Talk:Left-wing fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

felt it important to greatly revise this article

I'm a first-time contributor to Wiki and felt it important to greatly revise this article, because, in its previous incarnation, it reduced the term "left-wing fascism" to an epithet. In fact the term is widely used in a literature, some from the left and some from the right, that is critical of absolutist a tendencies in some movements that identify themselves with the Left. The term is properly an epithet only if it lumps large segments of the left together as "fascist." OTherwise, it's a useful term. Old Marxist-inspired hard distinctions between Left and Right do not--the users of this term assert--hold up in recent history; to automatically deny the possibility of a Left Fascism is, so to speak, reactionary response to new ideas; the denial simply serves to squash debate. Memorist1 71.186.235.148 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Putin

[1] "Soviet-style propaganda and a personality cult for Putin are only two of the signs that Russia is edging towards fascism." "To prevent a similar group being established in Russia, Putin created his own youth movement “Nashi”. The official line was that this group were supposed to counter the rise of fascism, in the National Boshevik party. However, it soon became apparent that Nashi’s true function was as a personality cult for Putin whose job was intimidate, bully and harass his opponents. " [2] "To Kasparov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime is tantamount to "fascism."" [3] etc. Collect (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Per WP guidelines, please do not remove the NPOV tag without a full and clear consensus to do so. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• That was an accident. You're welcome!Spylab (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes on logical fallacy regarding the argument against the phrase, "Left-wing fascism."

Several public encyclopedias & dictionaries appropriate - from the Left - American "Fascism" to groups - on the Right - deemed as Fascistic in their social or economic strategies & structures. Yet, there is no official "Fascist American Movement" other than among small groups of mentally ill people who don't know history. The Fact is that "Right & Left" paradigms among the sane & literate can only attribute Fascist patterns accurately, to Statists.

Enlightenment principles, "on the other hand" do not have "Left" & "Right" factions. "Hughes and other would-be democratizers fail to recognize that the Enlightenment project that spawned modern liberal democracies sought to keep certain questions about the transcendent out of the public sphere. To keep the social peace and allow various visions of the human to flourish along side of one another, questions about the ultimate meaning and destiny of humanity were deemed to be private concerns." - http://reason.com/news/show/133074.html

Therefore, if one wants to "abolish" or "prevent" phrases of the "Left" Statist, one will also have to "abolish" or "prevent" critical classifications of, say, the Bush regime, for example. The free encyclopedia, audaciously states, "from an academic standpoint, the phrase, Left-wing Fascism is meaningless, as there is no official movement called 'Left-wing Fascism." ...try telling that to Mussolini. Take out his use of the term "Fascist" & Mussolini sounds like a contemporary American Democrat running on the standard modern day platform.

One cannot have it both ways. If the Left wants to call Fascists for what they are, ie., Corporative... one will find the reality of this self same process on the so-called "Left" as on the so-called "Right", It is undeniable. Both practice the same pattern of Mussolini's definition of Corporatism. The interest groups involved do not magically make one group immune from the classification.

Proceed to define the phrase, "Left-wing Fascism" with the many sources available. And deal with the facts of it. There is compelling documentation headed up by the Brits on the Marxist & Leftist origins of the Nazi party. I hate to break the bad news to Lefties. Best to keep in mind, "Lefty loosey, Righty tighty."

Pre-partisan Enlightenment principles do not discriminate when it comes down to Absolutists. Right wrongs don't make a right. But, they often make a Left. etc. Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Paradigms & Perspective in Summation

Requesting the attention to the most recent deletion. This requires unbiased well studied contributing scholars to consider the most recent deletion and discussion on keeping the substance of the segment regarding summation, context and "pre-partisan" perspectives on the left/right splits of 'fascism.' Unbiased perspective here is not only constructive but important considering so serious a term as 'fascism', regardless of the "direction" (left/right) the word is pointing. The explanation: "deleted new section that didn't even mention 'Left-wing fascism' " is insufficient reason to obliterate the entire section & disregards potential merits of the contribution. If the term was wanting and a contributor wanted to make the addition of the detail in question, that may have been a contructive edit. Obliterating an entire paragraph with specific explanation given appears to be a hostile dismissal of the well referenced contribution.

