Talk:Fascism/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 30

←

Archive 32

→

I think we are pushing very close to needing arbitration here

The discussion board has been going almost out of control in the last day since I added the information from the Doctrine of Fascism that included a quote stating that fascism is right-wing. Some have claimed that because the fascists made policy changes this may be invalidated. But remember that this was a published policy book by the Fascist regime in Italy at that point definately did declare fascism to be right-wing. This was a major policy book of the Fascists that can't just be overlooked as if it were a political pamphlet. On the issue of fascism's position on the political spectrum, this declaration by the Doctrine of Fascism needs to be acknowledged in this article as a stance that was officially adopted by fascists. The Doctrine of Fascism is often used by historians as a source for studying fascist policies, so let's keep in mind that scholars have used it as a source. To exclude this important statement from it, after users have rightfully demanded sources for the left-wing vs. right-wing debate on fascism, would be highly suspect of manipulative intent. I say this because I share the concern that another user raised that certain users may be unjustifiably intending to remove that reference for their personal political interests. In the past few days, I have seen some fairly offensive derogatory statements being made on this talk page with users denouncing left-wing or right-wing politics, this is unacceptable. If other users share this concern, I suggest this article will have to receive arbitration. To users who want to constructively engage on this topic, I warn them to be on the lookout for partisan users who want to push agendas (either left-wing or right-wing) on this page.--R-41 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope reason can prevail, but whenever someone hopes for that, it rarely works out. The opening paragraph yesterday was sufficient at conveying the major themes as well as the cracks and the variations in those themes. If we can't agree to even that, arbitration is most definitely the only way forward, unless we want to sit here and argue until old age.UberCryxic (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact according to many sources is that Mussolini totally ignored the "Doctrine." If he ignored it, then it can hardly be considered definitive of much at all. Collect (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the theory that fascism was anything but right-wing is based on a reading of Mussolini's doctrines. There is no question that his government was right-wing. But I accept your point - we should use secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen reference that in his writings towards the end of his life, he stated he was always a socialist/communist [Memoirs?] - I haven't had time yet to confirm that. I did find this though that the Doctrines wasn't written by him but rather by Giovanni Gentile. Else where, it says it was co-written with him. Theosis4u (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying Mussolini said Fascism was right wing, but that's meaningless, because what's right and left changes over time. Liberalism used to be on the left, but that's when liberalism referred to laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism was a challenge to conservatism, which was not free market. Later the meaning of "liberalism" changed, whereas today, in the United States, liberalism is associated with welfarism and government direction of the economy, after the New Deal. And the right is associated with laissez-faire. So when Mussolini was saying he was against liberalism, he was saying he was against laissez-faire. But today laissez-faire economics is considered right wing. Obviously Fascism isn't for laissez-faire, but for a controlled economy. So Fascism is not on the right in economics. I think it's improper to put Mussolini's quote up there, without some modern writer explaining what he meant by "right." Immoral moralist (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IM, the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not your personal views of the validity of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolution re "political spectrum"

