DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Fascism

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác



Staudenmaier on fascism

[edit]
This is going nowhere and too much time is being wasted because of one editor who is very much in the minority. I’d rather not have to impose any sanctions. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since there's been some reverting around this, the Staudenmeier source does indeed support fascism being far-right. I assume the perceived ambiguity comes from the sentence: Usually regarded as a right-wing phenomenon, fascism has also borrowed significantly from the left. On its own, this might be an arguable point; it does support the idea that fascism is at least usually regarded as right-wing, even as it acknowledges influence from the left (which is of course not incompatible with fascism being far-right in itself), but it is perhaps not the most wholehearted support in isolation. But later sentences make the support much more absolute: After the defeat of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, fascist movements continued to nurture philosophies inherited from Mussolini and Hitler while isolated at the extreme right of the political spectrum and Neo-fascist organizations and other far-right groups maintained ideological continuity with their predecessors in part through a renewed emphasis on ecological politics. It's pretty clear that Staudenmaier considers fascism far-right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRT that first part, Lipset's work comes to mind. He categorized fascism as the extremism of the middle class. This is in contrast to the working class, which had communism, and the bourgeois, who had monarchism. Lipset doesn't really allow for any kind of left-wing fascism during his discussion of peronism in "Fascism", Left, Right and Center, but he does discuss how peronism was influenced by the left (Lipset doesn't consider peronism a form of fascism, and it's implied that's because of those left-wing influences). I've come across a few other mentions of fascism borrowing from leftist politics, though not enough to really be inspired to write a new section. It might warrant a sentence or two, at best. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Lipset, when he discussed the left-right axis, did say that totalitarianism was the extremism of the right, and he acknowledges that fascism is a form of totalitarianism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times before and the consensus in reliable sources is that fascism was right-wing. It carried out the policies of the historically right-wing parties while sometimes using anti-elitist rhetoric. The extreme right today btw continues anti-elitist rhetoric and appeals to working people, but no one is arguing that Trump, Boris Johnson or Marine LePen are leftists. TFD (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Trump should be classified as 'extreme right' is in itself debatable. He's obviously not some kind of Nazi or Fascist. Liberty5000 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't a fascist, but like them he is perceived to be to the right of the traditional parties' leadership, in this case George W. Bush, McCain and Romney. OTOH, some of his policies could be seen as left-wing, such as ostensibly opposing the elites and speaking for the working man. My point is that copying some left-wing rhetoric does not mean someone is a leftist. TFD (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your own personal opinion it does not make them a leftist. Wikipedia goes by what the sources say. If the sources say that employing left wing rhetoric makes someone a leftist then that is what Wikipedia should say. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you follow your own advice and accept what sources say instead of presenting your opinions. The source says that fascism was right-wing but had left-wing influences. You interpret that to mean it was not right-wing.
The argument you are presenting has been brought forth by many editors in the past, but no serious sources support it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
«Whether Trump should be classified as 'extreme right' is in itself debatable. He's obviously not some kind of Nazi or Fascist.» => Is there a logical link between those 2 sentences? Are you saying that nazism and/or fascism is extreme right? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
«Whether Trump should be classified as 'extreme right' is in itself debatable. He's obviously not some kind of Nazi or Fascist.» => Donald Trump's political ideas are clearly far-right and have been called fascist by historian of fascism Robert Paxton in https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a long time (too long honestly for how much good it did) reading academic experts on the Trump-fascism question. Please note that my reading was looking only at peer-reviewed writing and academic books, not at interviews with academics in newspapers as a limitation. There are two main academic camps presently.
  1. Trump is a fascist.
  2. Trump is a non-fascist far-right figure and that the debate over whether to label him a fascist is problematic in that it occludes the horrible things he is doing and is effectively rhetorical chaff.
During Trump's first term the second camp was the stronger one. During his second term the first camp has been the stronger one. There is a very small vocal minority of (almost entirely) conservative academics who subscribe to neither of these views but even some conservatives have been inching toward camp 1 during his second term.
Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, BLP requires a lot more scrutiny than other areas and the American newsmedia has grossly misrepresented the debate so we are not good on the Trump-fascism question. But Wikipedia library is very clear to those with the patience and stomach to read a whole lot of material about the American far-right. With that being said, for a discussion of whether fascism is right wing (it is, obviously, as any even half-well-read person on the topic can easily attest), the Trump-fascism question is an irrelevancy. Frankly it doesn't matter to us on this page whether Trump is a fascist until such time as we add Trumpism as a form of fascism. Nor was it the topic of this thread which is instead whether Staudenmeier describes fascism as far-right. I am not as famliar with him as I am with other academics in fascism and the far-right (nobody can read everybody) but I am familiar enough with the topic to know that the general consensus is to treat fascism as far-right. Issues of left-syncretism are well detailed in histories like Against the Fascist Creep that describe how fascists borrow from other ideologies and that situate fascist syncretism within right-wing movements. I would suggest we should be focusing on the well-established academic consensus on fascism rather than focusing on the occasional outlier who tries to muddy the water. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I started this section about the recent reverts by Liberty 5000 to remove Staudenmaier as a source for fascism being right-wing, claiming that Staudenmaier doesn't support that statement. I really don't think we need to re-litigate the question of whether fascism as a whole is far right or not, there are plenty of sources for that--and certainly no need to try to figure out whatever Trump has going on--but just to push back against the removal of that one source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my response to you was a tangent. I approve of your revert, find Liberty's claim in the edit summary ridiculously ill-informed, and was discussing a tangent based on your rather good summary of the nuance in Staudenmaier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should at least mention that Fascism borrows significantly from the left. Otherwise we are misrepresenting what the source actually says. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except, we aren't. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Liberty5000 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I made clear above, there is not a ton of coverage of fascism borrowing ideas from the left. Enough for "a sentence or two" is how I phrased it, and that was being generous. The most coverage I've seen was on the leftist influence on Peronism, which the author (Lipset) categorically did not consider to be definitely fascism, but a different beast entirely, albeit one with a strong resemblance to fascism. Outside of Lipset, I'm not aware of any coverage other than passing mentions by, for example, Arendt.
To say that we're 'misrepresenting' sources because we're not covering one of the least-covered (because it's so insubstantial) aspects of the topic is, ironically, a gross misrepresentation of what's actually happening here.
Now, if you have proposed text (no more than a sentence or two, obviously), I, for one, am willing to discuss how best to implement it into the article. But if you merely intend to complain and/or weaken our language on how fascism is categorically a form of right-wing politics, then you should probably go find another article to edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources say that fascism is categorically right wing? Liberty5000 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this so many times. Please read WP:SEALION. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There´s no reason to accuse me of being a bad faith editor just because I happen to disagree with you. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stop this endless repetitious and unproductive argumentation. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told multiple times that the consensus is that fascism is a far-right ideology, this has been brought up again and again by users who are usually libertarians (from your user name I guess that maybe why you name the word "Liberty" in it) who believe that right-wing politics equals the pursuit of liberty with limited government, this is not so and the article Right-wing politics shows that such is not the case. But I don't want to start a debate about this because this is ultimately about reliable sources and in the end of every one of these discussions on this talk page about it the same result has occurred, and that is the recognition that it is a far-right ideology. I advise you to follow this: WP:DROPTHESTICK. BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, not some guy's opinion. DROPTHESTICK is not a policy or guideline. I have read some of the old debates about this issue and from what I can remember the users who object to Fascism being right wing are usually simply banned from Wikipedia. I don't remember seeing anyone acknowledge that Fascism is right wing if they had earlier rejected it. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources for the content in the article that say that fascism is far-right. Are you saying that the multiple discussions on this issue of whether fascism is right-wing that have all ended with the same conclusion have all ended this way because of some conspiracy by leftist users against users who don't see fascism as right-wing? I imagine that those who have been blocked or banned have aggressively pushed their view that fascism is not right-wing and instead left-wing without providing reliable sources. BlueberryA96 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were banned or blocked (mostly) because they were unable to follow policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DROPTHESTICK is not a policy, but valuable advice on how to comply with our policies. If you ignore it, then you, too, are likely to be blocked from editing, just like all the others whom you've acknowledged were pushing for the same content you are pushing for.
The specific policies which the content you are arguing for here are in violation of are Neutral Point of View and Verifiability.
Believe it or not, everyone in this thread pushing back against you is trying to help you. We don't want you to be blocked from editing, we want you to become a productive member of this community. But in order to do that, you must be willing to learn, which means changing your mind about things you are wrong about. And you are wrong to believe that fascism is not a fundamentally right-wing political system. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether or not Fascism is right wing I can tell you this: I´ll believe it when I see it. Seeing is believing. But my personal opinion doesn´t matter. All that matters, from Wikipedia´s point of view, is what the sources say. So let´s get back to trying to improve the article. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
«Regarding whether or not Fascism is right wing I can tell you this: I´ll believe it when I see it. Seeing is believing.» => Got it. Here 5 pictures showing that fascism is right wing:
Case closed? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether or not Fascism is right wing I can tell you this: I´ll believe it when I see it. Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since BlueberryA96 mentioned libertarians and in case this help Liberty5000 to understand and stop asking: If you think that
  • if government then communism
  • communism is when government
then indeed nazi Germany was a communist country; as was Ronald Reagan USA, Margaret Thatcher UK, Augusto Pinochet Chile, and every country since the dawn of civilization (except maybe Revolutionary Catalonia). But most of people do not want to use the word «communist» as synonym of «civilized», on the contrary many people think that communism is barbarism, thus they do not use this definition of «communism». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we add while borrowing significantly from the left after the following sentence: fascism is at the far right of the traditional left–right spectrum. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't stop on your own, an admin can be found to stop you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is certainly not going to 'stop' me. Admins follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. They are not your personal thugs. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please find a source that says that fascism borrows significantly from the left and present it for review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that is literally what Staudenmaier says, as I quoted in the original post of this section. However, if--and that's a big if--we want to include this in the article, the lead is not the correct place to do it. Th lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, so if we say "borrows significantly from the left" in the lead, the reader should expect us to expand and contextualize that statement in the rest of the article. But our article doesn't do that, and as noted above, there isn't enough in the RSes to actually write enough to do so. And we cannot give appropriate context to that statement if it's on its own in the lead. So, no, while Staudenmaier does technically say that, it's not enough to include it so prominently in the lead of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I assumed they must have other sources if they expected this to end up in the lead and in wiki-voice. Staudenmaier may be due a sentence. In the body. With attribution. But Staudenmaier, alone, is grossly insufficient for wiki-voice statements anywhere in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something against Staudenmaier as a source, in particular? Liberty5000 (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hererodox opinions of single scholars are rarely due for the lead. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity's sake, immediately after Staudenmeyer says that it 'borrows significantly from the left', he mentions populism. The entire rest of the description of fascism in that source consists of either right-wing or non-polar elements (nationalism, authoritarianism, territorial expansion, militarism, etc.).
There is no detailed examination of what or how fascism borrows from the left, no clarification of what is meant by 'significantly', nothing. It is simply mentioned in passing when defining 'fascism'. Even if Staudenmeyer were our primary source for defining fascism, whether or not to mention this part would be debatable. And of course, we are using numerous sources to define it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liberty5000 is really not correctly representing Staudenmaier. Staudenmaier is in line with the consensus that fascism is in fact far-right, and his use currently is as part of a group of sources showing this consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. I was pointing out that Staudenmeyer's mention of fascism borrowing from the left is a passing mention, not a tenet of the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation that I am misrepresenting Staudenmaier is completely false. Staudenmaier does not support the claim that fascism is far right without any caveats or qualifications. You can read the source yourself if you don't believe me. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an economic system, fascism occupies an ambiguous territory between traditional capitalist mechanisms and the attempt to supersede them in a totalitarian new order. The emergence of fascist movements is itself a response to the crises and contradictions endemic to capitalism. An unsteady alliance with existing elites is generally necessary for fascists to come to power, and the first priority of new fascist regimes has frequently been the destruction of working class institutions and an onslaught against the left. Once power has been consolidated, effective control over major economic decisions is commonly transferred to the organs of the fascist party, which become nearly indistinguishable from the state. Fascism seeks to resolve the contradictions of capitalism by imposing a false solidarity and an illusory unity on the fractured lives of people who may have little to gain from established political and economic arrangements. This is from a few paragraphs after the "borrow from the left" line which you have cherry-picked. It describes, in significant detail, how Fascism aligns with industrial elites and undermines workers movements. This is, you know, right-wing stuff and in the sphere of class struggle specifically which is kind of important to leftists. I would suggest you would be better served by reading the article rather than keyword searching it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire article months ago. I am not quite sure what you are trying to prove with this wall of text. He doesn't call Fascism right wing anywhere in it. Are you trying to say that he doesn't ´really´ think that Fascism borrows significantly from the left? Writ Keeper has quoted text which shows that he views neo-fascists as far right and he also strongly implies that he views fascism in general as far right, though he doesn´t explicitly say so. As for the class struggle being important to leftists, it is simply your own opinion. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the class struggle being important to leftists, it is simply your own opinion. This is so phenomenally ignorant a statement that it can really only be explained by either bad faith on your part or gross incompetence to edit in political topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am divided between just ignoring the class struggle remark or burying Liberty5000 with refs to leftist writing about class struggle and its centrality. It's literally the central mobilizing principle of Socialism. Later developments like intersectionality are derived from work on class struggle. I'm going to go with ignoring them for WP:NOTFORUM reasons. They have made it very clear they don't have a strong grounding in left wing political economy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read this thread, and thought it might be helpful to mention that in the absence of a WP:RS, it would, at least from my admittedly inexperienced perspective, fall under WP:UNDUE, would it not? GothGoat4 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not having an RS means we can't add it at all. Even if we cited it to the Staudenmeyer source, it would fail WP:V, as Liberty5000 is cherry picking a passing mention of left-wing influences in order to falsely imply that Staudenmeyer claims that Fascism is not on the far right of the political spectrum. Anyone who reads Studenmeyer will know that is not his contention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely false. I have said that Staudenmaier doesn´t support the claim that fascism is far right without any caveats or qualifications. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Staudenmaier does not support the claim that fascism is far right without any caveats or qualifications. You said that on October 17; this is cherry-picking a single line out of an extensive paper that does not support that position. This is the claim that you are making about this source that is cherry picking. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it doesn´t support that position. I would strongly disagree with that assessment. Whether you agree with him or not, it is clearly his view that Fascism borrows significantly from the left. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something can borrow significantly from the left while still being far right. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Staudenmaier clearly understands that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think we're done here. Nobody except for L5000 seems to have an issue with how this article interprets and weights this source. WP:1AM applies. Let's not keep beating this dead horse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing against a straw man. Staudenmaier does not support the claim that fascism is far right without any caveats or qualifications. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've misrepresented sources, your own claims and what others have told you. You've been told to drop the stick by multiple editors. Yet here you are, still making a disruption on this page in order to push a view that is categorically rejected by experts. Please explain to me why I shouldn't ask an uninvolved admin to stop you, since you seem incapable of stopping on your own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Priority tasks before GA-Review

[edit]

So, I am trying to drive this article towards being able to be submitted for GA-Review. Of the maintenance tags I’ve identified.

