Talk:Fascism/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Fascism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Jonah Goldberg

What the heck is he doing in there? The reference to his "Liberal Fascism" book is plainly misleading. The guy is a hack and has no role in an *encyclopedia* examination of fascism. Claims that fascism came from left wing and/or liberal thought is plain bizare and contradictory to the historical record. Can that reference be deleted? Its pure tinfoil hat nonsense. Ridiculous right wing propaganda from America in the 2000s has nothing to offer an examination of fascism, a european phenomena, in the 30s 121.44.243.227 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful, your athoritarianism is showing. It's not propaganda when all he does in the book is reference speeches that have been PROVED to be historically acurate. It's not like its a book of Jonah Goldberg just preeching. Therefore your premise is wrong. I could understand if your argument was that he wasn't taking into account other factors, like many logical people on here have done, but to call it "tinfoil hat nonsense" clearly shows that you either haven't read it, or that you call anything that you disagree with "propaganda". Which was a fascist tactic if I'm not mistaken.(InquistiorV (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Regardless, it's not a scholarly work and Goldberg is not a scholar. Again, you may find it worthwhile to review the policies under WP:FRINGE. Meanwhile, you should avoid focusing discussion on the perceived shortcomings of other editors. Such comments tend to look like insults or personal attacks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply responding logically to what I percieved to look like an attempt at an insult. I'm not trying to make any point other than the one your making. The above comments made by the user is unessecary, and I have reviewed the policies under WP:FRINGE and it seems common sense that goldbergs work should be included, but I don't feel like wasting my time on those that are hostile to opposing view points. It's not like they are stopping anyone from reading it. It's a top seller. I also want to point out again that it's not propaganda when all he does in the book is reference speeches that have been PROVED to be historically acurate. There is a deffinate hostility on this site toward anyone who takes this stance. I'm trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt by saying that most peoples position is that Goldberg didn't take certain things into account, but the more everone tries to attack him personally or people that take his stance personally, ie. "tin foil hat nonsense", the more I believe there is hostility and even fear of Goldberg being allowed on WP. If I'm wrong, prove it by sticking to debate that only has to do with things Goldberg didn't take into account and stop trying to personally discredit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.174.89 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more needs be said than the fact that Goldberg is not a scholar, just a guy who wrote a popular book, who has no particular knowledge or expertise on the subject. The result is a non-scholarly work. "Bestsellers" do not per se carry any credibility on the topics they discuss. At most, if at all, it would be appropriate to simply and briefly mention that Goldberg has argued (whatever it is that he is arguing)... and I somewhat doubt that even that would be appropriate. I'm sorry if you feel that this is an attack or slight against Goldberg or those who admire his work. There are relatively objective measures of a work's credibility, and an author's credibility. One is the author's academic credentials (this usually involves teaching in some capacity in a higher education setting, not just having gone to college). Another is "peer review"... you may find that Liberal Fascism was not subjected to any. As far as I know, it's not even presented as an academic work.

I think you might find a more productive outlet working on the article about Liberal Fascism rather than trying to argue that Goldberg's views should be given any WP:Weight whatsoever on the article about Fascism, although even at that specific article, there's no specific expectation that Goldberg's views will be treated sympathetically. I'm afraid I don't have much more to say on the subject so I am sorry if you find my conclusions upsetting. And, in case you feel I am trying to order you around, please note that I am not an administrator or anyone with any special authority. I am just an ordinary user, stating my opinion with respect to the topic and WP policies, although I think you will probably find that the majority of experienced WP editors would agree with what I am saying regardless of their personal views on Goldberg or his book. Again, I think that your frustration is primarily derived from being new to Wikipedia and not quite understanding its core policies and what it is meant to accomplish. This is not intended as an insult; I think the goals of Wikipedia probably seem counterintuitive and even just plain wrong to most people – at first. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you and I have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that you specifically are insulting anyone. I'm trying to point out the type of language in the very first post on this section. It isn't even debatable whether or not someone is trying to insult someone when they say "tin foil hat nonsense". I think you are being logical and decent in YOUR objections, but I think, in general, the "tin foil hat nonsense" language is being used to much in this descusion. I'm fine with your personal stance on Goldberg, I'm just trying to point out a general stance that seems hostile.(InquistiorV (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I can't say I've seen any examples of a similar vein, so I'd have to respectfully disagree. At the same time, subjects of WP articles are not explicitly shielded from the invective of WP editors posted on article talk pages, although I admit that language is fairly confrontational and the comment could be worded more constructively. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker, what do you think of the proposed opening paragraph for "Fascism in the political spectrum"? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the one FormerIP posted under "A Fuller Proposal", right? I think it's basically OK, although I still find it curious that the first sentence makes the statement footnoted as "1" before making the statement footnoted as "2". I'd strike that, and reverse it, so to speak. However, it would be great to put this debate to rest, especially as the discussion on it seems to have ceased. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm no fan of arguments rooted primarily in WP:CCC, or the idea of closing a debate just because editors on the other side seem to have moved on, but it seems silly to leave the article in a state of semi-permanent stalemate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I put in opening sentences. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can insert anything and all of us included yourself should remove inappropriate text. I have removed it, which you also could have done. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Genius

"[A definition of fascism]... No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."

BRILLIANT! --66.188.120.127 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If that statement is going to stay in this article, its source should be referenced properly and attributed in the text rather than presented as some well-known or widely accepted fact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How's this? "Fascism" is a nationalist ideology that overtly indoctrinates people into believing the superiority of the state over the individual. This is different from Bolshevism where the people subconsciously submit to the state, because the state claims to provide for them. One could see Fascism as the extension of traditional God-based monarchies into the industrial age: Facism is an overt national cult, whereas Bolshevism is a national cult that pretends not to exist. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum – Neutrality tag

This subject has been hotly debated for some time.

Personally, I think that what Four Deuces has added, which is a relatively minor (but not inconsequential) modification of FormerIP's compromise proposal, is fair and even-handed. However, I think it would be best to spur some commentary on the revision as it now stands, before proceeding further.. especially because some active editors appear to be on hiatus, although I do get the impression that numerous other editors may have walked away from the debate over the course of many weeks or even months.

What are people's thoughts on whether the current revision satisfies NPOV? Are we past the point where the neutrality tag is needed? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi FAYS. I think it doesn't pose serious enoguh NPOV issues anymore to merit the neutrality tag, but think it should stay for a short while in any case so as to encourage editors to talk rather than revert if they disagree. Reckon it can go after a few days or a week if no controversies over it arise.

Also think the section as a whole could still do with some tidying. --FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, although I'm finding myself quite busy of late and don't have as much time for WP. At the same time, I don't have as much background knowledge on the subject as some other editors here, so it's probably no great loss. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not fair and even-handed. What I find particularly troubling is even though he is well aware of all the trouble we went trough he didn't felt the need to post it on the talk first. -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I encouraged you to rejoin the discussion, then, since the total silence at this talk page might have been misconstrued as a lack of significant opposition.

I guess we are back to square one, though. I'd be interested to hear a succinct summary of your objections, since you reverted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing has now edited the "Position in the political spectrum" so that it now begins:

Benito Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists". Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation." Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.

Although I believe that the article should point out what Mussolini believed, I would point out that he was a fascist and had no academic credentials. Therefore this makes the opening extremely biased, and I am therefore reversing it. If Vision Thing believes that the section should begin with Mussolini's views or if he believes that Mussolini should be seen as authoritative and NPOV, then I would appreciate his opinion. (Sorry, I misstated your handle on my edit summary.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version that was relatively stable for months. It is you who is introducing changes, not me. I especial find it duplicitous that you are asking me to discuss changes when you are trying to bully through your changes without any discussion or proposal here at talk. -- Vision Thing -- 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's very fair, VT. The content TFD inserted had been proposed, discussions seem to have come down to a few minor points and no-one had said anything for a few days. Suck-it-and-see seems to me to be a reasonable way forward. You previously appeared to support most of what is in TFD's edit - in fact, some of it was originally your wording. So, I'm guessing that any objections you might have are quite specific. Why not just say what they are?

Also, you might want to call the previous version "stable", but you're well aware that no-one has been happy with it, we've all just been observing an editing cease-fire. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Suck-it-and-see" might have been a reasonable step forward but The Four Deuces didn't stop on that. He decided to edit war over it while calling me out for not discussing. That is not acceptable behavior. As for objections: 1) The Four Deuces changed all important first sentence. 2) There is no mention of Gregor's observation how view of scholars about place of fascism in the political spectrum have changed over the years. 3) Not only are Stackelberg's views present as representative for view that fascism is the right wing, they are also distorted. -- Vision Thing -- 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see why your three objections need to take us immediately back to the drawing-board. Why not: (1) propose ways in which the Gregor citation might be incorportated and (2) explain what you think is wrong with the way in which Stackleberg is presented and/or propose an alternative? On the ordering in the first sentence, I think it's deadlock at the moment, but let's not just give into it. Perhaps there's a third way, or maybe we should sort the other issues then take a straw poll. --FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Stackelberg's views properly presented: "Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement." 2) Gregor citation and first sentence are one problem. My proposal: "Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex, and while it was normally described as "extreme right" over the years scholars increasingly began to view fascism as a movement that is neither the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, VT, I have re-inserted the Four Deuces version, using your wording for Stackleberg, which I see no problem with. However, I haven't used your wording regarding Gregor, since I'm not confident that it is a fair use of the source. Your wording gives the impression that the view has continually shifted away from fascism being seen as right-wing over time, which Gregor does not appear to say. He does talk about the emergence of a number of historians taking a different view, but this appears to happen as an event, not as a continual process. I'm not necessarily averse to including soemthing about gregor if more appropriate wording can be found.