The political spectrum section and issue within this article had been much more stable prior to 2009. My personal opinion is that POV pushing began and that some attempted to create more of a "consensus" among scholars than really exists. The truth of the matter is that, although fascim was commonly called right-wing or some variation of that, some also said it was radical center or left or eshewed such categories. The reality is, most scholars of the subject don't spend a lot of time on the subject (so neither should this article) and most also now recognize that there is a taxonomic problem with placing it in the political spectrum. I would suggest the subject be omitted from the lede, because 1) there is dispute on the subject, 2) because it is not that important, and 3) the article was more stable and not subject to edit wars when it was omitted and 4) because it is a POV magnet. I'd also suggest that the section "Political Spectrum" return to an earlier, more stable and less POV version such as this or similar version. The section was relatively stable in this form, with slight variations, and not the subject of edit wars. Mamalujo (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree, although your opinions are reasonable. We have much scholarly evidence to suggest that fascism belongs to the right, and the subject is notable enough that it deserves some kind of recognition in the lead. It would be a serious mistake to shy away from a particular topic just because it's controversial. What you're suggesting would be the easy thing to do...without actually solving anything. It seems like you're arguing that we should just sweep this problem under the rug and pretend it never happened. I don't think that's what Wikipedia is about, nor is it a great strategy in conflict resolution.UberCryxic (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that arbitration is an option. It is used for conduct rather than content. I would remind editors that the goal of the article is to present accepted views of the topic and that stating the view of fascism as right-wing is not an endorsement of that view. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that this is a controversial topic, but I have to agree with UberCryxic on this, we now have a source by Mussolini saying that fascism is right-wing combined with a large volume of scholarly work supporting the claim that it is right-wing. The statement of the Doctrine of Fascism is very important to the issue of fascism's stance on the political spectrum, I would find it very strange and suspicious if it were completely omitted from the article.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I would add that WP normally values secondary sources over primary sources. So I am surprised that the phrase Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum, which is based on secondary sources and came as a result of very hard and fraught discussion amongst editors, has been suddenly demoted in favour of citing the Doctrine of Fascism, which is a primary source. Particularly since I can't see any discussion in relation to this decision. I would not be opposed to both being included in the lead, but to prefer the primary source seems wrong to me.--FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think primary sources are valuable additions and I like details. I would offer caution though, I bet it will become a struggle later because once you introduce that primary source [lead or in body] there will be a valid reason to include ALL primary sources. As I already wrote above, "I've seen reference that in his [Mussolini] writings towards the end of his life, he stated he was always a socialist/communist [Memoirs?] - I haven't had time yet to confirm that. I did find that the Doctrines wasn't written [exclusively] by him but rather by Giovanni Gentile. Else where, it says it was co-written with him." And, since this is about Fascism in general, then many others could be valid primary sources for inclusion as well, just not Mussolini's. To argue strongly for a "only Mussolini" position would then open up the can of worms of comparison or inclusion of Nazi/Hitler as fascist. Theosis4u (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MY GOD, why do some people have a problem with it saying "Fascism is usually considered right-wing, although a significant number of historians consider it in the center or neither left nor right." Why the desire to hide the truth, in the lead, that it's a significant view that it's in the center???? I know it can't be a space problem. It only a few words. Why??? Immoral moralist (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone mentioned before, fascism is not some little cute puppy :) Know one wants it associated with their own ideology and because of that they cherry pick what attributes to emphasis or ignore about fascism in comparison to their own ideology. The problem also lies in a number of issues. Historians can't agree on a consistent definition of fascism, fascism changed over time and in different places, they lost WWII and losers don't write history, and it's a mixture of the "best" from the left and the right making it a patchwork doll. Now, with that said. All opinions are most likely valid when we strictly use the context that the author uses in the claim it's left, right, center, or none of the above. Each author is making judgment calls to highly regard some aspects and minimize others. They also are the sole judge and jury on what is their left-right form of measurement. So, when someone says "fascism is right-wing to me" my response isn't "You lie!" but rather, "How are you defining fascism and how are those characteristics right rather than left or center? What about this issue of it being used differently?" It's only by understanding how they formulate the opinion I could find a rational disagreement with it - if needed, I just conclude it isn't of much value. We need to ask more questions of our sources - why, for example, we believe what is or isn't the majority opinion? There's been no research that has been done on it, to actually confirm quantitatively what the majority opinion is. Theosis4u (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to do a study on what the majority opinion is. We just need sources that claim what the majority opinion is, whether a significant number of people have an opposing view, etc. One of the sources says fascism is "usually" considered right wing. Good enough. My source said "a good number" of historians believe it to be in the center. That should be good enough. Immoral moralist (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We come across similar issues with global warming, intelligent design, flouridation, smoking and cancer, the moon landing, professional wrestling, etc. But the articles should not give undue emphasis to minority opinions. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

... and climate-gate and the validity of the IPPC :) Theosis4u (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's right articles should not give undue emphasis to minority opinions. But simply pointing out that a minority opinion that is significant is a significant minority opinion, is not giving the opinion undue weight. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To Immoral Moralist

In the spirit of compromise, I like your idea, but can we just modify it a little bit....to:

Fascism is generally considered right-wing, although some [or many] historians consider it in the center, or neither left nor right.

