Talk:List of fascist movements by country: Difference between revisions

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Fascism" being a highly loaded term, some mention of the reasoning or source behind this listing should be provided. Some post-fascist parties such as the Justicialist Party are listed here, others such as National Alliance (Italy) are not. Also excluded are People's Party (Spain) and the Grand National Party of South Korea, which are descended from parties supporting former military regimes, meanwhile the Kuomintang and the Bharatiya Janata Party, which I in years of following geopolitics have often heard described as ideologically nationalist but never fascist, do appear. - choster 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, figured that might be a problem. I was aiming for inclusiveness; my general criteria were:

• Self-proclaimed fascist or Nazi organizations
• Nationalist movements which actively collaborated with the Axis
• Movements called "fascist" somewhere else on Wikipedia (it's all your faults! ;) )
• Movements using fascist-like symbology (e.g. Nazi swastikas, "88" in the name -- although the literature is full of swastikas and fasces used by-non fascist political entities)

IMO the hardest part to wade through was the ebb and flow of British white-power movements, many of which were established by a fairly short list of people whose own politics seem to shift dramatically (this seems also to be the case with Swedish movements).

I included the KMT based on Wang Jingwei and the BJP based on accusations in its article and in Hindutva; as for the People's Party and the Grand National Party, I just missed them. Stlemur 06:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (oh, and the Flagspot site was cited because it had a number of translations & transliterations)[reply]

Wang Jingwei left KMT and formed a Japanese controlled government in Nanjing, China, when China was in war with Japan. He was a traitor by any means. It does not make KMT fascist. Bobbybuilder 11:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism gives the following criteria:

   * exalts the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
   * stresses loyalty to a single leader.
   * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
   * engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
   * engages in syndicalist corporatism.
   * implements totalitarian systems.

Since a lot of the organizations on this page never came to power, I propose that for inclusion, a movement which did not come to power should satisfy six of:

1. exalts the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

2. stresses loyalty to a single leader.

3. advocates violence or uses modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

4. advocates severe economic and social regimentation.

5. advocates syndicalist corporatism.

6. advocates totalitarian systems.

7. declares itself or holds itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, or falangist movement.

I say "six of" because a lot of neo-Nazi movements don't seem to have much economic agenda apart from protectionism and halting immigration, and as far as I know there's no amisyndicalistcorporatistornot.com.

Now of course, in a sufficiently big political entity there will be variation; it's fair to say that not all of the Kuomintang was fascist at once. It was, however, a strongly nationalist organization which spent many years ruling a single-party state, with a generally socialist political program that engaged in violent oppression of much of its opposition and supported Confucian values, which imply social regimentation; and from the Wang Jingwei article we know there were fascist-inspired suborganizations under its sponsorship. Furthermore, Chiang Kai-Shek did attempt to have a cult of personality (although it never really caught on). Based on that I say put the KMT back on the list. Stlemur 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KMT is not socialist. You also need to study more about Confucian values. Bobbybuilder 12:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Kuomintang#Fascism

I think the list is not very well made. The former Romanian Communist Party satisfies 5 of the above points(everything except 5 and 7), while most ultranationalistic groups have nothing to do with corporatism. --MikaelRo 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the criteria to comply common usage the word "fascism" :

1 Communist movement meets all criteria and that is right, however people for some reasons tend to differentiate it. BTW corporatism means power of non-elected group. That is what Communist parties stand for.

2 Benito Mussolini states that he just coined the word "fascism", while many historical figures like Caesar, Napoleon etc. and their supporters were actually fascists. --H.S. 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The definition used on this list derives from that used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism. I've reverted your proposed change for the time being; you're welcome, however, to make your case for a revised definition on that project's talk page. - Stlemur 15:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trimming the alphabetic subsections somewhat; they had a lot of additional text otherwise duplicated on this page, which is going to be a headache to maintain as well as fairly redundant. Shimgray 17:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also redirected their talk pages here, to avoid confusion. Shimgray 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? What evidence do people have to call the Posse Comitatus "Fascist?" It is an anarchical movement. There were undoubtedly some neofascists in it, but let's not toss every ultra-right group into the Fascist bucket.--Cberlet 14:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see discussion on Talk:Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement). It was agreed that Posse Comitatus has some connections to American fascism, but does not meet the criteria for a fascist movement. Stlemur 14:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of fascism currently being used in this article, it seems that the Republican Party of the United States of America is a fascist movement. I have added it to the list, and it has been removed. I am adding this comment in order to solicit opinions from those editors who have removed that entry. There are many references online to the fascist nature of this party, and it seems to clearly fit the description used in the fascism article. 67.168.255.50 12:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed on Talk:Republican Party (United States) and its classification under this list rejected by consensus. - Stlemur 12:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This subject may have been discussed on Talk:Republican Party (United States), however I see no evidence that its classification under this list was rejected, by consensus or not. Shall I provide references? 67.168.255.50 12:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can. The Republican Party is not fascist under any definitions I've seen. However, if you can provide reputable references that can prove that the Republicans are fascists under an acceptable definition then they can be added to the list. Until then don't add them in again. - DNewhall

