem with that argument is that the GOP have expended a lot of effort and energy into proving Britt correct rather than wrong. Perhaps the Republicans thought that the Fascist "gaslighting" propaganda campaign they launched in 1920 (!) had convinced enough gullible people into thinking that the GOP aren't Fascists. However, millions are not fooled. For the past 37 months, I've been correctly calling the GOP Fascists. I have dozens of friends on social media (especially Facebook and Twitter) that have been correctly making that claim for much longer. Finally: if you look up the definition of "fascism" in dictionaries, especially online, even they all agree that Fascism is a "Right-Wing" ideology. Here's why: there's no such thing as "Liberal Fascism"...that term is simply a part of the GOP's propaganda campaign. Whether a regime considers itself "Leftist" or "Right-Wing", the Fascist ideology is what it is. Even the Nazis named their Fascist regime the "National Socialist German Worker's Party", using the term as propaganda to fool people into thinking that they weren't supporting a Fascist regime. When you look up the terms, "Socialism", "Communism", "Marxism", none of the three share a definition with Fascism. However, Fascists will claim that other political ideologies are Fascist, aka, the "Liberal Fascism" BS or another claim made by three US billionaires in 2014: "Progressivism is Fascism". Fascist regimes not only use propaganda to support their ideology, they also use many of the 10 dozen logical fallacies to do so (see Wikipedia article on logical fallacies to see what I mean). The evidence is quite clear: Fascism is a Right-Wing political ideology. Fascist regimes today will claim that correctly calling them Fascists violates "Godwin's Law", a proposition whereby the comparison of something done these days with the Nazis means that you "lose the argument". I wrote a Facebook note called, "Godwin's Law nullification", which is the simple proposition that, if one CORRECTLY compares something done these days to what the Nazis did, it is not a violation of the "law". What those three US billionaires said earlier this year actually were Godwin's Law violations. And, don't think that the US Republican Party is the only Fascist regime out there. There are plenty of others, like Russia and Iran, just to name a couple of examples. Fascism is alive and well in the world today and it needs to be killed. 2601:7:1C80:28:D4A5:8378:90D0:CE09 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback! --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Britt's article is an opinion piece, and not scholarship. It is a hatchet job on political figures in America that he despises -- especially President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney. To be sure, we already see much disparagement by historians of the 43rd President of the United States. I may agree with him that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents that America has ever had, and that he had many pathologies as a leader. Britt gets most of them right, but those pathologies also fit to a large extent many political leaders (Moammar Qaddafi, Assad père or fils, Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceauşescu, the Kim dynasty-in-all-but-name) who are not generally understood to be fascists.

Referring to the Republican Party of the US in 1920 as fascist introduces an anachronism. For an American organization that from its inception would develop many of the traits of fascism, there is the 1915 Ku Klux Klan (and subsequent incarnations) which existed before Benito Mussolini defined himself as a fascist.

All of the traits that Britt sees in Dubya (and seem to have only intensified in the current Republican Party) are pathologies to any liberal or humanist. But let's not get carried away. George W. Bush is not particularly sexist (point 5) and the Republican Party failed to get control of the mass news media (point 6). As a liberal and a humanist I find Fox News Channel vile journalism in the sense that Pravda and the Völkischer Beobachter were in their day. But FoX News never became the rigid norm for TV journalism. Finally, the Republican Party was unable to rig the 2006 Congressional Election to prevent the Republican Party from losing control of both Houses of Congress, let alone the 2008 Presidential Election in which a presidential nominee who ran on promises to repudiate the economic and foreign policies of the George W. Bush Administration (point 14).

Four defining characteristic that separate the Bush Administration from all previous fascist (and many other pathological) régimes are (1) the failure to term the new political system 'revolutionary' -- even the arch-reactionary régime of Phillippe Pétain called its renuciation of democracy the "Révolution Nationale", (2) the absence of politicized militias in service of the Leadership or Party, and (3)little violence against opponents, and (4) the absence of politicized youth auxiliaries, the latter intended to indoctrinate youth into obedient fanatics and to absorb independent organizations into the political bloc.

I'm not saying that the Republican Party isn't now questionable in its loyalty to objective scholarship, pluralism, free elections (after the one that gives them majorities that can be 'frozen' through electoral fraud), due process of law, minority rights, peace, and especially democracy within the Party. But it isn't Golden Dawn or the Ku Klux Klan, either.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Article structure

Currently, these definitions are ordered alphabetically by the surname of whoever came up with them. I don't find this particularly useful - it doesn't give any overall sense of why certain people define it one way or another. It also isn't always clear why any particular person's definition is notable. I suggest re-ordering the article, either by date (which would indicate how conceptions of fascism may have changed over time), or by political/ideological views (which would show how/if deople's ideologies affected how what they considered to be fascism. Either way, it would be useful to put Mussolini's definition at the start, as well as any other notable fascists. Iapetus (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of Georgi Dimitrov. Small clarification.