That "significant number" bit is bothering me because I fear it could create more support for the supposition than actually exists. "Some" is linguistically dangerous, but not if it's backed by citations, as we're going to do.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, do you think that any mainstream publication would express it that way? It seems to be a compromise between a mainstream view and a fringe view. The fringe view has been popularized lately by Jonah Goldberg's book and Glenn Beck's writing an introduction to Cleon Skousen's book. Meanwhile these fringe theories have not been accepted by the US conservative mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, the sentence above says nothing about any fringe views. It obviously will not cite people like Goldberg or Beck. As I've said a million times before, I don't particularly like mentioning anything but what I consider the obvious (fascism is a psychotic right-wing philosophy), but something has to give to break this impasse.UberCryxic (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with saying just "some" doesn't inform that reader that it's not a fringe view. The source I gave said "a good number" of historians. If you're worried about "a significant" number being interpreted that it could mean a view of 49%, the most NPOV thing to do is to use the words "a good number" because that's exactly what the source says. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article by Robert Griffin called "What is Fascism?" really complicates the issue of "majority" opinion and so forth. I see this article was also mentioned in an older talk page Talk:Fascism/Archive_18#Anticonservatism here . I'm still reviewing the contexts of Griffins work though I probably will not have time until much later tonight to thoughtfully contemplate and cross reference some of its points. Theosis4u (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IM, I think the scholarly source you cite should influence the article, but remember that this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, so we don't have to parrot other people's talking points. "Some" seems to be the best word to use.UberCryxic (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered this page - Fascism_and_ideology - why aren't we delegating the issues of right/left/center and the specifics to that page? Leave this main page with a simple statement like "Fascism has been described and defined in various ways throughout the years since its beginning, please see Fascism_and_ideology for more details." .Theosis4u (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is that article not embedded in the main fascism article? Let me search within the code..Nope, not there. Nor is this article - Definitions_of_fascism. Anyone know the history behind this? Are those rogue pages or did someone remove those links from the main article so their absence would allow them a fresh chance to write anew? What a soap opera these pages are -- Chip Berlet was involved in these topics in the past? Talk:Far_right/Archive_3 Need to see if he's still around.. Theosis4u (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is on the Left

It is a common misconception that Fascism is "right" of center. If one views the political/economic structure as Total Government control on the Left and No Government Control on the Right, clearly Fascism should be on the Left. The problem is that many people confuse the "militant" aspects as being "right", but that is a belief that was created from the anti-military Left common in today's society then with political history.

Consider these sections of the Nazi party platform:

"13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."

or this quote from Hitler himself in 1927:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, I would remove the sentence stating that is a "far right" concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2010

Unfortunately these article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the way this place is written. Beyond that, three more specific points, worth stating/restating since this one seems to keep coming up again and again, either in discussion or in drive-by edits -

IP, you surely noticed that your second sentence starts with an "If ..", before you came to your conclusion. Quite a big one, as it happens
As noted, this has been discussed at length in the past, and in quite tedious detail (all in the archives)
The issue isn't framed in the article text in quite the simplistic way being described. The text does not say Fascism "is" far right. What it actually says, at various points, with emphasis added, is as follows - "usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum" ... "normally described as extreme right" ... but also "used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum"

I don't see the problem with most of that. --Nickhh (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it a requirement that an "article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong"? RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact is, this 'No Government Control / Government Control Left/Right' thing is something you've made up in your head to distance yourself from the hard fact that Right-wing politics has an extremist viewpoint which is just as distateful as the Left's. That's right - right wingers have to own Fascism the same way the Left has to deal with Communism. In any case, No Government Control would be Anarchism, which is a hard-left viewpoint. Not surprising you've got both extremes on the Left, which is the standard viewpoint of most right-wingers anyway. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP wasn't completely correct in that the 'right' stands for no government control. Historically, the 'right' promotes individual liberty, minimal governmental interference, and a lack of populist sentiments. RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the article - not to diss anyone for their beliefs. The fact is, there is significant debate about how to apply the "left-right" system, and this debate goes back to 1948 and Arthur Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" if I recall correctly. Collect (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right - that was a cheap shot on a straw man and not about the article. My apologies. Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) </s,all>