I really think it would be good to work on what is now there. I don't think it is right to revert the whole section just because you have a problem with one detail. The contents are still open for discussion and amendment, and there is a neutrality tag on the section. If we allow the idea that there should be no progress until everyone agrees about every detail, then we will quite simply never make progress. It seems to me that it would be much better to simply continue to argue over the diminishing proportion about which there is reason to argue. What I am noting is that this proportion is reducing, so we must be on the right track, however slow it might be. If you feel the need to obliterate text, please don't do so wholesale - preserve the parts you don't disagree with.

Incidentally, I have also edited to reflect John K's objection that the views of fascists were not consistent with regard to where they sat on the pol spec. This seems fair enough to me. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be your proposed wording regarding Gregor? -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that there is already enough information in the section now, and I don't think I can identify any useful additional information from the Gregor quote. That deosn't mean that nothing can be included, I'm just saying that I personally don't support anything being included.

I'd also note that there is a recent discussion of this source in the archive, which ended in bickering and no consensus to include the cite. So, before it gets included, it would only be fair for editors involved in that discussion to have a chance to comment again if they want to. There was also a description of Gregor as a "scientific racist". I don't know if this is an accurate decription but, if it is, then I would say that the issue of whether this compromises him as a source will also need airing.

All that aside, there seems to have been a difference of opinion as to how to interpet the opening sentences of the preface. The question boils down to whether "the judgments of scholars" refers to some, all or most scholars. I don't think your view, VT (that he means "most" or "all") stands up. Firstly, because we surely know from all the other sources we have looked at that there is no point where there has ceased to be controversy over the question. Secondly, because Gregor spends much of the rest of his book bemoaning the dominance of the idea that fascism is on the right. This would make little sense if your interpretation were correct.

So, I think there are a number of hurdles to cross before Gregor can be used as a source. At the moment, I don't think he is a source for anything more than something like: "According to James Gregor, a number of scholars viewing fascism as "neither left nore right" emerged between the mid 1960s and the 2000s". However, I don't think this adds much by way of useful information to what we already have.

There could be a potential compromise, because the Gregor quote could be used as part-support for a statement about support for this view varying over time and being in the ascendency at some points (with Gregor and one or two others being cited).

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to include something like "fascism is normally described as extreme right or neither the left or the right", only solution is to attribute claims like you suggested that we do with Gregor. That would give us: "According to Roger Eatwell fascism is normally described as extreme right. According to James Gregor scholars abandoned that view and now see fascism as neither the left nor the right." -- Vision Thing -- 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) One would only use the expression "According to Roger Eatwell..." if he were expressing an opinion. When a fact is sourced there is no reason to say "according to". It would be like saying "According to Roger Eatwell, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933". Is it your suggestion that we go through this article and mention names in the text of the source for every fact? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Facts are not disputed by renowned scholars. WP:NPOV describes fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." And while at the time Eatwell wrote his piece (in the early 1990s) that view probably wasn't under dispute, now it is. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, VT. If you got the impression I'm saying we should add names of sources to the current opening statement then, well, I wasn't.

My issue with Gregor isn't primarily whether to attribute inline or not, but exactly what claim the source can be used to support and whether there are reasons to treat Gregor with caution as a source (there may not be, but it has been raised). There was already a long discussion about Gregor, which I wan't part of, but it looks to me like "no consensus". Re-opening that discussion is fine by me, but it looks like it contains a few issues.

If you want to claim that the Eatwell quote is out of date then that's a claim that needs support. Even giving Gregor the loosest scrutiny, he doesn't support that, simply because he is talking about a period beginning in the 60s, whereas Eatwell is writing in the 90s. --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with VT in most discussions, I feel I wouldn't be living up to my name if I didn't point out that he's correct in asserting that the above statement doesn't qualify as a "fact"; few statements do, even ones which can be determined to be accurate in a relatively objective way. This particular statement doesn't even seem to count as a "fact about an opinion" since it is more of a value judgment (a correct one, I believe) about opinions in general on this particular subject.

That said, the troublesome question is: will we attribute every statement to its source just because it is disputed? NPOV policy is not silent on this subject, but neither does it seem to address the logical conclusion that every significant dispute will potentially add some cumbersome verbiage to the article to which it relates. Meanwhile, saying "According to Roger Eatwell Fascism is normally described as extreme right" seems to dramatically understate the claim, suggesting it would be appropriate to add various "me too" claims from other authors, which would inevitably lead to the counting up of competing sources, which is exactly what we try to avoid by citing synthesizing sources. Ugh – this sucks. More and more, I think we should cut the knot by citing the OED to establish, once and for all, the general usage of the term. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although, on second thought, are there any sources that say Fascism is normally described as anything other than right or extreme right? I sort of doubt it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with quoting the OED. In terms of the logic of what you are sating, FAYS, I'd say there are opinions (which always should be attributed) and claims (which should be attributed if there is a staright conflict between sources). In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources, IMO. We have sources which point out further layers of complexity, but they don't undermine the basic point. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that this issue could be partially settled by adding "historically". -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really, VT. This would seem to imply "not any more". I think the whole point is that that is not the case. It isn't warranted to put it in the past tense.--FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You argue that "In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources" but Gregor is competing source. He says: "Over those years, students of "fascism," as a subject of inquiry, have seen its "essence" change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the "right" nor the "left."" So according to him, Eatwell's claim should be in put in a past tense, and fascism should be described as a " neither of the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The reasons I think this is not the case have been gone over. But, to recap, (1) who the "scholars" in Gregor's quote are is not clear (I tend to think they are a minority, and, in context, anything else would be contradictory to what Gregor himself is saying), (2) Gregor specifies the timescale that he is talking about as beginning in the 1960s - since Eatwell is writing in the 1990s, I don't see how Gregor can be used as evidence that Eatwell is out-of-date, (3) you had a discussion with a number of other users where the result was no consensus, for a number of reasons including doubts over Gregor's sincerity - I'm not saying these are founded, but I think you should seek to re-open that discussion rather than taking advantage of the fact that it has gone cold. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1) I think it is irrelevant who scholars in Gregor's quote are, but there is more than enough prominent scholars who belong in that camp (Laquer, Sternhell, Griffin, Lipset, Gregor and Eatwell himself). 2) Gregor talks about period during which change in views happened, not a specific year. -- Vision Thing -- 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I reverted the edit that placed the qualifier before the fact. It made it appear that there was any doubt that fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is little doubt that fascism is conventionally viewed as right-wing, but this discussion gets to the idea that left and right have little modern scholarly meaning. It's wishful thinking to assume that political parties self-organize along a convenient spectrum, as if waiting to be catalogued by us; rather, political parties are inherently self-interested. In particular, fascism promotes the cult of leadership, with promise that the rank-and-file can advance through superior obedience. Now, if "left" and "right" have any relationship to "obedience," then fascism can be placed on the spectrum. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was any confusion about the political spectrum before 1921, when the Fascist Party formed. Conservatives sat on the right, liberals and centrists sat in the center, and social democrats and communists sat on the left, and were associated with the upper, middle and working classes respectively. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What should propelty mean "be of right"? Be of right means, firstly, to recognize the subverting character of the movements resulting from the french revolution, whether liberalism or democracy or socialism. Be of right means, secondly, to see the decadent nature of rationalistic, progressistic, materialistic myth preparing the advent of plebeian civilization, the kingdom of the quantity, the tyranny of the anonymous and monstrous masses. Be of right, moreover, means to conceive the State as an organic totality where the political values predominate over economic structures and where the saying "to each his own", does not means equality, but fair qualitative inequality. Finally, be of right means to accept as your own that aristocratic, religious and warrior spirituality who has marked by itself the european civilization, and - in the name of this spirituality and its values - accepting the fight against the decadence of Europe.

