Talk:Fascism and ideology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead

WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Part about Godwin law is better suited for Fascism article, than for this one. Also, I find part which states: "For the reasons outlined above, claims of a relationship between fascism and certain other ideologies (including those cited in this article) must be treated with caution." specially concerning because it practically says that the reader must assume bad faith while reading this article. That's unacceptable. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a guideline, not an actual policy. I do not believe this particular guideline should be applied to this article. The reason is as follows: Virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism. No other ideology finds itself in this situation (that of being discussed exclusively by its enemies). There are no fascist replies to any of the views presented in this article. This situation creates an inherent bias that we simply cannot avoid. The best we can do is warn the reader about it. -- Nikodemos 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To state the problem again: There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. That is a period of over 60 years when the world moved on and supporters of other ideologies published their views about fascism, to which there was no reply from the fascist side. Who claims to speak for fascism today? No one. Even people who agree with Hitler and Mussolini prefer to use other labels for themselves, such as White nationalism. This is a problem because scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe (the way you can ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative). There is no dialogue with fascists, no arguments back and forth between fascists and anti-fascists (except on the relatively narrow issue of the Holocaust, where there are some Holocaust deniers).

Since all the scholarship on fascism comes from an anti-fascist (or at least non-fascist) perspective, there is bound to be some inherent bias. The bias is made worse by the fact that the word "fascism" has acquired such a negative connotation. No matter what your political views are, you probably believe that at least some scholars are giving a biased view of fascism for the purpose of slinging mud at their own political opponents. Libertarians believe that socialist scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with capitalism, and socialists believe that libertarian scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with socialism. The one thing everyone agrees on is that someone, somewhere, is giving a biased view of fascism. So let's mention that in the lead.

You may notice that this page has carried a POV warning for most of its existence. That alone should tell you something about the extreme controversial nature of the subject matter. You are right that we should not suggest to the readers to assume bad faith, but we should inform them of the fact that this is a highly controversial topic. -- Nikodemos 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a guideline. However, even so it represents "the consensus of many editors" and "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines". Such text, if necessary, is only appropriate for the main article where there is a section which deals with that subject. I will move your text, except for the last sentence which is wrong and OR, there. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article without intent to edit but to read and learn. It would be nice to have a lead that briefly summarized the most important points but I can see the difficulty in doing that when the content is in such turmoil. Currently the lead says simply this is a controversial topic. I think that is sufficient for the moment, but I think the point made by Nikodemos that "virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism" is very important and should be made early in the article.

The thrid paragraph begins, "These difficulties [of definition] arise because there have been few self-identified fascists." I was going to suggest that difficulties of definition have more to do with the "negative connotations" of fascism than a too small sample size. Your argument has caused me to see this statement in a new light, not in terms of sample size but in terms of authority to define. This was not clear to me as a casual reader. I propose adding text from Nikodemos' commentary above to this paragraph so that it reads:

These difficulties arise because there have been few self-identified fascists. There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. Even people who might agree with fascism prefer to use other labels for themselves. Scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe as one might ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative.

Originally... & etc.

What do you think? Baon 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropriateness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Night

What do you think about changing the page title to fascist philosophy? It is more in line with the recent changes in interwikis. 2804:14C:5BB5:8076:4010:43B8:F342:3D15 (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

General edit and expansion

Back in early June, I found this article and decided to read it closely, as the subject matter is exactly what I'm most interested in (and I can't believe I never saw this article before). But I noticed a few sentences that seemed a little strange, and a lot of information that was very disorganized, and then an entire section that was completely odd, so I decided to jump into verifying the sources. I expected it would take me a few days, but hey, I had some free time.

Well, now it's almost two months later, so the task was a little more involved than I expected. To make a long story short, what started as suspicion was confirmed as I realized that some sentences, entire paragraphs, and in one case an entire section, badly misrepresented the sources. So I set to work, and the final result is the large general edit that you see today. The edit includes several different "categories of changes", so to speak (fixing grammar, re-ordering sentences and paragraphs to be presented more logically, and substantive changes including the addition of quite a bit of new content), so I want to take some time to explain it.