No, I think the IP is arguing the Cleon Skousen view that the French Revolution was a right-wing revolution against the left-wing Bourbon dynasty. Both sides were under a misconception as to which side they were really on. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the IP (who clearly likes the Nolan system), but to another (who apparently thinks "something you'v made up in your head" is a valid comment on this page) - but phrased it not as a response lest it be misunderstood. The issue of any arbitrary system is that it will surely get misused (a la Murphy's Law). Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nolan chart puts libertarianism, fascism and communism as centrist, The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would not reply to an Ad Hom, but this for the person that said "I made this up in my head." That is completely false. It is a well known belief, and here is a youTube example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfYaNKKM8

It is silly to put the Communists on the Left and the Fascists on the Right. They are not polar opposites. Both are systems where government has lots of control over individuals. Please do not that personal or idealogical, as that is not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not put them both on the right? Communism after all had statist aspects. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, it appears the IP is referring to the theories of Cleon Skousen, not the Nolan chart, as is clear by his citing of a you tube video prepared by the John Birch Society. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we put them both on the left? Fascism has quite a few progressive traits. The thing is, Statism belongs in the center. That's probably the reason we get the idea that Fascism and Communism are very much alike, when, if you study them more closely, you'll see that they both hire thugs to beat the crap out of you, but they do it for almost completely different reasons. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed both would be more accurately put on the left. It would seem that Fascism is seen as a movement of the right not because of the ideologies it espouses, but rather because historically Communists have called Fascists "Right Wing" because of their opposition to Communism. Communism and Fascism apparently have a lot in common - populist (traditionally left wing) movements seeking to implement a strong statist government (also traditionally left wing), requiring the individual to give up freedoms, abdicating these to the state for a common good (again, an attribute of the left that goes hand in hand with populism and statism). Both apparently decried traditional institutions, such as marriage and religion, preferring individuals to seek the benefits of these institutions in the State. Both go to some length to legislate morality (or rather, morality in the State), and legislating aspects of peoples lives (as opposed to liberty in the individual to manage their own lives). Both co-opt business and national economies under government control. The Communists consider Fascists "Right Wing", it appears, primarily because of a difference in how they approach their populism - Communism relies heavily upon the notion of class warfare to rally the masses, whereas Fascism relies upon the State (ex: Mussolini) and/or other common focal point (ex: Hitler relied heavily upon race) to rally the people as a people, and not a class. There are, of course, variations on these themes. Be that as it may, because of their commonalities, it would appear that calling both Fascism and Communism aspects of the 'left' would be far more accurate than calling either one an aspect of the 'right'. Of course, feel free to correct me where I've missed something/gotten something horribly wrong. RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well, and the voluminous talk page correspondence. We can all repeat ourselves over and over again, it's fun you know. --Nickhh (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we accept that this is a discussion that's been done to death... --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an unsettled issue, it would appear that removing the "... on the far right ...", and not attributing Fascism as a facet of either the political Left or Right would be appropriate. As a WP newbie, I appreciate your patience. As an aside, other than this discussion page, is there another place in WP that's been having this discussion? RPuzo (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. And accept that what we are trying to do on this WP page is to record what mainstream views are in respect of an admittedly simplistic - but prevalent - classification, not each argue our own corner about how X "ought" to be classified, or what is the "true nature" of Y, and how it actually has "much in common" with Z, or how we should use a different classification altogether, like this thing I once saw online suggested we should. Seriously, this is one of the easiest points about this topic, and if we can't get this one cleared up once and for all, we may as well all give up and go home. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And may I add that theories that would require us to say that Louis XVI was to the "left" of the Gironde (or that the present-day government of Spain is to the right of Franco) are not mainstream. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the theory presented by the IP says that monarchism is left-wing while anarchism is right-wing. It is in the youtube video mentioned.[1] The reason for the common misconception is that we have been mislead. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." Given that the terms "left" and right originated to describe positions during the French Revolution, it is quite a remarkable stretch to say that the terms should be redefined even in that context. But I'm done beating this particular horse. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascism has much more in common with the far-right than with the left. As Jmabel mentioned, the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" emerged from the French Revolution. The left-wing supports greater egalitarianism often claiming that the move towards egalitarianism is a progressive step. The left often uses idealism to promote this. the right-wing either supports or tolerates established social hierarchy. The right often uses realism and tradition to justify this, claiming that complete equality cannot be achieved in the real world. The monarchy, church and aristocrats in France were right-wing because they objected to the left-wing's intention to impose egalitarianism upon France. Now some examples. For instance, right-wing economics rejects the idea that equality is possible or desirable in the economy, and claims that hierarchy in the economy is either inevitable or desirable and that equality is an artificial imposition. Left-wing economics claims that equality is a goal to be achieved and that it is hierarchy is artificial that imposes inequality. A right-wing racialist believes that there are superior and inferior races in a hierarchy and rejects the idea of equality. A left-wing humanist believes that races do not exist and that differences between groups of humans is not a result of superiority or inferiority but imbalance of resources that causes inequality. Fascism is much more in favour of the hierarchical politics of the right than it is with the egalitarian politics of the left. It certainly borrows ideas from the left, such as calls for collectivism and social solidarity along nationalist lines, but presents them in a right-wing manner (i.e. the idea that a nation must strive to be superior to other nations and assert its dominance). In the U.S., the authoritarian vs. libertarian scale is commonly confused with the left-wing vs. right-wing scale. There have been many big governments on the political right, that's what absolutist governments were. The political left has often resorted to larger governments because they seek to put through their agenda of egalitarianism throughout different aspects of a society (i.e. class, gender, and ethnicity).--R-41 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No personal opinions count -- we must, perforce, use what others have written. A short position. Clearly some have stated forcefully in articles that there are connections between fascism, as a political philosophy. and the left, and a practical connection historically between fascist parties and right-wing support (as well as a surprising amount of left wing support). After that, this page shoiuld be used for determining which sources properly get used. Collect (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand those who find the constant repetition of the inane "left wing fascism" arguments frustrating and feel compelled to try to explain the mainstream consensus to the people who come here with eccentric views. Were this a general discussion forum I would be making very similar points myself. Nonetheless, I agree that this is counterproductive on a Wikipedia article talk page. The more we argue the more it gives the impression that there really is a debate to be had as to whether Fascism was left wing and, even worse, the more this page gets turned into a general discussion forum and distracted from working on improving the article. Besides, we are never going to talk any sense into people who are on a mission to redefine the English language for political ends or their dupes.