Adriano Romualdi - italian historian, essayist, politician, journalist, influenced by the thought of Julius Evola --151.23.12.218 (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The view not being allowed

I see plenty of talk of fascism being right wing, and plenty that says it's a radical centrist approach, but there is almost no mention of the FACT that many scholars believe that fascism is left wing. I've always thought that what wing you belong to depends on where you believe power should be placed. The left always believes in centralizing power (more regulation, more programs, more spending, less state power, more federal power .... etc), and the right always goes for more individual power (less regulation, fewer programs, less spending, more state sovereignty, less federal power ... etc) It just seems common sense to me that fascism can't be radical right wing since radical right wing would be radical individualism, which is anarchy not fascism. I just don't see how a group that is always trying for less government could arrive at fascism(an authoritarian dictatorship) I can understand if someone wanted to say "but the politicians on the right aren't going for less government." That's understandable, and I definitely agree when it comes to the right wing politicians we have had lately, but that still doesn't make fascism right wing, it just makes right wing politicians liars, which all politicians are guilty of. Although the right wing voters DO believe in less government and more individual power. Just because a politician claims to want less government to get into power doesn't mean everything he does from that point on is right wing. I'm not saying that all government is bad, or that all leftists are fascists. I'm just addressing the absurdity that I see in calling people who want less government fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is only in the US that more government = left. In other political traditions huge governments and their proponents can very well be right wing. Anyway this is an issue that is being discussed very thoroughly above and in order to contribute to that discussion it would be best if you could back up your claims with references to reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Left" vs. "Right" originally came from the French Revolution and referred to a person's alignment with the Church. Because the church was allied with the government, the "Right Wing" became aligned with the monarchy. However this spectrum is reasonably disputed by the fact that, while the church advocates respect for the existing authorities it also indicated in Samuel that the choice of the Jewish people to choose a monarchy rather than a system of semi-democratic small government theocracy was due to their abandonment of God. In other words, monarchy is not the most 'right wing' form of government. To phrase things differently, Hitler admitted that his views ripped off Marx (who I hope we can agree was 'left wing?') and that he was only opposed to Communism because it was internationalist and "Jewish." Just because Hitler fought with Communists doesn't mean he was ideologically opposed to much of what they did. He emulated them in many ways. In any case, presenting fascism as "Far Right Wing" as a statement of fact is extremely NPOV. It is, at the very least, a taxonomy that's heavily disputed and cannot be fairly presented as fact. Wikipedia seems to lean rather severely to the left on matters of politics, and radically different standards are applied based on the figure in question's political outlook. This violates Wikipedia's own expressed standards. Ryan W. --70.190.167.1 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that current political comparisons dont relate to the original use of left vs right. Congratulations, but that doesnt relate to the point above, where someone is confused regarding what right-wig politics is, which is not about individualism. You're also noting that what Hitler said and what he did were different. Only 60 years behind everyone else. Presenting fascism as right wing is not POV - check right-wing politics. Right wingers priortise social hierarchy, social order, nationalism, religion and anti-communism. Moderate right wingers promote individual freedoms when moderate left wing governments impose laws and policies they disagree with, just as left wingers do when right wing governments impose their policies. You cant extend the gripes and glories of modern moderate left-right advocates with genuine radicals like communists and fascists. Radical right-wing means virulent social hierarchy, order imposed by terror, death to communists or anyone who disagrees with the imposition of the fascist state and justified by twisted religion and or nationalism. Fascism is desribed as radical right wing because those aspects are aspects of fascism. Just because some parts of far right-wing politics are the same as far left-wing politics doesnt mean fascism isnt right wing. It just means that right wing and left wing radicals have more in common with each other than say right wing radicals compared to left wing moderates and left wing radicals to right wing moderates. The taxonomy is only disputed by people of right-wing persuasions who dont like to be reminded that their viewpoint has an extremist faction which is just as vicious and destructive as the left-wing does. The viewpoint that fascism isnt far right wing deserves its place but the idea of fascism being right-wing in general cant be removed from the article since this viewpoint is pervasive. Wikipedia is quite representative, and if the tendency is to be left or right of where you are says more about you than your fellow editors. Funny how left-wingers say they are left, wheras right-wingers say everybody else is too left-wing. NPOV cannot be maintained in every sentence, every edit, especially in matters about politics. Overall NPOV is maintained by ensuring both the prevailing viewpoint and also appropriate description of minority or opposing viewpoints are included in articles. Mdw0 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But aren't those countries parties "less" right than the parties in the US. They are usually self described as "center-right". That means closer to the left, which would support my interpritation even with the expanding government. It's the same with "Moderate Republicans" in the US like John McCain, who is usually attacked by the farther right political figures. He was talked badly about at many conservative/libertarian rallies this year. Another example is the large amount of libertarians that spoke out against George Bush's push for the Patriot Act. It seems to me that there is no difference between us in other countries, just maybe the labels. I'm willing to look at examples though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot define European right parties as "less right" than american ones since it is the very definition of "right" that is in question. If "right" means pro-small-government and pro-personal freedom as in the US, then European right parties are less right than AMerican ones. But in Europe right means more something like pro-tradition, pro-religion, pro-centralised government, pro-law and order, pro-nationalism. In fact in Europe personal freedom is more often thought of as a tenet of the left, and often left parties are in favour of decentralisation of power.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, ok, now I think I understand your point. So would that mean that policy is actually quite interchangeable throughout the world when it comes to left-right placement? and would that also mean that fascism can never be right or left as Americans see right or left? I mean, I still like my view on power placement, but I see how this can be so difficult now. Maybe there should be a separate section on WP:Fascism that separates the distinction of European view as opposed to American view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It means that one cannot simply say "right" and expect everyone to understand what one means. It is necessary to define what one means by the word when using it to define someone's political standpoint. This is why modern political scientists have developed different types of spectra with more axes for describing political views with a greater degree of detail. As can be seen from the discussion above, most scientists see certain likenesses between Fascism and the left (focusing on the group rather than the individual, focus on progress through popular revolution) and others with fascism and the right (focus on tradition, religion and authority). Others have suggested that both the most extreme right and left views are characterised by the use of force and authority to bend others to their will. I think that all of the editors working here are extremely knowledgeable and i am sure they will eventually agree on a good way to present the fact that there are many complex views on the description of the Fascist ideology. feel free to chip in to the discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness and understanding. I still think it's odd that only two of the major three views on this issue are being adequately presented, but thanks to you, I now fully understand how this is such a controversial topic and why it's so hard to come to a consensus.(InquistiorV (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

"Conservative" parties in Europe, like the Christian Democrats are called center-right because they derived from liberal and Catholic Centrist parties and not from the traditional European Right, such as the German Conservative Party. (If you follow the link you will find a representative description of a right-wing party.) Both "left" and "right" in the United States would have been considered centrist in Italy and Germany between the wars. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi V. Here's another way of presenting the issue. I don't think the essential definitions of "left" and "right" differ at all depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on, although there is a difference of emphasis in terms of the associations that are made when we use those words.

Always, and in every case, both where I am and where you are, the basic rule is that the more egalistarian someone is, the more left wing they are. So, a left wing person tends to emphasise the importance of reducing inequality in society above all else. A right wing person may either not care about reducing inequality, they may be actively hostile to the idea, they may believe that it is less important than other things or they may believe that it is not a directly achievable aim.

There is a strong perception that left wing people tend to also believe in statism. This is true on both sides of the pond, although I think the association is strongest in the US (perhaps because "left" and "socialist" tend to make Americans think of the Cold War and the USSR). But the important thing to note is that it is an association and not a defining characteristic.

For example, Noam Chomsky is an American and is normally considered left-wing. However, he is also markedly anti-statist. Equally, anti-capitalist demonstrators in the US are normally considered left-wing, but, at least in the way they are stereotyped, they are mostly interested in sticking it to the man, rather than in creating social institutions for him to manage.

European fascism is, at bottom, both statist and anti-egalitarian. This is a particular combination that Americans may have trouble understanding, because it falls outside the normal rhetoric of mainstream politics in the US. However, its anti-egalitarianism makes it right wing, wihtout room for doubt. Its statism, though often associated with the left in the US, is neither here nor there, because that is not the defining thing. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The welfare state was actually invented by conservatives in the 19th century, developed by liberals in the early twentieth century and opposed by socialists until after the Second World War. One of the main driving forces for the welfare state was that governments were finding it hard to find people healthy enough to fight their wars. Socialists opposed the welfare state because it gave too much power to the government. Of course there has always been a hardcore group of classical liberals who totally opposed welfare. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement is inaccurate at least concerning the development of the welfare state in Denmark. In Denmark the welfare state was developed by the socialist Social-Democratic party, rooted in the strong workers movement from ca. 1920 to 1940. From the beginning they were opposed by conservatives who were anti-egalitarian and espoused traditional values such as nationalism and royalism and a free labour market. I agree with FortmerIp who basically restates my argument that Fascism is called right wing because of its authoritarianism and anti-egalitarianism and sometimes associated with the left because of its focus on the community and a strong centralised state.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect The Four Deuces may be talking specifically about the history of American poltics. I agree with you though - what he says also does not sound familiar from a UK point-of-view. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Specifically Otto von Bismarck introduced State Socialism to Germany in the 19th Century. The British Liberal Party introduced the Liberal reforms in 1906-1912. The British Labour Party opposed this and the Socialist Party of America opposed the New Deal. Socialists supported the delivery of social services through workers' co-operatives. Here's an example of this thinking from the New International (1938).

