Talk:Fascism/Archive1

Leftists
Leftist are fascists, just ask Hitler and Mussolini. <---Nut.

Mussolini referring to FDR as saying “America has a dictator.”

FDR's personal letters reveal that he was impressed by what Mussolini was doing and said that he kept in close touch with that "admirable gentleman."

Mussolini praised the New Deal as following his own corporate state, as quoted in a July 1933 article in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." And Mussolini went as far as also calling FDR a "social-fascist" in a GOOD way.

This also attracted Hitler. Yup... you heard me correctly.

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

And on to Woodrow Wilson. Jonah Goldbergh and his book Liberal Fascism(you should atleast read it) points out that Woodrow Wilson was in essence the first fascist dictator(not absolutist sense) and president in the 20th century and this why.

Aside from the fact that Benito Mussolini actually said he got some of his ideas from Woodrow Wilson this is what the progressive president did during his term did.

1: Given broad powers to completely control the U.S. Economy(making it a command economy during his term)

2: Given power to censor the press and nationalized the telephone companies and industry.

3: Made it illegal to criticize him, the government, military, flag and polices especially in your own home(claimed to be just in war, but he wanted to keep these polices up even after his term).

4: Protesters and dissidents violently suppressed during his administration.(Goldbergh points out Wilson arrested more dissidents in just a couple of years than Mussolini did his full 1920s)

5: Established what would be considered the quasi-private police-state agency called the "American Protective League" administered by the "Department of Justice".(Goldbergh also points out Wilson did more violence towards civil liberties in 3 years than Mussolini did in his first 12)

6: Created the first official propaganda ministry

7: And dragged us into WWI(no, not the the Iraq War)

And about the conservative elements of fascism such as patriotism and sexism, it was sexism and patriotism being suppressed that existed way before fascism came abroad.

Oh.. and did you know Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had Public health care?

Mussolini was an atheist and devout Marxist before he made Fascism, which is socialism and Woodrow Wilson's progressive polices Mussolini admitted to adopting.

Hitler also suppressed Christianity in Schools and they burned Bibles despite what Hitler said about Jesus.

And if it's anything conservative about Hitler, it's appeasing to most people who were generally socially conservative in that generation.

If it's anything, about the Christian Catholic rightwing Fascists such as the dictator in Austria and Francisco Franco of Spain, it was that they refused to deport Jews to Hitler at one point or another.

Not even Bush suspended civil liberties like Woodrow Wilson did even when we did have a terrorist attack.

And if people want to call Bush a Fascist because of the Patriot Act, Obama is one because he he renewed it and plus, ofcourse he's taking more of the economy to the government like a fascist.

And is Obama Socialistic or Fascistic? He's both, just read history. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * I thought Obama was a Muslim? At any rate, I dont htink Obama will be pursuing any of the socialistic or fascist ends sought by Hitler, Mussolini or any other tin-pot dictator. You'll still have your freedom. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not when liberals take control of the economy.

Look in dictionary and see the similarities, such owning(GM and Chrysler) and/or regulating the economy. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. RaoulDuke 02:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So there was no freedom during the Clinton error? No freedoms under JFK? NZ, Australia and Japan (post recent election) had no freedoms? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, aside there wasn't freedom taken under conservative admins, I'm pointing out that fascism is on the left spectrum not the right. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * Well then, what is the extreme right? A brutal theocracy like the Taliban? Sounds about right (mind the pun). I don't think fascism is the exclusive realm of the left. Fascism, in Germany, came about due to the people feeling ripped off by the League of Nations after the first world war. The were demilitarised and gave a lot of land away. Hitler bought into this and instilled an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism which the people, in their weakest moment, wholeheartedly embraced. Sounds like a right focused trait to me. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the extreme right? Franco, religious dictator of Spain. Abortion clinic bombers. Taliban hate us and we hate them. Beside, there not christian and it seems people liberals show sympathy to terrorists, especially the whole terrorist rights crap.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * All i am starting to hear from you now is "no true scotsman" arguments. "No thats not us", "No thats not us either" you seem unwilling to accept that there are bad people from BOTH sides and if they are then its "Their not conservatives, their liberals". Sounds like someone else we know. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow you have actually gotten worse. Allow me to explain Christian ≠ conservative, conservative ≠ Christian. 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that this site is pointing solely at conservatives when it was progressive liberals who admired it.

