Talk:Fascism

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

Remove the political bias which states "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum". This is not only not true but it is misleading and now we have actual fascist groups who are among the far left who are using this definition to support their cause. This is dangerous, and if you don't want Wikipedia to be considered "fake news" then these types of biases need to be corrected. There are numerous other requests for this and yet this bias remains. MaxAiring (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "bias" . it is the consensus of reliable sources. See The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (2005) by Peter Davies, Derek Lynch, excerpts are online. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It IS bias because fascism is not a partisan ideology. If you want to make it a "left right" thing then it should be noted that every single fascist leader including the "founder" Benito Mussolini was a leftist, being a leader of the Italian Socialist party and supporter of the communist movement in Europe. Fascism is totalitarian dictatorship and thus can have views both left and right which is why there is so much concern over the partisan suggestion in the Wikipedia definition. MaxAiring (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is why I ask for a consensus. Not everyone is going to agree with your statement. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground for political views. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

I strongly object to the characterization of fascism as a right-wing philosphy, as in this sentence:

"Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

This is pure editorializing and propaganda, and demonization of conservatives. Perhaps is IS place on the far-right - by biased liberabls. Merriam Webster defines fascism as follows:

1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

"dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" - I would posit that this matches the far LEFT. For example, Obama was a dictatorial leader who imposed severe regulation on business. Social justice warriors, also associated with the left, work to impose social regimentation and control through bullying and attempt at shaming. Forcible suppression of opposition is clearly seen today by groups such as the ironically named Anti-fa who riot and violently attack businesses and conservatives, college campuses and students who refuse to allow free speech from conservatives, and liberals in general who are trying to destroy democracy by removing the duly elected current president with riots, violence, and attacks on businesses and conservatives.

I have read that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, which I can certainly see in this article and others. Also see http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/102601/how-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1-david-swindle. So this does not surprise me. However, as someone who has donated several times upon your request (but will not donate again), I ask that you remove the left-wing propaganda aspects of your articles on facism, as you are doing nothing other than supporting and justifying the current violence against right-wing supporters. Otherwise I will wait until my permissions come through and attempt an edit on my own, to remove your biased assignment of facism to the right. Marbief13 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows its own policies of "Neutrality" and "No synthesis", which means that articles must reflect what the majority of experts say. While experts may be wrong, readers expect that what they read will resemble what they would find in textbooks. Whatever our personal beliefs on the matter, it would against policy for us to make your requested change. You would have to get policy changed first.

I am closing your request because you would need to get consensus for your change before asking for the change. You are free to open a new discussion thread however.

TFD (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

article is misleading

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5]"

however,

Fascism is a big government, totalitarian, economic, and political ideology that arose in early twentieth century Europe and came to dominate the social and political systems of Italy under Benito Mussolini and Germany under Adolf Hitler. Fascism was primarily statist in nature, relying on big government solutions and "crony capitalism", and openly hostile towards conventional religion. Fascism was influential in Portugal as well, and had followers in most European countries and in Argentina. The last regime that had some fascist elements, that of Francisco Franco in Spain, came to an end in 1975. Fascism was falsely considered "Far-Right" in politics, mostly due to Joseph Stalin denouncing Hitler and the National Socialists as "right-wing" after World War II, but it in reality was considered closer to the far-Left.[1][2]

1. http://www.regnery.com/books/the-big-lie/ 2. Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., New York Times Magazine, April 4, 1948. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.204.34 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than provide your own reasoned arguments you would need to show that expert opinion does not consider it to be on the far right. Certainly though there are statists on the right and anti-statists on the left, for example anarchists. TFD (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Adapt final sentence in first paragraph for accuracy

The sources provided for the right wing and oppositional claims refute them. According to our primary source "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" both found on the first page of Roger Griffin's book. These source quotes sit in direct contravention to the claims made in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the page. The secondary source also makes no affirmations to the "Right Wing" claim. On these grounds, I propose removal and editing to the sentence. Rocckker13 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"It's on p. 8 according to the citation. Your argument appears to be with his reasoning. Funny that you think because fascism opposed conservatism it cannot be right-wing, but don't worry about its opposition to Communists. The opposition was different too - the Conservatives were forced to merge into the Nazi Party, while Communists were killed or put in concentration camps.  :TFD (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