Complete State Medicine.... From a working-class point of view, this would be dangerous because it would remove all possibility of workers’ control of their own doctors and leave their health needs at the mercy of the capitalist state....a state-controlled medical service might prove a powerful weapon against militant workers....compulsory insurance method might well become as dangerous a weapon of the state as complete State Medicine itself.[1]

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One could also take note of measures effected under the premiership of Disraeli. Further, the intellectual and philosophical roots of such measures can be traced back to the programmes of the illiberal mercantilists. For the 19th-Century right-wing to return to such programmes was a playing-out of its long-standing and continued rejection of laissez faire. —SlamDiego_←T 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Disraeli's measures were called Tory Socialism. However, Herbert Spencer in the "New Toryism" wrote that the Liberal Party was not only copying the Tory trend but moving faster and urger classical liberals to abandon them for the Conservatives. While he did not agree with Conservative ideology, he thought that their resistance to change would slow the move toward a welfare state. It is also worth noting that the post-WW2 welfare state in Europe was part of ordoliberalism, a theory developed by liberals (originally including Hayek and Mises who left because they had different views of liberalism) and implimented by Christian Democrats. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But the relevant point is that in Great Britain, again, the welfare state was begun as a creature of the political right-wing. —SlamDiego_←T 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input, but from what I've been hearing from you, and based on what I've researched about the different points you've brought up, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no left or right wing. All of you have outstandng points and great examples that I've looked up, but they all seem to contradict each other. I very much appreciate the enlightenment I've gained from you, but if all these examples are true, and most of the ones that I've looked up have been true, then it seem to me that left wing policy can be on the right, and right wing policy can be on the left. I mean I still know what I believe in; competition improves quality, the individual should not be sacrificed for the "collective", freedom to speak out against the government, Cicero's natural law, proper seperation of power based on the idea's of Baron de Montesque ........etc, but knowing this, how can I ever find the group that supports my beliefs? I mean, based on what you've told me, I certainly can't just classify things as left or right wing anymore. I don't mind addmitting that it's a little frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit off-topic for this talk page. But why in the world do you feel the need to choose for yourself a philosophy that can be unequivocally labelled “right-wing” or “left-wing” or “center”? —SlamDiego_←T 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only off topic because I forgot to tie it in with the topic. I first got interested in political philosophy when I started learning about fascism. I grabbed up any books I could find and then I wondered around not knowing what I believed, until I came across Cicero and his theory of Natural Law. I loved it and then came across Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirt of Laws", and it became my foundation stone, and from it I branched out into so many books I've lost count. I now believe that ALL major proplems in government result in the improper disproportionate placement of power, and that fascism is the ultimate consequence of that improper placement. More than anything else I fear fascism, and yet I'm fascinated by it, and I'm just trying to find the group that can be the stronghold against that improper placement.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The meaning of left, right and center was explained by Lipset[2] and Hayek.[3] Bobbio tried to update the concept of left and right in modern politics.[4] What defines the political spectrum is not specific policies but underlying beliefs and attitudes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this talk page isn't here for general discussion of fascism. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how the article is and ought to be written. You really need to find a different forum. —SlamDiego_←T 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This does effect how the article is written. You asked me why and I told you. The point that I'm trying to make is that, how can you decide if fascism is left or right wing when none of you can even come to the conclusion of what left and right wing is. The placement of fascism on left or right wing greatly effects some people. Like myself, I absolutely want to distance myself from fascism, and the easiest way to do that is to alli with the opposition, but based on all of your examples, thats impossible to determine. I'm just making the point that the task of labeling fascism as left or right wing can't be done, and therefore I guess I'm trying to get across that, if you can't figure out how to input ALL position in an equal proportion, you shouldn't cover any. In relation to the political spectrum anyway.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The substance of your objections is already dealt with by multiple points of the WP policy apparatus, but the most succinct answer is offered by WP:NPOV which states, in part, that the "Neutral point of view" does not mean "NO point of view". More broadly, our goal is to neutrally represent significant published viewpoints, and do so in proportion to the prominence of each... WP:Fringe actually is a policy, or rather, a major sub-component of a core policy, and you can't really challenge it directly. The appropriate avenue for you, I believe, is simply to argue that the "Fascism = left-wing" view is not a fringe view, though of course there is no guarantee that your position is well-held or that your arguments will be persuasive. So, in a nutshell, I think you are just looking at this debate in the wrong way due to not having enough familiarity with WP policy, although I also happen to think that the position you are taking on fascism is wrong. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UT)

Thank you for your advice. I think that "the belief that fascism = left-wing is not a fringe view" is really my main point, and I do get sidetracked easily. I also admit to not having a good knowledge of WP policy. So I guess I'll do what I love to do ....... read, and I'll come back with a better way of showing my argument.(InquistiorV (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Movements with similar ideology but dating earlier

Should not Russian Black Hundreeds and Union of Russian People be included? In fact Nazi party much more borrowed from this movement than from Italian fascists.--MathFacts (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely...provided a source can be found to back your contention. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but what about, Charles Maurras, fascism took alot from him and his movement. We may mention lots of movements with similar characteristics, than the ones we got with fascism. In fact, fascism is said to be inspired in lots of Plato ideals specially those we see in "The Republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the French consensus theory there were no French fascists, they only thought they were fascists. And the Anglo-Saxon consensus theory excludes them also. We need a source to mention them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But it may not be contentious to mention AF as an influence, provided the claim can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You need a source that connects them with fascism, preferably a book about fascism. The Black Hundreds and the Union of the Russian People already have articles, but could be mentioned here also. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They could be mentioned under Para-fascism, as they seem to have a counter-revolutionary character, though this may only be apparent in their attitude towards the rise of Leninism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fascism" and "submission"

Fascism is mostly used about countries with a large share of Catholics. It is however also used about Saddams Iraq, which has a large share of Muslims. Both these religions requires a high degree of submission from the average population. I propose to add the following sentence in the introduction, by appending to the second paragraph:

"Fascism prefers countries with a large share of religious submitters among the population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi St. Trond. I think that's a claim that many would take issue with, for a number of reasons. The main thing would be for you to provide a WP:RS that agrees with you. If it is just your opinion, then it can't really go in the article. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While there may be parallels, RS do not support the Ba'athists as fascists. BTW 2/3 of Germany was Protestant and there is no indication that the Nazis were stronger among Catholics. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the elections when the National Socialists came to power, the Protestant-Prussian parts voted for them in much higher percentage than Catholic-Bavarian parts. Here is a map showing the results. I'm not sure how much religion was a motivating factor for them, maybe people in East Prussia were just more directly annoyed by the Treaty of Versailles, because it cut their land corridor off from the rest of Germany. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To Yorkshirian: NSDAP: National Socialist German Labour Party, this sounds more left than right to me. The higher vote shares applies to areas near Soviet. Hitler made a treaty with the Vatican Reichskonkordat. Lutherans outside state controlled "Deutsche Christen" were persecuted. It was Hitler's Catholic faith that motivated the Holocaust. ^[1] What about sticking to fascism? St.Trond (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that Protestants abandoned the Communist, Socialist, Liberal and Conservative parties, while Catholics remained loyal to Catholic parties. Your point that Germans living closer to the Soviet Union were more anti-Communist is however correct. In fact the strongest support for Nazis in North America came from the Volkdeutsch who resented Communism more than the Reichsdeutsch since they had first hand experience. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hide discussion with blocked editor.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Neo-Fascism (Belgium / Netherlands / United States of America)

My part of the article got deleted fast... wonder why ;)

In Belgium the fascist movement and political parties rose from early 20th century and are still operative at this moment.

In the city of Antwerp there is a statue, inaugurated in 1950 by Mayor Lode Craeybeckx, with a plaque saying "Labour makes Free", as in the Nazi concentration camps 5 years earlier with neighbour Nazi Germany. He is also the one Belgium named the Crayebecks tunnle after.

There is not much neutral information on Lode Craeybeckx for the days between 1937 and 1946.

The Mayor of Antwerp in 2009, Patrick Janssens is from the same Political Party as Lode Craybecks, the Socialist Party. One of his colleagues in the French speaking part of the country, Laurette Onkelinkcx, was voted as the most powerfull woman in Belgium by Trends Magazine in november 2009. The same party also ruled over integration and scholing for the last years. Wearing of hijab is now forbidden in schools.

Another big Political Party is the extreem-right, racist and nationalist party Vlaams Belang with main characters Filip Dewinter, Gerolf Annemans, Bart De Bie, Karel Dillen and Frank Vanhecke. Vlaams Belang was derived from Vlaams Blok, wich was convicted for racism on april 21, 2004.

The link between Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States of America is clear through the Gladio Network, where CIA operatives connected and teamed up with terrorist brigades and guerilla commando's to spread fear in Europe and beat communism. Last case is assumed since Gladio never came into action against any communist rise in Europe, because there was no direct threat. The death of Julien Lahaut is just one of the unsolved murders connected through these networks.

IBM is also just one of the US companies who delivered software, knowledge or back-up to Nazi Germany.