We would all appreciate and be best served by contructive consideration from the best & brightest political atheists on this one. Thanks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-wing_fascism&diff=288139959&oldid=288119997

Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I went ahead and changed the entire entry. As noted in the article, the term was originally used by anti-authoritarian leftists, rather than conservatives, to distinguish their own views from elements on the "left" that advocated the use of force and/or supported socialism via centralized and undemocratic institutions.

I realize that the paragraph dealing with the conservative critics uses the "weasel" passive voice in the way I criticized earlier. But I know the statement is true -- just have no examples off-hand. I'll change it in the near future, when I can provide the examples.

The concluding paragraph seems to violate guidelines concerning POV: but I think the statements are fair, accurate, and easily defensible. The ideology "left-fascism" has never been fully delineated in any books or scholarly journal articles. The link provided attempts to point out similarities between modern, left-wing thought and with Mussolini's fascism: okay, but that's not the same as describing an ideology called "left-fascism." Pointing out similarities between the circumference of the Earth and the circumference of Mars does not mean that they are the same. Frankly, I found the article to be poorly argued, though I suppose that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Unlike the term "neoconservative," which is also used as a pejorative, there are no self-described adherents of "left-fascism." It can be argued that "fascism" does not represent a clearly defined ideology -- the Italian 'fascists' essentially started out as a group of street thugs --, and that many "fascists" (i.e., the Nazis) did not describe themselves as such. Nevertheless, much has been written on the ideology of "fascist" political thought, often by credible historians and political philosophers, and "fascism" did begin as an actual political movement in an actual place at an actual point in time.

As to the state/corporate/capitalism crap, this is all irrelevant and/or has no meaning. The idea that the New Deal was "fascist" is absolute hogwash: if anything, it was mildly Keynsian. That is all. It would be like suggesting that Eisenhower was a Nazi for building the first interstates -- on the grounds that Hitler and the Nazis were the first to do so.

Both in Italy and Nazi Germany, fascism started out as a quasi-populist movement and so embraced quasi-socialist platforms early on. Recall that the workers' movement had made terms like "socialist" perfectly acceptable in places like Italy and Germany. Both embraced elements of economic populism in their original platforms, though the Nazis jettisoned much of it while consolidating their political power. Within Nazism, there were "left/socialist" critics of capitalism (e.g., Joseph Goebbels) as well as staunch supporters of capitalism (e.g., Hermann Goering). The Nazis, like the Bolsheviks (and, I suspect, Mussolini), banned all independent unions, prohibited the strike, and spied extensively on factory workers: not what one would expect from a committed socialist. Meanwhile, the SS had a special branch of "honorary members" who had donated more than $100,000 Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party: usually opportunistic businessmen seeking government contracts. Similarly, the Nazis relied extensively on German corporations such as IG Farben in building and implementing their gas chambers and crematoriums.

Fascism really has nothing to do with economics. - Joe Pythag3 —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 26 March 2005‎

"Fascism really has nothing to do with economics." This may be a strange statement. Although, Economics is the study of human interaction. Do you mean that the ideology is hostile to Economics? If so, then your statement definitely holds water & can be well referenced. I removed my previous misreads for the time being. Thanks. Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a POV fork

This article is a POV fork from the article Fascism to make claims about left-wing associations with fascism. This article should be deleted.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at AfD discussions in the past - this article is about a specific term found in reliable sources. By the way, attempts to include discussion of "left wing fascism" in the fascism article were rebuffed by some who also wished this article to go away. This article is now almost seven years old, so "fork" it is not. Collect (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First line is misleading