I'm just pointing out that fascism derived from progressivism, just plain fact. I didn't say there aren't bad people on both spectrums but this is about fascism not everything radical. The problem I do have is that Winston Churchill admired Mussolini, aswell. But who cares, he's not an american conservative.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * No body can see your point because you do not know of which you speak. As I explained below fascism is not all authoritarian states. 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry a fascis-i mean liberal can't understand all this. But FDR did admire Mussolini and Hitler and Mussolini admired him and Mussolini did say he got ideas from Mr Wilson. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * I dont understand your point, far right conservatives in the UK are the neo-nazi BNP. Are they liberals? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are just trolling now. Get a dictionary and look the word fascism up and find out what it actually means. 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

a very important point that is missing here
A very important point that is missing from your argument is that, for example, Churchill may have been a fan of Mussolini at the beginning when it seemed everything he was doing was above board but ceased when he became a dictator. I dont have the facts in front of me but again, undeniably, Stalin was a ally before he became the mass murdering dictator. After that fact, when it was realised what he had in store, he became the reprehensible monster now remembered in history. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You were referring to Mr Churchill, yeah that sucks that he said that. I don't know if he was a conservative, maybe he was, but it's liberals here who admired fascism. You need to read Liberal Fascism sometime to see what you can dig out.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * No, I dont need to read it. Please respond to my very important point with your knowledge. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The book makes the same stupid association fallacies and equivocations you are making. Authoritarianism ≠ fascism, there are many forms of authoritarianism; fascism is a right-wing form. 05:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, that's when FDR said something like "I have hunch that Stalin wants nothing but security for his country and if I give him everything and ask for nothing in return, I think he won't annex anymore countries." I think we knew what happen next.

Sounds like modern day liberals being weak on National Security. Like we'll remove part of our missiles and give none to allies and talk with Iran., just when we found out they violated a U.N.(useless liberal org) resolution and found out they have more nuclear facilities and making even more threats towards us now after exposing it. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * Again, foolish gentleman, you have missed the point. FDR would said that (sorry I do not have hard facts here and now) around the time of thr Yalta Conference when Stalin was an ally. Since then, he became a communist murderer. Your Iran talk is irrelevant to this particular point. FDR said that during the Yalta conference BEFORE the communist purges and Chirchill admired mussolini in 1933 BEFORE the 2nd world war. A misjudge of character NOT admiration of fascists and commies.Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was is that he be friended somebody who obviously annexes countries.
 * Sorry man, I mean not to be aggressive, but you are way out of your depth. I would be interested in having a more indepth discussion however you do not seem to be up to it. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I just noticed that that gray symbol at the upper left corner is suppose to be a brain. I just thought that meant you were a nut, because that's what it looks like.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * So far we have had association fallacy, equivocation and now ad hominem, do you have an actual argument or just a set of fallacies? 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No... just the fact that part of modern liberalism was derive from fascism.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * No modern liberalism is derived from classical liberalism, with less emphasis on free markets following the great depression. Marxism and fascism were reactions to modern liberalism. 06:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can make a watertight argument that because GWB was a good friend of the Saudis that Neo-Conservatism is derived from Islamist theocracies. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The Saudi King did not get ideas from Bush to be a theocrat like Mussolini admitted to getting ideas from Woodrow Wilson.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
 * Have a read of this. It explains that fascism emerged in opposition to liberalism. 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Senseless jibber-jabber
Sorry, I can no longer debate your senseless gibberish. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He has read a book and it over stimulated him. If he had read a reliable book we would have been spared this inanity. 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)



My two cents
I can think of 5 good reasons that liberals are not fascists. German philosopher (and neo-Nazi) Ernst Nolte wrote a book "Fascism in its Epoch," in which he defines "generic fascism." He make 4 points about fascism as an ideology:

1) The purpose of morality is duty to humanity, the physical manifestation of which is the state.

2) The state has no limit to its power, nor should it protect the rights of any individuals.

3) Morality is inherently tied to race and gender, and the only correct form of race relations is Social Darwinism.

4) Marxian communism and other egalitarian systems should be combatted, with extreme violence if necessary.

Obviously none of these apply to Obama when you put them in perspective. Lastly, Nolte characterizes fascism as a kind of "backlash" against modernity, particularly against democracy and egalitarianism. Obama is clearly not the one exhibiting conservative backlash; his opponents are. Tetronian 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"1) The purpose of morality is duty to humanity, the physical manifestation of which is the state."

What can you do in an uncilized society? Communists are clearly leftwing and they do the same social conservatism.

"2) The state has no limit to its power, nor should it protect the rights of any individuals."

Nor do liberals have limits, they wanna change more and more. Then why do fascist nations have public health care if they don't want to protect there citizens? Probably the same reason liberals want public health care, to control.?