Citation needed for:

  1. Futurism was both an artistic-cultural movement and initially a political movement in Italy led by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (1876-1944) who wrote the Manifesto of Futurism (1908), that championed the causes of modernism, action, and political violence as necessary elements of politics while denouncing liberalism and parliamentary politics. - done
  2. With the antagonism between anti-interventionist Marxists and pro-interventionist fascists complete by the end of the war, the two sides became irreconcilable.
  3. Territories promised to Italy by the Treaty of London (1915): Trentino-Alto Adige, the Julian March and Dalmatia (tan) and the Snežnik Plateau area (green). - done
  4. However, after World War I, while Italy annexed the capital city Zara of Dalmatia the rest of Dalmatia was not assigned to Italy but to Yugoslavia
  5. The signing of the Lateran Treaty, Mussolini shown on the right side of the photograph. - done
  6. Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Gömbös (left), leader of the Unity Party of Hungary, meeting with Mussolini (right) in 1936.
  7. Fascist movements grew in strength elsewhere in Europe. Hungarian fascist Gyula Gömbös rose to power as Prime Minister of Hungary in 1932 and attempted to entrench his Unity Party throughout the country.
  8. Map of World War II in Europe from 1941-1942 when the Axis Powers was at the height of its power in Europe with Nazi Germany holding domination over a large portion of Europe under military occupation and Fascist Italy dominating the Adriatic Sea coast and Greece under military occupation.
  9. In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, both Mussolini and Hitler pursued territorial expansionist and interventionist foreign policy agendas from the 1930s through the 1940s culminating in World War II.
  10. From 1935 to 1939, Germany and Italy escalated their demands for territorial claims and greater influence in world affairs. Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 resulting in its condemnation by the League of Nations and its widespread diplomatic isolation.
  11. In 1943, after Italy faced multiple military failures, the complete reliance and subordination of Italy to Germany, the Allied invasion of Italy and the corresponding international humiliation, Mussolini was removed as head of government and arrested on the order of King Victor Emmanuel III, who proceeded to dismantle the Fascist state and declared Italy's switching of allegiance to the Allied side.
  12. Giorgio Almirante, leader of the Italian Social Movement from 1969 to 1987 - done
  13. Mussolini adopted this view in his description of the proletarian character. preceding sentence: From 1914, Enrico Corradini developed the idea of "proletarian nations", defining proletarian as being one and the same with producers, a productivist perspective that associated all people deemed productive, including entrepreneurs, technicians, workers and soldiers as being proletarian.[307][308][309]
  14. In Italy, the Mussolini regime created the Direzione Generale per la Cinematografi to encourage film studios to glorify fascism. - done
  15. Fascism's extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifest as a belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or discrimination against a demonized "Other", such as Jews, homosexuals, transgender people, ethnic minorities, or immigrants. - done
  16. Before World War II, the West had not taken seriously the threat of fascism, and anti-fascism was sometimes associated with communism. However, the outbreak of World War II greatly changed Western perceptions, and fascism was seen as an existential threat by not only the communist Soviet Union but also by the liberal-democratic United States and United Kingdom.

Page needed for the following citations:

  1. Copsey, Nigel (2008). Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the Quest for Legitimacy (second ed.). London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-230-57437-3.
  2. Griffiths, Richard (2000). An Intelligent Person's Guide to Fascism. Duckworth. ISBN 978-0-7156-2918-5 – via Internet Archive.
  3. Paxton, Robert O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (First ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-1-4000-4094-0.
  4. Wistrich, Robert (October 1976). "Leon Trotsky's Theory of Fascism". Journal of Contemporary History. 11 (4). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing: 157–184. doi:10.1177/002200947601100409. JSTOR 260195. S2CID 140420352.
  5. Conway III, Lucian Gideon; Zubrod, Alivia; Chan, Linus; McFarland, James D.; Van de Vliert, Evert (8 February 2023). "Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?". Frontiers in Psychology. 13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1041391. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 9944136. PMID 36846476.
  6. Seidman, Michael (20 December 2020). "The Rise of Counterrevolutionary Anti-Fascism in the United States from the Munich Conference to the Fall of France". Dictatorships & Democracies: 37–68. doi:10.7238/dd.v0i7.3163

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest keeping an eye out for chances to trim. There's no GA criteria related to overall length, but the lengthiness of the article suggests that it may be "going into unnecessary detail". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers I understand that the article does really need trimming, but I'm not confident in my ability to make the call of what needs to be trimmed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for a potential ref:
  • Lyons, Matthew N. (2008). "Two Ways of Looking at Fascism". Socialism and Democracy. 22 (2): 121–156. doi:10.1080/08854300802083331.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would Socialism and Democracy be classified as a reliable source? Liberty5000 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what you mean? Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Socialism and Democracy, then it's highly questionable, given that journal's status. The Norwegian Scientific Index doesn't consider it an academic journal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's iffy but I think I would want to adjudicate it at the level of a specific article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NSI rating is from post-2014, and considering the journal was and is published by Routledge, it may be usable. This was more a note to myself to give the article a proper read later to see if it had any use, particularly in how Communists/Marxists viewed fascism as a threat. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for clarifying. I'd missed the bibliographical note before. Hazard of reading on my phone. I had a look at the paper in question and I think that source is something I would adjudicate as usable. This is particularly because Matthew N. Lyons is an appropriate subject matter expert and this was published with peer review. Norway's ratings seem less significant in the context of this specific paper. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a pair of citations culled from the Futurism article to the first one. I already struck it through in the list, feel free to revert if you don't appreciate your comment being edited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another source, replacing a {{cn}} tag. The first sentence in that caption was trivial to source back to the treaty itself (a primary source, but since the claim is about what the treaty says and it's easy to confirm...), but the second sentence, while repeated multiple places on wiki, is either unsourced, sourced somewhere I couldn't find it, or buried in a later citation to a book I don't have access to in order to confirm it. We might need to just trim that one, and possibly prune the claim from the rest of the wiki. At the very least, if anyone finds a source, they should search for that exact sentence on-wiki and add the source to everywhere else it appears. Seriously, I found that exact sentence in multiple places, and never once did it have a citation at the end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just struck another item off the list per an edit I made the other day. Per my edit summary: it's in the photo description and can be found in the original sources, as well. This one, I'll understand if someone objects. It's not sourced in this article, though it is a rather well-known image, and clearly shows the same scene as an even better known image of the same event. I'm not entirely sure how to establish the accuracy of a photo's description beyond leaving it up to the original source, however. Does anyone think we should add a cite pointing back to that? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism / MAGA

[edit]

