Talk:Fascist (insult)

message: This page has absolutely no reason to exist and seems to be a hotbed for political opportunists on both sides. It should me merged with the main article on fascism ASAP.Fleabag500 01:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I agree the more I read into it. This reminds me of the anti-ethnicity/nationality/group pages which end up succumbing to the same quarrels looking to influence the pages and the readers. OyMosby (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly useless page 

message: mummmummmuummmuuum
It seems to me that there is a definite bias in this page against the right wing view point. There is also the line "Thus with both Bush and Clinton labeled fascists, Orwell's 1944 observation was alive and well." This is not a quote. It is not a fact. It is simply an opinion. 
I would like the opinion of others before any action is taken.Bengaska 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that line ill-considered. Instead moved existing quote up to serve same purpose. Also made various other improvements. If you still think not neutral, please be specific with what exactly you object to. 24.187.40.101 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEUTRALITY 

message: The previous statement on use of "fascism" or "fascist-pig" as epithets in the 1960s was POV and propagandistic.  The idea that anyone who believed in "ordered social discourse" was labelled a fascist is untrue - many liberals, communists and even anarchists believe in some kind of social order, but would not necessarily be included in this label.  The specific actions which would classify someone as a "fascist-pig" would typically be those associated with extra-liberal repression such as the police violence seen at Kent State, Chicago and so on - somebody like Mayor Daley would be called a "fascist" because he violated what others took to be the right to protest, and thus shown himself to be authoritarian, intolerant and chauvinistic.  The implication of the statement is that the kinds of repression carried out by the likes of Daley can simply be typified as a preference for "orderly discourse" rather than as authoritarianism or as the "intolerance, chauvinism" etc discussed at the top of the article.  I have thus changed the article to be more precise.
I've also added some material explaining the possible analytical basis for the rhetorical use of "fascist" to refer to authoritarian, intolerant and chauvinistic people and institutions.
* (The above unsigned shows to have been written by 82.19.15.105 on 30 October 2006) (please sign your edits!) --Treekids (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1960s use 

message: Should the Soviet/Russian habit of accusing people and governments of fascism when they don't agree with Kremlin's point of view on history or current politics be mentioned here? Examples: soviets called anti-soviet partisans of Baltic states and Ukraine fascist This article is a good example: Anti-Estonian sentiment. --Kyng (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting suggestion.  Merits consideration. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article also needs a mention of wartime usage by the Soviets, supposedly they are the ones who created the broad popular (mis)usage of "fascist" as an epithet for authoritarianism because they didn't want to label their enemies as Nazis (which is derived from National Socialist and thus sounds too similar to Soviet Socialist) or German (they didn't want to label the war as based on nationalism, in any case over a dozen nations contribued at least a thousand or more men to the Axis cause [in some cases a quarter to half a million men], and almost half the Red Army was non-Russian, making that perspective also senseless). I don't have even recollection where I read this, otherwise I would add the citations. (This is also why Bolshevik wartime posters used the term "Hitlerite"; they needed to get creative with their terminology but obviously this epithet had a much more limited usage especially once the war ended and Hitler was dead.) P.S. The Soviet usage became popularized in the West because Western intellectual elites uncritically adopted its usage in an effort to seem politically sophisticated. Historian932 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by Russia and Soviet Union 

message: You guys on wikipedia are fascists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.236.228 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah 

message: I looked at this page to see whether it would be appropriate to use the term 'fascist' to describe the X (chi) organisation of Greece, whose raison d'etre was anticommunism, and modus operandi violence.  Instead I get a whole lot of bleating about how the term 'fascist' is used inappropriately/unfairly, and no serious guidelines about when it should be used, in a a wider sense rather than just being applied to Italians with bundles of sticks (fasces). Bougatsa42 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How useless 