"3) Morality is inherently tied to race and gender, and the only correct form of race relations is Social Darwinism.

HAH... Stalins USSR!

"4) Marxian communism and other egalitarian systems should be combatted, with extreme violence if necessary."

Didn't Hitler at one point get along with the USSR until he invaded it? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs


 * Allow me to explain. Fascism = authoritarianism, but authoritarianism ≠ fascism. There are many ways to be authoritarian, but what distinguishes fascism from say communism is why they are authoritarian. Fascist are a) nationalists and b) corporatists, both are from the right end of the spectrum. Communists are collectivist from the left end of the spectrum. 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Didn't Hitler at one point get along with the USSR until he invaded it?" - wow, this has been a fun clueless BoN. Hitler cut a deal with Stalin to split Poland and not fight each other, while he pursued other aims (western Yurp).  Then he got bored and stupid and attacked Russia.  At least you gave me my daily dose of lulz, BoN.  05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Something that continues to baffle me: all western and developed countries apart from the United States have some kind of public healthcare system. If public healthcare=fascism that means that the entire western world is fascist. Is there really anybody who would seriously want to claim that? Oh, and if you think the Soviet Union was social darwinist you simply don't know what Social Darwinism means. Social Darwinism and Darwinism are two completely different things. Opposing public healthcare for example is a prime example of Social Darwinism. M the T 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Horseshoe Theory? Seriously?
Anyone who actually believes in horseshoe theory is completely ignorant of political science. Horseshoe theory is one massive golden mean fallacy. This article essentially claims that Kropotkin is similar to Hitler. Horseshoe theory is facile, reductionist nonsense that appeals only to children and the subliterate. The similarities seen between Hitler and Stalin, for instance, are due to qualities of their leadership and their regimes not associated with the gross misuse of a single, simplistic axis (left/right). The two were extreme authoritarians who participated in genocide and other various crimes against humanity. It had nothing to do with the coincidence that one was far right and the other is classified as far left.

Anyone who actually "grasps" horseshit theory will roll their eyes at the editor who apparently believes that Tolstoy is in any meaningful way similar to Alex Jones or that Chris Hedges is basically Rothbard's ideological twin. Explain to me how the Zapatistas are the same as Japan under Hirohito. The Zapatistas are even further left than Marxist-Leninists, and Hirohito was about as far right as you could get.

They're not functionally similar in any meaningful way. They're not similar because horseshoe theory is simplistic, reductionist pap that appeals only to political illiterates. The left/right spectrum isn't actually that useful when you start looking at the complexities of individual political movements and thought. You can't just plunk down Strasserites two points to the left of Francoists and Makhnovists three points to the left of Maoists, divine similarities from their relative positions on the scale, and call it a day. Political theory doesn't work that way.

Explain to me again how a neoliberal like Pinochet is less similar to Stalin and Hitler than a pacifistic non-interventionist right-libertarian or an anti-authoritarian leftist. Ironically, horseshoe theory is often very popular with neoliberals who assume that their political position is some sort of non-ideological default.

Political science isn't an episode of South Park.

Absolutely idiotic.

72.181.99.6 (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with you on that. Horseshoe theory is simplistic in that it often compares two systems that appear different while using the same "left-right" axis it is supposed to replace.
 * However, a modified horseshoe theory that accounts for a two-dimensional political graph (authoritarian-libertarian as y-axis, progressive-reactionary as x-axis) could have more merit. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I really think that the theory, however many axes you add, is just unsalvageable woo. Ideology is just too varied to be reduced to something so simple. Even within the authoritarian right or the anti-authoritarian left you have major disagreements about some very fundamental things. Some groups are known for committing atrocities while others are not. You could say that authoritarians are similar in that they're authoritarian, but then we're just being tautological. Claiming that anti-authoritarians are similar to authoritarians is objectively, fundamentally false. It comes down to needing to look at individual ideologies and movements. Some on the left and right are comparable. Some are not. Horseshoe theory, however it is spun, will only ever be about as relevant and insightful as an episode of South Park. It's just utterly useless. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're correct. However, my PoliSci 1.1 course used Aristotle's Six Forms of Government, which is 2300 years old, and is remarkably simple. I think a modified horseshoe theory, just like the political spectrum itself, is a simple tool that students can use as a foundation for later knowledge. Should it be applied by actual political scientists? Probably no more than actual chemists should use the Bohr model. But I think it has some academic use. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fascism without Hitler
If Hitler had not come to power (died in WWI/marginalised during the 1920s/Hindenburg had chosen someone else) or had "moderated" (relatively speaking) his views, how would Fascism have been viewed?