I agree in principle with Rangooner's edit adding mention of Trumpism as a form of fascism. However I would say the sources need work before going live. Democracy Now, for instance, is a low-quality source that we should avoid for strong claims. I did provide some viable, recent, peer reviewed sources at Talk:Neo-fascism recently that might be helpful. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it maybe wp:undue. This is not a universal opinion, and may need far too much space to give it the kind of depth it would need to discuss the differing opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's a lot of academic WP:BESTSOURCE material on this. I opposed mention on Neo-fascism because most of the academic references do not include the neo- prefix. But we can't keep burying our heads in the sand over an increasingly obvious academic consensus just because the political class might not like it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2020, Vox contacted a group of experts on fascism for their view, with most rejecting the comparison but expressing concern about Trump's authoritarian and violent tendencies, including historians Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne. So I am unsure there is a consensus he is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material I referenced is mostly from after 2020. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also peer-reviewed material are better for identifying academic consensus than a survey interview conducted by Vox. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This diff provides the academic sources I most recently reviewed on this topic. [1] Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's really outdated and irrelevant, though. The situation has obviously changed drastically since then. If you have more info about the arguments those experts make, there is likely contradictory findings as of recent. The current consensus from scholars seems to be that Trump/Trumpism is fascist. Rangooner (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's also not universal opinion that the Earth is round, in fairness. We should defer to scholars who are experts on such topics to form a consensus. That being said, all recent research and statements from scholars who study fascism indicates that Trump is fascist. Unless recent, up-to-date findings contradict this are made, there appears to be an academic consensus that Trump/Trumpism is fascist/proto-fascist/neo-fascist. Rangooner (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For sources, the journal articles used in Donald Trump and fascism will be a good place to look for supporting references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look for articles claiming that Trump is a Fascist, you'll find them, but that does not mean any of them are taken seriously. In his first 100 days, Hitler suspended the legislature and ruled by decree, shut down opposition publications, arrested dozens of opposition deputies, shot dozens of political opponents and opened concentration camps for political enemies. Some people tell us it's gonna happen, just wait and see, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. TFD (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like I agree with such an assessment and lean towards inclusion, and so I highlight an article where a lot of legwork has already been done in providing scholarly works discussing the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add your thoughts to the RfC we've opened below! Rangooner (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we really need to insist on relying on what scholars who specialize on the study of fascism and fascist regimes regard as fascism and less on accusations of fascism. If we go by what political partisans accuse their opponents of being then much space will be taken up in the article of all the "might be fascist" political figures and movements in the world. I would prefer it if the modern history section of this article would focus more on current neo-fascist movements, like for instance CasaPound in Italy or the National Democratic Party of Germany (recently renamed to The Homeland).BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, and scholars who study fascism and fascist regimes are consistently saying that Trumpism is a fascist ideology. Should the running list of resources from such scholars be added here? Rangooner (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier by BlueberryA96, I think we can form a consensus based on recent research from scholars who study fascism or similar topics specifically, as it is unwise to give weight to research from previous years that is now outdated, or the opinions of his loyalists, allies, and following. Given the absence of up-to-date research challenging the consistent findings of scholars and experts on fascism, it seems most appropriate to include Trump and Trumpism in this page. While the "debate" of this contentious topic still exists amongst the public (with objections coming only from Trump and his loyalists/allies/supporters at this point), it does not appear to be debated amongst scholars on the topic of fascism any longer, as they are now consistently describing Trump/Trumpism as fascist (or proto-fascist/neo-fascist) in nature in recent months given recent actions from Trump and his loyalists that have been found to be fascist in nature. Please advise on where recent research or statements from scholars who study fascism should be collected before adding this content to the page. Rangooner (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to see Contentious Topics invoked to limit this discussion on "Trumpism/MAGA as Fascism", and related editing of this article. In particular, limiting the discussion to extended-confirmed editors. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree. Scrapping the Democracy Now source and sticking to scholarly sources makes more sense. Rangooner (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Simonm223, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could add your thoughts to the RfC below, which was created as a result of this discussion. Thank you! Rangooner (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on the content dispute either way, but I just want to point out that this topic already has a primary article: Donald Trump and fascism. Whatever we say here in this article, should be a very short summary of that article. And that article, right now, says that there is a debate, not that there is consensus among scholars. If a consensus has developed in recent months, it should be mentioned at Donald Trump and fascism first, before anywhere else. Hcganir (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this discussion should be referenced on that talk page. I'll start a discussion on the topic there if one does not already exist. Rangooner (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Also, we should watch out for wp:recentism. Any scholarly consensus established just a few months ago can easily get un-established in another few months, as scholars change their minds on current events, or as current events themselves change. This is why it's usually good to wait for at least a few years after a thing is over, before we say anything in strong language about that thing. Hcganir (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts about what to do on this page are to post a very short section that simply contains a main article link and a paragraph explaining that there is a debate, and that debate used to lean towards 'not fascist but with similarities' and has been leaning more and more 'yes fascist' in recent months. Recentism is certainly a concern, but we shouldn't forget that we can always update article contents as new information comes out.
Personally, I suspect that the momentum of the debate towards 'yes fascist' will be maintained, not reversed, but that is not to say that I think we are within our remit to say or even imply such in the article. We should be clear that the shift of balance in the debate is quite recent, and should not imply that this momentum is a permanent thing. But I also feel that is quite doable, in plain language. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think this discussion will be going away anytime soon given ongoing actions from Trump and his cabinet of loyalists that raise alarms to those educated on fascism. Rangooner (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait, we are not a newpaper. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for what, exactly? Rangooner (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a wide consensus of scholarship to conclude that Trump and MAGA is fascist. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That already exists. Rangooner (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'd point to the work I've done about this question both at Talk:Neo-fascism and Talk:Donald Trump and Fascism where I demonstrated we're here already. I'll provide specific links momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the time-series I ran on articles discussing Trump and fascism: [2] And Trump + fascism peer-review bibliography: [3] Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that work, Simon. I'm going through some of those sources now, and I feel like I might be changing my view about the history of the scholarship here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the content I formerly had written here for reference with ample reliable sources included:
A growing number of political scientists, historians, journalists, and former officials increasingly characterize Trumpism, or the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement under Donald Trump, as exhibiting fascist, neo-fascist, or proto-fascist traits.[1] Observers point to actions such as consolidation of executive power, using federal regulatory agencies to pressure media outlets, and threatening censorship.[2] Rangooner (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find recent research on the contrary to the consistent findings as of late, there already appears to be a consensus from scholars on the subject of fascism as of recently. Rangooner (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I did not expect that. Give me a minute to read those full comments. This does look like a consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this has been a bit of a frustration for me this whole year. I've read so much scholarship about Trump / MAGA / Trumpism and fascism and it's really clear that the academic consensus is that these phenomena are fascist phenomena. But people still act like there's no consensus because Roger Griffin gave an interview once in 2018 or something. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add your thoughts on the RfC we've opened on this page! Rangooner (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging this, hence my frustration for inclusion of such content being consistently removed (especially when the additions of made to articles only state "this is what scholars on the subject are saying" rather than "trump is a fascist, period"). Rangooner (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can also move quickly: We are not historians. We are an encyclopedia. What is is as much a part of our focus as what was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add your thoughts to the RfC we've added below! Rangooner (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would need an RFC. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note many (majority all? (I have not checked)) do not say "is fascist" but "heading towards fascism", which is not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wording can be easily remedied. "Many academics claim Trump is fascist or that the US is heading towards fascism under his leadership" or something of the like. Rangooner (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note it seems that expecting a bunch of academics to write the exact sentence you want before admitting an academic consensus exists seems like nothing much more than a stalling tactic to maintain a non-neutral status quo that does not accurately reflect the academic consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. The academic consensus will not be reflected here whatsoever if we opt to omit content regarding this topic until we have every scholar on the topic saying "Donald Trump is a fascist" rather than considering the consistent themes in their findings, ie scholars consistently find as of late that Trump's politics are fascist, proto-fascist, neo-fascist in nature, or that he is leading the US into fascism, for example. Rangooner (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources have been provided for that. Indeed a number of (mostly) liberal journalists and academics who are not experts in Fascism have claimed Trump is Fascist, but published their findings in the academic press. In the past, we saw the same thing with US conservatives and libertarians who would cite books and articles critical of liberals. Jordan Peterson for example was a political scientist at the U of T, where coincidentally Jason Stanley now teaches, claims that Cultural Marxism actually exists. TFD (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is dishonest and/or uninformed. There is no evidence that these scholars on fascism labeling Trump as fascist are liberal. I highly suggest you visit WP:NPOV. Scholars and experts on fascism are consistently identifying Trumpism as a fascist movement. Just because you personally disagree with their findings does not mean the subject should not be included on this page, especially given that they are the experts and you are not. Furthermore, we've asked you multiple times to cite even a single recent reliable source claiming that Trumpism is not a fascist movement, and you have only deflected from the subject and continued to make baseless arguments without any evidence for your claims. Rangooner (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say "they are saying this" yes, they have to have said it. THere is no consensus they are fascist, there may be one for saying they are heading towards it. WP:V ism a policy. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. We can quote them directly, even, if need be. We still have plenty of reliable sources directly identifying him and his movement as fascist or leading the USA into fascism, so we can use or quote those. Rangooner (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the page on RFCs, "RfCs are time consuming, and Wikipedia being a volunteer projdect, editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC." I think it's best to exhaust the discussion here before we open an RFC, but if you'd like to open one already, by all means. Rangooner (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have been at this for over a week. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cox, Lloyd; O'Connor, Brendon (2025). "It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history". Leadership. 20 (1). doi:10.1177/17427150231210732. Gökarıksel, Banu; Smith, Sara (2016). "'Making America Great Again'?: The fascist body politics of Donald Trump". Political Geography. 54: 79–81. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004. Renton, D. K. (1 April 2025). "Trump, Fascism, and the Authoritarian Turn". Spectre Journal. doi:10.63478/XIWSTTUP. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Cox, Lloyd; O'Connor, Brendon (2025). "Trumpism, Fascism and Neoliberalism". Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory. (advance online publication). doi:10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159. Short Takes by UCLA Historians: Are we in a Fascist Age?. UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy (Report). 20 January 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Beauchamp, Zack (16 October 2020). "What is fascism, and is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in". Vox. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Milman, Oliver (4 November 2024). "Is Trump actually a fascist – and why does the answer matter?". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
  2. ^ Stan, Adele M. (Spring 2025). "The "New" American Fascists". Democracy Journal (76). Retrieved 19 September 2025. McNeill, J. R. (21 August 2020). "How fascist is President Trump? There's still a formula for that". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 September 2025.

RfC for inclusion of Trumpism/MAGA, discussed above

[edit]