What is wrong about these statements?? Most references are allready on Wikipedia... --Franklinbe (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es auch nicht gewusst. Hope I don't get Shot for this stub... --Franklinbe (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While all your information may be true, the section violates no synthesis: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Also the article is about fascism not neo-fascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism has subcategories wich are stated in the article. I was just adding another subcategorie, just as nazism is one. Second, 'fascist' is a term used as the color 'yellow'. Other people say you are that 'in that specific state' while you cannot tell whether you are or are not. I do not know I have cancer, the doctor tells me.--Franklinbe (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PS:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia ;)--Franklinbe (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is defined in the article and does not include neofascism. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) The defenition of fascism is not obsolete. Wikipedia Dutch leaves things out. Japan might put extra criteria in it.
2)7 Variations and subforms is the sub-categorie I put it in.
3) There is a big chance that you work for the US government or are offended by this because you are American and thus not neutral. US recently attacked Luxemburg and Switserland verbally but still has Nevada as a Tax Shelter. Comes close to Fascism to me. --Franklinbe (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Peops, they deleted it again after i reposted around 5AM. Sources will follow later today. Need a bloody cigaret. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a mish-nash of material not related to the article. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rfc Is the material related to to the article?

Is the material related to to the article? Should it be deleted? When yes, Why?

It is indeed a stub. It's also an open workplace so you can bring in some more info and structure in if you want. 'Not related' to the article is your opinion. Please explain yourself. --Franklinbe (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: In case anybody is confused by what we are being asked to comment on, it is essentially this diff. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete The section does not conform with the definition given in the article and also is incoherent. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

oppose Stuff like "IBM sold to the Nazis" is totally irrelevant to the issue of Fascism. The proposal is a melange of OR and unrelated material which has no place in this article at all. And worse yet, such a section would readuly be used for coatracking attacks on every group or person which anyone has ever called "Fascist" as an epithet. Collect (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@4Deuces: "Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[25] Since the 1990s, scholars like Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions as too wide or too narrow.[26][27]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect: "Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) symbolize summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"." Nazis used the same kind of slogan as the US: "One Nation under God" And "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement"
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." - One of your Clowns .... More proof coming soon. --Franklinbe (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By such a claim, Ancient Rome was "fascist." The origin is found, moreover, in anciet Greece in Aesop's Fables. Trying to link such use to "fascist" is not a good idea. The symbol is one of unity, not of "summary power" in any way. WP seeks verifiable sources for claims, and claims must be relevant to the topic of the article. Collect (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"A bundle of rods bound together around an ax with the blade projecting, carried before ancient Roman magistrates as an emblem of authority. [Latin fascēs, pl. of fascis, bundle.]" the symbol is mainly one of authority (AuthoritEIT as Cartman would say). Using Fables doesn't make you expert on knowledge either... and 'not a good idea' is your opinion.--Franklinbe (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP seeks verifiable sources? Most of them got Murdred!!!
Noone gives me a good reason why my sources aren't good enough.

Wikipedia:Civility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. (like deleting after 1 sentence) Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. (look at the history of this page....) --Franklinbe (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect: About the 'not a good idea'... If you have a big calculation, and the first thing to do is solve 1+1=... and you fill in 6.... the rest will 99% of the time also be wrong. That is fascism and the world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete / Oppose reinsertion. The content added was an incoherent rant and did not fit the structure of the article. It was a complete self contained chunk that has a non-mainstream POV and did not belong in an encyclopaedia. There is also the fact that some of it was obviously nonsense. How could IBM sell software to the Nazis? What would they run it on? They never had a stored program computer that had any notion of software. The CNet article used to reference this claim doesn't even mention software. I have not all checked the other references but I notice that they include blog and webforum postings which are very far from being WP:RS. Finally, I would point out that we already have some decent coverage of Belgian neo-Fascism in Neo-Nazism, although it focuses on recent events. That could be expanded with more historic information (covering 1945-2004), but certainly not with the text we are considering here. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Daniel:
"Computer software, or just software is a general term used to describe the role that computer programs, procedures and documentation play in a computer system. 'Software' is sometimes used in a broader context to mean anything which is not hardware but which is used with hardware, such as film, tapes and records." Wikipedia
Not including 'Non mainstream views and articles' is discriminating and is your opinion. Since over 80% of the world can't read English, many things are not mainstream, like Yoga. It doesn't sound like Wikipedia, more like a fascist view on the world.--Franklinbe (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet your reference still does not mention software even in this wider sense. It is an improper reference for the content although this says more about the content than the reference. Furthermore the IBM thing is not even relevant to the subject heading it appears under. The whole thing jumps almost randomly from topic to topic.

As for the rest, I would point out that we do have an article on Yoga. We have a responsibility to present a neutral point of view. That means making it clear what is mainstream and what is notable but non-mainstream and covering all these things in a clear and detached way. We do not have to include every individual non-notable conspiracy theory here and certainly not your personal viewpoint. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
The only ones who might be biased and represented unfairly are you, since I was going make another link towards Mr Blair & Co. What happened to 'Speedy Deletion'? Didn't know having a wrong reference makes it OK to delete an article... --Franklinbe (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Daniel: It does when we're talking about neo fascism....--Franklinbe (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"During the Holocaust, IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory)."Wikipedia IBM got money from the US and the US from IBM. The US is responcible for what happens with it's money, thus is the US a fascist regime. When you killed your wife and the cops can't prove it, you are still a murderer. Doesn't mather what the Law says in your country.--Franklinbe (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you some advice. You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally. That is fine, a lot of people can't, but it does mean that you are not going to get anywhere trying to edit an encyclopaedia. I strongly suggest that you get yourself a blog, and put your opinions there, or start participating in some political webforums where advocacy is welcome as part of the political debate. You will be able to promote and debate your theories without people like us telling you that you have chosen the wrong venue and removing them. We are not here to debate politics with you. We are only here to discuss how best to document the information we have from other reliable sources, you know, things like published history books and academic research, not stuff on blogs and webforums and certainly not stuff inserted directly into Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog host. We have to stick to encyclopaedic standards. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1) It is not because it can be found in the mainstream history books that it's correct info and that it did happen. History is created by men and men make mistakes. Most men are biased, especially when they get money from the one writing about.... my article was as dry as a good Sherry
2) Allthough your former president said so, not the whole world has to listen to American/Commonwealth Laws or morale.
3)You are not following Wikipedia's Vision Yourself. (couple of lines up)
--Franklinbe (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: There is now a Mediation Cabal case about this matter here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2]

   — Diderot

Who decides what knowledge is verifiable when fascist regimes have been killing their opponents for years?
What general system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally." Who's working for National Security?--Franklinbe (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MedCabal Case

Hello Editors! A mediation cabal case has been opened regarding this article and its subsequent talk page. If you wish to join the mediation process, please indicate so on the case discussion page and on my talk page. My job is to guide a reasonable discussion to find an equitable solution to the dispute. This can only take place if 1) everyone enters the process with a good-faith effort in mind to reach an end AND 2) their agreement to participate throughout the whole process, while it is voluntary to partake.

I am reviewing the talk page and the dispute as it has taken place to gain an understanding of the matter. Once all parties have indicated their acceptance of the case proceeding, I will follow a process similar to the process that some MedCom cases have progressed, to find a consensus conclusion to this problem.

Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that opening mediation after an RfC has been on for all of three hours might be deemed premture. Collect (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I have made my statement on the status of the mediation on the case page. Please redirect all statements about this matter there, the above is intended as a notification. Happy Editing! Reubzz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@Collect, you could be right. Killing people abroad, just because they believe communism is a better way to go, is a bit premature too, I believe. Especially if it happens by the same ones who defended those that thought killing Jews would be OK . But it happened anyway. That's why I'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Discussing!! TTYS --Franklinbe (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you read up on Christianity, fascism, Free Masons, the US and Gladio? Thanx buddy. --Franklinbe (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Conspiracy theory Collect (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It should'nt been deleted to start of with since it is a sensitive subject. Welcome to all, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/fascism#Discussion --Franklinbe (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussion starting here you will see that Franklinbe's suggestions have no realistic prospect of being accepted by other editors. His comment to me "There is a big chance that you work for the US government" makes me doubt that he is approaching the article in a wholly rational manner. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since everything I write vannishes before I can finnish my cigarette...

1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? Nope, that's why you and the other Wiki People are here for.
2) Has the discussion lasted enough time for all arguments to be laid out? 2009 years and counting

3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced? Check History!! About Wikipedia.org, nope, my subcategorie stub was removed immediatly.

--Franklinbe (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Free at last! Free at last! Thanks, we are free at last.... (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I'm going back to the article while you guys comment on the stuff written below. --Franklinbe (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)--Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheerz! (User:Reubzz) on your Question @ (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "does this mean you want to continue mediation? " Since, the requested mediation was 'unofficial', yes. t.i.a.

--Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@4Deuces: Me too, sometimes ;)

These paragraphs all come from Wikipedia.org

Belgian stay-behind network The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies. The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post.