Left wing fascism isnt used when the left is contradictory, its used to describe the actual left when they use fascists forms. Also, left wing fascism denotes the left wing of fascist movements such as the syndicalists of Fascist Italy and socialists of Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.195.157 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable references to back up your claims?Spylab (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More example should be included

Female Nationalism (Feminazi) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi Black Nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism Eco Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism Queer Nationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_nationalism Liberal Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism As well as religious fascism Anti-Christian Nationalism Anti-Jewish Nationalism Secular Fascism Islamo Fascism

User: Dunnbrian9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.148 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

All of which are pejorative terms. They do not constitute reference-grade examples.Flanker235 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is arrant nonsense because it uses the "fascism as insult" version as a basis, rather than an accurate definition. Where are the references to the basics of fascism such as ultra-nationalism, racism, eugenics and state unity under a single leader? These are core values and used any other way, the term is meaningless. I suspect the article was written to satisfy some winger's wet dream of absolving themselves of any association with dictatorial, totalitarian regimes, irrespective of policy. It's a cheap shot at best and not of referential quality, regardless of the quoted sources. The only example I can think of of a left wing fascist state is the former DDR. The vast majority have been right wing so the article is misleading on that score alone. It should be deleted.Flanker235 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This topic should be rename as "Left-Wing Racism"

Instead of naming this topic "left-wing fascism”, this page should be rename as "left-wing racism". Please note that "fascism" is far right movement which is incompatible with left-wing politics and I do find there are several leftist movements which are totally anti-Semitic and racist especially in black supremacist movement and Pan-African Movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear unsigned. Personal opinions (as in what you "know") are not how WP is edited. See WP:V Collect (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion. It is the epithet("left-wing fascism") that lead this article inaccurately and just because it was written by some author or experts doesn't mean the name itself was objective. "Left-wing Fascism" is just one those rhetoric but i'm not denying that there are racism within the far left movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find the epithet itself contradicting given that it came from both opposing ideologies, unfortunately there are author like Jonah Goldberg who would use the fascism as parallel to left wing politics and american liberals.(refer to the book Liberal Fascism). And the "Fascist" ideology itself does not have to include rascism and anti-semitism in their ultra-nationalist ideology. Francisco Franco Bahamonde the fascist of spain, Chiang Kai Shek the right wing Nationalist dictator of China, Ferdinand Marcos of Phillipines, Augusto Pinochet the right wing military dictator of chile were not racist but "anti-liberal" and "anti-leftist". And I'm not denying there are racism and antisemitism in left-wing politics.

The article exists because several writers have used the term, although justification for the article is borderline. It refers to ostensibly left-wing groups that have far right ideology and tactics, like the Bologna railway bombers. Most writers called them neo-fascists and there is evidence that their attacks were supported by the CIA as part of Operation Gladio. A modern example is National Anarchism, a far right movement that claims to be anarchist. The concept has nothing to do with Jonah Goldberg's theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari and other neo-fascist movement have their label known as "left-wing fascist".The article exist because of some of some writers gave people the impression of contradicting ideology that existed as one. The article is trying to imply that there are racism, anti-semitism and intolerance in several left-wing groups which is acceptable but the name of the article itself is the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is here because it meets WP:RS and WP:V. WP does not use its editors' opinions as a means for determining what articles exist. Horowitz refers to "right wing communism" as well. Collect (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can read Horowitz's article about the subject here: [4]. The most obvious example of this description is the Larouche movement. Whether or not his arguments make sense or whether this concept has received adequate acceptance to justify an article is debatable. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case can we include the criticism section of the term "itself"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The quote you added to the criticism section is about the term "liberal fascism", not "left-wing fascism". Liberalism is actually centrist, not left-wing and the sources would be aware of this distinction. If you want to improve the article may I suggest that you read the sources and ensure that they are accurately reflected in the article, and any criticism is directed to the sources that use the term. If you believe there is inadequate information to justify this article then nominate it for deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The centrist you were refering to was "classical liberalism" not the modern "american liberal" who turn to the "left". Both Gary Kohl and Jonah Goldberg was refering to american liberal on the political left that was labeled as left-wing fascist known as liberal fascist and this article can be related to jonah goldberg book(Liberal Fascism). The source written by Gary G. Kohl refer to fascism as "right wing ideology" not "left-wing". The criticsm on this topic should include Eric Alterman, David Neiwert and Michael Tomasky.--yin and yang 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Americans use the terms left and right to describe their political spectrum but this usage is unique to them. The writers are using the term left-wing to mean socialist, communist, anarchist or syndicalist. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That Horowitz article is rubbish. He gives absolutely no clues as to terms of reference. He just rabbits on using fascism as a pejorative term. On what basis does he call any person or group "fascist"? What is is a fascist in the context of the article? The salient point of so many articles about fascism is that they are written by people so hung up on the term as an insult that they have neglected to find out what it actually is. Wikipedia is no place for that sort of dogma.Flanker235 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No Examples