In future we must try to be more disciplined. People who come here with unreferenced opinions should be politely but firmly and succinctly referred to the appropriate policies, principally WP:V and WP:FRINGE. If they come back with suggested references then we discuss those. If anybody wants to engage further with the eccentrics then the user's talk page is the best place for any discussion that is aimed at educating the user, rather than improving the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, amount of state control has nothing to do with left-right distinction. What really matters is that right-winger would say "people are not equal" and left-winger would say "people are equal". Both free market, aristocratic monarchy and a fascist state are the means to secure people's inequality while socialist state or anarchist communes are the means dedicated to secure equality.--MathFacts (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually free markets were originally promoted and are sometimes still promoted as a means of achieving greater equality. Workers in England could buy cheap imported food from America while American farmers could import cheap farm equipment from England. This was opposed by the English landed aristocracy and American manufacturers. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case those who promote free market are on the left side. This was actual at the stage of development of Capitalism. So Capitalists were on the left side at certain historical stage.--MathFacts (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all easily resolved with sources. If it can be sourced that fascism is on the left is a significant view then NPOV requires that that view be mentioned, as long as it's not said that it's the usual view if the sources don't say it's the usual view. Likewise for fascism being a mix of left and right or neither left and right. Immoral moralist (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Please read previous discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not already done. The source says a "good number of historians" say it's a mixture of left and right or neither left not right. That means that the view is significant. It has to be mentioned in order to be NPOV. Please review that NPOV policy. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead says "is usually considered to be on the far right" (my emphasis) and the "Position in the political spectrum" describes the various views of this. Incidentally being a mixture of left and right does not mean that it is not far right. Left-wing ideology has affected all other modern ideologies and fascism is no exception. That does not mean that there are no right-wing ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's logically impossible for it to be on the far right and to be neither left nor right, or a mix of right and left. Saying it is on the far right precludes it from being neither left or right. Read this article. It talks about the view that it is neither left or right, or that it's part left part right, in the article. So naturally the introduction needs to reflect that. If editors didn't consider the view significant it wouldn't be in the article. It's POV to only present the one view, if other views are significant. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IM. Although the information you are seeking to include may be verifiable, I think your edit gives it undue weight. NPOV does not require that every viewpoint that is verifiable should be included in the first paragraph of the article, and there is a whole section covering this issue in the article body. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not every verifiable view should be included. But some views are more significant than others, significant enough that they need to be represented to keep the introduction from being POV. I think this is such a view. Many sources talk about this view. It's definitely not a fringe view. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