 * Hitler wasn't a fascist. Fascism was corporatism/centralised planning of the economy which revolved around a cult of the leader/state. Hitler embraced a variety of socialist mechanisms of the state with the end goal of complete milarisation. Hitler was not a socialist but he was not afraid to use certain socialist models in order to bring about 'perfect order' based on perceived racial purity. Fascism had no such racist origin. Franco even employed black soldiers in the Spanish Civil War. I can't imagine Hitler doing likewise. I concede that the differences are relatively marginal, but Hitler's 'fascism' and Mussolini's variety had important distinctions.
 * I also find it funny that fascism is painted as a pariah while communism is treated with kids gloves. Little is made of the authoritarianism inherent within communism - that it demands total consent and participation etc. The line between communist organisation of society and fascism is grey indeed - both in theory and in practise. I wonder why there are no calls for 'dispassionate dissection' for the fascism article. Of course I believe that both articles should be treated rationally and should also be criticised where warranted, I just find it amusing that there is no such reserve with this article. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there MC; too many people think "fascism=racism/xenophobia/etc" and "Fascist=Nazi", it doesn't. Yes, it is a not-very-nice political ideology, but those who bandy the word around to describe anything they don't like (such as the absurd Unite Against Fascism) don't seem to grasp the differences.  16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this article is a rather dispassionate analysis of fascism. It calmly describes its general characteristics of internal oppression and outward aggression, and doesn't even contain a list of the crimes committed by its adherents like the one that was included in the article on communism. The difference between the two is that communism envisions individual freedom in theory and results in oppression in practice (hence the need for a distinction), while fascism aims at a strictly hierarchical and authoritarian societal order from the start. Röstigraben (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats the problem. Communism doesn't hold personal freedom as an ideal. In fact it considers individualism and civil society as a 'liberal bourgeouis' construction. Communism requires total consent and is the intellectual equivilent of the hive mentality, as if human beings were not individuals but a collective with no personal autonomy. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that even communist theory is too beholden to collectivism and illusions about the volonté generale to contain a genuine commitment to individualism, but you have to take Marx's materialism and the state of society in the 19th century into account. For the original communists, all that mattered was to end the exploitation of the disenfranchised at the hands of the capitalists and their oppression at the hands of the governments which served the elite. They thought that true freedom could only be realized in the absence of these systems, the mistake they made was that they didn't consider the possibility to reform them. They thought freedom could be brought about through strict equality and didn't pay attention to the importance of pluralism, but they weren't opposed to individual freedom per se. Anyway, we should probably argue about this over at the communism talk page. Röstigraben (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The communism talk page is impervious to reasonable criticism. You're either a right wing nut job, or dogmatically opposed to 'dispassionate dissection' if you think the failings of the Soviet bloc were a natural result of the system and the underlying anti individualist tenets inherent in communism.
 * My problem with basic Marxist theory is that 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' is essentially, even at its most charitable intended form, a raw democracy that stems from the wishes of the consenting masses. In other words, you must first be a true blood communist who is a participating member of the communist party in order to have any hope of enacting change or intiative. Anyone who disagree's with the uniquely absolute communist democratic system is a 'counter revolutionary' - which in essence means anybody who disagree's with you. In other words, these people are excluded from any participation in the body politic, both in theory and in practise. Any system that precludes people based on their personal beliefs is a deeply flawed one, necessarily leading to authoritarianism and tyranny. The political theory around the concept of the socialist state is glaringly and offensively naive and oppressive. I see little distinction (In terms of political organisation) in it between fascism, national socialism and communism. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on, the article on communism was substantially amended as a result of the discussion. It now points out that all attempts at building new communist societies through top-down measures have resulted in oppression and often outright massacres of opponents. Again, I agree that communism's rejection of democratic pluralism is its fatal weakness and that this flaw alone makes its genuine implemenation impossible, you don't have to argue with me about that. Röstigraben (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascism does not equal authoritarianism per se - there was a Fascist Party in Brazil in the 1930s.

Could a modern version of 'fascism as a theory' be developed (ie something more than 'authoritarian statism')? What about 'Cult of the Leader (being Dubya/Grinning Tony)'?
 * No, thats idiotic. Fascism could and does arise today in various forms, but neither Bush nor Blair were 'fascists'. Those kind of silly accusations sum up everything that is most irritating about left wing college students. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm perhaps? What sort of personality cult could be created around B/B?

Give examples of modern fascism - and the remark was not calling Dubya or Smarmy Tony fascists. (The use of negative/juvenile nicknames proves they are not fascists.)