Editors here have discussed findings from the academic community on fascism, which is increasingly characterizing Donald Trump's policies as fascist/proto-fascist/neo-fascist, or that they are leading the US towards fascism. Editors on pages regarding fascism continue to remove content regarding these findings, citing a lack of consensus about whether or not to include such material. Should articles regarding fascism expand their coverage of the scholarly debate about whether and to what extent Trumpism is a form of fascism? Rangooner (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've been made aware that it is not my responsibility to be highly responsive on an RfC I've opened. New editor here. I'll be taking a break from this discussion other than to update it with the list of reliable sources being compiled or if anyone has a question for me specifically. Rangooner (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As I think this may be undue as this is really speculation about what they might become, not what they are. Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We would not be opening an RFC if this were just speculation. Scholars labeling him as fascist or leading the US into fascism ≠ speculation that he may become fascist. Rangooner (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the work Simon223 did over at Talk:Donald Trump and Fascism which was linked in the discussion above, that seems to be hinged upon a false premise. The experts seem to be in consensus that the MAGA movement is already a fascist one. If you have sources (of a quality on par with the ones Simon used) which indicate otherwise, please share them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Trumpism is nevertheless thought to reveal “the most likely form that a contemporary American fascism will assume”" will not is. Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the phrasing from only one particular source. Please take a look at the collection of other sources. Rangooner (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, that was (litterlay) the first source in the second link. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that is only one source. Rangooner (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to review the working list of sources we have in a more organized and straightforward format, I've added them to the RfC description. Rangooner (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You just provided a quote, and then you say it's the first source in the second link... Which links? The link to the talk page I provided? The citations provided by Rangooner in the section above? The sources cited in the article here?
    In any event, your quote doesn't contradict what any of the other sources say. I mean, that quote can be 100% accurate, and it still would not even imply that Trumpism is not a form of fascism. Especially if you devote any real effort to the study of fascism; The precise nature and features of a fascist United States are a much-debated and highly popular subject, and one would expect that the only viable fascist movement in the US would, indeed, predict what a fascist US would look like.
    And as has already been pointed out, that's a single quote from a single source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sources, more OK "The cult of Trumpism fosters and exploits paranoia and allegiance to an all-powerful, charismatic figure, contributing to a social milieu at risk for the erosion of democratic principles and the rise of fascism}" Risk not is "Regardless, the success of his candidacy is enough to suggest that the underpinnings of Trumpism—like those of fascism " Like not is, none of your sources seem to say anything other than it might become fascist (might, not will). Slatersteven (talk)
  • Support, as this is definitely a topic which is WP:DUE for mention here. I would disclaim the caveats I mentioned earlier in light of information brought to my attention since then. While I would still prefer a shorter section, I would be willing to entertain more than a single paragraph, and would want that to indicate that the disagreement over this classification is largely one of pop-culture, whereas the academic consensus is quite clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In agreement with the additional points you've raised. Rangooner (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – among academia, specifically scholars of fascism, there certainly seems to be a growing consensus, now having become a substantial majority, that the MAGA movement is fascist. Not neo-fascist, but common-or-garden, WWII-type fascist. If scholarly sources that can be found from 2025 arguing that Trump/MAGA is not fascist, then I may change my !vote, but it seems that consensus among actual experts in the field is virtually unanimous. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If Trump was significant to this topic, one would expect to see chapters about Trumpism in Fascism textbooks. The (mostly) liberal journalists who write articles calling Trump a Fascist would be invited to conferences about Fascism. BTW the only academic consensus is that Trump is not a Fascist. While I appreciate his rhetoric and actions can be seen as authoritarian, the same has been true of many government leaders, including many on the center and left. When we start to call everyone a Fascist, the term loses its meaning. TFD (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose per TFD. Considering how bound up in electoral politics and policies this conversation is (and how evolving the situation is), many perspectives are inherently tied to one's political beliefs. We should be careful before labelling personal beliefs or biases as fact. There is a lively debate (breaking down largely among left v. right lines) on this subject, and the article should reflect that debate. Attribute claims of fascism to specific scholars/critics and attribute claims that he isn't fascist to specific scholars/supporters. For every Vox or WAPO article citing him as a fascist, one can pull another citing him as not a fascist. But, this debate shouldn't occur on this article. This isn't an article well-suited for political debates about ongoing events, but the study of a discrete ideology. Donald Trump and Fascism is the more appropriate venue. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly uninformed and dishonest. The most recent consensus amongst scholars and experts on fascism is that Trumpism is, in fact, a fascist movement. It's not surprising this is not yet "reflected in textbooks" given the situation has drastically changed in the last year and last few months in particular. The argument that "referring to fascist movements as such delegitimizes the term 'fascist'" is, to be frank, quite ridiculous. The insinuation that Trump is no different from previous US presidents, which you made by stating "calling anyone and everyone fascist...", in this regard is blatantly false and contradictory to the findings of scholars on this matter. I highly recommend you to read through WP:NPOV and WP:CSB. Rangooner (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces – can you provide a scholarly source from the last year that argues that Trump or the MAGA movement is not fascist? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, one that is not contradicted by more recent findings given the ever-evolving situation. It's only been within the last year, particularly in the last few months, that scholars have come to a consensus on Trumpism being fascist, with several arguing beforehand that, while many of Trump's views and words were fascist in nature, his actions did not yet fully reflect that of a fascist. This has obviously changed over time, particularly since he lost the 2020 election and incited an insurrection, but especially within the last year. Recent findings from scholars on fascism clearly reflect that and lean towards a consensus that he is fascist/proto-fascist/neo-fascist. Rangooner (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide one of these sources? TFD (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above discussion (Trumpism / MAGA). There is a plethora of reliable sources identifying the movement as fascist in that discussion. Rangooner (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a scholarly source from the last year that argues that Biden or the Democratic Party is not communist? In fact I could not find any from before one year ago because generally scholars would not write such papers unless scholars had paid attention to the claim that Trump was a Fascist. TFD (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to distract us (in a very familiar way, might I add) from the original question because you're unable to find research to contradict these consistent findings is not fooling anyone here. Furthermore, Biden, the Democratic Party, and communism have nothing to do with this discussion. Rangooner (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a scholarly source from the past year that even addresses the question of whether or not the Dems are communist? Alternatively, I can point out that every single article from the past year that addresses the question of whether or not Trumpism is fascism answers in the affirmative.
I remember you being a reasonable editor, but that was the laziest non-argument I've read in a long, long time. It would have been more rational for you to say "I don't care what the truth is, I've already made up my mind," because that, at least, would have been an honest response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to the main issue, you need to provide a source for your conclusions in this RfC. I don't have to prove a negative. All I have for your side are an article by a business professor in the journal he edits saying that in his opinion Trump is a Fascist, a Communications professor writer about California making a passing comment calling Trump a Fascist and a few journalists.
Fascism is a major area of study and is routinely described in polisci textbooks. If there is a consensus that Trump is a fascist them these books would mention him. After all, as president of the US, he would be one of the three most important Fascist leaders along with Hitler and Mussolini. TFD (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trolling? "To get back to the main issue," you mean the one you tried to distract from by bringing up Biden and communism? If you don't want to "prove a negative," don't post baseless claims without any evidence and expect us to take it at face value. And in case you weren't aware (or if you conveniently didn't notice), there are far more sources collected regarding this topic than the single one you're referencing, although it feels like you're just trying to continue to gaslight editors here. Rangooner (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please name one source that supports your opinion. A single word answer will suffice. TFD (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been replying off my phone and do not feel like copying links, nor do I need to, as it is not my job or goal to convince you of anything. I don't personally care whether you specifically believe a consensus on this issue exists. If you actually care to read the sources, you can view them in the discussion above or look at the citations at the bottom of the page. Rangooner (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down everybody. Rangooner, I understand that you may be very busy now and cannot easily text links on your phone, but it would be good if when you have the time to edit and make a comment at the start of this RfC that includes the strongest sources you have - it does not need to be every single source, just the strongest ones. Be sure to emphasize scholarly sources. That way people when looking at this request for comment can immediately see the strongest sources. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great suggestion. I will do that when I'm able to use my laptop, unless someone else gets to it first. Rangooner (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A formal working list of sources has been added to the RfC. Rangooner (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still so inclined, you can review the working list of sources, which has been appended to the RfC description at the top of this discussion. Rangooner (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, on the grounds that this article should not contradict Donald Trump and fascism. Yes, "contradict" is the correct term, because that article says there is no academic consensus about whether Trumpism is fascist! I mentioned this concern earlier today, and I am disappointed that in the fast-moving discussion that followed, it appears to have fallen entirely by the wayside. The general article on fascism (this article) is not the place to make the first changes when a new academic consensus forms regarding Donald Trump. The article Donald Trump and fascism is that place. This article should have a paragraph or short section summarizing that one. Hcganir (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC) (Withdrawn, because the RfC is attracting so much attention that it probably doesn't matter which page it is on, see below.) Hcganir (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation also has implications for that page, so this argument isn't very helpful. If the decision to include this content is approved, we would of course be updating that page to reflect the current consensus from the academic community as well. Rangooner (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Raladic has posted a notice on Talk:Donald Trump and fascism about the RfC here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a worthless point. A problem with one article does not, in any way, suggest we cannot improve another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was that, by holding the discussion here, at an article that isn't mainly about US politics, we're probably not going to get input from the editors with the most knowledge on this subject (those who edit US politics articles). I would like this discussion to include those who know a lot more about academic analysis of US politics than I do. But, all that being said... Since I made this comment, the discussion has exploded (over 30 comments in 2 hours, yikes!), so at this point I guess everyone on wikipedia is going to see it, ha. This means my concern was unfounded. We ARE going to get input from everyone! So I withdraw my objection, and now I'm really curious to see the RfC result. My interest and expertise is in history rather than contemporary politics, so from now on I think I'll just watch instead of participate. Hcganir (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid concern, although I trust anyone knowledgeable on fascism in general will be able to interpret all of this appropriately with the sources provided. Thanks for participating and updating your response! Rangooner (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair concern. I see that Raladic has posted a notice at Talk:Donald Trump and fascism, which should be enough to address that. I do appreciate you striking your !vote as the concern became moot. There are too few editors willing to do that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note, as mentioned in the above discussion above on Trumpism/MAGA, the decision made here will also have implications for other articles, such as Donald Trump and fascism, Donald Trump, Trumpism, List of fascist movements, List of fascist movements by country, and likely many others on similar subjects. Discussions have been taking places on many of these pages regarding the inclusion of the current academic consensus regarding Trumpism and fascism, and this debate will of course continue, although there does not appear to be debate amongst scholars on fascism at this point. Rangooner (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources by scholars that say that Trumpism is fascism? What evidence is there about what you say about academic consensus about Trumpism being fascism? Are these scholarly sources by scholars on fascism like Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, and others? These scholars who study fascism are who need to be reviewed for addressing this matter. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were literally involved in the discussion above that has some linked at the bottom, and in which Simon223 shared where he analyzed the sources over at Talk:Donald Trump and fascism. I'm not sure whether you're pretending not to recall that, or whether you checked out of that conversation when it didn't go your way and refused to read further, but either way, it's not a good look. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listen here, I do not remember everything on here and quite frankly I am very stressed out with things in my personal life that keep me from being able to focus on this. So I admit I'm sorry that I didn't look at those sources on there, I will look over those sources and for not looking through those I apologize. Please do not assume bad faith and make a personal attack like the one you just have against me again. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm assuming that it's typical to re-familiarize yourself with discussions you were previously involved with which have bearing on this one before commenting here. I see below that you've seen these sources, and that addresses my response.
For what it's worth, I should have linked this page in my comment above, as it applies to about 90% of the accusatory-reading comments I make. I've had a long absence however, and simply forgot. Which is slightly ironic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to the discussion once over six months ago.[4] It is reasonable for someone to forget a conversation that long ago. In any case, the only source I could see presented by Simon123 in the discussion was "It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history." (Dennis Tourish, Leadership 2024, Vol. 20(1) 9–32) In the abstract he says, "I argue that it is now appropriate to describe Trumpism as a form of fascism."
Tourish, who is editor of Leadership, is a "Professor of Leadership and Organisation Studies". He's not a Fascism expert and their is no evidence that Fascism experts are now citing his conclusions. The fact that he is arguing the point implies that few are doing this, at least when the article was published last year. Certainly we can agree that this isolated article lacks weight.
I would also point out that the point of RfCs is to attract new editors to the discussion. Do not expect them to look through the archives of another article's talk pages. Please present any evidence in the RfC itself. TFD (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the other sources. That is only one source. And that's fine, but I wouldn't go around making baseless claims without any evidence to back them up. Rangooner (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the earlier discussion which you were a part of? There are plenty of reliable sources from, yes, scholars on fascism, included in that discussion. I don't know if we have any from those particular scholars you've mentioned, but they are not the only experts on the subject, although you're more than welcome to see if you can find their particular takes on the issue. However, we have a large collection of other reliable sources listed in the earlier discussion, all of which describe Trumpism as a fascist movement or similar phrasing. Rangooner (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to navigate the lengthy discussions and certainly you cannot expect editors new to the page to do that. Can you provide one source that supports your opinion? Just give me a one word answer with the author's name and I will find it through search. That's a lot less work for you than your four sentence reply above. TFD (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at them yourself if you'd like. Go to the above discussion and look at the list there. Rangooner (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for any additional editors who plan to voice their opposition to this RfC, especially given that nobody who has opposed this so far has presented a strong argument. Providing recent, reliable sources to support your opposition is the only effective way to contradict the consensus amongst scholars that has been identified here. Rangooner (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely something we're discussing in the academic community...but let's make sure people understand it's an academic debate. Unlike the POVs above.... there is definitely not a consensus on this in anyway. Only consensus there is.. is that there is some democratic backsliding..... the debate is to what extent. So let's make sure we make a proposal with making sure things are represented properly. A overview of the debate can be found at Is Trumpism a form of fascism? Two historians debate.Moxy🍁 00:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, there's a paywall in front of this, so I do not have access and imagine others don't either. Are we able to use sources behind a paywall? I'd also note that it's older than quite a few of the other sources we're using, so some arguments against Trumpism aligning with fascism may be outdated and potentially contradicted by more recent findings given how quickly the situation has evolved, although I'm not sure what the exact findings in this are given that there's a paywall. Rangooner (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Main point of the article is that .. the label remains fiercely debated. A Google search on academic debates about trumpism being fascist will yield many returns. And we should definitely compile academic publications which there are many of over any media. Moxy🍁 00:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although in the last few months in particular, the debate amongst scholars on the subject appears to be nonexistent given actions from Trump that are hard to characterize as anything but fascist (militarisation, forcible suppression of dissent, etc.), so I think it's important to acknowledge the nuance of this evolving situation over time, especially from recent events. Also, hard agree with making use of reliable academic sources exclusively. Rangooner (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of sources out there explaining the debate and who is saying what... Best we use academic analysis articles like [5]. Many sources also use the term "hypercapitalist" instead of fascist to describe his rhetoric. Moxy🍁 01:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have links to any of those sources? Particularly, any published within the last few months? Rangooner (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided links to both my examples above? Are they not visible? Moxy🍁 02:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cox, Lloyd; O’Connor, Brendon (2025-03-26). "Trumpism, fascism and neoliberalism". Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory: 1–18. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159. ISSN 1600-910X. Moxy🍁 02:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of great points made in this that are still relevant, but I wouldn't say it's a solid argument against Trumpism being fascist given that it was published over half a year ago and a lot has transpired since then. A great source to include nonetheless. Rangooner (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What we're looking for is academic analysis......not gathering as many sources as possible of one side or the other....but sources that review the sources. So let me give an example of how this would look Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Scholarly debate. There's no sources out there that say there's an academic consensus.... because that's basically impossible in an academic field of this nature.... what we do have in great abundance is what the academic debate is about..... in fact covering over a decade's worth of information. Moxy🍁 04:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it does not make sense to write "a consensus has been reached" in regard to this given the inability to have a complete consensus on some of subjective nature like fascism. My use of phrasing like that throughout this talk page is definitely a generalization and a better way to phrase it would be something along the lines of "A growing number of scholars and experts on fascism have described Trumpism and the MAGA movement as fascist..." etc. I do think it's important to at least highlight the most consistent findings, especially those being made most recently, without implying there is no debate remaining on the subject. Rangooner (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said above: "the debate amongst scholars on the subject appears to be nonexistent given actions from Trump that are hard to characterize as anything but fascist (militarisation, forcible suppression of dissent, etc.),". There is possible flawed reasoning here. The absence of debate on whether Trump is a fascist could be because the people who don't believe he is a fascist are not addressing it rather than agreeing. The absence of a negative does not mean it is a positive, that there are not a lot of articles refuting claims that Trump is a fascist does not mean in itself that there is consensus that he is a fascist. There have been many governments across the world that have had militarization and forced suppression of dissent that have been authoritarian but not fascist including multiple right-wing authoritarian conservative governments in history. I agree with a user mentioned Robert Paxton as a scholar on fascism who has said that he regards Trump as fascist, now that is the kind of source we need here and regardless of what happens with this request for comment I will support having Paxton's view in the article. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is one of those cases where "teach the debate" is the appropriate (and DUE) course, as others have stated above. One thing that hasn't been noted yet here is Robert Paxton's editorial "I’ve Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now", which represented a real turning point. If you weren't conversant in the historiography, you might think that some historian publishing an editorial in Newsweek is small potatoes, but Paxton is one of the preeminent theorists of fascism, and indeed one of the most well-regarded living historians full stop. He went from being a skeptic to a believer after the January 6th attacks, and that says a lot. See this coverage for context. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not sure I agree in support of the proposal of the RfC I agree that Robert Paxton's view would be good to include even if ultimately the article's sources do not have a consensus that Trump is a fascist. Paxton is a major scholar on fascism. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Paxton is the only one of the leading Fascism experts questioned by History to write that he has changed his mind. However, he hasn't written any academic articles explaining his new position. If you want a source that Benito Mussolini was a fascist, I can pull out any polisci textbook and show where it says that. If Trump, who is far more powerful than Mussolini, is a fascist then it should be easy to prove. TFD (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think textbooks are written, published, and distributed overnight? The consensus has been forming as of the last few months. Unless you have any recent and reliable source to prove your claims, I'd back off this discussion because every comment you've made has been grasping at straws and zero evidence. Rangooner (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not committed to support this request for comment I will say that Paxton's view would be worth acknowledging in the article as he is a major scholar on fascism. It is true that he has not yet written a scholarly article on the matter. Generalrelative is correct in that this is not a casual thing for a historian like him to make such a view. BlueberryA96 (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think it'd of course be ideal to have a formal scientific article from Paxton, his editorial is more than sufficient for use as a reliable source given his reputation and expertise on this subject. Rangooner (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are buried down in the Discussion section below, but for convenience sake I'll reiterate them here too. Three academic sources providing an overview of the debate:
    Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some form of inclusion there has been major discussion in scholarly sources as to whether Trump/MAGA are best described as fascist or something else. (t · c) buidhe 06:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some limited form of inclusion but only to the extent that Trumpism is commonly accused of being a form of fascism, and scholarly sources have mentioned that Trumpism shares common elements with fascism. But by all means we should attribute viewpoints and keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Psychloppos (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more extended coverage on this page. There would not currently be a justification for stating "Trumpism is a form of fascism", based on the sources (those that I have read), but it certainly is a vigorously debated suggestion. Currently this article makes a few passing mentions of Trump (not even Trumpism) in the context of alt-right and ultranationalist resurgence - not good enough; the discourse is much more specific, and starting to coalesce, as far as I can make out. We need a separate section summarizing the body of reviews on the topic. I have another two here that I'm trying to wheedle out of paywall jail (from Denmark and South Africa) - updates to come. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some limited form of inclusion As per other users I think a limited inclusion of content in scholarly sources especially of scholars of fascism would be worth including, such as the example a person noted of Robert Paxton, a scholar on fascism, who views Trump as a fascist. It should be limited though and should definitely not be claiming that Trumpism definitely is a form of fascism. There still is division about whether Francisco Franco's regime in Spain was fascist or para-fascist and given that Franco had a nationalist single-party state dictatorship, a militarized political party, and received active political and military support from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, he is very much a candidate to be taken seriously as possibly being a fascist but a number of scholars on fascism say that he was a para-fascist authoritarian conservative and not a fascist. I mention this to show that having significant traits of fascism as in the case of Franco's regime does not necessarily mean that fascism in full is the case.BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to get too into the weeds here, but the big difference of opinion seems to hinge on a fundamental methodological difference between those who see political phenomena like fascism through an essentialist lens, where something belongs to a category if it checks a certain number of boxes (i.e. "necessary and sufficient conditions") and those who look at such phenomena primarily as systems of family resemblance, where things can be expected as a matter of course to bleed into their opposite.
    Here's one way to think about it: an essentialist approach treats historical phenomena as though they were geometrical figures. If a shape doesn't have four equal sides and four 90º angles, it is not a square. That approach works great for numbers and shapes. But how informative is it really to treat the distinction between fascist and para-fascist authoritarian conservative as though it were substantive?
    Paxton's book The Anatomy of Fascism is especially useful as a teaching tool because it demonstrates the value of an anti-essentialist approach that can accommodate internal contradiction within historical movements and ideologies. It refuses to offer an essential definition because such definitions often force reality into boxes that are convenient for us to think with but oversimplify and thus fail to inform us about the actual forces that animate history. Essentialist approaches like those of e.g. Roger Griffin, on the other hand, get attention because they are conceptually easy, but are not really informative. They tell us what is what, but don't show us much of anything. Generalrelative (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You make very good points here. You are correct about the different analyses of fascism including the essentialist one. I am familiar with with several essentialist ones like of Griffin who you mention and of Stanley Payne. It may be worth adding to this article the mentioning the distinguishment you have described of essentialist and non-essentialist approaches to defining fascism. BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like that but we can't: the clean distinction between these two approaches is my own original analysis. I just offer it here as a way to possibly understand where some of the disagreement between well-informed scholars comes from. Generalrelative (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I get your points, at the time of the Spanish Civil War if someone at that time was hearing about what was going on there and saw how Franco was appealing overall to a fascist model of government while also having strong conservative traditionalist themes involving the Catholic Church I personally don't think someone would agree with a scholar at that time saying "well it is not fascist because it doesn't fit all of these boxes", they would see the overall picture of Franco's regime as being fascist because of it clearly being strongly influenced by fascism and being supported by fascists in Germany and Italy but that Franco also had to get support of conservatives for his regime. But that is my opinion and WP:NOTAFORUM, I just wanted to respond to what you said about the essentialist approach to analyzing Franco's regime. BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Generalrelative (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add: this explicitly anti-essentialist approach to fascism was first articulated (to my knowledge) by Umberto Eco in his classic essay "Ur-Fascism". Generalrelative (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a caveat While I like the idea this RfC is proposing We can't really have a RfC about a class of pages at the talk page of a single page. I would support a centralized discussion if it will be affecting multiple pages. However I do think this RfC will suit to serve consensus for this page at least and in that context I support based on the significant academic, peer reviewed, secondary sourcing I've reviewed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some mention; there is clearly sufficient coverage that it is at a minimum a substantial viewpoint worth including. Several people above have asserted that it is just "liberal journalists" saying this and that flatly isn't true. Even the (increasingly rare) sources that disagree that he is a fascist still plainly treat the description as sufficiently credible to be worth in-depth academic debate; so per WP:BALANCE we should at a bare minimum describe it as something that has been the subject of broad academic debate, not omit it entirely. The idea that it is such a marginal perspective as to be totally omitable is just unreasonable. In particular one editor challenged people above to find textbooks that devote chapters to Trump; and of course such books do exist, eg. [1] - their own quote of a scholar disagreeing with the idea that Trump is fascist cites Jason Stanley as a respectable scholar on the other side! Other academic books that devote significant focus to considering Trump as a fascist include [2][3]. There are also sources specifically describing a shift in academic coverage during the second Trump administration - see eg.,[4] It is in this context, naysayers notwithstanding (Kuklick; Steinmetz-Jenkins), that the wall of scholarly resistance to understanding Trump and the MAGA movement as fascist has been crumbling (Berger ; Dimaggio; Neiwert; Rosenfeld and Ward; Street; Tourish). --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of reliable sources has to involve scholars with expertise on the topics of fascism and fascist regimes, not just scholars in general whose expertise is outside of the study of fascism and fascist regimes - taking the opinion of a scholar because they are a scholar would be like asking a dentist's opinion about a back injury because they are a medical professional. There are Robert Paxton and Ruth Ben-Ghiat who are both scholars on fascism who say that Trump is a fascist. The user The Four Deuces has addressed the Ben-Ghiat source here. BlueberryA96 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ronald J. Berger, who I cited for the quote at the end summarizing the shift in the field, is a sociologist and criminologist who has written multiple academic texts about the Holocaust.[5] Of the other scholars he cites as part of the shift to understanding Trump and the MAGA movement as fascist, Gavriel D. Rosenfeld's academic specialization includes the history of Nazi Germany; and he is an editor of The Journal of Holocaust Research. Janet Ward's specialization includes the history of Fascism and the Holocaust.[6] Jason Stanley (discussed above) has published multiple high-quality academic works about fascism and is clearly acknowledged as an expert on fascism even by people who disagree with him. And even the others are largely being cited, here, for serious academic works; there is no one on that list who lacks serious academic publications related to fascism - these are not liberal journalists or dentists being cited for things outside their expertise, they are experts with highly-cited academic publications related to the topic, significant enough to have received attention from others in the field. And finally, you are plainly WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, with over 28 largely-repetitive comments. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and let others weigh in. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being repetitive and that I have been pushing for a desired outcome while not adding much, that has been WP:BLUDGEONING. The sources you decribe above appear good, especially Janet Ward. My desired outcome that I have been overly repetitive about is that scholars on fascism and fascist regimes be the core of the sources about Trump, I am very worried about the possibility of a real ugly fight exploding over inclusion of Trump if any substandard sources are used and Trump-supporting users attack the article on that basis. This is the last time I will say this and will stop and allow others to weigh in. BlueberryA96 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as shown, there are many academic sources arguing that Trump is a fascist, some say not exactly an interwar European fascist, but a photo-fascist. This should be in the article. Lijil (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, many experts on fascism have clearly depicted trumpism as a fascism since the beginning of the second presidency, versus only two saying it's not:
  • Those depicting trumpism as a fascism (16) : Jason Stanley, Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder, Johann Chapoutot, Paul Lerner, Anne Berg, Diana Garvin, Tiffany Florvil, Claudia Koonz, Asma Mhalla, Mike Lindel, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Claudia Koonz, Mia Fuller, Giovanni De Luna and Andrea Mammone
  • Those rejecting this comparaison (2) : Roger Griffin and Christopher Browning
<br>
And I'm not including experts on fascism depicting trumpism as fascism before the second presidency, nor political commentators.
As such, not including trumpism would be false balance. Médicis (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not including the belief that Trump is a fascist on this article would not be a WP:Balance issue. The article is about the ideology of fascism. Discussions about Trump's ideology isn't necessary to accomplish that task. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not limited to providing only a definition of subject matter. Similar articles and this one include examples, especially those which are of great significance, as well as ongoing debates related to the subject. Rangooner (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But that doesn't change the fact that deciding to leave "trumpism" out of this article wouldn't present a balance issue for this article. Jcgaylor (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that anything that is important in the US is important to every topic. So we should put a lot of material about creation science into articles about evolution because most Americans question it. Personally, if I read about fascism I am not interested in reading about partisan name-calling in US politics. Federalists called anti-Federal Jacobins who in turn called them royalists. Interesting for US politics, but not for French politics. TFD (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, however many experts argued whether or not Trump displayed textbook fascism. To implement a single paragraph about the ongoing debate would be appropriate. Médicis (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: while there may not be a consensus that Trumpism is fascism, it seems that there is no consensus on what exactly is fascism (definitions of Payne and Griffin, despite being influential, are subject to criticism by some other authors), so it is inevitable for this article to include contradictory views and debates. If Trumpism is viewed as a neo-fascist movement in the RS, then it becomes the most significant (the scale + coming to power in one of the most influential states in the world) example of contemporary fascism, so the topic is highly relevant to the article. The neutrality of the article may be maintained by adding the opposing views Opostylov (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment Thanks to Moxy for providing a source for discussion in this RfC: "Trumpism, fascism and neoliberalism" (Cox & O'Connor, Distinktion 26 Mar 2025). In the article, the authors discuss a dispute between "alarmists" who claim that Trump is a fascist and "sceptics," who reject it, while concluding that Trump "exhibits fascistic tendencies that have intensified in recent years. We refer to this as ‘proto-fascism’".
All of this shows that Donald Trump and Fascism may be a notable topic, and indeed there is an article for that. The problem is that the "alarmist" side is mostly journalists and academics who have no expertise in fascism usually writing in non-academic publications. As Cox and O'Connor point out, fascism scholars mostly view fascism as an historical movement that arose mostly in Italy and Germany as a reaction to the rise of the Left after WWI and existed from the 1920s until it was defeated in 1945, although some small "neofascist" groups continued.
AFAIK, textbooks on political science and fascism ignore this debate, which is largely contained in popular media. We don't see textbooks of fascism with pictures of Hitler, Mussolini and Trump on their front covers.
The relavant policy is Balancing aspects: "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If sources on fascism ignore this aspect, then it lacks weight for inclusion. One method of determining due weight is WP:TERTIARY: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." While it's not the only way, it's hard to argue for the inclusion of material ignored in tertiary publications on the topic.
We should avoid Americentrism by assuming that readers want to know how every topic relates to the US.
TFD (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are very real issues that are leading to analyses of the US moving towards authoritarianism under the Trump administration as being leading into fascism. Fascism and right-wing authoritarianism are often viewed as one and the same in the United States. There are real authoritarian moves happening in the US now under the Trump admin, including the military being in the streets of Democratic Party majority cities and Trump telling military leaders that they will need to deal with "the enemy within"; and then the use of law enforcement against people Trump regards as political enemies. These and other issues are causing immense alarm in the US right now and talk about the US moving towards fascism is quite frankly to be expected but that of course does not mean that these views are correct or based on impartial analysis.
We cannot predict the future about what is happening politically in the US as to whether it is moving in an authoritarian direction or according to some a fascist direction and instead need to focus the attention of this article on the main topics and not hypothesizing about what will happen in the US. However if actions happening recently are being deemed as fascist in nature by scholars on fascism then those would be worth reviewing such as Paxton's views on the Trump admin being fascist as mentioned above. I believe that these should not dominate the modern day subsection of the history section of this article. You make very valid points about scholars on fascism mostly viewing it as a largely historical movement with various neo-fascist movements continuing its legacy. BlueberryA96 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that TFD's summary of the state of scholarship is not accurate. Their view that most "fascism experts" reject the comparison is both outdated and borderline No true Scotsman in nature. Even back in 2021, dismissing proponents like Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley as academics who have no expertise in fascism would be untenable, but this past year even Samuel Moyn, one of Snyder's most high-profile critics in the "fascism debates" came around –– tweeting in response to the extrajudicial detention of Mahmoud Khalil that "It is indeed a big and flagrant step towards fascism." [6] These are extremely eminent scholars specializing in relevant fields who have held chairs at Ivy League universities. And crucially for our purposes, they are the ones that the secondary sources most often discuss when they discuss this debate. Moyn in particular had previously staked a good portion of his considerable reputation on arguing that comparisons between Trumpism and fascism obscure more than they reveal. He showed real intellectual courage in admitting he was wrong.
TFD's assertion that we should be looking to textbooks is also not policy-based. Wikipedia is primarily based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. And when it comes to history, the authoritative work tends to be in monograph form. Articles can be valuable too, but are less likely to have a major impact. Textbooks are for secondary school.
With this in mind, here are a couple additional sources which provide an overview of the debate:
Should the RfC succeed, we should be looking to sources like these to guide our summary of the debate. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to textbooks to establish weight is policy-based. See WP:TERTIARYPolicy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight". Tertiary sources are defined to include "introductory-level university textbooks." (See Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. However, as I noted above "it's not the only way." [17:23, 4 October 2025] The problem is that you have not provided any other way to determine this.
In 2021, I posted, "See Richard J. Evans, Why Trump isn’t a fascist" (New Statesman, 13 January 2021): "But few who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder. The majority of genuine specialists, including the historians Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, agree that whatever else he is, Trump is not a fascist.""[05:31, 10 February 2021][7] Evans was not guilty of the "no true Scotsman fallacy". He probably excluded Snyder because he had not published any articles or books about fascism with academic publishers and his opinions are not mentioned in academic books or papers about fascism.
As I also mentioned above, your sources show "that Donald Trump and Fascism may be a notable topic, and indeed there is an article for that." You have to show that it is important to the general topic which you cannot do which is why you criticise fascism scholars and their literature. But you offer no method of assessing weight.
Even if we ignore policy, reason should tell us that finding secondary sources cannot establish weight for inclusion. There are for example numerous books about famous Americans but they cannot all fit into the article on the US. We need to focus on what is considered significant not what we find interesting.
BTW the essay "Intellectual History and the Fascism Debate: On Analogies and Polemic" is not about Trump but about the radical right in other countries, many of whom, such as Meloni and LePen, have actual connections with Fascism, that is, lead parties that had grown out of inter-war fascist parties and were openly Fascist. But the authors found comparisons with Trump bizarre.
I appreciate that some may see striking similarities between America today and Germany eight years after Hitler first became Germany head of state. But it's not a mainstream view. TFD (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to show that it is important to the general topic which you cannot do Why not? Surveying the secondary sources is our standard method for establishing due weight for inclusion. You say reason should tell us that finding secondary sources cannot establish weight for inclusion but policy couldn’t be clearer. Per WP:BESTSOURCES: all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources. Or how about WP:SIGCOV: Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. And of course it’s clear that there is more than enough secondary coverage of this debate –– enough for a number of sources to casually refer to it as "the fascism debate" –– to establish notability for inclusion in this article.
Anyone who reads "Intellectual History and the Fascism Debate" will see that you are grossly misrepresenting it. It is absolutely focused on Trump and the American context, not the European one, which is clear if you read past the first few paragraphs. Further, it does not call either side of the debate “bizarre” as you allege (or use any terminology even close to that), nor does it come down on either side. It fully recognizes that there are serious scholars who hold to each position. And indeed, one of the major critics it discusses, Moyn, has since come around to the proponents' side.
You and I have debated that Evans article at length in the past. Those who are interested can find that here. But revisiting it just now reminded me of another good source:
I will simply reiterate: these are the kinds of sources we should be using if the present RfC succeeds –– and using what they actually say, not what we imagine they ought to say. Generalrelative (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The argument that "this information shouldn't be included because it isn't included in textbooks yet" is pathetic. Of course it isn't, this situation has only devolved within the last year. Do you think textbooks are written, printed, published, and distributed overnight to every classroom? Furthermore, it is not a requirement to include textbooks as a source for content to be included. I suggest you reread WP:TERTIARY. Rangooner (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continually referencing this outdated 4 year old article as if it still holds up is hilarious. The arguments made in it are no longer valid.
  • "Congress has prevailed over Trump’s attempts to sideline or undermine it." This is now false.
  • "Trump is too chaotic and undisciplined to prepare and execute any kind of organised assault on democracy." This has been proven false.
  • "But there are signs that the events of 6 January have shocked many Republicans into abandoning Trump and his most fanatical supporters. The GOP may split; Trump may become the leader of a hard-right third party run from Mar-a-Lago." Also false.