First, the thing that got me to work on this in the first place was the "social welfare and public works" section. It seemed incredibly sanitized, not making a single mention of Nazi racial policies, and including such astounding things as a long description of Nazi social welfare provisions without any hint that some people may have been excluded from them. I couldn't believe that the sources would fail to mention how exclusionary these policies were, and sure enough, when I checked, the sources did indeed mention the exclusionary nature of Nazi social welfare on the very same pages that were cited. One source (Steber and Gotto) included these two statements on the same page: (1) "The Nazi regime proclaimed that in future, the ‘value for the Volksgemeinschaft of persons needing assistance’ would be the precondition for receiving any relief. The NSV intensified this policy, stating that benefits would be available only to ‘racially superior’ persons, and expanded it into all areas of public welfare." and (2) "the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare [of the NSV] was responsible, for example, for travellers' aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; 'support' for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics." Yet the article only quoted the second statement and made no mention of the first, despite the fact that the focus of the source was precisely on the way the Nazis changed welfare provision to fit their racial agenda. Similar things were done with the other sources used in that section, as well. In the case of social welfare in Fascist Italy, one source (Gregor) was quoted as saying that Italian Fascism "compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive", when the context of that statement is "Given the capital scarcity that characterized the Italian economy, the relatively modest industrial development of the peninsula, as well as the high population density, Fascist social welfare legislation compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respects was more progressive.", followed immediately by a sentence noting that "many of the Fascist programs were continuations of those already begun under the parliamentary system that the regime displaced, and many had their functional analogues in the sometimes more generous legislation enacted by parliamentary governments on the Continent and in North America." The context makes quite a difference! The wiki text was making it sound like Fascist Italy had one of the most extensive welfare states in interwar Europe, when what the source actually says is that Fascist Italy had a welfare state similar to that of contemporary parliamentary democracies, but perhaps more ambitious given the fact that Italy had a lower level of economic development to finance it.

So I ended up re-writing that entire section, using largely the same sources that were already there. Similar problems existed in other sections as well (including to a lesser degree in the first part of the article, on ideological origins), although usually limited to only a few sentences or paragraphs. I often fixed the issue by adding more detail from the sources that were already used (which is where the bulk of the extra content comes from), although occasionally I also brought in new sources, especially when I felt that a section needed a better introductory paragraph.

Other issues that I encountered while verifying the sources in the article included (roughly in order from more severe to less severe):

Occasionally there was straight-up original research: two sources that cover different topics used together to support a conclusion that neither of them reached. I removed such OR passages in several places. It's especially important to be vigilant about this in the "relationship with other ideologies" part of the article, where it seemed to be most likely.

In some cases, a reliable source was used to support statements that were actually made by other, unreliable sources, and which were discussed critically by the reliable source. One example that comes to mind is the "social fascism" theory pushed by Soviet and Comintern theorists in 1928-35. This is, of course, reported by reliable sources because it was a thing that existed, but no one considers it a reliable theory about fascism. It would fall more in the category of political insults, which are not discussed in this article.

A number of paragraphs were very badly organized, switching topics midway, or presenting chronological information out of order. In the first part of the article, on ideological origins, I moved several statements and paragraphs to arrange them in chronological order. In the second part, there were sometimes paragraphs that jumped between fascism-in-general, Italian Fascism, and Nazism, with little transition. I tried to separate these topics into distinct paragraphs in most cases.

There was excessive detail about World War II military operations near the end of the Ideological Origins part. The war is absolutely on topic, of course, but we don't need to give a detailed description of everything that happened, so I trimmed and consolidated that section.

There were other issues as well, including minor things like bad or clunky grammar and major things like sources that failed verification, but I will stop here. I hope this is a good general overview of my general edit. -- Amerul (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

List of oppositions in the lead.