Left-wing Fascism: Absurd and Impossible
Wow. I love this website, but I am thoroughly disappointed with some of the politics-related articles here. As stated above, the horseshoe theory is bullshit. Left-wing politics are generally concerned with social equality and the creation of an egalitarian society. Leftists reject tradition, hierarchies, and social orders especially where they may result in inequality. Right-wing politics generally seek to justify, uphold, or even further reinforce these things. It seems there is some confusion over tactics and ideology—the Nazi Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union may have both been totalitarian, and used political violence up to and including state terrorism, but their underlying philosophies and ultimate aims were completely different. Fascism's opposition to egalitarianism is one of its defining features.

Here is a particularly foolish statement from the article: "In fact, fascism has always been wrapped up in leftist-sounding language — it's "a workers movement", "a populist struggle for justice", et cetera — while much of radical leftism has always endorsed the methods of fascist regimes, especially by excepting acts of terror from condemnation as long as they're done in the name of radical leftism."

First, "leftist-sounding language" is just that. In practice, fascists are happy to allow elites and capitalists to flourish at the expense of the working class as long as they serve the aims of the fascist state. Second, populism exists on both the left and the right. Third, "much of radical leftism has always endorsed the methods of fascist regimes"—where to begin with this part? Radicalism isn't about violence. It's about transformation. Sometimes, radicals (right, left, whatever) turn to violence to initiate that transformation. Fourth, "the methods of fascist regimes" are really just the methods of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, which are inherently violent no matter the belief system. Again, this is a confusion of tactics vs. ideology. It is worth noting, however, that the exaltation of violence is an inherent feature of fascism. Fascism requires violence, in other words. It isn't merely a means to an end for fascists as it is for violent leftists.

It makes sense to discuss fascism as a snarl word used by both the left and the right, but the attempts to describe actual left-wing fascism should be removed for inaccuracy.

I urge people to view this video, which discusses antifa and fascism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ

Trau (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

14 points of fascism
We don't have article? 03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, we should. 03:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to link to it on FB. 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like linking to our articles on FB. 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC3) As Dr. Britt thought that Pinochet was a "fascist," and that the military had supremacy in all fascist regimes, and that labor unions were the only possible threat to a fascist government, I submit that we do not need one. 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Major Edit
I just drastically rewrote that textwall that began before the table of contents, and transferred a whole bunch of it into two new headlines. I hope my revisions are up to Rationalwiki standards. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Is corporationism to the right of laissez-faire?
I know the fascists try to present themselves as "above" the left and right, but aren't their form of economics right-wing, just in a different way than laissez-faire is associated with the right? If "right" means an appeal to authority or inequality isn't protecting the elite class and corporations "right-wing", even if it's in a different way than we associate right-wing economics? At least with laissez-faire you could, theoretically speaking, get out of the lower classes, but fascists usually want the classes to basically accept their place in life, unlike the commies who wanted to unite them (though in practice we know it doesn't work that way). I just see this "we're not right or left" Third Positionism as a half-assed attempt to put themselves above the fray, kind of like when The New Black Panther Party says similar things yet lean to the far-left. Fascist "economics" seem quite similar to those utilized by right-wing monarchies for the "good the nation", so what makes the fascists think they're so special? ClothCoat (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are different forms of Corporatism that get placed (variously) on the left and the right. Left Wing Corporatism exists in modern Germany and is usually referred to as something to the effect of 'Social Capitalism' and is where the government takes a (theoretically) minimal role in the economy while labor unions and management groups negotiate compensation. We normally think of the Left as wanting heavy intervention into the economy, but that isn't really a Left Wing thing, it's simply a means to an end, in this case a means to the end of "more equality and oppertunity among different economic classes". Economies that adopt Left Wing Corporatism want that nice Left Wing goal, but don't want to fuck around in the economy too much. Right Wing Corporatism is what we more commonly associate with Fascism, and is where the government takes a direct role in the economy, forcing groups to work together and towards an ultimate goal of "what is best for the country/the government/the military". In practice this quickly breaks down to the government forcing labor groups to do what the management groups want, because Fascism is really just the mixture of the worst incarnation of capitalism, pseudo-Democracy, and nationalism gone awry.-- Token ConservativeFeminist Thought Police 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very well put. I'm wondering if we should make it more clear in the article that despite not being very pro-capitalist (or not being very good at capitalism) that it's usually a far-right ideology, due to attempts by some to pull a No true Scotsman or shove it to the other side of the spectrum (though obviously most people on the right of the spectrum are not fascists, I hate it when moonbats throw around the word). I see this "Third Positionism" stuff as usually a half-assed attempt for right and left wing extremist groups to try to make themselves out to be "above" the political spectrum, and I think we're giving them too much credit in the article. ClothCoat (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So perhaps, then, "leftwing" and "rightwing" are not reliable markers of how authoritarian an ideology is. At least, that is the conclusion I make based on my personal definition of left and right. To me, left vs. right is defined as "equality vs hierarchy," with both having the potential to lead to totalitarianism. Then again, a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" get around this by defining left vs right as "collectivism vs individualism," so that their token pundit on Fox can call George W. Bush a leftist without irony, as well as pin all acts of government tyranny on leftists (and it helps that their own definition of freedom has never really existed on a national level). Wow, I went on a tangent there, didn't I? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascism & the Catholic Church - a parody picture
When I get the time, I'll make some changes to this new section because it completely misses the very specific Italian context and instead paints a false dilemma of the Catholic Church having to choose between liberalism and communism (as if those were the main strains of politics at the time...). I just thought I might as well announce this up front, though it might not be until Saturday that I have the time to actually edit this stuff. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some ideas
Add some sections about: metaxism (greek fascism), portuguese fascism (Salazar), integralism (brazilian fascism), british fascism (Mosley), red fascism (stalinism), hungarian fascism. 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