Rangooner (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention that some writers in Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins see fascism as rooted in American history, so that fascism in America pre-dates Mussolini and Hitler by perhaps hundreds of years. (White supremacy which had a legal underpinning until the 1960s is an example.) If you want the article to reflect the source, you'll have to get into that. TFD (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion that we should act upon. What I'll summarize as the American-origin hypothesis shows up a fair bit in academic work over a long period of time - such as via discussion of Nazi study of segregation and of anti-Indigenous incidents like Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a basic understanding of fascism can, at a bare minimum, acknowledge there is a large overlap between fascism and Trumpism. Rangooner (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's ideology, intentions, and actions closely mirror that of Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascist leaders. He's a fascist. No need to beat around the bush. Scholars on the issue increasingly agree. Shying away from the word only provides cover for Trump and other fascists and shields them from accountability. It's important we call it like it is, especially in a time where so many people, especially those of greater privilege, seem to be completely desensitized to the democratic backsliding we're experiencing. Refusing to label Trump as fascist because he hasn't been able to establish a one-party state YET is asinine. And even if we get to that point, there will still be people in denial who will still refuse to call him fascist. We can only hope common sense will prevail over the hatred, blind faith, and ignorance that got us to this point. Rangooner (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the backsliding, but you are forgetting something. With Fascist Italy, we have legislation like the Acerbo Law which guaranteed the Fascist dominance in Parliament prior to the de facto abolition of competitive elections. With Nazi Germany, we have the Reichstag Fire Decree suspending aspects of the Weimar Constitution in response to a supposed emergency and the perceived threat of an uprising. Trump has made no actual effort to change the American election system, or to suspend the civil rights elements in the Constitution of the United States. For the time being, there are no major changes in the American legal system in comparison to how it operated under Joe Biden. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't consider bypassing due process a major change? Rangooner (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We as editors are not permitted to decide for ourselves whether a person or a movement is a fascist and based on our perspective seek to make Wikipedia reflect that perspective, we are only permitted to provide the reliable sources preferably by scholars of fascism who have made an analysis of whether someone or a movement is fascist. Expertise on the topic of fascism is very much needed to make the claim that the current President of the United States and the movement around him are fascist. BlueberryA96 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just giving my own personal thoughts like everyone else here. Never said I intended to make that call on the actual page. That's what the RfC is for. Rangooner (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actually not what this RfC (or talk page) is for. See WP:NOTFORUM: article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. You're brand new and still learning. Dimadick shouldn't have egged you on. We're here to discuss what reliable sources say, and how to use those sources based on policy. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is correct. BlueberryA96 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but based on previous examples of myself making mistakes in the past where I insisted that I was right but later found out I was wrong I would encourage you to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong in your opinion on this. You say unequivocably "He is a fascist", it does not appear that you are open to alternative possibilities that may be similar such as that he is a authoritarian in general which I think at this point probably would have a number of sources that would support that. BlueberryA96 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources listed in the RfC description. He is objectively fascist and scholars increasingly agree. Rangooner (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BlueberryA96: Perhaps it's coming into view why it's best not to engage at all when folks want to debate objective reality on Wikipedia. There is no end to it. This is what Jimbo Wales observed many years ago, giving rise to our motto "verifiability not truth".
Rangooner: In case it's not clear what I'm talking about, statements like scholars increasingly agree is verifiable, whereas He is objectively fascist is not. Generalrelative (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aaymp0ZRpc. This is a serious topic that needs to be addressed and I would like to encourage all people involved in this to be open to the possibility that they may be mistaken so that the conversation here is not driven by adamant faith in a perspective, and this includes making sure that I am being open-minded. I've made mistakes of being adamantly certain about things only to have my perspective blown apart by someone proving me wrong. BlueberryA96 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👏👏👏 Rangooner (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over the sources but I have not yet read them to verify what is said in them. I have not looked through all the sources in the list you have put there but so far from the ones I've looked at I've found two scholarly sources by scholars on fascism, these are the kind of sources needed to make the assertions said here about Trump and Trumpism being fascist.
Robert Paxton and Ruth Ben-Ghiat are good sources as they are scholars on fascism.
Gabriele Winant from what is said from the source appears to have a Marxist interpretation of Trump being fascist as Winant is said in the content you provided to be someone focused on "labor and working class history", the "history of capitalism", and "inequality" as you mentioned. While it is fine to include a Marxist analysis if it reflects a significant opinion of Marxists on the matter one issue is that Marxists typically associate fascists as being the paid-for agents of capitalists as opposed to being independent actors. This sort of interpretation is controversial especially by scholars who see fascists and fascist movements as having been independent actors.
Tourish has expertise on organizations that are cults. I would need to examine the source as fascism typically involves a cult of personality but it is often viewed as much more than that. So if Tourish is addressing fascism regarding the cult of personality within it with regards to Trump then this source could be good, especially if Tourish demonstrates an understanding of the history of fascism. However if they only focus on the cult nature of Trump and do not demonstrate an understanding of the history of fascism then this source would not be good.
The Maril source is not good, their expertise is in constitutional law in the United States. The quote you have provided is not adequate, it does not clearly explain why they view the Trump administration as fascist.
I don't know enough about this Saull whom you mention to make an observation on them, they study the far-right so that includes fascism so it appears to be within their expertise. Their title indicates another example of possibly a Marxist analysis which has the same issues as I mentioned earlier about the Winant source.
I have not yet looked at the other sources here but this is my analysis of these sources. BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Maril source is relevant because, as an expert on constitutional law, she has relevant input on democratic backsliding, a precursor to fascism. I'd also like to point out that about half of these sources, including quotes, were pulled from Simon223's list, so they can probably speak to the justification of some of those sources you mentioned more effectively. Rangooner (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An awareness on democratic backsliding does not demonstrate an expertise on fascism, democratic backsliding can be the case for any kind of authoritarian government. BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point on her lack of specific expertise on fascism, but given that democratic backsliding, authoritarianism, and fascism are all very closely intertwined subjects, I personally think the source is relevant, but I agree that there are stronger ones on the list. Rangooner (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC has now been altered, and thus should be procedurally closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFCBRIEF:
"If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the initial statement or question, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it."
Rangooner (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but your revised question is anything but brief. I encourage you to cut the first two framing sentences and let the final one –– the actual question –– speak for itself. If you do edit it again, though, remember to leave a note making it clear that you've done so. Generalrelative (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not someone else. you altered it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, suppose Trump were to rule by decree, place state and local governments and police under his control and purge the general staff, silence his opponents etc. Lots of post-war leaders have done that but are not considered fascist. What makes Trump a fascist while someone like Haiti's Papa Doc isn't?