According to Marx, "element of financial capital" - a person who owns those banks that serve the industry (not all the capitalists). Proponents of the theory of class is expected at any government "dictatorship". "Open dictatorship" only means that the dictatorship did not legitimize themselves in the elections (antidemocrats). IMHO All other "definition" of fascism - it is just a set of different phenomena in many of the fascist regimes in history. They even contradict each other, since Fascist regimes have been very different. [machine tranclate] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.71.140 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Major POV Vandalism

Apologies, but there were so many small POV rewordings that were idiosyncratic that the only way I could figure out how to fix it was to revert it back to an earlier version.Chip.berlet (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Weird POV vandalism

> "Non-truths & Lying/Spread of Propaganda" – Umberto Eco wrote from a modern-day standpoint about Fascism; He did not study the Fascism of Spain, Italy or Germany where this style of governing evolved in the 1930s prior to World War II: Those involved were Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and more can be learned about fascism by reading on these people.

Not only does the paragraph fail to explain this aspect of Umberto Eco's definition of fascism, it is also an opinion. I haven't studied Eco's work enough to write a better paragraph, and I'm also not a wikipedian so I don't know how to revert stuff or find where it was changed or how long ago it was. I'm just here to read the article, and it has some garbage on it! It's confusing, unhelpful, and irritating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8802:4FA0:E938:1558:5EE9:9A46 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Definitions of fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-ordering section

I am new to this article and its edit history, but I find its organisation a little odd. At first glance, the ordering of the definitions seems arbitrary, with no particular weight given to any particular sort of definition. Then I realise 1-16 are ordered alphabetically, with three or four other things then added on. Wouldn't it make more sense to structure it according to some logic, e.g. Definitions used by fascists; Scholarly definitions; Marxist definitions; Definitions by mainstream politicians? Something like that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A month later, no response. I think I'll go ahead and do this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the way the definitions are organized. Although having them in alphabetical order seems a bit simplistic, I think it puts each definition on equal footing. Having a section for "scholars" is quite arbitrary. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Clara Zetkin Quote

I do not understand why the derivative definition of fascism by Dimitrov is kept robust while the work of Clara Zetkin, whose analysis was the original text, was just cut down to a snippet. Let's talk it over please.Chip.berlet (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"A century..." of the right or left?

This is part of an important quotation in the Doctrine of Fascism, mentioned in the article, which identifies how fascists self-identified themselves on the political spectrum. <http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm> has this quotation as '[A] century tending to the right, a Fascist century.' But print media sources (<http://media.wix.com/ugd/927b40_c1ee26114a4d480cb048f5f96a4cc68f.pdf> and <http://www.pauladaunt.com/books/Banned%20books%20and%20conspiracy%20theories/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Fascism%20-%20by%20Benito%20Mussolini%20%28Printed%201933%29.pdfhave>) have this quotation as [A] century of the Left, a Fascist century.' (Although the word 'Left' is not capitalized in one of them.) Given that two print-media sources, apparently original authorized translations of the text into English by Mussolini, are the source of the latter interpretation as opposed to the former which is electronic only, I am slightly more inclined to believe the print sources even though the former electronic-only version of the quote is what is being used currently in the article, but this is just a total guess by my ignorant self. What is the proper word here, 'right' or 'left'? Even if scholars disagree with Gentile or Mussolini about their positioning on the political spectrum, or either of them identified their position differently later on, I do believe that the most accurate version of this quotation is of utmost importance for the purposes of Wikipedia, again because it relates to how the authors self-identified on the political spectrum of their time. Alternatively, was the text changed on purpose in different authorized translations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webspidrman (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a good point. There are different translations and many books in print have used some of the bad translations. However the "official" government approved translation to English uses the term "right:"
"Granted that the XIX th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century."
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi153/timetable/wk10/muss_fascism/
I have gone to a library and read the official Italian Government English translation and checked the Italian Government Italian version. They both say "right."Chip.berlet (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