The paragraph that ends with that list mostly summarizes the "relationship with other political and economic ideologies" section. Capitalism is already covered in-depth earlier in that section, as is general socialism; the others are listed because they have a major presence in the relevant section of the article or are major subjects of the ideological origins section and aren't otherwise mentioned in the lead, so they needed at least a mention there. It shouldn't just become a list of every single thing that Fascism is opposed to, only the major ideological points of disagreement that have substantial coverage in sources and aren't already mentioned in that paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and looking over the history of edits to that paragraph by IP users (who often wish to add to the list of oppositions), I think this will remain an ongoing issue to watch. -- Amerul (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative's deletion of material

WP:SOCK drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is what he reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism_and_ideology&type=revision&diff=1070294547&oldid=1070289535&diffmode=source Quote from source: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership." Source: De Grand, A. J., Grand, D. E. (1995). Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the "fascist" style of rule. United Kingdom: Routledge. This is reliably sourced. Generalrelative, you owe us all an explanation. Otherwise, it just looks like vandalism. Major Dump (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC) But is WP:UNDUE in an article about Fascism and ideology, not one on Economy of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascism, where you have already attempted to add similar material and could not find a consensus to do so. Your behavior is becoming disruptive, and is rapidly closing in on the point where it will be necessary to report you to AN/I. I would suggest that you give up your quest to insert material about Nazis and the regulation of business, which has been the thrust of almost ever edit you have made, or attempted to make, to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Incidentally, you should read WP:Vandalism - the definition of what is and isn't vandalism on Wikipedia is precise, and does not include what Generalrelative did. Calling another editor's edit "vandalism" when it is not is consider to be a personal attack, for which you can be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Your threats aren't going to stop me from trying to improve these articles, with reliably sourced material. Major Dump (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, but you see, if your behavior continues, you can possibly be blocked from editing, in which case you won't be able to do anything to any articles Being reliably sourced is not the only requirement for material to be added to an article, it must also be relevant to the topic, and not be WP:UNDUE, a policy with which you haven't seemed to come to grips. If you add something, and other editors believe it to be undue and remove it, repeatedly, then you must not continue to WP:BLUDGEON discussions with the same arguments over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I entirely agree with Beyond My Ken here. Major Dump, please refer to the request I recently left on your user talk page, and to Amerul's extremely thorough explanations as to why this content is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Economics of fascism#Major Dump's edit. I will also ask you to please avoid referring to me as "he". I use they/them pronouns. Thank you, Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) This is not that article. This is a different article, about a different thing (fascism, not Nazism). A different sentence, saying a different thing. And a different source. Explain your deletion. Major Dump (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) The deletion has been explained, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. But, then, you were not satisfied when attempts to add similar material to Economy of Nazi Germany and Economics of Fascism were rebuffed, with very full explanations. You are exhibiting what is known on Wikipedia as WP:IDHT -- I didn't hear that -- behavior. Wikipedia editors have an obligation to engage and discuss with other editors when there is a dispute, but they are under no obligation to do so over and over and over again, on one article talk page after another - especially when done in such a rude manner. (You seem to believe you are our superior officer, and that you can command us to "Explain your deletion" or "Go!") Therefore, since you will obviously never be satisfied unless you are able to add material to articles that other editors disagree with, continuing this discussion holds no value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Do you ever have anything meaningful to say about actual content. Or is your function just to run around telling people they're misbehaving? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sigh. Here we go again. Major Dump, although this is indeed a different article and your edit consisted of a different sentence based on a different source, the pattern is the same: You have taken a short excerpt from a source, which contained the magic word "regulation" (or in this case, "regulated"), and you put it into the article in a very prominent place in order to emphasize that fascists regulated the economy. What is different is that here we don't even seem to have a substantive content dispute, but rather merely a wording dispute. Before your edits, the long-standing consensus version said that fascism "sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state". That clearly implies that yes, obviously, they regulated the economy. The only thing missing was the explicit word "regulated" itself. You did not add a new point that wasn't there before, you merely