They aren't my thoughts, they are Roger Griffin's, they are two different quotes to address the inadequacies sentence and they were quoted verbatim. Page 8 discusses German sociologist Johann Plenge and his take on the newly forming National Socialism in Germany as well as the October Revolution of 1917 but makes no references to right/left wing or opposition to other systems of government. :Rocckker13 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Roger Griffin argues repeatedly that fascism is part of the right wing of European politics. see Griffin, Roger. "Revolution from the right: fascism." in Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (2000): 185-201. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Again Roger Griffin: "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." (Pg 2 of "Fascism.") "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence."(Pg 3 "Fascism") Further from Aristotle Kallis who is the author of the second sourced used to cite the claim "For Mosse, as later for Zeev Sternhell and Roger Eatwell, fascism’s appeal lay exactly in its ability to fuse highly disparate elements from both right and left, both revolutionary and authoritarian political traditions, into novel syncretic and convincing ideological hybrids." :::These are direct quotes from the authors used to cite the statement in question, either the sources are wrong and the statement should be all together removed or the statement is wrong should be flxed. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is denying, and the article does not attempt to hide, that some left wing ideas went into fascism or that some people came to fascism from the left. Certainly there were many people who were confused about where it lay in the run up to its heyday (and all that nonsense where they claimed to be "the third position" was designed to exploit this confusion) but we have coalesced around a consensus since 1945 with only a very few genuinely notable academics disagreeing that fascism is of the far right. This is enough to make us say "is usually placed" (emphasis mine) rather than "is placed" but does not justify more than that. Where I think you are making a really big mistake in reading the source is in failing to distinguish tactics from ideology. If Fascism adopted some tactics from Anarchism, for example, then that does not tell you that the ideologies were related, just that the same tactic worked for both. By analogy, consider that allied soldiers enthusiastically adopted the Jerrycan in WWII. That does not indicate that they had any affinity with Nazi ideology. They simply spotted an enemy innovation that worked well and adopted it without any ideological baggage. I think you are also failing to distinguish between when the sources talk about the perception of fascism in the run up to its heyday and the consensus post WWII.

So what can we do with this wording? I think we need to make two separate points.

1. That the post-WWII academic consensus puts Fascism on the far right. (Already covered in the article. Mentioned in the lead. Explored more under Definitions. Does not seem to need urgent improvement.)
2. That fascism pitched itself (with intentional dishonesty) variously as right, "third position" and maybe even left in the hope of gaining support from disparate people who had little in common (but maybe their gullibility). (Not mentioned in the lead but covered under Definitions. Does not seem to need urgent improvement.)

So, I'm not saying that it can't be improved at all but I am saying that I don't think there is much wrong with it as it is and that taking a reference to fascism being on the far right out of the lead section would be omitting a basic fact in such a perverse way as to discredit Wikipedia and to make one question the motivations of the omission.

On a personal note, let me say that, here in the UK, when I tell people that there are people constantly attempting to remove the description of fascism and Nazism as far right from Wikipedia their jaws drop and they ask me "Why are you arguing with neo-Nazis on Wikipeda?" I try to explain that this does not seem to be the case in most cases but they find it hard to understand that anybody other than somebody trying to whitewash fascism would do this. They are shocked that basic facts are now considered to be up for grabs to the extent that this is even being discussed. This is true even among people who are moderately right wing themselves. On the one hand it does no harm to take our long-held beliefs down off the shelf one in a while, dust them off and check them for cracks, but on the other hand it does show that this argument is deeply into fringe territory. Those who would argue against fascism being on the far right are arguing with the history books and the dictionaries. While many individual people may be doing this in confused good faith (e.g. a lot of the IP editors) the motivations behind this seem deeply suspect to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that some Americans who identify themselves with the American "right" (like the GOP) are actually libertarians strongly opposed to a powerful government. We all agree that fascism involved a very strong intrusive government. So these folks are indeed uncomfortable with fascism = right. The fascism we're dealing with is European, and in Europe and other countries like Australia & Japan libertarianism is called "Liberal" or "classical liberal". It's a famous switch in language that took place in USA in 1930s (New Deal took over the term "liberal" much to the annoyance of people like Herbert Hoover) but there was no switch in Europe. So the "right" in Europe includes neo-fascism, but the right in the US does not (I'm skipping over ALT-RIGHT in USA--I still think that it's a very small fringe.) Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I get why they are uncomfortable and I sympathise to some extent. I have seen people on the left wanting to reject Stalinism as an ideology of the left as they don't feel comfortable with that. That doesn't fly either. Feeling uncomfortable is no excuse to falsify history. The normal conservative right needs to understand that we are not having a dig at them and we need to take care not to give that impression. The far right is not about normal people at all. It is about extremists. After all, many of the greatest enemies of fascism were from the right too. Churchill and de Gaulle spring instantly to mind.