origin of red fascist
GR has deleted my section on red fascism which explained the origin of the term red fascist and instead started the section with a completely unsubstantiated statement. I don't think this change makes sense at all and its mostly a pointless dig at socialists in its current state. Maybe if they had some sort of study on the amount of defense for the USSR's progroms among socialists would the argument make sense. The section removed was also the only section with citations in the section. Vorarchivist (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded.-Flandres (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And thus the whitewashing begins.  16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase a certain somebody, aren't you taking a break?-Flandres (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did, but i quickly noticed the anarchist mob was attacking so I am back in service, defending ratwiki from whitewashing. 16:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the millionth time, not that you will understand it, there is no anarchist mob plotting against you. Some users just have problems with the nature of several of your edits.-Flandres (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, every attempt at whitewashing will be met with resistance. 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And judging by your vote record pretty feeble resistance,hmhmhm...and again, this is not about whitewashing. Vorarchivist has objections to the citation of your edit. Learn to read.-Flandres (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure buddy, let's see. 16:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake, get off your high horse for once. There's no anarchist mob out to persecute you, and there's no whitewashing going on. Grow up. — Oxyaena Harass  18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, as pointed out, the first one to use red fascism as a term in the US wasn't the socialist Norman Thomas (1948) anyway. so y'all are wrong anyway, factually. 18:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * whitewashing what? How is asking for citations and posting something true whitewashing? Is the truth whitewashing to you I don't understand. If you find an earlier use than me you are free to post it.Vorarchivist (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's Raven, what do you expect? — Oxyaena Harass  18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much experience of his aggressive editing style Vorarchivist (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

GR be cooperative. Someone posed you a question. Explain your reasoning. Don't accuse another of bad faith. I've resetted this discussion. 18:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation was asked and citation was provided. Check the page. 19:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"4. See J. Edgar Hoover, "Red Fascism in the United States Today," American Magazine, CXLIII (Feb. 1947 ), 24: Jack B. Tenney, Red Fascism (Los Angeles, 1947); Howard K. Smith, The State of Europe (New York, 1949), 67. The chairman of the Republic National Committee, Carroll Reece , called some Truman administration officials "Red Fascists," (Nation's Business, XXXIV [Oct. 1946 ], 31,) Socialist leader Norman Thomas spoke in the same vein: "Such is the logic of totalitarianism" that "communism, whatever it was originally, is today Red Fascism," ( Norman Thomas ), "Which Way America---Fascisnm, Communism, Socialism or Democracy?" Town Meeting Bulletin, XIII [Mar, 16, 1948 ], 19-20.)" 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since me and EK disproved the whitewashing and added the citation they desperately needed (they didn't, they were plotting to harass me on discord anyway and this is made up drama once again), please fuck off vora/oxy/flandres/any other anarchist goon 19:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this suffice, ? 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You could've just added the source (sans colors that hinder legibility...) and left it at that, but you just had to insert another unfounded tirade on whitewashing, plotted harassment, and calling others "anarchist goon". 19:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Family friendly version enabled. 19:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. 🙄 Any reason for the bolded red and green font? 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