   * 1964 Operation Solo

   In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in Operation Solo forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.[28]

   * 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing

   According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency"

Licio Gelli has often said he was a friend of Argentine President Juan Perón. In any case, some members of Jorge Videla’s junta were discovered to be piduista, such as José López Rega, founder of the infamous anticommunist organization Triple A, Raúl Alberto Lastiri or Emilio Massera. The Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert US funds for the Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland and the Contras in Nicaragua. Propaganda Due (aka P2), a quasi-freemasonic organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was said closely linked to Gladio.

NATO's "stay-behind" organizations were never called upon to resist a Soviet invasion, but their structures continued to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."

Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d'état

Switzerland was suspected of again creating a clandestine paramilitary structure, allegedly to replace the former P26 and P27 (the Swiss branches of Gladio). Furthermore, in 2005, the Italian press revealed the existence of the Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies (DSSA), accused of being "another Gladio".

Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."[12]

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. What the F*ck does that invented basterd have to do with Politics?!? Exept for keeping people affraid and obedient? If they're not, they get SHOT, GASSED, JAILED OR STONED TO DEATH!! --Franklinbe (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this belongs in the Gladio article. Whether this specific view of Gladio is correct is something to be addressed in that article. But it does not belong in the Fascism article, which is primarily about fascist ideology and government, not what fascists did after the war. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is too fringe for Gladio. Collect (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is what they call neo-fascism and I also think they deserve some Credit.
--Franklinbe (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article." Well... check the IP adress and you'll know more. --Franklinbe (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

generate a populist mass movement
Fascism opposes class conflict (why?)
Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak. (set up the Jocks against the smart)
Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.
Anything else, 'Gentlemen'?--Franklinbe (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Right

I have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As you are well aware of, problem is that different sources say different thing about position of fascism on political spectrum. Also, you have not explained this edit. Introduction to that section was much discussed on this talk page, and in that edit you were not "simplify language" but making significant changes to the meaning of the first sentence. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use other Wikipedia articles as arguments. They are not reliable sources under any interpretation. Also, can you explain how "but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." has the same meaning as "some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult." -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "some" means: "Being an unspecified number or quantity". (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000) Since no quantity of writers was specified, this is an accurate adjective. Also the Fascism article is part of Category:Fascism which is part of Category:Far right politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No quantity of writers was specified but that doesn't mean that "some" is appropriate, especially because none of the sources uses that wording. -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly bemused to look back here and find that this debate is still going on, and that edits like this one are still being made, albeit that they have since correctly been reverted. Whatever the complexities of political categorisation and the inadequacies of the left-right spectrum, nothing much has changed in the real world for the last god-knows-how-many-months-and-even-years -

The left-right distinction remains the most common, standard shorthand system of categorisation for political groups and parties
Fascism is usually placed on the far or extreme right of that spectrum by the vast majority of both everyday and academic sources

While it is technically probably true that elements of fascist ideology can be seen as having origins in what might otherwise sometimes be interpreted as left-wing ideas - and I'm sure this can be reliably sourced, above and beyond the ruminations of Jonah Goldberg - to say as the very first words on the topic that Fascism has definitively taken from both left and right, implicitly in equal measure, makes for an utterly misleading opening statement. Sure, cover the complexity and nuance of the arguments later on, but please let's not make content here follow the tune of minority and borderline fringe viewpoints any more than much of it already does. --Nickhh (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that right/left issue shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence at all, because of the complexity of the issue. However, The Four Deuces seems to insist on it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you constantly edit warring this "part left, part right" opening sentence back in, which you first inserted here? A total of three other editors (myself, the Four Deuces and XGustaX) have now come out against the specific wording you keep reinserting, while you yourself say you don't even want the broader issue addressed anyway in that sentence. This is beginning to look a little WP:POINTy. And btw you have missed the point of what I said, which was that while the issue of political categorisation is indeed complex, there is nonetheless a pretty standard broad-brush description available, which can be used - with more detailed nuance and caveats added later. --Nickhh (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology. My opinion is that we should follow that practice in defining fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this is addressed in "Position in the political spectrum". The lead should reflect the majority opinion of fascism as extreme right. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please just stop it VT. This has gone on for way too long, seemingly justified by utterly bizarre - and unsupported - beliefs and claims such as this latest "If you look at definitions by most scholars of fascism you will see that they try to avoid left/right terminology". In fact of course a review of most sources - including one limited to those you yourself cite in favour of your idiosynchratic interpretations - finds no such thing. Even those that raise questions about its efficacy start from the explicitly stated assumption that it is the standard terminology, and that fascism is usually read as sitting on the far right of it. Plus beyond that of course, they usually simply raise questions about precision, rather than necessarily rejecting outright that standard position. The latest version goes more than far enough towards accomodating any legitimate concerns on this issue. --Nickhh (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Wikipedia is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I also concur. And since Schelsinger also held this position, the claim that it is in any way uniform that Fascism is "extreme right" fails. Collect (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting names and simply asserting that they back up your contentions is all very interesting, but of course one needs to actually have read and understood what these people are actually saying. You may be right about one or two of the above, as I acknowledged above, but that still doesn't undo the mainstream view (in ordinary usage, as well as in academic discourse). Anyway, some of these claims of support from particular authors and scholars have been made and debunked before in the voluminous correspondence above, so it's a little odd to see them exhumed here. I really can't be bothered to spend hours digging around for evidence in respect of all of them, but here's one or two that I can present links to, so that others can at least get some idea of how accurate these claims are -

Roger Griffin seems quite happy here to discuss these issues under the topic "extreme right", and to classify even modern parties as such, regardless of any new thinking or analysis that he has brought to the topic of fascism
Arthur Schlesinger quite explicitly talks here of fascism as being "on the right" (full quote here - "When I named the book I wrote in 1949 The Vital Center, the "center" I referred to was liberal democracy, as against its mortal international enemies--fascism to the right, communism to the left").

What seems to be happening here is that one or two WP editors have a political viewpoint (presumably that they consider themselves right wing and don't wish to be associated with fascists, or that to be right wing means to be anti-statist or "anarchocapitalist" or whatever so how can fascism be right wing?), and they then scrabble around cherry-picking or even misrepresenting material in a bid to back that position up. You might not like the way things are categorised but please don't pretend that they are not categorised that way. That's just denialism --Nickhh (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not POV. Agreed, the mainstream classification is that Fascism is extreme right and Communism is extreme left and its not up to us on wikipedia to change that. I know some libertarians believe that any "strong state" ideology is automatically left-wing but this is as yet a minority definition. Personally i believe it is a misrepresentation of the left/right divide as it has existed and continues to exist in most countries. More often than not the difference between left-wing and right-wing is rooted in attitudes towards religion, the nation, class, etc, etc and the big state/small state argument is just a sideshow. But opinions aside we are not here to re-work the language. Maybe the libertarians preferred definition will eventually become the accepted norm but until then we should stick with the established usage (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong). Jameswilson (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

However, this is only if the 'mainstream classification' is an encyclopedic view. Popular tendency on the street to call fascism far-right is not sufficient to write "fascism is a far-right ideology", although it could justify saying "fascism is usually considered to be on the far-right of the political spectrum" with links to relevant statistics and surveys. For the wording "Fascism is a far-right ideology", you would need notable sources - and a lack of notable sources that say anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.213 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Close discussion - RfC expired.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Was fascism extreme right?