John T. Flynn

While the list of definitions here varies wildly in terms of the notability and weight, I feel we have to draw the line at John T. Flynn. He's a journalist and conspiracy theorist with absolutely no scholarly credentials on the subject whatsoever. If we listed everyone who ever called their political opponents or ideas they disagreed with fascism here, the list would be a mile long and describe essentially everyone as a fascist - at a bare minimum, people included here must have either some expertise on the subject, or must have significant mainstream coverage to illustrate that their views on the topic are particularly noteworthy. Flynn meets neither criteria. --Aquillion (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree completely. Have you actually ever read anything by Flynn? His wikipedia article is quite skewed (I should probably work on that). It seems to me that writing a book about the history of Italy and the beginnings of fascism makes him a scholar. What more do you need? He compared some aspects of Italian central planning to FDR's central planning which probably makes some people uncomfortable. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
While Flynn is an outlier on this list, his book is semi-sacred on the political right in the United States. He earn his . I disagree with almost everything in the book, but it is a popular version of the books and essays by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek both of whom I loathe politically (along with Flynn]].Chip.berlet (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Chip, are you arguing that his significance as a member of the far right means he is noteworthy, which might suggest he doesn't belong in the scholars section, but maybe in a new section? He was certainly not a scholar, even though he was an author, so certainly doesn't belong in the scholars section.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If I recall, Bob, you were the one who created these sections and placed Flynn in the fascist category. I have to say I prefer the old alphabetical list since it makes mistakes like that impossible. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have Hayek listed here. I don't see the point of mentioning Flynn in a separate section if Flynn's only contribution was to repeat and popularize Hayek's opinions. Again, the purpose of the list should be to cover scholarly and authoritative views, or at least someone with some degree of expertise on the subject. The purpose of the list isn't to cover every individual who has ever weighed in on fascism, but to identify the broad scholarly opinions on the topic and to present them with appropriate context, making it clear how much acceptance each has and giving them weight according to their acceptance among reliable sources. In fact, I think the entire concept of a list of people might be part of the problem here - it might be more appropriate to describe the scholarly consensus, then any disagreements. But at the very least, if we're going to go into detail on a specific person's views on fascism, they need to have some expertise on the subject. I definitely don't think that "wrote a book on the subject" (or even "wrote a popular book on the subject") is sufficient to devote a paragraph to someone - doing so would result in eg. a separate entry for the same basic definition every time anyone wrote a book about it. (Which, in fact, seems to be exactly what happened here - Flynn contributed no scholarship and didn't have his own distinct definition, but he wrote a popular book about the views of Mises and Hayek, so including him became a way to list that perspective twice.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I can sort of understand your argument, there are lots of redundancies on this page. However, Flynn never quotes Mises or Hayek and came from a completely different background. Nowadays, some of his work is beloved by the Mises Institute crowd, but he definitely didn't come from that school originally. Anyway, it seems to me that the purpose of this page is to keep arguments like this off of the Fascism page. If you want to get rid of Flynn why not get rid of another 10 people from the list? It's completely arbitrary. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Apocalypse/millenia/thousands

"Scholars have inspected the apocalyptic, millennial and millenarianism aspects of fascism..." What does this have to do with anything? There are 6 references at the end of the lede which are never used again and these concepts are not discussed elsewhere in the article as far as I can see. I would like to delete this sentence but don't want to cause any chaos if there's something I'm missing. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the sentence is there because there is significant scholarly consensus that "apocalyptic, millennial and millenarian aspects" are a part of the definition of fascism - that fascism is defined, in part, by having such aspects. I don't personally see the importance of mentioning this, but clearly some editor(s) did in the past, and I don't see any particular reason to not mention it, so I would be against deleting the sentence. -- KS79 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the above comment.Chip.berlet (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Britt List

Mr Britt is not a scholar and the list is oddly similar to that of Umberto Eco: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ Chip.berlet (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-definitions

I just removed two short paragraphs quoting the views of Sergio Panunzio and Charles Maurras from the 1920s. The problem with them is that they were not definitions of fascism, in the sense covered by the scope of this article. This is an article about definitions of fascism as a general phenomenon, as a political category covering multiple parties, movements and groups in several countries. Panunzio and Maurras, however, were not talking about such a category or general phenomenon. They were talking specifically about the party led by Benito Mussolini in Italy at the time. We should be careful to look at the context in which sources use the word "fascism", because sometimes (especially back in the 1920s, but even today) the word "fascism" can be used to mean specifically Italian Fascism, rather than fascism-in-general. Sources dealing with Italian history, for instance, will not typically use the term "Italian Fascism", since the adjective "Italian" is unnecessary in context, and will call it simply "fascism". That does not mean that they are making statements about fascism-in-general. The same was true about Panunzio and Maurras (the source for the Maurras quote, David Carroll, gives that quote as an example of the fact that Maurras "did for a time praise Italian fascism").

The authors included in this article should be those who attempt to define a general concept of fascism, not those who are explaining the politics of one particular fascist party.