message: It could be helpful to define "fascist" as an attitude of someone who uses (is going to use) power in a violent, antidemocratic way, opposed to rule of law, transparency and accountability. It seems, that the "modus operandi: violence" is the centerpiece of something being eligible to be called fascist. This makes one time "existing communism/socialism", also known as soviet-type government one of the examples, which may be confusing given that the soviet-communist (I mean by that not just Russia, rather all existing/once existed) socialist-communist governments/parties/ideologies hold "antifascism" among their core values, however this rhetoric does not prevent them from using very similar (e.g.: fascist) way of ruling once they get power. Basically all kinds of dicatatorships that rely on violence at will as opposed to rule of law and transparency and accountability seem to be more or less fascistic. That said, i agree with Bougatsa that the article at its present state gives hardly any guidence on the definition of the word, but what he was looking for might be here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Then again, Fascism as an insult-word would deserve a paragraph on the typical use of the word by (or inside) the soviet-type regimes, as connected to the use of the heroic story of sacrifice accomplished by the Soviet Union during the second world war (fighting the then nazi Germany) and these regimes being tied ideologically (and in most cases also economically and in a military and political sense as well) to the Soviet Union.
94.66.137.166 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  indeed useless - at this phase, as it is really start level 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fascist (insult). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722005929/http://www.expressindia.com:80/ie/daily/19980823/23550294.html to http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19980823/23550294.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Use of fascist as an insult does not really deserve its own article. It should be a small section of the main Fascism article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.210.183 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This really should be merged with the main Fascism article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fascist (insult). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120080346/http://katalog.bip.ipn.gov.pl/showDetails.do?idx=P&katalogId=2&subpageKatalogId=2&pageNo=1&nameId=18103&osobaId=33354& to http://katalog.bip.ipn.gov.pl/showDetails.do?idx=P&katalogId=2&subpageKatalogId=2&pageNo=1&nameId=18103&osobaId=33354&
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page currently says:
...said that Trump either does not hold and even is opposed to several political viewpoints that are integral to fascism
Which is sourced to this:
Every one of them stated that to be a fascist, one must support the revolutionary, usually violent overthrow of the entire government/Constitution, and reject democracy entirely. In 2015, none were comfortable saying Trump went that far. 
[*Curb Your Enthusiasm*].
I won't add any tags to the existing wording per NPOV, but the current content seems a bit outdated now; maybe move the word "2016" from "a 2016 article" to "stated that in 2016"? After the insurrection a couple major sources have recommented on this comparison:   .  Nixinova   T   C   07:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Trump

message: The subsection titled "American politics" refers exclusively to the use of the term by conservatives, despite the fact that Donald Trump was referred to as fascists elsewhere in the article. I am requesting an edit to move the information pertaining to Trump to this subsection, because currently there appears to be a left-wing bias here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.67.170 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the American politics subsection 

message: 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.
</div>
:Fascist (insult) →  – Since this page isn't for disambiguation, it shouldn't be structured with a parenthetical. "Fascist as a pejorative" is already used in the Fascism article for the subsection summarizing this article. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 00:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 May 2022 

message: I have made a BOLD edit to remove the section on Marxist opinions. It was, in short, bad. There was one source for the entire first paragraph, and the second only had sources on the last sentence. My edit may have been a drastic measure, but Abbie Hoffman saying something once in a radio interview isn’t enough for a mention, nor is the obvious OR about state monopoly capitalism. Either there are sources for the claim that Indian/Iranian/Iraqi Marxists say Hindutva/the Iranian regime/Iraqi Islamist insurgents is/are fascist and they’re not given (NPOV violation) or there aren’t and it’s not notable (NPOV violation). The Christian Post and Indian Express articles were exact copies of each other, anyway, and I’m not sure either of them are RS for this specific purpose. The section title didn’t even match its content! I think the section should be rewritten from scratch, if “Marxist opinions on fascist as a pejorative” is a notable topic (which it might well be). 2001:1970:5E26:5A00:1908:DF01:D6F6:BCFF (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxists 

message: I've added several tags to the article, including , , , and  because the article appears to rely heavily on synthesis and currently reads as a critique of the use of the term fascist as an insult. The article should be rewritten to give due weight to those who believe that the use of "fascist" is proper as an insult; for example, the section on the United States includes no reference to Antifa. This article needs a significant rewrite. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added several tags to article