rephrased an existing point to make sure the word "regulated" is used. As such, speaking only for myself and not for Generalrelative or Beyond My Ken, I don't object to this edit as strongly as I objected to your edits on the other two articles, because a wording change isn't as big of an issue as a substantive change like you advocated on the other articles. However, it's clearly part of a pattern of promoting the use of a specific term (regulation/regulated) across multiple articles on Nazism and fascism. Please understand that although you are editing different articles, these articles are all very closely related because they're about the same general subject (far-right governments in mid-20th century Europe). We are essentially having the same discussion for a third time now, with slight variations. Sure, it's not an identical situation as on the other two articles, but it's very similar and many of the same points apply. Your methodology still appears to be that you look for excerpts in sources that contain a specific phrasing you wish to promote, then you use those excerpts as proof texts to support that exact phrasing without regard for anything else that the source is saying immediately before or after the excerpt in question. As Beyond My Ken explained, just because a source contains sentence X that doesn't mean it is appropriate to add sentence X (or a close paraphrase of it) to any section of any article about that topic. An article on wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of quotes or paraphrases of quotes about its topic, even if those all come from reliable sources. -- Amerul (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) The fact that you prefer "ought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state," sounds innocent enough, until we see that it wasn't sourced. I took out that unsourced statement, and replaced with something that was actually sourced (which also happened to provide source for the first part of the sentence about private property and profit motive. My source says, I quote: "Neither regime questioned private property and initiative, but at the same time, the market system no longer regulated the economy. The entire industrial and agricultural capacity of the state was subordinated to the goals set by the political leadership."). Generalrelative replaced what was unsourced and deleted what was sourced, the the opposite of what you should be doing on Wikipedia. If someone is going to do something like that, then they at least need to provide a source. Only then would it make sense to talk about what's the better source or better wording. If you want that to stay, where's your source? Major Dump (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) As Firefangledfeathers has noted [1] this is actually well supported by content in the article's body. Indeed, there is a whole section about it. See WP:LEADCITE for why we do not necessarily overburden the lead with citations. In this case the statement in question is sourced to Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition, p. 162. Major Dump, please check on this kind of thing yourself in the future before adding "citation needed" tags or posting accusatory comments on Talk. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) I see. You're just trusting other Wikipedia editors. Well, guess what? I own that book. And it doesn't say that on page 162. Not only does it not say that, but that section is specifically about Japanese national socialists. I challenge you to provide a quote from there that says that. "Large-scale capitalism" isn't even mentioned. Major Dump (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) I am indeed just trusting other Wikipedia editors. That's called assuming good faith and it's a requirement. If indeed you did not find this statement on that page, I'd suggest first checking to ensure that you have the same edition. And if you do, you could take the time to find where in the the book this is stated explicitly. You can then correct the page number in the citation. That would be genuinely helpful. But assuming that the editor who added this was simply lying is a violation of behavioral guidelines. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) The policy should be "Assume Good Faith But Verify." Wikipedia is loaded with statements that appear to be cited but are not. I don't see that statement like that in the book; there over 200 pages to look through. I do see it in another Payne book, "A History of Fascism," which is probably where it came from. It says "What fascists movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism...." Will you accept that as a source, and not revert my edit as long my wording does not distort the sentence in the source? Major Dump (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Indeed, verifiability is a core policy. Please do fix the reference. By the way, I see what you've left out at the end of the sentence. This is not permission to add undue discussion of "regulation" against consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Looks like FFF beat you to it anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Funny. I was waiting with bated breathe to see what your objection you were going to come up with this time to keep reliably sourced information out. It looks like you have no meaningful objection so far. Just "against consensus." You don't know what the consensus is now, because this is a new source. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22Major Dump (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Please refer to Amerul's comment above: [2]. I agree completely with what they've said. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) BTW I'm fine with your addition to the quotation in the reference. That seems WP:DUE to me. Generalrelative (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Good. Because I'm going to go in word it to reflect full context what the sentence says. Right now, it's not at all clear what eliminate autonomy of large-scale capitalism is referring to. The rest of the sentence clarifies it's talking about extensive control and regulation. 