dont worry it wasn't a dogwhistle aimed at you, it was just the colors I had first in mind. I just like red and green. well the red was aimed at socialists the green i just chose as the first option. couldve used blue too. 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * how can I plot to harass you on discord? I don't share a discord with you so this just doesn't make sense. Vorarchivist (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have eyes. Go in the far-left ratwiki discord and mention a country name and I will reply to you here. 19:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not very good ones. *I* am not on discord at all. I am also emphatically NOT an anarchist, as so many people on this wiki can attest, so that post is really just so wrong as to be unsalvageable.-Flandres (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah sure, that's why you and the others always come flying by, in groups. 19:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just monitored the recent changes page. DO you know how a wiki works? Ask anyone if they recognize me on discord.-Flandres (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Ec) Hey guys, it looks like a frivolous accusation, but that's going to go off topic. You guys are going off topic again. I'd not want to deal with this on this particular talk page. Anyway I didn't see the colors as some jab at me, I just didn't know why it was highlighted. I suppose it's meant to highlight dates to try to show the term was mentioned earlier? 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, since vora (wrongly) claimed the term was first coined by a socialist (it wasn't). 19:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You know that your example isn't just any "socialist" or "communist" right? He's a Tankie. Extreme authoritarian left. But of course, you don't know the differences between the various radical left groups do you? 19:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not a mob, you say? why do the same wasps always attack me? isn't it weird how this isn't some conspiracy? it's always the same people lol 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * same wasps? this is the first time I even edited the same article as you and now you're snaping and me. What did I do?Vorarchivist (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are shocked when regular users who disagree with you and openly state they disagree with you keep disagreeing with you when you talk about similar subjects? Not very smart, are we?-Flandres (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah okay now fuck off, the issue was resolved, flandres. 20:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Why is it the same mob that always attack me" Seriously? — Oxyaena Harass  20:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

20:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Back on track
So I'm annoyed that I have to come out of retirement because Raven (still) doesn't know jack about the radical left, but I'll do my best to calmly explain. Yes, there are elements of the radical left that defend the USSR. These are Tankies, Marx-Lenists (sometimes different, usually they're interchangeable), dumbfuck radical leftists who's only real ideology is "United States bad", some Marxists, and Lenists. Most if not all of these groups can have moderate to severe overlap in membership. Leftist groups that don't like the USSR and say it was a bad thing include but are not limited to, Anarchism and all (actual Anarchists by the way, feudalists such as Anarcho-capitalists don't count, since they're right-wing, not left.) derivatives, barring maybe one or two obscure groups I've never heard of, a decent number of Marxists, most if not all Democratic Socialists, and Social Democrats. I honestly don't know where Trotskyists fit on this list. Anyway, please stop throwing all of these groups into the same basket, it's very annoying for people that know better. 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you being rude? 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How is he being rude? Thunderclapper (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Raven (still) doesn't know jack about the radical left" its very impolite 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is also accurate. Civility has its place, but not when it is getting the way of correct assessment. Invoked then it is just a tone argument.-Flandres (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when is "doesn't know jack" very impolite? I see this all the time. Are you made of sugar or something? Thunderclapper (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well,, my dear enemy (by far not the only one), GC is wrong. In the article I explicitly wrote:

" It is worth noting that the term "red fascism" may also be used by anarchists and democratic socialists to distance themselves from the horrors of the Soviet past. " So the complaint is nonsense. Not sure what else I have to say. Just don't be rude about it. 21:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just talking about generally using impoliteness to dimiss an argument rather than this specific case, and that if you refute something you should say more than "meanie" but I can forgive you for being unable to interpret that.-Flandres (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they actually were critics of that ideology all along, which you'd know if you could deflate your hate boner for Anarchism and actually become self aware. Please do ask some of the anarchists in the room about their feelings on how the Soviets "helped" them in Catalonia. Or maybe read Orwell's book on the subject. Or read a history book looking at contemporary and modern leftist thought on the USSR. Or read book in general. 21:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody claimed otherwise, and the rest of what you said is silly whataboutism. Since you refuse to read, here is what I wrote in the page, big letters and bold so that it is impossible to miss:

"  It is worth noting that the term "red fascism" may also be used by anarchists and democratic socialists to distance themselves from the horrors of the Soviet past. " Translation: not every fucking commie is a red fascist. I'm going to sleep, if the article is edited with some factually incorrect shit i will just revert it. 21:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You claimed otherwise, and I quote: "Although adherents of socialism and communism would reject labeling the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as fascist, many opponents would certainly make comparisons between the regime and ideology of that state with fascism." Is it too much to fucking ask for you fucking own up to your own gods damned mistakes? Is this really such a high bar? I think not. Furthermore, you have yet to address any of my points, and have only repeated yourself verbatum without once engaging with any of the points I've made. You accuse me of and other of bad faith, without proof, and then go to the Mods when we point out that you are wrong. Not to arbitrate a dispute, but to silence debate. And this bullshit is why I refuse to come back to this site. I have no fucking time in my life for a SocDem version of Trump. 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As to who invented the term "Red Fascism", this, depended on it's reception, would also be dependent on who popularized the term in question. This actually happens more often than you'd think when it comes to high profile ideas, such as Marx being better known than Hegel, or Hitler being better known than even Mussolini, and definitely being more well known than, , or. (Though in the latter most case he later became an opponent of Fascism.) Short version, being first doesn't always mean you'll be credited with the idea later down the line. 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, since vora claimed a socialist coined it, which is firstly irrelevant and secondly factually wrong. 21:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Flandres, my dear enemy...." sigh You think too highly of yourself, no one here thinks of you as being threatening enough to be their "enemy," you're a legend in your own mind. — Oxyaena Harass  22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "red fascists," the first real lefties I got to know were adamantly anti-Leninist, one of whom in particular was a Bordigist. If you knew anything about the radical left in general, you'd realize there has been anti-Bolshevik sentiment amongst the radical left since 1917 itself. — Oxyaena Harass  22:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fascism and the Political Spectrum
In my opinion it's irrelevant to ask whether or not Fascism is left-wing or right-wing because, historically speaking, Fascism never had it's own political worldview. What makes it Fascism is what it becomes in practice. In Italy, National Syndicalism was more of a bizarre syncretic doctrine, neither explicitly left or right, before an industrialist backed Mussolini co-opted it, ultimately transforming it into a tool of labour suppression and right-wing terror. The same was true of pre-Hitler National Socialism in Germany, which promoted a weird type of pan-Germanism combined with nationalism, anti-zionism and state-capitalism. Under Hitler's leadership it became backed by big industry and was, again, used as a tool of labour suppression and right-wing terror. So it seems to me that considering whether or not Fascism is left or right is placing too much emphasis on proto-Fascism, as well as what is initially preached, rather than what is practiced.

In practice, Fascism is always the same - and one never has to ask whether Fascism is left or right. One only has to look at who the fascists are shooting and for what reason.

China is a fascist state
. I notice that China is not listed as a fascist state among the designated fascist states. Here is an article addressing that question in the affirmative. I am directing this comment to you because fascism is in your interest area, and because I am so ignorant of China. Perhaps you know of an editor with expertise in Contemporary China. Just a thought.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, as far as I'm aware the answer is sort of yes and sort of no. Historically the PRC has been Soviet style Communism (sort of), then they went SocDem-ish while maintaining the previous authoritarian flavor (sort of, this was in response to Mao's failures) in the 1960s(?) (I think it was the 1960s, it was definitely the late 1900s) and now they're sort of ramping up the authoritarianism again under Xi, with some reports of ethno-nationalism and other policies. In short, I actually don't know whether the PRC is fascist or just authoritarian. 23:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current phase of china, when they reformed from strict Maoism, began around 1978-1979. I just thought I would add that.-Flandres (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It would have been roughly the 1980s when Dengism became more prominent. 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would certainly fit into the Red Fascism category. Tuxer (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The PRC has territorial ambitions, but they don't strike me as having the sheer cult of militarism that fascist countries do. 00:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would look for palingenetic signs-that is, talking about the "rebirth" of China. The biggest difference in presentation between leftist and rightist regimes can usually be found there. Is the strongman creating a new society or is he trying to purge the forces that lead to our perfect society declining?-Flandres (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy consistent with fascism
I recall a famous essay by Bertrand Russell, The Ancestry of Fascism. I invite editors interested to have a look at it. Unless someone objects, I intend to add a subsection reflecting some of the content to the section on Ideology, and possibly elsewhere in the article. To be brief, the essay focuses on the impact of German philosophy on the environment in which fascism later developed. Russell remarks on a number of philosophers of various nationalities; beginning with Kant as a reaction to the rational empiricism of David Hume. He asserts that the basic genealogy of fascism among nineteenth century writers is Fichte, Carlyle, Mazzini and Nietzsche. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Needs section on Romanian Legionarism
Form of fascism that is to the right of Nazism, similar with Ustaše, that focuses on Christian purification as well as National rebirth. Influenced modern day neo-fascist movements. Extremely odious ideology, makes me want to puke. Jakester499 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)