It would be helpful if there were more examples of the groups to which the term refers. Irving Louis Horowitz gave Larouche's group as an example. Also, it would be interesting to know how widely the term is used and whether it is generally accepted by academics. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

With an editor on Fascism editing here, and then citing this article <g> I question NPOV. Collect (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mate lets not forget about the vast amount of left-wing fascists that have appropriated absolute power in their nations, for example; Joseph Stalin and Saloth Sar, examples would exponentially increase the usefulness of this article. I am not able to do so as I am only 15 and dont know much but please some one please make a list of examples. Ulyanov322 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mate, let's have a look beyond the conventional view of fascism and examine it in a scholarly manner before we start applying labels. Stalin was not a fascist. Totalitarian/authoritarian, yes, but not fascist. This is not an attempt to excuse him: in many ways he was every bit as bad or worse. However, if you're going to be judgemental, you need to establish your metrics, otherwise it is just a personal prejudice. Flanker235 (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

This use of the term "fascism" is in a pejorative sense, this article is very biased, should be deleted for being a POV fork

Fascism is about radical, authoritarian nationalism, while fascism may be intolerant and oppressive, this article's claim that fascism=intolerance, fascism=oppression is completely wrong, this article should be deleted as a POV fork.--R-41 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think an article could be here -- the problem, as we have discussed, is that "fascism" insofar at it is authoritarian nationalism is not particularly suited to placement on a "left-right" line ... heck it might be perpendicular to that line, as far as I can tell. And the "core tenets" problem also occurs here. Collect (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R-41. There is no discussion of how any of this could be fascist in the literal sense and an awful lot of "fascist as insult" derivatives. I ask yet again: what are the metrics for deciding whether a government or person is fascist? Subjugation of the public is one, ultra-nationalism is another. Dictatorships, national unity, militarism, constant state of war, eugenics... none of these things have been discussed. The article should be deleted. Flanker235 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Is this article really relevant? I mean it just seems to be biased and written by someone trying to pin fascism as a left wing ideology based on their own personal politics. It should honestly just be deleted. 174.114.231.69 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It represents material as presented in reliable sources under WP policies and guidelines. It does not aver that fascism qua fascism is a "left wing ideology." It does deal with certain phenomena found in some left wing groups which closely mirror fascism. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources are reliable. Not one of them establishes any metrics for judgement. There are a lot of vague innuendoes and nothing specific.Flanker235 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I dared a partial rewrite and restructuring

Acknowledging that:

• the article has been much debated,
• it has been nominated for deletion three times and finally recognised as a valid Wikipedia entry,
• it has undergone some recent fluctuations,
  

I nevertheless ventured an expansion and restructuring, respecting the material contained in the most recent revision. Namely, I:

• included almost synonimous term liberal fascism
• added some introductory text, hinting that the term lacks any scientific precision and is used by most authors as an ad-hoc label (much in the vein of Humpty Dumpty saying "the words mean what I chose them to mean"),
• recognising that usage is rather sporadic and context-dependent (pre WWII, in the Anni di piombo, Europe, GB & USA),
• that slander is an important type of political discourse in which the terms are used. (Only important examples of slander should though be included in the article, of course.)