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Dump (talk • contribs) I have disputed that your repeated attempts to highlight regulation as an aspect of fascism are WP:DUE, as have two others, including on this page and with regard to this specific content. If you continue to edit in clear and knowing violation of WP:ONUS that will be crossing a bright red behavioral line. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) You've crossed a bright red line behavioral line many times now. You've been repeatedly reverting important notable information of the articles that reliable sources are unquestionably saying. I've crossed no red line. What I've been doing is what Wikipedia is all about. Major Dump (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) You consider the first part of the source's sentence "due," but not the second part when there's no indication that the writer doesn't consider the second part of his sentence important too. And with no explanation. At this point, "due" to you appears to simply amount to what you want there, and not due is what you don't want there. Major Dump (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative is referring to crossing a behavioral bright red line on your part, related to what I posted above WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, editing against consensus, etc. Generalrelative has done none of these things, merely edited per Wikipedia's policies, and is in no danger of being reported for their behavior. You are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) And personal attacks such as this and the one below certainly don't help you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Again, I'm not sure what your function is here. If you an interest in these articles, please contribute something. Do you object to some particular content? If so, why? Engage. So far, the only reason you ever give for trying to stop me from adding content is you telling me that the two other guys object, and that they're the consensus. How about you? Do you have any views of your own? Major Dump (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) That's precisely the kind of comment that's like to get you blocked. Please consider this a final warning: if you continue your current behavior, I will have no choice but to report you to administrators for sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Just trying to figure out what your views on the topic are. Major Dump (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Amerul, you say "the long-standing consensus version said that fascism "sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism by bolstering private power with the state". That clearly implies that yes, obviously, they regulated the economy." No, it doesn't. "Bolstering private power with the state" ? That doesn't even make sense with what we know sources in general say about fascism. Sources indicate private power is reduced, regulated, not bolstered. Now what reason do you have to exclude mention of regulation? (The source says "extensive government control and regulation"). Major Dump (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) First of all, I want to point out that there have been 46 edits to this talk page since the last time I was online (yesterday, not even 24 hours ago), largely the result of Major Dump demanding explanations for why his preferred wording is still being objected to. This is an extreme level of activity for something that would normally be a minor dispute. I have seen many situations where different editors had different opinions about the best way to phrase something, but I don't remember ever seeing one with this level of intense insistence by one editor on one very specific word ("regulation"). Major Dump, as I said before, "eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism" clearly implies regulation (but again, without using the explicit word itself, which seems to be your concern). "Eliminating autonomy" and "increasing regulation" mean substantially the same thing. In fact, ironically, to my ears "eliminating autonomy" sounds like it's talking about a higher level of control than mere "regulation". I'm not sure what else can be said about this. We are close to descending to the point of "yes it does", "no it doesn't". Why do you care so much about the exact wording here? With regard to another point you made: No, sources "in general" do not say that private power is reduced. That would be a huge over-simplification of a complex relationship between state and industry. Private power was reduced in some ways and increased in other ways. For example, just flipping through the first book on the topic that came to mind (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), I found this passage about the relationship between state and business in Germany immediately after Hitler became Chancellor (p. 168 in the edition I have): The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its businesses as it wished, were asked to cough up. This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering's Reichstag President's Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany's leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works. There is much more to be said about the voluntary cooperation of German business with the Nazi regime, but here we have an excerpt that mentions the Nazi government "leav[ing] management to run its businesses as it wished". Of course this is talking about internal aspects of business, the point is that business owners were given more power over their employees, not over the prices they set for their products for example. But that's exactly what I'm saying. Private power was reduced in some ways and increased in other ways. Having said all that, I'm actually fine with