They copied some of their rhetoric and organization from the Left, but their policies were taken from the Right. Essentially that is what the New Right in the US did. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-laissez-faire capitalism is hardly right wing. And it wasn't only rhetoric. They instituted central economic planning and strong government control over business. Nationalizations as well, as by 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state owned enterprises other than the Soviet Union. They also dramatic expanded social welfare programs. The anti-capitalism was not just talk. It's easy to see why it would be a common view that it is not a far right doctrine. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It think a good guide to weight here would be to look at other tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and dictionaries. I think it will be hard to find any that give this particular side issue a great deal of prominence. Where they refer to position on the political spectrum, it seems to me to be the case that they will just describe fascism as right-wing and leave it there. We're not obliged to replicate any other reference work, of course, but if none can be found that does what you are proposing to do in the first paragraph, then I think a good argument is needed as to why we should be any different. --FormerIP (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead of course is meant to be a brief but accurate summary of the article. As noted previously by myself and others, I fail to see the problem with "usually described as far/extreme right" as a concise summary of what is in the main body of the article, and of what is found from either a cursory or a more detailed review of all relevant sources, from the media to dictionaries to more weighty academic analysis. In 95% of these, you will normally find the words "extreme right" within two feet of the word "fascist". The detail about dissenting minority views, about the way fascist movements sometimes borrowed elements of radical left-wing ideas/tactics and discussion of the obvious over-simplification involved in relying on a linear spectrum can be left, as they currently are, for the relevant sub-section. The recent changes were at least one step better than the endless vandalism of simply swapping right for left and the lengthy original research being posted on this talk page about how fascism is actually the same as socialism, but they are unnecessary and are making a simple issue far more complicated than it needs to be for the lead section. Is there any way we can call a moratorium on this issue, and focus on the rest of the article for once? --Nickhh (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your solution runs afoul of how WP works. The problem really is that there are two distince topice -- fascism as found in the 1930s, and fascism as ideology, which end up being rather distinct issues. And it is not OR to cite sources which do, indeed, equate fascism as ideology with aspects of socialism. Further, it is not up to us to discuss fascism on the talk page - the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, fascism qua fascism <g>. Collect (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, my request for a moratorium was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but in fact of course Wikipedia largely works in whatever way its contributors make it work - which in many cases is precisely the problem with it. However, an agreement to pause and move on seems to entirely within the scope of such a system. And I agree, we should be discussing the article, with reference to reliable sources - exactly as I said we should. Preferably other bits of it for once though. Many of the contributions on the talk page are very much random original research, without any reference to sources at all, or at least any serious sources, which ultimately have very little to do with how the page should be written up.--Nickhh (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with only saying "usually considered to be on the far right," is that it leaves the impression that the view that it is neither left or nor right, or centrist, is too insignificant to point out. The view that Fascism is far LEFT may be fringe, I'm not sure, but the view that it is centrist or neither left nor right, is not fringe as the source says a "good number" hold that view. Many sources are available for this. So saying only that it's "usually considered to be on the far right" is POV pushing. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Now you my claim that the article is NPOV since the view is mentioned later in the article, but the lead by itself needs to be NPOV as well. The lead is not exempt from the NPOV rule. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The adverb "usually" implies that other positions exist, which in fact are explained in the article. The lead is no place to go into extensive detail about the various minority points of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what it implies, but my point again is that if it only says that, then it also implies that differing views are not significant enough to be mentioned. Since the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view, the lead is POV pushing. Nobody is advocating "going into extensive detail." Immoral moralist (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view" is incorrect. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My source disagrees with you. The source I gave said that "a good number" of historians says that fascism is. If a good number say that, then it's significant. If only a few held that view, then it would not be significant enough to mention. In addition, the editors of this article think it's a significant view as evidenced by the face that view is discussed in the body. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your source does not say a good number place fascism in the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It says a good number consider it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's what I put in the lead. I was just using shorthand here in Talk by saying "the center." And that a good number hold this view can also easily be verified using search engines. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, not the place to list the numerous alternative theories. Incidentally fascist economic and welfare policies were a continuation of conservative ones. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is the place to list alternative views if they're significant. Otherwise the lead is POV, by definition. For the lead to be NPOV, either the significant alternative views be listed along with the "far right wing" view, or the "far right wing" view needs to be taken out of the lead. Immoral moralist (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IM, can you find any other tertiary source that gives a degree of prominence to any alternative "political spectrum" view which would be comparable to putting it in the first paragraph on Wikipedia. As Nickhh points out, it is common for encyclopaedias etc to just describe fascism as "far right" and explore the topic no further. I am not proposing we should do that. But the cite you have provided is from p 147 of a reference work entirely devoted to the topic of fascism. If they don't see fit to mention it until that point, why should we put it in the first paragraph? --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Book publishers don't. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