I intend to review some recent deletions by anonymous editors and reintroduce any valuable material. MGTom (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The terms left-wing fascism and liberal fascism are not almost synonymous, therefore I replaced the content about "liberal fascism" with a link to a Wikipedia article about the book with that title. I also deleted other content that wasn't about the topic of this article. Additionally, I deleted unnecessary extra headings that made the page reader-unfriendly.Spylab (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Information from the Italian Fascist policy program nullifies left-wing fascism claim, it declares that fascism is right-wing, thus these article should be deleted

"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." Source: Benito Mussolini. Fascism: doctrine and institutions. Rome, Italy: Ardita Publishers, 1935. Pp. 26. This statement from the major Italian Fascist policy program known as The Doctrine of Fascism demonstrates that fascism is right-wing, nullifying the left-wing fascism argument. Thus this article should be deleted.--R-41 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So you believe that this article should be deleted because Mussolini stated in 1935 that fascism can only be practised by those on the right of the political spectrum? Drawing such a broad conclusion from a single statement made over 75 years ago is a little unreasonable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC))

The Italian Fascist party was the creator of fascism. It being the original fascism, its statement of fascism being right-wing is highly prevalent to material on this article. It is not a broad conclusion to state this given it is a direct quote from an official Italian Fascist political program endorsed by Mussolini, just as it wouldn't be a broad conclusion to mention a quote from the Communist Manifesto where Marx denounces other forms of socialism on an issue about communism and socialism in general.--R-41 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies evolve and change overtime as they are adopted and manipulated by others to explain or justify certain actions and beliefs (see: Fascism and ideology). Your argument - that Mussolini's statement 75 years ago should be the sole decider of who can and can't practice fascist principles and tendencies from then until the end of time - isn't very compelling.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

Mussolini's granddaughter led the neo-fascist political party called the Italian Social Movement–National Right (Movimento Sociale Italiano–Destra Nazionale, MSI–DN). So Italian fascists continue to associate with the political right.--R-41 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• This article should be improved, not deleted. The article never claims that fascism is left-wing. The article doesn't even argue that left-wing fascism is an actual ideology or movement. The article explains that the term left-wing fascism has been used by some writers to describe certain tendencies in politics. The article never claims that those writers are correct in their usage of that term. The article should be fleshed out more so it's more clear about what the term is about.Spylab (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why should these page be called "Left-wing fascism"? It seems that a number of the writers are using it only as an epithet. The only name for this article that could justify such material is one titled "Claims of fascism being left-wing" that includes rebukes of the claim. But seriously, to me this article appears to be a POV-fork from the issue of fascism's position in the political spectrum addressed on the Fascism article--R-41 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article, you would see that "Left-wing fasicsm" is not considered to be an ideology itself, but rather is a term used by some to refer to views expressed or actions committed by those on the left of the political spectrum that closely (or exactly) resemble those practiced by fasicsts, such as Anti-semitism. In other words, the term refers to leftists who effectively engage in the same practices as an ideology (fascism) that they condemn. Now, whether this analogy is right or wrong is open to debate. If you want to add material to this article to support your view that the term is being used improperly, feel free too.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

The title of the article implies that left-wing fascism exists as an ideology. For instance, would it be acceptable to have an article called "Purple penguin" because a few people claimed that some penguins looked purple or purplish but are not actually purple?--R-41 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not the term Left-Wing Fascism meets Wikipedia's requirements for Notability and Reliable Sources. As the article shows, and as has been repeatedly argued on this talk page, Left-Wing Fascism does meet these guidelines. With regards to "Purple pengiun", I am not familar with this term. However, if you believe that this term meets Wikipedia's standards for Notability and Reliable sources (although I suspect it does not), then you are free to create a page for it. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC))