There is a dispute whether it is POV to describe Fascism as extreme right in the lead section. Comments from outside users would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. This is by far the most common view of Fascism worldwide. I just looked it up in my old Collins Gem pocket dictionary (1992 edition) and it says "Right wing political system characterized by state control and extreme nationalism". Note the lack of any equivocation there. Other views should be included but not in the lead section. The use of "extreme right" makes it clear that Fascism is apart from the normal or legitimate right, which is important both for clarity and fairness. I think "extreme right" is better than "far right" at making this distinction. "Far right" can encompass some sorts of ultra-conservative and ultra-free-market views which don't deserve to be mixed up with Fascism. If we do have to have any equivocation here I would accept a wording like "generally placed on the extreme right", "most commonly ascribed to the extreme right", or something like that, but not a list of dissenting viewpoints. We have to at least make the lead section readable to a general audience and that won't be the case if it is full of equivocations covering minority viewpoints. Extreme right redirects to far right which makes it clear that Fascism is included there. It also includes the phrase "These categories are not universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated." which is a nice simple way of putting it, without getting bogged down in specifics, and maybe we could reuse that here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You might note that where there is no generally accepted definition of Fascism, that placing it in a specific place may appear problematic. You also might wish to read the protracted prior discussions thereon. WP does not accept dictionaries as reliable sources, by the way. Collect (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that my crappy old pocket dictionary was the font of all knowledge. All I wanted to show was a nice simple example of how little impact the dissenting views have on mainstream perception, which is what a pocket dictionary will tend to reflect. I have read some of the prior discussions of this and have been dismayed at the inability to reach a consensus as to the mainstream view given how well documented it is. This is not to diminish the legitimacy of the dissenting views, but simply to oppose their being given undue prominence, which, I think, would include being listed in the lead section. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal disclosure: I think fascism is the most extreme right wing ideology of the 20th century. My point: so what? I do not think it should matter what any dictionary says, simply because i think Wikipedia should aspir to be better than a dictionary (exception: dictionaries are authoritative sources for correct pronunciation, spelling, and good ones for etymologies). Long previous conversation notwithstanding, I think that the thing to do is to have a good section on Mussolini's fascism, then other fascist or quasi-fascist movements of the time, and then how the term is used more generally today (the meanings of words changeover time). I think at all times we should emphasize mainstream views among professional historians and political scientists. Is any of what I just wrote controversial? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but what we need to decide here is what to put in the lead section before the article gets into this more detailed stuff. Lets focus on the specific question we are being asked here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV, in my opinion. Right-wing means traditionalism, conservatism, nationalism. Extreme right-wing means that those tenets are taken to limits they themselves may not withstand, thus creating a revolutionary, aggressive form of right-wing that may be confused with practices more characteristic of the left: Fascism. That's how I personally view it, at least. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see it as POV. There are classification problems with all ideologies, but fascism is the only one where editors seem upset about stating the mainstream view in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also don't think it is POV, for reasons discussed rather a lot already. Think it would be a strong sign of POV being at play if the article went contrary to standard dictionaries within its first sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Far or extreme right wing in the lead, the alternate view further down. Just because a coupe of political writers ('scholars') have found a couple of tendencies of radical fascism and radical communism to be similar, that doesnt mean fascism is leftwing, and it certainly doesnt mean the prevailing viewpoint is that facism is anything other than extreme right wing. If fascism isnt extreme right, what is? With regards to POV, you cant avoid political POV, but you can limit how it is expressed, critically assess minority and majority viewpoints and ensure that balance is maintained in the article. Criticisms of the prevailing viewpoint are fine in moderation, but if you're against it and you have a great pile of dissenting references, why not create a separate article about Left-wing Fascism? Mdw0 (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have commented a few times already in the endless debate above, but will briefly reiterate my support for far/extreme right in the lead, with discussion and qualification from any serious sources about the complexities of the issue further down. I'm not sure it's even a POV issue - it's simply about what the standard mainstream terminology/classification for something is. The current wording even bends so far as to say "usually described as extreme/far right" rather than stating explicitly that it is. Several editors it would seem would prefer that fascism was not so described, but that's kind of irrelevant - it is described that way, by everything from your dictionary to the driest academic analysis. --Nickhh (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that far/extreme right should be first in the lead, with some discussion after. We should go with what the majority of dictionaries, encyclopedias, text books, and other reference sources say. LK (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the United States is but a small step away from fascism is a POV. Here is the thing, right, left, or center, you have to have a point of reference. What is fascism supposed to be to the right of? If you are going to define fascism as extreme right, then you must find an unbiased reference for what is right, middle, left, and extreme left in order to have a an unbiased POV. I think describing fascism as left or right, is in contract putting it into the same boat as republican|democracy|democrat. I think that is just not needed in order to get a good article. Neuromancer (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, moreover, a fact that while Mussolini was called far right by those on the left, that this article is not just about Italy but fascism in general, and on that there is a great deal of debate -- including Schlesinger in 1949 onwards who did not so characterize fascism in general. We already state that Italian fascism was considered historically on the right, but that is substantially different from asserting that fascism is intrinsically on the right. About thirty or more references have been routinely deleted from this article in the past making the point that fascism qua fascism resists placements on a simplistic spectrum. Collect (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I used to have awesome discussions about this in my political science courses. The end opinion was always that hyper-right and hyper-left are so incredibly similar that they turn the political spectrum into a political philosophy loop from an American POV. More specifically, from how divisive things are in our society the idea of bullying others around and not allowing for diverging opinions looks similar on either end. By no means am I suggesting that's what is used here. This is not Americanipedia.

There's also the problem of what was "left" and "right" has changed a lot in the past 50 years in the US. At the very least, it's rather fluid as can be seen by the 100% flop of most states going between "red" and "blue" during the 60s and 70s. The core ethics didn't really change much, but what we say is left and right here just twisted around. The global perspective has always placed this on the far right and I've never need any large attempts at saying otherwise. I'm not even sure if I feel qualified to comment about it on a global view since I long as decided that politics in the US are on a spectrum in a parallel reality which may or may not match up everywhere with the standard. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is "the right-wing totalitarian/corporatist ideology and political system devised by Mussolini" according to Brewer's Politics. On the other hand, the Penguin Dictionary of Politics says that "there is no coherent body of political doctrine that can be attributed to fascism because all fascist movements were opportunistic... the tendency to assume that any right-wing group, especially if it has nationalist overtones, is fascist is a debasement of political vocabulary".--Pondle (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What some are describing as "dissenting views" are the position of the most preminent scholars and academics in this specific field. The claim that this movement is "far right" is simply the position which has been put forward in the theory of international socialism (specifically Marxism). That the street brawling twins - Nietzschean Socialists and Marxian Socialists dislike each other, is neither here nor there. The vast majority of academia (including most of the fascists themselves) describes fascism as an attempt to find a third way, or not part of the traditional spectrum at all.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

The leading Blackshirts and founders of the movement, such as Benito Mussolini, Michele Bianchi and Dino Grandi - all from Marxist, Syndicalist and Anarchist political backgrounds. Adolf Hitler's party? The National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sturmabteilung and Ernst Röhm? ultra-revolutionary socialists. The same with Gregor Strasser and Strasserism (called "National Bolsheviks"). The far left "national syndicalist" economic policy of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's revolutionary Falange, and their socialist/anarchist inspired symbolism. One of the world's most preminent scholars on fascism, the Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell lays out the revolutionary syndicalist role in the inspiration of fascism, especially Sorel's central influence.

All of this can't be convinently swept under the carpet and the international Marxist position ran with. Academics don't attempt to, so neither should we. Mdw0 asks "what is the far right" if not these Nietzschean Socialists? The spectrum was defined at the French Revolution. On the far right is ultra-royalism, Bourbonism and exponents of Catholic theocracy (or in the East, Orthodox theocracy): Joseph de Maistre for instance is a well known example. The aim of the far-right is a restoration not a revolution. The High Middle Ages is the ultimate ideal and the saintly-absolute monarch a la Louis IX of France, the statesman. The Fascists on the other hand were associated with the Futurist movement, their "ideal" lies within the theoretical creation, through radical national revolution of a futuristic "New Man", "New Order" and a "New Age". Their man is not medievalist or restorationary, thus not on the right. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like The Truth, Yorkshirian. Surely you don't expect us to believe that everyone who calls fascism 'far right' is falling for Marxist propaganda? And isn't the fascist idea that they're 'not on the political spectrum' just their own propaganda? Are we meant to believe that National Socialism was actually a type of socialism just because of the name? Bolshevism and fascism were both revolutionary movements, but that's by-the-by on whether fascism is 'far right'. Fences&Windows 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to say: there are mountains of reliable sources that equate 'far right' or 'extreme right' to fascism. Even if all these sources are wrong according to some academics, the lead of a Wikipedia article is not the place to correct a historic wrong. Fences&Windows 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has to be said that an otherwise interesting ramble around the connections between the origins, ideology and practice of the far left and far right is somewhat missing the point at issue. The point is, quite simply: is fascism usually described or categorised as being "far/extreme right", and should the lead reflect that? Whether that so-described far right is in some ways closer to the far left than to what is usually labelled the moderate right, or whether the far right, so-called, picked ideas from the left, are separate issues, as is whether it is a bad or inaccurate label in some way. Some academics - and some WP editors - clearly think that one or all of those is true. But even those that do tend towards this view, or at least to a more complex interpretation of the overall issue - eg the above-cited Zeev Sternhell and Roger Griffin - still use the "right-wing" template when discussing fascist parties, eg here and here. That is the label that is used, for better or worse, even by those who subsequently raise issues with it - this isn't the place to discuss what things ought to be called in a WP editor's ideal world, or to discuss the intrinsic nature of fascist movements. We seem to be making something relatively simple and easily verifiable into some POV bunfight.--Nickhh (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. None of Yorkshirian's proposed sources supports the idea that the description of fascism as right-wing is not mainstream. On the contrary: Eatwell writes that fascism "is normally seen as 'extreme right'", Griffin writes that it is "counter-intuitive for most political scientists to deny that fascism belongs to the right rather than the left", with Renton going further, saying that denying that fascism is on the right "is not just dishonest to the past, it is also dangerous". The only one of Yorkshirian's sources that does not explicitly acknowledge that the mainstream view is that fascism is right wing, is Gregor, and he does not deny that this is the mainstream view, and quotes numerous authors who hold that view. There are plenty of sources that describe the positioning of fascism on the right as the mainstream position; while there are many scholars who question this view, none deny that it is the mainstream view that they are questioning. Unless editors can supply significant sources that deny that the scholarly consensus is to consider fascism right wing, it seems clear to me that we ought to describe it as such in the lead, with the scholarly debate fleshed out later in the article (as it currently is).VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from our friends on the left here? Or quoting two or three words, rather than a whole sentence or paragraph to present a distorted review of what is actually said in the sources by the scholars? The academic sources provided posit the scholary evaluation of this political movement as third-way or radical-centre. Here they are again for any hands which slipped over ears.^[2]^[12]^[4]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]