Papa Doc ran on a platform of populism and ultrantionalism, became and absolute dictator, killed all his generals and tens of thousands of others and had a vicious police force loyal only to him.

BlueberryA96 wrote, "We as editors are not permitted to decide for ourselves whether a person or a movement is a fascist." However we are able to define the topic of articles. If we use for example the definition of fascism as a capitalist state run as a dictatorship, then we need to widen the scope of the article.

TFD (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there were reliable secondary sources describing Papa Doc as fascist, or describing a high-profile scholarly debate on the question, then it would absolutely be due for inclusion. If not, then not. It's really not that hard. Fascism is a phenomenon without a consensus definition, making the proposal that we begin by arriving at our own definition doubly problematic. As always, we should just be looking at what the sources say, and presenting a balanced summary where they disagree. Generalrelative (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with Generalrelative's statement above. It is about reliable sources and if there is significant scholarly attention or debate to the matter. As to Generalrelative's statement on consensus I disagree partly here, while there is not a full consensus there are several scholars on fascism who have agreed on what they regard as core elements of fascism. You appear to be addressing a Marxist perspective on an interpretation of fascism being "a capitalist state run as a dictatorship", although Marxist scholars are less in influence now than they were in the past they have formed a significant presence in academic studies involving politics. They key point here is that we need to address what scholarly sources on fascism and fascist regimes if they are significant scholarly sources and pay attention to the weight they have, we may personally think the Marxist perspective reduces the issue too much to issues of class and capitalism but if there are significant Marxist scholarly sources about fascism and fascist regimes then those should be addressed. That being said the weight of the Marxist interpretation in the article must reflect its weight in scholarly analysis of fascism and fascist regimes. BlueberryA96 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you may have used an LLM to generate this text. While not explicitly against policy (at least to my knowledge), I’d like to direct you to read WP:LLM on current consensus regarding LLM use.
I would like to specifically point to the 4th paragraph of the essay, which states “Wikipedia is not a testing ground. Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries, in a non-transparent way, is strongly discouraged. LLMs used to generate or modify text should be mentioned in the edit summary, even if their terms of service do not require it.“ GothGoat4 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to the statement below, I did use ChatGPT to get the italicized quoted material mentioned below and mentioned that I used it, I thought it was apparent that I was referring to ChatGPT with the italicized quoted text below but it appears that I wasn't so I am clarifying it here that I did. I was not aware of this policy until now, I will follow it from now on. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what I just mentioned above I looked up now on ChatGPT whether there are Marxist historians on fascism who are of similar significance to Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne, it said yes and said there are several, especially Nicos Poulantzas, "Griffin (a non-Marxist) specifically contrasts his “palingenetic ultranationalism” model with Poulantzas’s Marxist framework. Payne and Paxton both mention him as representing the high point of Marxist theories before the field moved toward cultural-ideological models."--BlueberryA96 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is a body of literature about whether or not right-wing dictators can be described as Fascists. See The Rise of the Radical Right in the Global South, "Fascism outside Europe: Latin America" (Taylor & Francis, May 31, 2023): "The appeal to the epithet of Fascism by opponent of regimes [in Latin America] also generated heated debates in the academic world." The term for fascism in Haiti is "creole fascism." It also mentions debates about whether extremism in the Muslim (Islamofascism) and Hindu worlds can be considered fascism.
Again the issue is weight. Books about Fascism concentrate on Hitler and Mussolini while you have to google "[a person I don't like]+fascism] to find discussion about whether they were fascist. But it can be found.
So what is the topic of this article? Is it about historical fascism in Europe with discussion of how the term might fit other authoritarian regimes or is it about the Donald Trump and the United States? Or is it a hodgepodge of hundreds of groups that some scholars have found fascist.
BlueberryA96, as you know, Communists saw fascism as an authoritarian attempt to suppress the Left. Hence Social Democrats, who supported Hindenburg, were "Social Fascists." Most modern scholarship rejects this because they believe there are additional criteria which separate fascists like Hitler and Mussolini from right-wing authoritarians like Papa Doc or Trump. Nonetheless even if they are right, there's a need for a separate article on inter-war fascism. Perhaps we could move this article to inter-war fascism so we can concentrate more on Trump. TFD (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has suggested a major overhaul of this article to focus more on Trump (except of course for yourself, albeit rhetorically). I certainly wouldn't support that. I envision a successful result of this RfC leading to at most an additional brief paragraph describing the debate and the way it has evolved over time. I do not foresee this content rising to the level where a mention in the lead would be warranted, barring a substantial shift in the landscape of sources. Generalrelative (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, this is what I'd imagined when I opened the RfC. Something like "Scholars and experts on fascism have increasingly characterized Donald Trump and his movement to be fascist. [examples, perhaps quote(s) from paxton regarding jan 6 insurrection, maybe quote from ben-ghiat and brief summary of consistent themes or recent events if possible related to fascism, ie fcc free speech threats, militarism, suppression of dissent, etc]." We'd also be adding some info to other pages relating to trump, fascism, or other related pages. Rangooner (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that this article should concentrate more on Trump over interwar fascism. My stance is that sources made by significant scholars on fascism and fascist regimes that regard a movement, person, or regime as fascist should be considered while the weight they have in the article should be appropriate to the weight in scholarly sources. At most there could be a couple of sentences mentioning that scholars on fascism like Robert Paxton and Ruth Ben-Ghiat view Trump as being fascist as well as those who do not.
As for the Marxist-Leninist claim of social fascism that you have mentioned, the issue is whether is it taken seriously in scholarly discourse now on fascism, the answer is no, it is largely seen as a snarl word by Marxist-Leninists about social democracy as part of them denouncing social democracy. Now a key point here needs to be made, not every Marxist claim about some person or government being fascist is relevant, it is about it being present in scholarly discourse about fascism and especially the weight it carries in scholarly discourse.
Currently the weight for including Trump is very low but not completely absent. Two, at most three sentences in the history section in my opinion would be what could be put in about Trump and Trumpism, basically to say that there are scholars on fascism like Paxton and Ben-Ghiat who see Trump and his administration as fascist and a sentence to say that this is refuted by other scholars such Roger Griffin and Richard J. Evans and others who have refuted such claims.
I recommend that a new request for comment be created with a minimalist approach to this, that says that a limited inclusion of two to at most three sentences be permitted to address those scholars on fascism and fascist regimes who view Trump as fascist in the article as well as addressing those scholars on fascism and fascist regimes who refute the view of Trump being fascist. The issue of the weight of these assertions should be mentioned in the article, that these are claims by some scholars on fascism but that they do not have a consensus. There should be some kind of stance agreed upon within the request for comment that the amount of content addressing Trump with regards to fascism is to not exceed two to three sentences as the weight of his significance to the topic among scholars on fascism is limited now. There also should be a stance that this topic of Trump in relation to fascism is controversial and that only those source authors who have scholarly expertise on fascism and fascist regimes should be considered for this topic. BlueberryA96 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Ben-Ghiat wrote in the "Epilogue" of Fascism in America (2023), that if we accept Geoff Eley's "portable definition" of fascism, it is "difficult to embrace the old argument that the fascist label should be used only in reference to the regimes and allied movements of the interwar period." (p. 396) Eley sees the resurrection of the term fascism in the early 2000s, used by the Right to describe Saddam Hussein and Muslim extremists ("Islamo-Fascists") and the Left to describe the Patriot Act, mass incarceration and criminalizing dissent.
Note that the article currently mostly follows the "new consensus" definition of Fascism, reported by Griffin and Eatwell, which basically restricts it to the inter-war period. It does that because editors determined at some point that definition had overwhelming if not unanimous support in the literature. Of course it could be that the scholarship has changed, but it would be helpful to find a source that explains that.
Instead of merely asserting "Trump is a fascist," I would expect that we delve into the dispute on definitions, present Eley's definitions, explain how post-war dictators meet the definition and the origins of modern US fascism in the administrations of successive US presidents from George W. Bush and culminating in Trump. It should also include criticisms of this analysis. TFD (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the dispute over the definition of fascism should be in its own separate section, as that conversation is not directly or exclusively related to Trump. A separate section regarding the debate over these definitions makes more sense. Rangooner (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, while the debate over the definition of fascism is relevant to Trump, it is also relevant to all others who have been characterized as fascist. That debate is not limited to Trump, so an entirely separate section regarding the debate over the definition of fascism should be located in, say, the section that lists definitions of fascism. Rangooner (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there could be mentioned in the history section of the article in the modern-day history part of that section about those different views on definitions with the "new consensus" that you mention and others. But you need to describe what the "new consensus" of Griffin and Eatwell is.
The bottom line is that the issue here that this article should reflect what scholarly sources on fascism and fascist regimes by scholars on fascism and fascist regimes view on this matter. The weight of the article should reflect where consensus exists among scholars but also cases where there are differing views among the scholars. BlueberryA96 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