(Chilltherevolutionist (talk) It might be reasonable to include some reference to sources which claim that Fascism cannot be left-wing, or is a right-wing ideology. (Mussolini's statement could be one of these) There also should be more examples of things which have been called "Left-wing Fascism". As it is now the article is mostly based on the opinion of Horowitz, and his particular use of the term. I personally think the concept is bunk, but one could bring up examples of more anti-capitalist trends within fascism, such as Strasserism or "National Bolshevism". Mussolini's history in the Socialist Party could even be mentioned, which might actually balance well with the source at the start of this discussion. e.g. "Some Fascists such as Mussolini had a history on the political left, but Mussolini himself claimed that Fascism was a right-wing ideology". The claims of many fascist movements to be "neither left nor right" could also be references. — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Left-fascism in Italy

No mention of left-fascism in early Italy?

I'm quite sure that this page used to list characters like Olivetti that represented a more Sorelian, socialist strain of fascism in the early days of Italian fascism, as spoken of in Zeev Sternhell's book. This entire article seems to have become remoulded on nothing but the pejorative term, and ignores the right-left dichotomy in early Italian fascism. Why was this information deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:DC5A:4FF5:BC7D:C522 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A pity

...the link here from Social justice warrior was removed. Felt very relevant. Equinox ◑ 00:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Artcle needs to be deleted

This article assumes fascism is inherently right wing, when it is inherently Third Position in nature. However, the original author didn't understand that Communism is also considered Third Position, thus they mistakenly considered violent communism as fascism to my understanding. Communism and feminism are both left wing, but that doesn't make Communism feminism, in the same way that fascism and communism are both Third Position it doesn't make communism fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShimonChai (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Third Position article sees things rather differently and I'm pretty sure that you are every bit as confused as the people you are trying to correct but that's not the point here. This article is about there being an idea of something called "left wing fascism", which is a notable idea that people have written books about. It doesn't matter that the idea itself is stupid. As an encyclopaedia we aim to cover all notable topics, even the stupid ones, in a neutral and accurate way. If nothing else it means that anybody who wants to know what this stuff is about can look it up here and think "Oh. Right. That's stupid." or "Oh. So that's where that stupid idea came from." and then move on with their life. The article almost certainly is not going to be deleted but if you want to send it to AfD you can. The details are here: WP:AfD (overview) and WP:GAFD (process). --DanielRigal (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Request Deletion