removing the phrase "bolstering private power with the state". It was a long-standing consensus phrase, but not an especially good summary of this complex issue. So I won't add it back in. I said the above just in order to emphasize that this is, in fact, a complex issue. -- Amerul (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC) You changed it to "but it sought to eliminate the autonomy of large-scale capitalism from the state." What does that mean? Eliminate autonomy from the state? I don't get it. And what's your source for that? To your question my insistence about the term "regulation," my concern is that's what term the source uses, actually "regulation and control." The point is government is taking action to control the economy, rather than leaving it to the forces of supply and demand. That's the point these sources are making. I don't understand why you're so opposed to the term "regulation." It's in the source, in the very sentence being referenced for "large-scale capitalism", so we shouldn't even be having an argument. Major Dump (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC) I don't have anything against the term "regulation" in general (I just think it's a less-than-optimal way to describe what we're talking about here, see below). The reason I keep pointing it out is because this is the third far-right-related article where you've tried to insert and/or emphasize the term "regulation" in a prominent position, and almost all your edits have been dedicated to this single task of promoting that term as a way to describe the actions of the far-right. It's one thing to argue that the term "regulation" is the best way to describe a certain issue in one article, it's another thing to promote it everywhere. If you picked any other single term and insisted on it across a range of related articles, you'd probably get similar opposition from the editors active in that subject area. But let's get back to the issue at hand here. Autonomy means the state of existing or acting separately from others, the ability to make decisions without external constraints. It's close in meaning to "independence". So, autonomy from the state means being able to make decisions without regard for the state; it means acting separately or independently from the state. Do you see why "eliminate autonomy from the state" means substantially the same thing as "increase regulation"? To eliminate an organization's autonomy from the state means to align that organization with the state; to make its goals the same as (or broadly similar to) the state's goals. So why do I think that "eliminating autonomy from the state" is a better phrasing than "increasing regulation", if they're so close in meaning anyway? First, because the term "regulation" often implies that the rule of law is in effect. We usually say that an organization is "heavily regulated" if there are many written rules it has to follow. But a fascist state is not a Rechtsstaat, it's not based on rule of law, it's based on arbitrary rule. The "regulations" of a fascist state are subject to change at any time without warning at the pleasure of the dictator, and often they are not written down at all, but are rather verbal orders (Hitler was particularly famous for not giving orders in writing). Second, the term "regulation" tends to refer to something externally imposed; an organization that is said to be "regulated" generally does not want to be regulated. But many large companies were willing collaborators with fascist governments, eager to align their goals with the state (give up their autonomy) and support the political leadership in exchange for higher profits and other benefits. Sure, these are relatively small differences in nuance, and neither phrasing is perfect, but if we're going to summarize this complex issue in one sentence, I think "eliminating autonomy from the state" is (to some degree) better than "increasing regulation". -- Amerul (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) I'm very much agreed on that last point. The fascist regulatory environment was clearly a moving target, but the goal of continually reducing autonomy from state control was not. The latter is about ends, the former is about means, and we know which one mattered to fascists. pauli133 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Firstly, I didn't say to use the term "increasing regulations." That's not in the source. Secondly, the source doesn't just say "regulations." It says "government CONTROL and regulation." So that covers what you're pointing out. So, if we put "control and regulation" in the text, that covers your concerns. Major Dump (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The fact is, the source feels it important to mention "regulation" (along with "control", which as I noted, covers your concerns about non-statutory control) and that's what matters. It's IN THE SENTENCE that you're using to cite the the statement of eliminating the autonomy of large-scale capitalism: "What fascist movements had in common was the aim of a new functional relationship for the social and economic systems, eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism and major industry, AND creating a new communal or reciprocal productive relationship through new priorities, ideals, and extensive government control and regulation." The source is saying BOTH of these aspects are what all fascists movements have in common. That's huge. And if you choose to reveal only the first part of the sentence, only the first commonality among fascist movements that the source is presenting, you're rejecting showing of the full thought that the author is presenting in his sentence. You would be doing a disservice to the writer, and to Wikipedia readers. You would be pushing your POV, instead of being NPOV. Major Dump (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC) How widespread are Payne's views here? I'm bothered by the fact that his article highlights the fact that he believes this (since it implies it is unusual - if this is a common belief then his article probably should do that, and we should probably cite more than one source here.) If he is the only one who believes this then it could be undue to focus on it so extensively. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC) About the government control and regulation? I think you'd be hard pressed to find sources that disagree that Fascist economies were under an unusually high degree of government control and regulation. That goes with what being a Fascist is all about, control. But sure, it could use some more sources (and any that disagree, if they exist). Major Dump (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, there's a few editors that have been trying to prevent the term "regulation" from appearing in articles dealing with fascism (at least if I personally happen to be the one putting the term in). And they can't seem to come up with a cogent reason why to exclude it. I can't help if that's the term used so commonly in the sources. Major Dump (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Here you go. This source seems pretty mainstream: "Fascism’s economic goals were, then, defined by its nationalism, and the ultimate aim was autarky or national economic self-sufficiency. Achieving autarky was bound to involve economic protectionism and an artificial distortion of the normal patterns of international trade and of capitalist economies, requiring, in turn, that essential lever of fascist “economics,” state control and regulation of the national economy." The source is cited numerous times in this and other fascism articles. (Blamires, C. (2006). World Fascism: A-K. United Kingdom: ABC-CLIO. p. 188) Major Dump (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Your argument here is merely showing your ability to run a word search through an electronic document. This source (Blamires et al.) is indeed excellent. It also happens to be 944 pages long (in the electronic version I have, including the index), and contains the phrase "control and regulation" exactly once, in the quote you provided (I also checked "regulation and control"; that variant is not present at all). It is obvious that you are running word searches to find sentences that contain the key words you prefer, which is also something you did on the other talk pages where you debated the same issue. Since there are hundreds of book-length reliable sources on fascism with tens of thousands of pages between them, it's not surprising that you can find the exact phrasing you like at one point in a 900-page book. Of course, there are many other paragraphs on the same topic in the same book, using different wording, which you ignore. In fact, you're even ignoring the first part of the paragraph you quoted, since you are not proposing that we add a sentence to the lead of this article saying something along the lines of "the economic goals of fascism were defined by nationalism with the ultimate aim of autarky". Using your methodology, that would be just as valid and important as talking about "control and regulation". And it is precisely your methodology that is causing this current dispute. You are searching through sources for single sentences that use the phrasing you prefer, and you insist that the lead of this article must therefore use that specific phrasing. You ignore any other terms that are also commonly used, or any other points that are also commonly made by the same sources, to focus exclusively on the ones you prefer. And you do not engage with any of the arguments about the meaning of various phrases, whether they are the same or different, which one is a better way to summarize scholarship on the given topic, and so on. I'm not at all opposed to using the words "control" or "regulation" in this article. In fact, as you pointed out on Generalrelative's talk page, the article already uses them. And no one has any intention to take them out. What I'm opposed to is your insistence that those specific terms should be emphasized in the lead because you prefer them and because you can run word searches to find them about once every few hundred pages or so in the sources. I am entirely open to be persuaded to change my mind, but the arguments have to be based on something more than being able to find specific words when you go looking for them. You've never even explained why you prefer the wording that you prefer, except to say that you found it in some sources. But clearly you supported this wording before you went out looking for quotes that match it. -- Amerul (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I don’t think you’ve been paying close enough attention. User Aquillion above suggested people find more reference to back up the Payne source, to make sure it’s not an uncommon view. So, of course I did a word search to to find something similar to what the Payne source was saying A word search is the way to find specific things. But I didn't choose the Payne source. It was already here, before my time (though improperly cited). So you can put that silly objection about me doing word searches to rest. Secondly, if you'll notice, my latest edit was to the BODY, not the lead. User Generalrelative reverted it out of the body, without explaining why. If you have no problem with it being in the body, then great. Generalrelative does, and we don't know why. Major Dump (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, the term 'regulation' does appear on this page already. And I doubt you knew it until I pointed out on Generalrelative's talk page. And I'm confident if you two saw me put it there, it would been reverted. But I didn't put it there, and that puts you or Generalrelative in a bind. Because it makes it harder now for you or Generalrelative justify stopping *me* from putting the word "regulation" in the article ( as well in the lead). Major Dump (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary fascism (2008-present)