So lets talk about prose to include ......lets list opinions with sources...also best we keep it simple with overview sources and just one link to main article with many specific sources.Moxy🍁 16:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


1 =Moxy🍁

The debate about Trumpism and fascism has been ongoing since Donald Trump's announcement for the presidency on June 15, 2015. Some scholars and commentators have raised concerns about Trump's behavior and rhetoric, suggesting it resembles fascism. They point to aspects like his white nationalist ideology, authoritarian tendencies, anti-elitism, and encouragement of violence as indicators of a fascist nature. Despite these claims, other experts on fascism are skeptical, arguing that labeling Trump as a fascist oversimplifies or inflames the complex historical issues.[7][8]

2 = Rangooner (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A growing number of political scientists, historians, journalists, and former officials increasingly characterize Trumpism, or the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement under Donald Trump, as exhibiting fascist, neo-fascist, or proto-fascist traits.[9] Observers point to actions such as consolidation of executive power, using federal regulatory agencies to pressure media outlets, and threatening censorship.[10]

3 = Generalrelative (building upon Moxy's suggestion)

A debate about Trumpism and fascism has been ongoing since Donald Trump announced his first campaign for the presidency on June 15, 2015.[11] Some scholars and commentators have raised concerns about Trump's behavior and rhetoric, suggesting it resembles fascism. They point to his purported white nationalist ideology, authoritarian tendencies, anti-intellectualism, and encouragement of political violence as indicators of a fascist politics.[12][13] Other experts have been skeptical, arguing that labeling Trump a fascist oversimplifies or inflames the complex historical issues.[7][8][14] In the aftermath of the January 6th 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, historian of fascism Robert Paxton wrote that he now considers Trumpism a form of fascism, despite his earlier objection to using the term in this way.[15][16] Other historians of fascism such as Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne and Richard J. Evans have continued to disagree that fascism is an appropriate term to describe Trump's politics.[17][18]

4 = Also Generalrelative (slightly trimmed)

A debate about Trumpism and fascism has been ongoing since Donald Trump announced his first campaign for the U.S. presidency.[11] Some scholars point to his purported white nationalist ideology, authoritarian tendencies, anti-intellectualism, and encouragement of political violence as indicators of a fascist politics.[12][19] Other experts have been skeptical, arguing that labeling Trump a fascist oversimplifies or inflames the complex historical issues.[7][8][20] In the aftermath of the January 6th 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, historian Robert Paxton wrote that he now considers Trumpism a form of fascism.[21][22] Others such as Roger Griffin and Richard J. Evans have continued to disagree.[23][24]

Discussion about proposal
[edit]

Option 2 is is missing a link to the main article Donald Trump and fascism and are we sure the sources are academic overviews?Moxy🍁 16:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said it was not updated with best sources. Are you going to fix the comments from myself and others you deleted? Rangooner (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So pointless proposal... as for deletion ...Cant figure out from your 100 edits here what went wrong....gave up after 5th edit conflics. Moxy🍁 18:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The first two options are inadequate, there needs to be sources from significant scholars on fascism and fascist regimes. One such source is Robert Paxton as mentioned above, he is a significant scholar on fascism. TFD has addressed problems they see with a source by Ruth Ben-Ghiat who is a scholar on fascism who is mentioned in the dicussions above. TFD has mentioned the issue of different definitions. Perhaps it could be said that some definitions of fascism have included Trump as a fascist but that this is not the case among the "new consensus" of fascism scholars that TFD mentions.--BlueberryA96 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"new consensus" of fascism scholars?[citation needed] Pls review the overview sources above...and can you find peer reviewed articles for option 3? .Will ping some experienced editors. Moxy🍁 18:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to provide a citation since it is extensively discussed in the article already and is the mainstream defintion of fascism since the 1990s. It would be like asking an editor in a discussion the evolution article to explain what they meant by natural selection. TFD (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moxy, I just added two more scholarly sources to Option 3:
Generalrelative (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I added one more important primary source, mentioned pretty much everywhere this debate is discussed:
Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like the following in the "Definitions" section that would provide a segue from inter-war fascism to Trump:

" In the early twenty-first century, some academics and activists challenged the "new consensus" definition of fascism that had emerged in the 1990s, complaining among other things that it was largely restricted to inter-war politics. Instead they adopted "portable" definitions that could be better applied to post-war dictatorships and authoritarianism. In the US, the new definition was applied to the Patriot Act, mass incarceration and suppression of civil disobedience beginning with the administration of George W. Bush and later to perceived authoritarianism in the Donald Trump administration."

TFD (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

complaining? Really? Show us some secondary coverage that discusses the debate in terms of the purported "new consensus" and we can talk. Otherwise this is a non-starter. I searched these three sources and found zero mentions. Generalrelative (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Roger Griffin's brief article in "Intellectual History and the Fascism Debate: On Analogies and Polemic" in Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies.
"In many areas the gulf between academic and media knowledge – especially social media knowledge – resembles Africa’s Great Rift Valley. Ever since Trump first exchanged the studios of reality tv for the world of surreality politics the word ‘fascism’ has hovered around his personal style of presidency like pesky midges. Constantly reached for by bloggers and journalists, their persistent use of it unwittingly blurs important differences between non-revolutionary and genuinely revolutionary forms of the far right when characterizing Trump’s particular brand of populism. To make matters worse it has been sanctioned in the US by some high-profile academics such as Jason Stanley, Sarah Churchwell, Enzo Traverso and Federico Finchelstein.
"Since the 1990s, a growing consensus has emerged within ‘liberal academia’ that fascism is a revolutionary form of ultranationalism that is not just driven by the desire to return the nation to an utterly mythical state of former greatness. Instead, it aspires to create a new, totalizing, postliberal, ethnically based national or international order purged of multiculturalism and pluralism. This was a project that Trump was far too simple-minded, racist, impulsive, narcissistic, materialistic, aporophobic (contemptuous of the poor), and Quixotic (not to say mentally unstable and delusional) in his thought processes to undertake. Unlike Mussolini and Hitler, he was far too concerned with self-aggrandizement to be a revolutionary strategist and leader and create the nucleus of a future leadership. Any sort of coherent ideology or political strategy of the sort needed for structural change was beyond him. In a way, to call Trump a fascist is an insult to fascism."
IOW the "Trump is a Fascist" discipline is a walled garden that largely ignores fascism studies and is itself ignored in fascism studies since it ignores the consensus view.
Some of your sources btw allude to the "new consensus" without using that term.
BTW editors who are new to this article should read it before commenting because as Griffin points out there is a chasm between how fascism is treated in academic writing and popular media. Other editors should not have to explain to them what the article says. TFD (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin telling us that Griffin represents the consensus is not very persuasive (it is certainly not secondary coverage), and your "IOW" is an exercise in circular reasoning. No, this debate is far too wide-ranging to be considered a walled garden. Just look at the breadth of sources collected in Did it Happen here? None of the serious historians who have commented, including those who have been critical, have leveled such a critique.
See e.g. Moyn's "The Trouble with Comparisons", where he is extremely complementary about his opponents Jason Stanley and Peter Gordon. These are his respected colleagues, with whom he has (or rather had) an intellectual disagreement.
I can tell that you really like Griffin –– and please forgive the snoot –– but there is a reason he spent his career teaching at a poorly-regarded polytechnical university, whereas the historians you are cavalierly dismissing occupy some of the highest positions in their fields. Generalrelative (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That last comment about Griffin is completely inappropriate. Rebuking Griffin by saying that he is not in some high prestige universities as other scholars as being a sign of poor quality of him or something similar to that is character assassination.--BlueberryA96 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Griffin seems like a smart guy with his heart in the right place. I'm sure he has a fine character. But he is not in fact particularly well regarded within the profession. I only mention his position because TFD has been doubling down by insisting he is a central figure. He is of course quite often cited –– but ironically most often by the popular press that TFD decries. So yeah, not trying to hurt feelings here. This is simply a matter of determining the WP:BESTSOURCES. Generalrelative (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But he is not in fact particularly well regarded within the profession." What proof do you have of this? BlueberryA96 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's speaking from my personal experience –– which you have no way of confirming. The only objective evidence is the ranking of his university, which is why I mentioned it. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See: World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia (ed. Cyprian Blamires, ABC-Clio 2006), p. 1:
"[The] last few years have seen the growth - at least within non-Marxist and Anglophone human sciences - of a convergence of scholarly opinion about the main features of fascism that I have referred to as the "new consensus" in fascist studies." It has a footnote that says, "For more on the "new consensus" and the evolution of fascist studies hitherto, see Roger Griffin. "The Primacy of Culture: The Current Growth or Manufacture) of Consensus within Fascist Studies."
Personally, I disagree with the new consensus. You can ask me about that on my talk page if you are interested. However, it is important to give it due weight in the article, per policy.
Academic consensus of course can change and we may need to re-write the article to reflect it. I encourage you to read this article so you can recommend where it can be corrected.
Griffin btw is often quoted in the press because he wrote about the consensus theory. The leading figures in most fields are often mentioned in the press. It only becomes a problem when they speak outside their area of expertise. But that shouldn't bother us, because we should not base this or similar articles on what the press reports. TFD (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you finding a source, but look at the author here. I had never heard of them so did a quick search. Cyprian Blamires is an independent scholar, unaffiliated with any university, so hardly an authority.
On Griffin, I do concede that he's been influential. And I agree that his interpretation is more than due for inclusion in this article. I just think we should be careful not to take this talk about a "new consensus" at face value, when it's not something that's attested in the best sources.
Here, for instance, is how Paxton describes the scholarship (and Griffins place in it):

Faced with the great variety of fascisms and the elusiveness of the "fascist minimum," there have been three sorts of response. As we saw at the outset, some scholars, exasperated with the sloppiness of the term fascism in common usage, deny that it has any useful meaning at all. They have seriously proposed limiting it to Mussolini’s particular case. ...