Fascism is a lot more then just "authoritarian nationalism" and it is unequivocally right-wing (although I understand that in the US left/right have vastly different meanings then they do in much of the rest world so perhaps this is where the confusion comes from). This article should have been deleted a lot time ago. Its a series of straw men emanating from a fringe so-called "republican" website frontpagemag whose purpose is spreading rubbish about "muslims(except the exceptional "good" ones)=nazis" and polemics about how horrible the "left" is (which in this twisted worldview includes a vast number of individuals and groups that are obviously not left-wing). Fascism is a specific political philosophy and historical movement not a series of negative attributes such as "absolutism, intolerance, irrationality, terrorism, and anti-Semitism." This is like comic book fascism with one eyed spectacle villains with dark "evil" aspirations. So called "Islamism" or "Jihadism" are not "fascist" and "totalitarian" and are never left-wing and whoevers "unwillingness to confront the actual history of communism" doesn't make you a fascist either. I dont have access to Irving Horowitzs book but Richard Wolin uses the term "left fascism" to denote supposed intellectual tendencies fetishising anti-enlightenment philosophies and Bernard-Henri Levy doesnt even use the word but writes "red fascism" which is a pejorative term to attack authoritarian strands of leftism (although i would argue that Levy and his liberal associates are much more authoritarian then most of the groups they attack) but doesnt argue that these strands are fascist but rather accuses them of sharing the latters authoritarian tendencies. This article doesn't convey any information or cite any "left wing fascists." its basically being used here for some childish namecalling by individuals who don't know anything about fascism and given that its been this way since at least 2004 I doubt it going to ever improve. -an (and on a side note Juergen Habermas used the term to attack stalinist groups from the far-left whereas here its being used to attack some general grouping called the "left" by right leaning individuals, taking away whatever meaning the former implied.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.169.211 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that reliable sources disagree with you, and WP uses them instead of individual editorial opinions when making articles. See the WP policies regarding articles, and also the articles on proper usage of article talk pages, which are intended for improving articles and not for long essays. Collect (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Horowitz's article "Left-wing Fascism":
http://www.google.com/books?id=Au_Ktn22RxEC&pg=PA209&dq=%22left-wing+fascism%22
Here's a link to Bale's article on "'Left-wing' Fascism":
http://www.google.com/books?id=kne26UnE1wQC&pg=PA267&dq=%22left-wing+fascism%22+bale
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used):
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html
The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists, e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
Here's a link to Richard Wolin's chapter on "Left Fascism":
http://www.google.com/books?id=4H4BeyiYBuEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Seduction+of+Unreason:+The+Intellectual+Romance+with+Fascism+:+from+Nietzsche+to+Postmodernism#PPA153,M1
I don't know if the term is sufficiently widely used to merit its own article. The article as it is written is poor and confusing.
The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article meets WP:N, and WP:V, it does not, apparently, meet your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See my notes on "No POV tag." One cannot have it both ways. If the Left wants to call Fascists for what they are, ie., Corporative... one will find the reality of this self same process on the so-called "Left" as on the so-called "Right". It is undeniable. Both practice the same pattern of Mussolini's definition of Corporatism. The interest groups involved do not magically make one group immune from the classification. If one wants to assess the patterns of the Bush regime, for example, based on its patterns of Corporatism, one will easily find ample targets throughout the entire Statist spectrum. Wiki truth enlighten (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Corporatism is not unique to fascism. You might as well call it "political". As a criticism it has no value. Flanker235 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am here responding to the above "unsigned comment added by 68.34.169.211 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)" As the one who wrote a good part of the article being discussed, I certainly disagree that it should be deleted. Here are my answers to this commentator of 27 March 2009. First this article certainly does not emanate from Front Page magazine, but from the articles that I cited and primarily Levy, who does use "red fascism" and other synonymous entertaining terms like "Zombie Left." The citation at the very bottom to an article in Front Page magazine is not put in by me, though I don't object to it. Second, the article clearly is about "tendencies on the left" not about all of the left, and does not lump in, for example, conventional American Liberalism. It is certainly not an attempt to insult the Left as a whole but to point out disturbing and contradictory tendencies in it. Third, you suggest that Fascism is a specific social movement and not well captured by the few adjectives I used. You are wrong to be so certain about the nature of fascism. Work by Roger Griffin, for example, one of the most respected commentators, asserts that fascism does have generic characteristics. So it is fair, though objectionable to you, to point out that some features generically found in fascism are also tendencies on the Left. Fourth, you also suggest that the article should be deleted because people don't identify themselves as being left-fascists. This is bad reasoning. An ecyclopedia ought to have articles that identify disturbing trends. No ne identifies themselves as genocide provokers, but does that mean Wiki should have no article about genocide? No one nowadays identifies themselves as absolutists, yet there is an entry on it. Some of the contemporary Left is indeed taking disturbing new directions, in which it blames all human problems on mysterious and evil global forces, and wants to overturn the world capitalism, and destroy the fiendish groups associated with it. Some of the anti-Empire movement does indeed have left-fascist features, including its targeting of "enemies of humanity." If you eliminate the present article, you are censoring one small facet of the discussion. This comment submitted by memorist1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.31.173 (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is of no use to call for deletion of articles which are unpleasant or unfavorable to one's own political position. Criticism must be tolerated. The concept of left wing fascism was not invented by right wingers, but by people like Ignazio Silone in Italy, Jürgen Habermas and Kurt Schumacher in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C70:C030:F5BA:E1D1:F7F8:AE9B (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Title format

Since this article is about terms (words or phrases associated with a concept), the title and and any subsequent mentions of the terms as terms should be in italics per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Word soup

The article indicates "left-wing fascism" has a specific meaning but weasel words its way around actually defining that meaning, just referencing people who have described others this way.