I am not entirely convinced by this language flip idea in the USA. I think the "alt-right" in the USA is proof that this effect on terminology is nowhere near as solid as is claimed (although I'm not dismissing it entirely). Anyway, Fascism is primarily of Europe so it makes sense to use European terminology (with appropriate explanations so that nobody else gets confused) when we talk about it.

My main concern with the language flip idea is that people are trying to flip it even further so that everything good is intrinsically defined as being right wing and hence left becomes all things bad. That is tactical language abuse for political ends akin to Orwell's Newspeak. For anybody who defines "right" (or "left", or pretty much anything else) as "sugar and spice and all things nice", understanding politics is going to be impossible and I fear that that is exactly what is intended. I'm afraid that we can't ignore that there is an element of deliberate bad faith in much of the editing that seeks to remove "far right" from this article and to insert "left" into the article on Nazism. That is revisionist propaganda and I fear that our "alt-right" friends are a few steps behind this even if most of the anonymous editors that they send us seem more likely to be people confused by them than people intentionally seeking to falsify articles. Let me be clear that I'm not having a dig at Rocckker13 here. I can't tell what any individual editor's intentions are, only what the wider phenomenon is. Besides, his behaviour is noticeably different from the army of anonymous editors I am talking about as he is actually looking at the sources. Misunderstanding them in some respects, maybe, but that is very different from the uncorroborated demands for incorrect changes that we normally get. Much as I disagree with him, I would not want him to think that I am telling him to shut up and go away. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing political about this. If a word's meaning has changed over the years that's more than acceptable, but the sources do not reflect that in the slightest. I have quoted the two sources used to support the claim a total of 6 different times now and only gotten one sourced rebuttal. Either the sources are wrong and should be changed or the statement is unfounded and should be better reflected by its source. I would like to add that the Marxism and Liberalism pages make no reference at all to right or left except Marxism in category section at the very bottom of its page. Though you may conclude those to be universal fact, Wikipedia lives and dies by a standard of neutrality. If this idea is so contentious either properly support or just remove it and let the article do the talking for itself. --Rocckker13 (talk) 3:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that having read the definitions placement on the spectrum section I think that they do an incredible job of addressing the complexities of the issue, something lost or glossed over in the introduction. It even has a larger and more complete Roger Griffin Quote: "Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence". Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence." If the term is colloquially spoken about in a particular way or even commonly done so we have sections that address that and do so at length. The initial blurb is incorrect considering the sourcing in one way or another and redundant considering these sections on the page. I think it should be removed, at no cost to the integrity of the page. --Rocckker13 (talk) 4:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