Roger Griffin: "That fascism constitutes a third way discourse is a long-accepted argument."[5] Griffin believes that fascism was a form of "mass-mobiling paligenetic ultra-nationalism, intent upon carving a third way between liberalism and socialism".[6]
George Mosse: "Fascism was a revolution attempting to find a Third Way between Marxism and capitalism".[7]
Richard Thurlow, positions fascism as: "The construction of a model of generic fascism as a third force, taking the form of an alternative revolution". Which attacked decadence and liberalism, exalted heroic values and elitism, advocated a revolutionary form of nationalism, and drew from both ends of the political spectrum."[8]
Roger Eatwell, argues that fascism is; "a form of thought which preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way"[9] Eatwell "shared Griffin's notion of a third way".[10]
Zeev Sternhell authored an entire book exemplifiying fascism as a third way force, titled "ni drioite, ni gauche" (Neither right, nor left)."[11] Sternhell stresses the work of radical leftists Proudhon and Sorel at the core of fascism, along with some figures of the right such as Drumont. Sternhell thus concludes, "Fascism then is is 'ni driote ni gauche', neither right nor left".[12] Sternhell has also positioned it as a "new variation of socialism" or "certain type of socialism" and even portrays it as recruiting primarly from the left (presumably a reference to Mussolini's Marxist career and his syndicalist and anarchist friends like Grandi and Bianchi).[13]
Richard Griffiths, dedicated an entire section of his book on this called "Third Way: Reactions to the Crisis of the Early Thirties"[14]
Hamish Macdonald states that; "The intention was to find an alternative third way in politics, which would appeal to those who had fought for their country and bring together nationalists and socialists".[15]
Ernst Nolte positions fascism is a "Third way of European history, which is in the most far-reaching sense anti-traditional, as well as anti-modern; or more specifically, fascism is no less a challenge to bourgeious society than to Marxim. Such considerations support the conception of the autonomy of fascism".[16]
Walter Laqueur says: "Fascism did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either. In many respects, fascism was not conservative at all in inspiration but was aimed at creating a new society with a new kind of human beings."[17]

These are just a few examples. So this is clearly rather a case of WP:Verifiable, rather than WP:Truth. And broad, scholary, academic consensus—what is accepted presently as the empirical fact of the matter by academia—which rejects the interpretation put forward in international Marxist theory. The shere amount of high profile scholars who disagree with that interpretation can only mean it is not WP:NPOV to claim this as simply a "far-right" movement. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure in what way a large number of quotes flagging up the well known "third way" concept (which btw - as your sources in fact show - is not usually a reference to the left-right distinction as such in any event), and stressing the complex issues involved in the studies of fascism, have much bearing on the rather simple and direct "is fascism usually described as being on the right of the left-right spectrum" question. There is no doubt a fascinating argument to be had about whether a Steak and kidney pudding is really, in its fundamental essence, in fact a pudding or really, secretly, in whole or in part a pie, and we could quote Gordon Ramsay and Delia Smith back and forth to each other, but we'd never get away from the fact that that's what it is called. I and I assume everyone else have read your arguments and most of your links. You don't appear to have read any of those put against you. Let's let others speak, if they can face it .. --Nickhh (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, the matter of differing academic sources is already dealt with in some detail further down in the article. As Nick says, the question this RfC is about is simpler, I think: taking all that as read, is it appropiate for the lead to refer to facism as "far-right" or "usually seen as far right" (or similar wording), given that this is by far the most common position out there. In common with other posters, I've had this talkpage on my watchlist for a while and so I am far more familiar already than I would like to be with all the cites you give. --FormerIP (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue whether fascists were really right-wing, just whether they are generally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus is that fascism does not fit well on the political spectrum. Almost every scholar of the subject over the last quarter century has said that. You can hardly find a work on fascism which doesn't say there is a taxonomic problem, or that it doesn't fit well on the left or the right, or that it incorporates aspects of both. When scholars do use the terms "extreme right", "radical right" or the like they invariably say that the term is used out of convenience, academic inertia or intransigence, not that it is an accurate label. Most scholars do not use the term "right" in their definition of fascism for this very reason; it is not very accurate and useful to do so. Because placing it on the "right" is almost universally seen as problematic by scholars of the subject, it should not be in the lead. Mamalujo (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Yorkshirian, none of those sources support the idea that "fascism is right wing" is not the mainstream position. Your quotations of a number of descriptions of fascism positioning itself as a "third way" are completely irrelevant. Please try and find some sources that deny that the mainstream position on fascism is that it is right wing, rather than the sources you have provided so far, which explicitly assert that this is the mainstream position.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear attempt at sophistry, to try and negate the verifiable pieces of information presented before you. You can't find sources which claim the "the mainstream opinion is the sky isn't purple". That doesn't mean we start an article saying "The sky is purple". The position of Marxist theory is "fascism is far-right", yes, but the position of academia and the world's most preminent mainstream scholars, as shown above is "fascism is neither left nor right, but takes something from both, its a third way". The scholars above are discussing the political spectrum, they say its a "third way", not "far right" or "far left".

This is an encyclopedia, a tool of education, we have at our disposal peer reviewed academia, thus that is who we go with here. Wikipedia works on verifiability, neutrality and reliability, not democracy or hearsay. Mainstream experts on the subject position this on the political spectrum as a "third way", then so should we in the intro, its really as simple as that. There is no good reason to just throw academia out of the window and litter the article (the intro at that) with disinformation, because academia happens not to fall in line with dogma in the Marxian secular religion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably take a look in the talkpage archives, where what you are talking about has been discussed. It's common ground that there are non-standard views amongst some academics. These are relatively few in number, and are already given coverage in the article. The mainstream view might be a Marxist dogma in your eyes, but in reality it isn't and whatever you want to call it, it is the mainstream view. --FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As just explained, Wikipedia works on verifiability and reliability. The mainstream academic view from educated experts in this specific field is presented above—third way, they tell us. The position which you and some other contributors claim is "the mainstream" view, appears to be personal heresay or WP:OPINION. No respectable or reliable scholars presenting a rationale for this view have been presented or found, its equivelent to flat earthism within the circles of academic specialists on fascism. A democracy of editors personal opinions Wikipedia is WP:NOT. While Leon Trotsky's "Fascism: What it is and how to fight it" is an interesting polemic, from a historical perspective and perhaps deserves its own article, it obviously shouldn't be used for the basis of an article for a serious encyclopedia itself. As it is outside the realm of academia and reliability. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source that says the mainstream academic view from educated experts in this specific field is that fascism was not right-wing - just listing the views of a number of academics and concluding that most of them do no think it was right-wing is original research. You should read the archives where this was discussed. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed, next to that list of academics names above is a body of text. These pieces of text we call quotes. And within them, the academics are presenting their conclusion on where fascism is on the political spectrum. With me so far? Within these conclusions, they place it not as "far-right" (as is your personal WP:OPINION) or "far left", but as a "third way". This can clearly and explicitly be seen above. Next to these quotes are external links, to scholary books presenting this (neither I or any other editor magically forced them to present this, so clearly not original resarch). "I heard down the gas station a guy once say he thinks fascism is far-right" kind of stuff, is WP:OR and also not WP:reliable for a serious encyclopedia. Verifiability, not opinions, please. Our own personal opinion do not matter, only what is presented in reliable sources. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and none of those quotes are at all relevant to the question of whether or not the mainstream interpretation of fascism is that it is right-wing. Your quotes are relevant to whether or not fascism is a third-way discourse, but that is a separate question - fascism could be (and in fact is) both a third-way discourse and a right-wing ideology, and that is precisely what a number of these sources claim; the Renton piece you link to, right in the process of discussing Sternhall, says that fascism "is commonly described as as right-wing phenomenon." Again, the request for sources is simple: a number have been provided (the article contains five) that say that the mainstream position on fascism is that it is right wing; if you object to this being reflected in the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly say that this is not the mainstream position which, as I say, you have so far failed to do.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fascism is Extreme Right. Have you seen anyone more Extreme Right lately?Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the rfc. While I recongize that there are established definitions of "right" or "right wing" politics, I feel that those definitions are fluid now and have been changing with time for decades. The use of the word "right" will be understood differently by different people. If it is essential to use, then use it, but if the article can be explained with any other word less open to interpretation then try that. Blue Rasberry 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

^ John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography‎,' page 703.
^ ^a ^b Gregor, A. James. Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765808552.
^ Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.
^ ^a ^b Macdonald, Hamish. Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0748733868.
^ Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.
^ Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.
^ Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.
^ Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.
^ Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.
^ Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.
^ Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.
^ Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.
^ Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.
^ Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.
^ Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.
^ Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.
^ Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.

[1] John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography‎,' page 703.

[pheonix-2] Gregor, A. James. Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765808552.

[3] Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.

[macdonal-4] Macdonald, Hamish. Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0748733868.

[5] Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

[6] Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.

[7] Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.

[8] Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.

[9] Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.

[10] Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.

[11] Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.

[12] Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.

[13] Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

[14] Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.

[15] Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.

[16] Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.

[17] Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.

[18] Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.

[19] Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]