The article also links to "ultraleftism" which suffers from similar problems, although it at least clarifies that the term has been used to describe two distinct groups.

This seems very low-quality for a typical Wikipedia article. Although I probably disagree with whoever is using the term, I don't think the article should be deleted outright, but it should require an actual specific definition (or multiple definitions) if it is meant to stay.

2001:16B8:18D6:F100:A58B:F506:339C:15BA (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Lenin and "left-wing fascism"

"The term has its origins with criticism by Vladimir Lenin of the threat of anti-Marxist ultraleftism"; really? I have some doubts - when fascism becomes a significant political movement, Lenin was already almost invalid; he really wrote or said anything about left-wing fascism?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this for now until / unless someone can come up with a source. A quick Google search, at least, didn't turn up anything, and I agree that the timeline makes it dubious. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism is an oxymoron

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism

But Donald Trump is now using the term too and that should be mentioned in this article.

  Donald Trump says US 'under siege from far-left fascism' in Mount Rushmore speech – video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/jul/04/donald-trump-says-us-under-siege-from-far-left-fascism-in-mount-rushmore-speech-video

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It survived three AfDs a decade ago. But many of the keep votes have since grown up, been blocked or gone to the great Fox News audience in the sky. If you want, go ahead and nominate it for deletion. TFD (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump, and word salad

Reasons to include his word salad:

1. He's the President, and he said some words.
2. //The sound of crickets//

Reasons not to include his word salad:

1. There is no rationale for inclusion. He doesn't have a clue what he is on about, and the articles cited actually say as much (and there are significantly more RS saying that he is effectively just using it as a pejorative). This is not a political discourse, nor an attempt at defining a political position, it is a campaign rally speech intended to fire up a base (per the sources). It is hyperbolic, much like his subsequent Rose Garden "press conference" where he accused Biden of wanting to ban windows. That does not mean we go onto the wikipedia article about Window or Air Conditioning and mention Trumps talking points like they are some kind of professed wisdom about how all offices in the future will be either too warm or too cold. It's a basic case of WP:UNDUE, and in the case of this article was such a significant chunk of the article that WP:WEIGHT was a major problem.
2. What was included was badly composed. It neither explained why it was relevant, nor any criticism of his statements, nor any support for his statements. In effect we took a PRIMARY source of Trump himself, and then used a few other sources to repeat his words verbatim with a couple of vague references to who he may or may not have been talking about. Speculating who and what he is talking about is neither encyclopedic, nor supported by the sources which spend a lot more time criticising what he was doing, and framing his words against the backdrop of his failing campaign and plummeting poll numbers.
3. There is no indication what he said was right or accurate. In effect, the inclusion is little more than a personal conspiracy theory held by those on the right to attack those on the left (or actually, in most cases to attack those firmly in the middle). We do not take Trumps words as fact that his call with Zelensky was "perfect". So why are we reporting him here unchallenged?

How such content might be included:

1. A discussion in reliable sources clearly outlining attempts by an authoritarian autocrat to frame his enemies in the worst possible light, and broader political exploitation of the pejorative oxymoron by similar political leaders seeking to exploit the tactics of First Red Scare / Red Scare where a new article or sections relating to such growing attempts by one man to smear his political opponents has begun. Koncorde (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The article claims that the term was coined to characterize nominally leftist regimes in South America which were nationalist and authoritarian in nature, and used shortly later to criticize left-wing terrorism and violent forms of protest in Europe. Is Trump even talking about the same thing or is he attempting to reinvent the term? Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think he's just echoing the claims that fascism is left-wing - he's just copying what the fringe right is saying. It doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Trump says thing" is news, permanently (though it should not be). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We do not have to reflect every half-baked thing he says. Guy (help!) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)