U.S. neo-Nazis and their allies are in the news right now (they are protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee) and the media routinely refer to them as "right-wing." They even call themselves "Unite the Right." They support the right-wing U.S. president Donald Trump and oppose what they call the Left. No reliable sources call them leftists or centrists or moderates. If you don't like that, take it up with the news media, and once you are successful, return to this page. TFD (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This has absolutely no bearing on the conversation at large. Not only does it not address any of the points that have been made by anyone thus far, but it betrays an agenda in you that has not been exhibited by anyone else in this section of the talk page. I should not need to talk about bias, and have not done so until now. Either refute the points made by me or support them, but do so in a way that addresses their content rather than some tangent about the news media and current events. Rocckker13 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On Roger Griffin -- his interpretation of fascism is controversial and has not been widely accepted by the RS. However he repeatedly calls fascism right wing--his 1991 The Nature of Fascism is part of the "Themes in right-wing ideology and politics series." "In his most recent work, Modernism and Fascism (2007), [Griffen] the professor at Oxford Brookes University exposes how right-wing radicalism was not so much the conservative reflex against the consequences of modernity but a revolutionary modernist project." for more see https://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA4 Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Roger Griffin was the first cited source for the statement, I bring him up because not only was his quote on oppositional governmental structures to Fascism misrepresented, but that the work cited, which was published in 1995 states that Fascism's placement on a left-right spectrum is contentious at best and that the academic consensus is that it pulled from both left and right ideas. That portion of the quote which is fully quoted paragraphs up is as follows: "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." and dated at 1995 superseding your 1991 find. Further, I have a blog post from Roger Griffin himself in 2010 saying: "To repeat (since Goldberg perversely writes as if it is not the case): the core of the partial new consensus that has emerged since 1991 (partly, but only partly, as a result of my work in this field) is not that fascism was mainly right wing or left wing, but that it was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’." -this is a direct response to another piece of literature covering fascism and the totality of the blog can be found here, (http://roger-griffin.blogspot.com/2010/01/review-liberal-fascism.html). Further, the second quote you reference is sourced from and E-News letter entitled Ku Leuven which can be found verbatim here: (https://www.kuleuven.be/english/newsletter/newsflash/roger_griffin.html) though I am not outright discrediting the source of the quote I question how it in any contravenes what I or Roger have previously posited about Fascism. Finally the book you presented by George Michael references Roger Griffin's work to support their point, but never quotes from it. Much like the references that have been made here to the titles of Griffin's books this is a shallow connection at best, his larger body of work speaks to the contrary of the points made in this book. Additionally George Michael is not sourced once in the 250+ sources used in this article, let alone as the citation for the statement we are talking about. Rocckker13 (talk) 2:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Right-wing isn't an ideology, it merely means opposition to the Left, of which fascists were the most extreme example. TFD (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is simply false, go read any of the paragraphs or quotes I've posted, or even the article which refutes this statement. Further, what is this statement even in reference to? Nobody is talking about right-wing as an ideology, just a misrepresentation of a source and a sentence which could be improved. This is the second time you have posted a tangent that neither grapples with the content of anyone's argument nor has any sourcing of its own. I want to end up with a consensus somewhere, but to forgo any part of anyone's argument and post unrelated blurbs is distracting and unhelpful. Rocckker13 (talk) 3:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What's false? TFD (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Fascism is not the direct polar antithesis to the left nor is it the most extreme end for right wing politics. It is a conglomerate system that assimilates tenements of both to achieve its own ends. As I posted yesterday here are two direct quotes from Roger Griffin, the man cited 21 times in this article and specifically for the sentence in contention, you could scroll to the top of this section or read any of what has been posted so far to have seen these quotes: "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy". Again from Griffin and my third paragraph, "Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." and "Fascism is also significantly influenced by anarchism on the far-left - particularly the originally anarchist Mikhail Bakunin's concept of propaganda of the deed advocating action as the primary motivation and means of politics - including revolutionary violence." As stated, these have been posted before, if you have sourced or founded rebuttals to any of the points I have made over the past day I ask that you make them known, in any other case I urge you to read the conversation that has been going on before commenting. Rocckker13 (talk) 4:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

the wiki statement is " fascism is usually placed on the far-right" and that includes Roger Griffin. see R. Griffin (2008). A Fascist Century: Essays by Roger Griffin. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 202. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

From the very same book, "Like Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, and millions of other demobilized soldiers after 1918 - many of whom were to become, like the first three, revolutionary nationalists forming the spine of most interwar fascist movements - little attention was paid to whether the intellectual currency of these new ideas had derived from the 'left' or 'right'. Largely on this account (but also due to the rhetoric of many fascist ideologues), it has been frequently noted that fascist movements attempted to forge a 'third way' between communism and liberalism; one touted as a more spiritual alternative to these competing, supposedly materialistic ideological systems" describing the engineering of fascism again, "Once the full implications of seeing fascism’s definitional core as a belief in ‘national and/or racial revolution’ are grasped, the question of fascism’s evolution after 1945 changes radically. In particular, the issue of how fascism ‘naturally’ manifests itself as a political and historical entity takes on a dimension not readily perceived on the basis of ideal types constructed exclusively through a study of the extreme right in inter-war Europe, such as Ernst Nolte’s ‘metapolitical’ definition, James Gregor’s ‘developmental dictatorship’ model, Ze’ev Sternhell’s concept of a fusion of anti-Marxist socialism and tribal nationalism which made it ‘neither right, nor left’, or Wolfgang Wippermann’s ‘real type’ based on Italian Fascism. The key to this reassessment of twentieth- century fascist ideology lies in the realisation of just how historically contingent the Fascist and Nazi forms of fascism were, even if these continue to exert such a powerful influence on historical memory and imagination." describing fascism's modern evolution something not able to be perceived exclusively through a study of extreme right but rather an amalgam type which is further expounded upon here "Instead the new consensus stresses that a leap of ‘idealising abstraction’ is necessary to select significant generic attributes from the welter of empirical ‘facts’ on the phenomena characterising Nazism and Fascism. Ze’ev Sternhell expressed this with great lucidity in his groundbreaking analysis of French fascism, Ni droite, ni gauche (‘neither Right nor Left’): It falls to the researcher to extract the common denominator, the fascist ‘minimum’ which is shared not only by different movements and ideologies which claim to be fascist, but also those which reject the adjective but nevertheless belong to the same family." These are all examples from your chosen literature that expand the issue past right or left wing and do not even take into account the author's 2010 quote formally stating that his work is commonly misrepresented and addressing that which I posted as a response to your previous source.