According to NPOV: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held view". What we have here is a disagreement over whether and to what degree the material you wish to insert represents a minority view. If it is a view that is significant enough to include in the first paragraph here, how is it that other tertiary sources seem to not mention it all all? They don't abide by NPOV, true, but they will each have their own version of it. Is it plausible that NPOV is a radical enough policy to turn things that are barely mentioned in other tertiary sources into things that demand top billing on Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give a detailed description, just a simple note that good number of historians regard it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's it! Just the note of the fact. There's not a shortage of space. And it wouldn't be taking away the statement that fascism is "usually" considered far right. That would stay there. To answer your question, the reason why you would find tertiary sources that don't mention it at all is, again because not all sources are NPOV. But the lead here on Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were trying to give a detailed description. You do seem to be trying to give a very high degree of prominence to a POV that other tertiary sources give very little prominence to or do not mention at all. My question is how can such a radical difference from other tertitary sources be justified. Not all sources are NPOV, true. But it is also hard to see how taking a view radically different from all other tertiary sources can possibly be NPOV. There is, indeed, no shortage of space here. Some of that space is lower down in the article, which is where this viewpoint properly belongs, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because practically all other sources other than Wikipedia are POV. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is extremely rare, if not completely unique among tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not trying to emulate other tertiary sources. It's something very different, where if a view is mentioned then by law all significant differing views are required to be noted as well lest it's POV pushing. That the information is later in the article is good, but that still leaves the introduction POV. The introduction has to be NPOV regardless what's in the rest of the article. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But you need to explain how it is NPOV to give such high prominence to a POV that is not normally considered significant. We don't emulate other tertiary sources, but going at complete odds to them ought to ring alarm bells. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one claiming the view is not significant. I'm claiming the view is significant. I have a source saying a "good number" of historians hold the view. To me, that's saying it's significant. In addition, all you have to do is use a search engine to see that the claim is true. And I don't know how you are backing up your claim that nothing the view is "complete odds" to other sources. On page 79 'The Fascism Reader' by Kallis they note "others have seen fascism as 'neither left not right', as a doctrine of the 'revolutionary center'" In the introduction to the Fascism article in the Routledge Encylcopedia of Philosophy is says "Fascist ideology it is sometimes portrayed as merely a mantle for political movements in seach of power, but in reality is set forth a new vision of society, drawing on both left and right-wing ideas." So obviously they're not saying fascism is far right. Immoral moralist (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) IM, why do you wish to give prominence to one of the minority views and ignore the others? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