The current iteration of this section contains only one citations, and it is WP:PRIMARY. I'd argue that the presentation of this source is also probably WP:UNDUE (as well as potentially unencyclopedic in WP:TONE) but that would be worth discussing. Rather than blanking or posting a big banner, I'll invite any page watchers here who would like to improve the article to focus on that section, especially locating and then summarizing reliable WP:SECONDARY sources which discuss contemporary fascist ideology explicitly. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that this section was added recently, just a few weeks ago. I think it's a good idea in principle, but needs a lot more work (and more sources). I assume that the article on neo-fascism would be the logical place to start looking for sources. My personal area of expertise is history, not contemporary politics, so I can't contribute much to a section on fascism after 2008 unless I do a lot of reading first. -- Amerul (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my area too. The problem is quite fraught because there is no consensus among historians or political scientists about how the term fascism should be applied in a contemporary context (except in clear-cut cases like Greece's Golden Dawn which are rather the exception). Compare e.g. this from Robert Paxton versus this from Richard Evans (two of the biggest names in this topic area) on the question of whether Trump should be considered a fascist. Or this exchange between Peter Gordon and Sam Moyn. On top of that there are some pretty strong opinions among Wikipedia editors on the matter, one way or the other. So the trick will be to keep things impeccably sourced and impeccably weighted in accordance with those sources. No stress if it's not your thing. I'm tempted to just TNT the section, but perhaps others will instead prefer to build upon what's there. Generalrelative (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please do not touch the question of whether Trump counts as fascist in this article. That's a powder keg bigger than Sarajevo in 1914. Debates would be endless and bitter. If we are to talk about post-2008 fascism, let's just stick to cases where an academic consensus exists. This is not the appropriate article to cover major controversies in contemporary politics. We could cover Golden Dawn and similar parties. -- Amerul (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already been through the ringer on that one. My point is that there is really nothing but hard cases here. Golden Dawn, sure, which is why that's the single contemporary fascist group discussed on the main Fascism page. But once you get into "similar parties" the question becomes "how similar?" and soon you're on the slippery slope to January 6th. So we'd have to draw the line somewhere, and absent a scholarly consensus on how to do so it becomes a matter of carefully examining sources for reliability and weighing their significance to the mainstream discourse. No small task. Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is following this, I've made some updates and added some refs. Still a long way to go before this is a solid section that offers a global perspective, but at least what's there now doesn't fly in the face of policy. Generalrelative (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Upon reflection I did feel that it was necessary to add a single sentence on the scholarly debate surrounding Trumpism's relationship to fascism: Since 2016 and increasingly over the course of the presidency of Donald Trump, scholars have debated whether Trumpism should be considered a form of fascism.

If there are objections, I'll be happy to talk it over. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Not accurate?

@Generalrelative How is my edit to the lede inaccurate? It is a summary of content already in the article under the Capitalism section which is sourced. X-Editor (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the cited source, which is Walter Laquer's 1978 book Fascism: A Reader's Guide. I searched for "laissez-faire" and found nothing. Then I searched for "international trade" and found the obvious: once the Nazis were in power over much of Europe they forced those other European countries to trade with them on favorable terms, which was very much a form of international trade. Nowhere does the text say that they simply "opposed international trade" or that this was something that generic fascism advocated. A better and more recent source for all of this would be Mark Mazower's masterful Dark Continent, by the way, which discusses Nazi economic relations with conquered / annexed European countries in detail in its fifth chapter. Generalrelative (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I added the content to the lede assuming there wasn't a failed verification. X-Editor (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I figured that, and I appreciate the rest of the work you've done to spruce up the article. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! X-Editor (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fascism, fascists

Add Vladimir Putin to list od important well known fascists. Add the Russians as the nation mostly influenced (manipulated) by fascism. Add Russian intervention to Ukraine as an example of current fascistic practices. 45.15.56.134 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Please provide neutral reliable sources for all these claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)