Regardless, the full statement in the article is "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." which closely resembles these two statements from the cited source "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" and "There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." but misrepresents the content of them. If the sources are wrong they should be removed and if they are correct they need to be reflected properly or the statement removed. Rocckker13 (talk) 6:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The text is supported when Griffin says "Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right" it says COMMONLY not ALWAYS. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this has come round again. The lead is meant to summarise. The statement that fascism is "usually" regarded as a phenomenon of the right in mainstream political classification is an accurate summary of what most serious writers, including Griffin, say, as shown above. The fact that some fringe commentators (and yes, a few serious academics too) want to rewrite those standards or challenge that orthodoxy is not really relevant. Indeed, most acknowledge that is exactly what they are trying to do when they do it. N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Griffin is a professor that has spent his career on this subject in some degree or another, are we just going to forgo the second half of that statement where he more evenly puts "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." The full 3 sentence quote in the primer of the sourced literature paints a different picture than what is currently being expressed in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I am in no way attempting to challenge the ideas of right-wing fascism, it exists and should be represented but is more thoroughly in a later part of the article. Not only is this portion of the quote misrepresented but Griffin came back in 2010 (his latest quote on the subject to date) to clarify after another writer named Goldberg attempted to paint fascism as a problem common to the left wing: "To repeat (since Goldberg perversely writes as if it is not the case): the core of the partial new consensus that has emerged since 1991 (partly, but only partly, as a result of my work in this field) is not that fascism was mainly right wing or left wing, but that it was and remains a revolutionary form of racism/nationalism, one whose sworn enemies include Soviet communism, pluralist liberal democracy and the multi-cultural, multi-faith society celebrated by ‘progressive liberals’." both are wrong interpretations and misrepresent his work in his own words, and this is only the evidence against the "commonly right wing" part of the claim. The claim in question is this "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." which very closely resembles this quote from the primer of the text "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy" but does so in a way that misrepresents its content by omitting data. Instead of making appeals to ambiguous authority to support your claims I'd much prefer if we had a discussion about the cited and sourced literature. As when I started this, I propose just quoting directly from the source, or removing the sentence entirely as it is covered in better detail in the definition and placement on the spectrum sections. Rocckker13 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You are quoting a book review and providing an interpretation not in the text. The book review is really only helpful as a source for Goldberg's book, and you need to read Griffin's writings about fascism. For example in a 2012 article he repeatly refers to fascism as right wing and refers to Nazism, which he considers a form of fascism, as "the most virulent European right in history to date."[1] The statement that fascism drew from left and right is true and is true of all right-wing groups. For example, Donald Trump has a picture of Andrew Jackson in his office whom he admires as a populist. TFD (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I started by quoting his 1995 book Fascism verbatim offering no more interpretation than Roger Griffin provides with his own words. I only provided Griffin's review of Goldberg's book to highlight Griffin's more thorough and modern representation of his thoughts, particularly in response to a piece of literature that to Griffin's dismay, paints fascism as a commonly left wing issue. The texts were included in their initial postings above and can be read for full effect. I've read Griffin's works, if you read any number of the paragraphs above you can see that I have quoted from them exhaustively. At no point was there any interpreting being done. As for your new 2012 source the full quotation is included here "Finally, a victim of the most virulent European right in history to date, the Auschwitz survivor and witness Primo Levi warned:

'A new fascism, with its trail of intolerance, of abuse, and of servitude, can be born outside our country and imported into it, walking on tiptoe and calling itself by other names, or it can loose itself from without with such violence that it routs all defenses. At that point, wise counsel no longer serves, and one must find the strength to resist. Even in this contingency, the memory of what happened in the heart of Europe, not very long ago, can serve as a warning and support.'" In which Griffin quotes an Auschwitz survivor as one of 4 quotes that he considers "testimonies to the need for scholars never to grow complacent in their understanding of what fascism was and is." the section and article culminates in this: "If liberal academics left and right can overcome their tendency to confuse a narrow obsession with defending their ‘patch’ with individualism and originality, then we can work collaboratively to learn from each other in the investigation of illiberalism in all its old and new forms as a constantly evolving, mutating challenge to human rights and dignity. Collectively and cumulatively we may then produce, instead of futile family squabbles, not only knowledge but understanding, not just strengthening liberal academia but liberal society. For as Kafka reminds us: ‘Only in the choir may there be a certain element of truth.’" A statement further supporting his misrepresentation in the sentence we are talking about. Further, in a 2012 piece from Griffin entitled 'Modernity, Modernism, and Fascism. A "Mazeway Resynthesis" Griffin speaks at some length about modernism's torrid ties to Fascism and historians common characterization of it as right leaning and hesitance to consider it left: (Speaking first of Nietzsche's "The Will to Power") 'This socially transformative mode of modernism which acts as a “countermovement” to modernity construed as decadence—the central theme of Nietzsche’s entire oeuvre—we propose to call “programmatic.” It is this revolutionary permutation driven by the quest for an alternative modernity that was the subject of the catalogue to the exhibition on modernist design held in London in the spring of 2006. Its organizer, Christopher Wilk, characterized modernism as “a loose collection of ideas ” covering a range of movements and styles in many countries, especially those flourishing in key cities in Germany and Holland, as well as in Paris, Prague, and, later, New York. He goes on:All these sites were stages for an espousal of the new and, often an equally vociferous rejection of history and tradition; a utopian desire to create a better world, to reinvent the world from scratch; an almost messianic belief in the power and potential of the machine and industrial technology. [ . . . ] All these principles were frequently combined with social and political beliefs (largely left-leaning) which held that art and design could, and should, transform society. Given the axiomatic assumption of modernism’s predominantly left-wing orientation articulated by Wilk, it is little wonder that fascist modernism was conspicuously underrepresented in the exhibition he organized when compared to its Bolshevik counterpart. In contrast, my article can be seen as an attempt to persuade cultural and political historians to treat fascism not as an oxymoron to be resolved or an aberration to be explained, but as a full-fledged, internally consistent variant of programmatic modernism. In doing so it aims to counteract the persistent reluctance to recognize in fascism a sustained drive towards an alternative modernity and towards a revolutionary futurity. This reluctance is epitomized in Wilk’s allusion to “largely left-leaning” beliefs in the prospect of social transformation. It is a preconception that in the past has misled historians to treat right-wing modernism, or even right-wing modernity, as deviations from the “true” path of human progress and emancipation."

I am again not arguing that fascism cannot be right wing only that by Griffin's own admission, the scholarly consensus sits that it is a transcendent system. More so to the point, the last sentence in the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article misrepresents the content of its cited source on two counts, and either needs to be taken out or fixed. Rocckker13 (talk) 5:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

incomplete definition omits origins (of central & southeast Europe)

the opening paragraph doesn't include the national socialistic aspects of fascism (??) ... it's misleading saying that it has only far right characteristics, when the socialistic aspects are widely regarded as left. the sentence below would be more accurately written as the following:

Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is either placed on the far-left due to national socialism that characterized the fascist regimes in central and southeastern Europe or the far-right in southwestern Europe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikuser2 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not actually quoting Myra Moss--she is providing the introduction to “The Origins and Development of the Fascist Right in Germany". that is she places german fascism on the right. The "socialism" in "National Socialism" is the right wing version that means national control of society, which is what they did in Italy and Germany. Rjensen (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I read the citation and she does not say National Socialism was left-wing or that anyone else did. TFD (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Fascism has always been considered a "left wing" philosophy because it involves oppressive government controls on industry and commerce, (similar to socialism). The oppression of opposing views and the restriction of free speech also put Fascism heavily in the "left wing" category. Fascism is the antithesis of conservatism. 2602:301:7735:14E0:2123:8E13:BF3C:E7C (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fascism is not on the right side of the spectrum as citations 4 and 5 state.

This book explains how Fascism is on the left side of the spectrum and not the right.

Goldberg, J. (2009). Liberal fascism: the secret history of the American left, from Mussolini to the politics of change. New York: Broadway Books.