There's also the question of what counts as a definition. I'm not sure if the one-sentence Panunzio quote about "the spirit of fascism" was an attempt to provide a definition of even Italian Fascism. It's certainly a comment about Italian Fascism, but it seems to me that a definition would imply some longer statement. Not every comment about fascism fits within the scope of this article. To be included, the comment should be an attempted definition, an explanation of what the main features of fascism are and how it is different from other ideologies.

I am in favour of erring on the side of inclusion when there is room for interpretation as to whether a given comment was or was not meant as a definition of fascism-in-general. But the comments by Panunzio and Maurras were clearly not. Ohff (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalisation in the Mussolini quote

This article's version of the Mussolini quote, "everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state", has strangely inconsistent capitalisation of the word "state", with the 2nd one being capitalised. The source[1] uses this capitalisation, but every other version found online is consistent in either capitalising the word or not. This was probably an error from the website used, which does not appear at a glance to be reliable. This link from the Internet Archive is probably better (archive.org doesn't seem to load for me, but this seems to be a technical issue on my end), so maybe it should be used instead: https://archive.org/details/DoctrineOfFascismMussoliniAndGentile Hyuhanon (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Mussolini – THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM". www.worldfuturefund.org.
The quote is not actually from The Doctrine of Fascism, where the same idea is expressed somewhat differently. The well-known version is from a speech made by Mussolini to the Chamber of Deputues. I've corrected all that, including the capitalization issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Unhelpful reversion.

This reversion is not helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_fascism&type=revision&diff=1026936854&oldid=1026893813
"although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist."
... is statement of self evident fact c.f. Authoritarianism.
"although not all authoritarian regimes are Fascist (epithet)."
... is not a fact, it is poor grammar at best and lacks NPV.
If reference to fascist as an insult is felt necessary (I don't) then something along these lines is more appropriate.
"although not all authoritarian regimes justify fascist."
Or both elements included.

83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing a definition that exists on Simple

The Defining Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt entered on the simple version of the Fascism article is missing from this Definitions of Fascism page here on the regular English version. I found it to be very informative, straightforward, and from a modern source.

Could it be added here?

--AreThree (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I came looking for the same as Britt's list has garnered some attention. Alas, I'm not a confident Wikipedian. The original article can be read here if anyone is interested. --8dave (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added Britt's list to the article, but using his original wording, and not the wording that was used in the modified version you referred to on Simple. I have updated the Simple article as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitions

This article is called "Definitions of fascism", and, as such, should stick as much as possible to analyses of what fascism is and isn't and what constitutes a fascist regime. It should stay away from mere descriptions of fascist regimes. I have removed a number of entries which were entirely that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

level 1

If fascism is ethernal for ,Umberto Eco, why not level one? 187.20.116.155 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius: Wikimediano (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

concerns about two template warnings

as of June 2022, two template warnings were added--that the article includes excessive quotations and excessive or improper use of non-free material.

i routinely recommend this page to students and researchers interested in fascism. It is one of the WP pages I recommend most often. In my opinion, it is really excellent. It is the most compact overview of what scholars and writers have offered as definitions of fascism I know of anywhere.

Re: quotation length. The quotations do not at all seem too long to me, and are all designed to pick out the essential core of what each important author says about the topic. Some may appear a little long (even then, only a little), but each of those appears to be a list of the specific items each author considers essential to defining fascism.

Re: sources. The sources are the appropriate ones, clearly chosen with care and attention to detail. When i look them over, I see very few that could be replaced with free material, except to the detriment of the article quality.

i am writing simply to indicate that I'd support both of the template warnings being removed, as I don't think this page would be improved by trying to meet the template demands. I had no role in composing or editing this page, but would hate to see it become less useful than it currently is.

I should say that in composing this message I noticed that the article is ranked C-Class and of low importance by both WP Politics and WP Philosophy. I don't know when those ranks were assigned, but as the article has stood for a while, I'd support much stronger grades in both. It is very important and of very high quality. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A pre-emptive measure

On the Fascism talk page, there is a stern warning about editors promoting the notion that fascism is left wing. That page has been subjected to a large amount of vandalism and I thought it might be worthwhile talking some pre-emptive measures. The Talk page has a warning at the top to discourage people from raising the matter, with an explanation of how the decision on where to place fascism was reached. It might be worth posting that same warning here. Flanker235 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent content removals

1) Removed content about eugenics, which is relevant 2) of course Umberto Eco is a scholar. Do not edit war these bold removals. Andre🚐 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Definitions_of_fascism/Archive_1&oldid=1186269362"