A second response has been to accept fascism’s variety and compile an encyclopedic survey of its many forms. Encyclopedic description provides enlightening and fascinating detail but leaves us with something that recalls a medieval bestiary, with its woodcut of each creature, classified by external appearances, fixed against a stylized background of branch or rock.

A third approach finesses variety by constructing an “ideal type” that fits no case exactly, but lets us posit a kind of composite "essence." The most widely accepted recent concise definition of fascism as an "ideal type" is by the British scholar Roger Griffin: "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism."

This book proposes to set aside, for a moment, both the bestiary and the essence. These condemn us to a static view, and to a perspective that encourages looking at fascism in isolation. (pp.20–21)

No indication here that Griffin's essentialist approach is the consensus view. Elsewhere in the book Paxton does acknowledge Griffin's definition as the most influential recent attempt to define fascism but concludes that his zeal to reduce fascism to one pithy sentence seems to me more likely to inhibit than to stimulate analysis of how and with whom it worked. (p.221)
Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paxton was one of the six members of the advisory board for the Encyclopedia (see p. vi), along with Paxton and Griffin. Paxton can (like myself) say it is the consensus view while at the same time disagreeing with it. Dave Renton, another prominent fascism scholar, also criticizes the consensus view in his book Fascism: Theory and Practice, p. 1, "This book is intended as a reply to the new discipline of 'fascism studies' [i.e., studies based on the "consensus theory".]"
As you correctly reported, Paxton said, the "new consensus" is "the most influential recent attempt to define fascism," which is exactly what I told you. (BTW please explain how someone "not in fact particularly well regarded within the profession" makes "the most influential recent attempt to define fascism?")
So what is your opinion now? Is the "new consensus" "not particularly well regarded" or is it the "the most influential recent attempt to define fascism?"
Please read this article which answers most if not all of the questions you have. If you think it is wrong, then please explain why. TFD (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly asking me to read an article I've been watching for years is tiresome. I have read it several times over the years. It's frankly okay. There are parts that are clunky, and parts I would like to revise if I had the energy (e.g. the "Tenets" section intro, which is a mess). Not sure what "questions" you think I have.
The short section on Definitions is mostly fine, if a bit muddled. Its biggest flaw is failing to address the fact that Payne's third "negation" (anti-conservatism) is largely rejected by scholars –– since all major fascist movements that gained power did so through alliance with traditional conservatives. But more to the point, note how this section correctly characterizes "new consensus" as something Griffin and Eatwell say about themselves (Griffin and Roger Eatwell, who defined their theories as the "new consensus" in fascist studies), rather than stating in wikivoice that this is, in fact, a consensus. The only other time the term "new consensus" is mentioned it is a quote from a Portland State University adjunct geography lecturer published by AK Press –– again, hardly an academic stamp of approval.
As to your argument, such as it is: Paxton did not refer to Griffin's position as a "new consensus" (or any kind of consensus) so your question is nonsensical. An attempt to define a term can quite obviously be the "most influential" among a variety of options and still not in any way a "consensus".
Further, implicit in your argument seems to be the assumption that providing a definition is what serious academics are concerned with. It is not. When I say that Griffin is poorly regarded, I am referring to e.g. a conversation I had with a prominent historian who will remain nameless, who described him as a dog and pony show. This is the general view among historians of people who elide nuance in favor of reductive, definitional approaches. Paxton put it more politely in his book but it amounts to the same thing.
At this point, this conversation has become super repetitious. I'm going to disengage from you now. Hopefully some new voices can take over from here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paxton refers to the Griffin's "new consensus" when he writes, "The most widely accepted recent concise definition of fascism as an "ideal type" is by the British scholar Roger Griffin." Or is there another "concise definition by Griffin?
Your post contains confusion about what Griffin meant by "consensus." He wrote "some academics are convinced (myself included) that they can discern signs that an emergent consensus...is enabling ever more scholars to read fascism's runes, making the repeated jeremiads about its intrinsic resistance to definition so common only a decade ago now seem strangely archaic." ("The Primacy of Culture") Note that it is more commonly referred to as "consensus," rather than "new consensus," since it's no longer new.
I am bemused by your comment that "providing a definition is [not] what serious academics are concerned with." Books about ideology usually define the topic. Furthermore, definitions are essential to comparative politics. How can you compare trumpism with fascism if you don't know what either one is?
Anyway, I am basically repeating what is already in this article or can be found one the first page of books about fascism. I presume that most editors already know all that so if you have any more questions about fascist studies, please post to my talk page. TFD (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for: "Payne's third "negation" (anti-conservatism) is largely rejected by scholars –– since all major fascist movements that gained power did so through alliance with traditional conservatives." ?
I recently wrote the section on Payne's work on fascism and this would a useful addition to the Reception section if it's not WP:UNDUE. For the record I didn't do this because of this thread, I came across Payne when I was writing Andriy Melnyk (officer)#Fascism and noticed some problems with the article. He was cited by a Polish historian in a roundtable I watched on Melnyk.
I don't know why editors in this thread are divulging their own personal views on what constitutes fascism-- it's not the slightest bit relevant. Joko2468 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If, by a Portland State University adjunct geography lecturer published by AK Press I'm assuming you mean Alexander Reid Ross - who is a fellow at the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right. Remember that geography is a social science and geographers interested in social movements are increasingly common. Reid Ross may be younger than some of the others on this list but he's still an expert in far-right movements, particularly in the contemporary moment. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 looks the best of the options so far as it shows scholars on fascism both for and against inclusion of Trump and Trumpism. I think combining Option 3 with content within TFD's proposed statement above would be the best, it would show the scholars both for and against inclusion and it will show the broader context of how fascism is defined and how the new consensus scholars on fascism focus on interwar fascism while others adopted "portable" definitions that have included Trump and Trumpism.--BlueberryA96 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer proposal 2. Frankly I'm a bit concerned by trying to take the minimal extant dissent from people lik Payne (whose interpretation of fascism is rather flawed compared to others in the set of articles I reviewed) which seems to be perpetuating the WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also Proposal 3 is just a bit too long. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point about length (and, frankly, Payne, though secondary sources do still discuss him). I've created an Option 4 in response to these concerns. Generalrelative (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 is definitely movement in the right direction. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what we may think about a scholar's opinion the article needs to reflect what scholarly sources on fascism and fascist regimes say such as with Payne. I disagree with Payne on his for emphasizing anti-conservatism, fascism and especially Italian fascism upheld a number of traditional values and promoted things that Italian conservatives wanted such as banning abortion which Fascist Italy did in 1926 and promoting traditional patriarchal views that women should be mothers and not be working jobs that the fascists said men should do.--BlueberryA96 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stanley, Jason (26 May 2020). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-525-51185-4 – via Google Books.
  2. ^ DiMaggio, Anthony R. (2021). Rising Fascism in America. Routledge.
  3. ^ Massumi, Brian (28 February 2025). The Personality of Power: A Theory of Fascism for Anti-fascist Life. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-1-4780-6054-3 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Berger, Ronald J. (3 April 2025). "Fascism, American Style: Toward a Sociology of the Fascist Moment". Sociological Focus. 58 (2): 177–194. doi:10.1080/00380237.2025.2466003. ISSN 0038-0237. It is in this context, naysayers notwithstanding (Kuklick; Steinmetz-Jenkins), that the wall of scholarly resistance to understanding Trump and the MAGA movement as fascist has been crumbling (Berger ; Dimaggio; Neiwert; Rosenfeld and Ward; Street; Tourish).
  5. ^ Berger, Ronald J. 2024. Sociology and the Holocaust: A Discipline Grapples with History. New York: Routledge.
  6. ^ Rosenfeld, Gavriel D., and Janet Ward, eds. 2023. Fascism in America: Past and Present. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. ^ a b c Cox, Lloyd; O’Connor, Brendon (Mar 26, 2025). "Trumpism, fascism and neoliberalism". Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory. 0 (0): 1–18. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159. ISSN 1600-910X.
  8. ^ a b c Dupont, Marion (May 3, 2025). "Is Trumpism a form of fascism? Two historians debate". Le Monde. Retrieved October 6, 2025.
  9. ^ Cox, Lloyd; O'Connor, Brendon (2025). "It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history". Leadership. 20 (1). doi:10.1177/17427150231210732. Gökarıksel, Banu; Smith, Sara (2016). "'Making America Great Again'?: The fascist body politics of Donald Trump". Political Geography. 54: 79–81. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004. Renton, D. K. (1 April 2025). "Trump, Fascism, and the Authoritarian Turn". Spectre Journal. doi:10.63478/XIWSTTUP. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Cox, Lloyd; O'Connor, Brendon (2025). "Trumpism, Fascism and Neoliberalism". Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory. (advance online publication). doi:10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159. Short Takes by UCLA Historians: Are we in a Fascist Age?. UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy (Report). 20 January 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Beauchamp, Zack (16 October 2020). "What is fascism, and is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in". Vox. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Milman, Oliver (4 November 2024). "Is Trump actually a fascist – and why does the answer matter?". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 September 2025. Stanley, Jason; Goodman, Amy (September 18, 2024). "Fascism Expert Jason Stanley on Project 2025, Great Replacement Theory, Attacks on Immigrants & Gaza". Democracy Now!. Retrieved September 19, 2025.
  10. ^ Stan, Adele M. (Spring 2025). "The "New" American Fascists". Democracy Journal (76). Retrieved 19 September 2025. McNeill, J. R. (21 August 2020). "How fascist is President Trump? There's still a formula for that". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
  11. ^ a b Rosenfeld, Gavriel (21 June 2022). "An American Führer? Nazi Analogies and the Struggle to Explain Donald Trump". Central European History. 52 (4): 554–587. doi:10.1017/S0008938919000840.
  12. ^ a b Greenberg, Udi (21 June 2022). "Intellectual History and the Fascism Debate: On Analogies and Polemic". Modern Intellectual History. 20 (2): 571–581. doi:10.1017/S1479244322000129.
  13. ^ Steinmetz-Jenkins, Daniel (2024). "Introduction: Making Sense of the Fascism Debate". Did It Happen Here?: Perspectives on Fascism and America. W. W. Norton. ISBN 9781324074403.
  14. ^ Moyn, Samuel (19 May 2020). "The Trouble with Comparisons". The New York Review of Books.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  15. ^ Paxton, Robert O. (11 January 2021). "I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now". Newsweek. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
  16. ^ Zerofsky, Elisabeth (23 October 2024). "Is it Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes his Mind". The New York Times Magazine.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ^ Evans, Richard J. (13 January 2021). "Why Trump isn't a fascist". The New Statesman.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  18. ^ Matthews, Dylan (14 January 2021). "The F Word: The debate over whether to call Donald Trump a fascist, and why it matters". Vox.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ^ Steinmetz-Jenkins, Daniel (2024). "Introduction: Making Sense of the Fascism Debate". Did It Happen Here?: Perspectives on Fascism and America. W. W. Norton. ISBN 9781324074403.
  20. ^ Moyn, Samuel (19 May 2020). "The Trouble with Comparisons". The New York Review of Books.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  21. ^ Paxton, Robert O. (11 January 2021). "I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now". Newsweek. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
  22. ^ Zerofsky, Elisabeth (23 October 2024). "Is it Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes his Mind". The New York Times Magazine.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  23. ^ Evans, Richard J. (13 January 2021). "Why Trump isn't a fascist". The New Statesman.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  24. ^ Matthews, Dylan (14 January 2021). "The F Word: The debate over whether to call Donald Trump a fascist, and why it matters". Vox.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Request to clarify the distinction between Fascism and Nazism in lead section

[edit]

Mimmoilredeifungi (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is misshapen.

[edit]

The first sentence of this article, which is potentially the only part many readers will see, feels more like a checklist than a definition. Describing fascism as far-right gives context, but doesn't tell me what fascism is. What are the core beliefs of fascism? It isn't until the second sentence that it's actually solidified, though even then it focuses far too much on characteristics, not meaning. This isn't a coherent definition. It's a collection of labels. It's needed to rearrange the order of this article but not the sources nor the true statement of fascism being far-right.

Haskeymorrison (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question:
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.
Per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence is supposed to define the subject. If you have a better way to define it than by stating what it is (a far-right, authoritarian and ultranationalist political ideology/movement with its origins in the early 20th century in Europe), you are free to propose a new one.
Also, I would note that three descriptive words about it hardly makes the sentence read like a checklist.
As for its core beliefs, those are literally outlined in the second sentence, which you dismissed as 'characterization', likely because it uses the phrase 'is characterized by'. But characterization is literally what you're asking for. Defining its core beliefs is defining its character.
Perhaps a better approach would be for you to propose a new first paragraph, then explain why you feel that one is better. Your critiques of the existing first paragraph simply aren't parsing for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine to me. How would you define it? TFD (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant to reply to the OP, not me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. For a simple definition, please see Wikt:fascism. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]