History News Network has relevant information on this topic now. http://www.hnn.us/

Michael Ledeen Responds to Liberal Fascism By Michael Ledeen

Introduction By David Neiwert

The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism By Robert Paxton

An Academic Book — Not! By Roger Griffin

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions By Matthew Feldman

The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book By Chip Berlet

Definitions and Double Standards By Jonah Goldberg

To say some of these "historians" are objective after reading some of their articles above is laughable. Others above, do declare the left/right doesn't or shouldn't apply to fascism. Theosis4u (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Minority views should be given prominence based upon their significance. Some minority views may be insignificant, therefore need not be mentioned for NPOV. The view that Fascism is in the center, or to say neither left or nor right, or left and right mixed, is a significant view. So in order for the lead to be NPOV it needs to be mentioned. By the way, there is no such thing as an "objective" historian. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What historians say that fascism is in the center? If someone is called a centrist, does that mean they might be fascist? If they are called far right is their any question that they are close to fascism? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See Third_Way_(centrism) for a reference as as fascism as being "centrist". I'm not sure if that's the same point that IM was making though. Yes, there's a question about the "far right" being close to fascism! Where would you place Classical_liberalism or something like Anarcho-capitalism ? Theosis4u (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That article does not discuss fascism at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does, it says:

"Past invocations of a political 'third way', in this sense, or a 'middle way', have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Technocracy (bureaucratic), Keynesian economics, Italian fascism under Benito Mussolini [3], Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4]""

Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing centrism with "third way", which your source does not do.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Look above. I gave sources. If someone is a centrist in economics, then it doesn't necessarily mean they're fascists, but just that they're on the same general area of the left-right spectrum as fascists. Fascists didn't want state communism or laissez-faire, but something in between. In other words they didn't want complete government control over business and neither did they want to leave businesses and the market totally free of control by the state. This is why it's a common and significant view that fascism isn't "far right," as being right wing in economics often means support of laissez-faire. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So it would seem that there's no agreement either here or in the main stream as to what Fascism is. It would appear that because reasonable people will disagree on this, the attribution of Fascism as being an attribute of the 'right' (far right, near right, whatever) should be removed. RPuzo (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Integrate Other Existing Wiki Pages On Fascism

Proposal, it seems the first issue that should be addressed is if the these pages - Fascism_and_ideology , Definitions_of_fascism , Economics_of_fascism - should be integrated into the main Fascism page or should they be removed. To discuss those same very topics for edits on the main doesn't seem very efficient without first deciding on the proposal. For myself, it seems fruitless to press forward on some of the open threads here until that is resolved. Theosis4u (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Let me repeat it again: No. Drop this obsession you have with integrating other wiki pages into this one. I've told you a million times forget those pages yet you still keep flouting long-established Wikipedia guidelines.UberCryxic (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm so disgusted by the way this entire process has moved forward that now I simply support the version implemented by VoluntarySlave. Like I said, if you plan to be in a permanent mentality of wiki-warfare until you get your way, you're just going to receive a lot of blowback and never achieve anything.UberCryxic (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Many other articles have under sub-topics the use of "See also" and "Main article" that then give a more in-depth treatment of the topic. Not sure you misunderstood my proposal or simply don't like that way of doing things as other articles have. Usually, articles that do that leave short summaries on the main - then tend to reflect the lead of the other article. I also don't know how I could be accused of "wiki-warfare" , I don't do edits [at least so far]. I come to wikipedia for information and I like to find the treatment of a topic to have some consistency as I read the various pages one will get on a topical search. Unfortunately, I usually find this "state of disrepair" on most subjects. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hide soapbox discussion.

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

Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left.

Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population.

Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler.

I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition.

That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust.

It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders.

In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman.

In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them.

Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding jStiene 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing fascism as essentially a permutation of totalitarianism is only one approach, held by some scholars, but disputed by many others. Indeed, it would be very reasonable to argue that this approach has actually largely fallen out of use. See, for example, Wolfgang Sauer, "National Socialism: Totalitarianism or Fascism?" American Historical Review Vol. 73, No. 2 (1967): 404-424. The Fwanksta (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)