I refer you to the Neo-Fascism article for a succinct summary of the rationale for describing the GOP as a fascist party. There is no need to look far and wide to find the evidence - it is right in front of us. So far I have seen no evidence to refute the classification of the GOP as a fascist party, and welcome any that can be produced. --Dschor 01:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply not a significant number of serious published scholars who would make this claim to warrant adding the Repubs to the list. It is a tiny minority position.--Cberlet 02:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of scholars who do make this claim, and it seems that this 'tiny minority position' is growing in popularity daily as the evidence develops. Part of the reason that more scholars do not come forward has to do with the economics of a corporate-run press and educational system. If the Republicans in the United States are not fascist, what are they? And what more must they do to warrant the label? --Dschor 10:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a new of the "number of scholars who do make this claim," and then we can compare them to those that refute the claim. Have you visited the Fascism page and read the text? Also, the arguments for the U.S. being fascist (or the Repubs) is at the Neo-Fascism page and the arguments are very weak and from a minority viewpoint. Perhaps this debate should move there where there is at list an iota of evidence provided--Cberlet 13:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Fascism and Neo-Fascism articles, and based on the criteria of both articles, the current incarnation of the GOP does appear to be a fascist party. You have suggested moving this debate, and with that in mind I have created an article Fascism (United States) that specifically addresses this issue. I am a n00b, and therefore the article is brief, incomplete, and inadequately sourced at the present time. However, I feel that it is in the spirit of wikipedia, and hope that it will help to remove this debate from the general articles on Fascism. I do feel that the GOP should be included on this page, but I respect the opinions of my fellow wikipedians, and therefore I will not attempt to add the Republican Party (United States) to this list until I feel that the Fascism (United States) article can stand alone as a defense of my position. Thank you for your interest in the subject. I apologize for my meager citations, and hope to remedy the situation as my wiki skills improve. --Dschor 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point me to specific examples of Rhodesian Front political ideology that can be identified as fascist? Otherwise I suggest RF's removal from this list. Humansdorpie 23:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Fascism WikiProject did not know of any factors that would make this fascist and we don't consider it part of the project anymore I removed the Rhodesian Front from the list. - DNewhall

Has this been removed from the list for a reason? --Dschor 10:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been renamed "4th of August Regime" as a result of the page move. It's absent from the list of fascist classifications because it isn't really a "broad classification" if it only happened in one government in one country following no particular party's ideology. I suppose you might classify it under "integralism", following the Salazar connection - Stlemur 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin/I.R.A. should be added to this list, as their anti-Protestant policies are fascist, given the fact that Gerry Adams' speeches have an extremely racist overtone, as do the speeches of Martin McGuinness. - (Aidan Work 05:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A discussion about this is underway at Talk:Sinn Féin. Consensus seems to be against inclusion; racist speech alone is not sufficient to qualify a group as fascist. - Stlemur 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden I suggest you learn the meaning of fascist and stop with your biggotry. If thats the case, then the DUP are fascists. Jim-ie 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The avowedly Britanniphobic 'Maori Party' should be added as well, because its leaders Tariana Turia & Pita Sharples are known for making extremely racist speeches, which advocates racial discrimination against British New Zealanders. - (Aidan Work 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As above, racist speech alone doesn't qualify a group as fascist. - Stlemur 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys.... Hindutva just qualifies for 1-2 categories here. I remvoign it. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahane Chai and Tenuat Kakh do not meet the article's stated criteria for being labeled 'fascist'. It did not stress loyalty to anyone. It had a spokesperson, who did not require any loyalty. Neither group used or professed violence other than self-defense. They did not exalt the nation or race "above" others. They were seeking segregated autonomy (i.e.: you stay on your side of the fence, and we stay on ours). It did not implement or consider totalitarianism. On the contrary, they professed democracy within the organization. I'm removing them from the list.

Also, I urge people to be more selective when labeling a movement as 'fascist' since it reduces the integrity and quality of the article. Obviously people are having differing points of view, so it's safer to not list an organization as fascist, than to be indiscriminate. The list really needs a fact based explanation for groups who do not label themselves as fascist.

What about Revisionist Zionism? --172.190.244.137 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I find it a bit dubious to class "monarchism", "Stalinism", and "ultra-nationalism" as explicitly fascist movements without significantly greater evidence. Stalinism has things in common with other brutal regimes of the mid-20th century but was explicitly anti-fascistic and anti-corporatist; monarchism in and of itself isn't a fascistic movement, and the inclusion of the Action Francaise is fairly tenuous, stemming from that movement's collaboration with the Nazi regime, with Pamyat meanwhile having distinct neo-Nazi influences and putting out similar rhetoric. While I think a case can be made for the inclusion of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia on its own merits, meanwhile -- since they've expressed support for just about every economic system ever invented at one time or another -- ultra-nationalism itself, without other qualification, doesn't make a fascist movement. --Stlemur 09:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for whoever added it to give a source for Parti fasciste révolutionnaire and its founder Lamour as I have yet to come across a reference to either of them anywhere. Keresaspa 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question the inclusion of apartheid in the list of varieties. While it was a reprehensible policy, and the regime that implemented it fulfilled several of the inclusion criteria, apartheid itself did not. -Ahruman 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree in principle...it would be useful to have a blanket term for the National Party & its associated movements in South Africa and, if there's an ideological link, Rhodesia. --Stlemur 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL NAZI PARTIES ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE REMOVED AS THEY ARE NOT FASCISM BUT NATIONAL SOCIALIST