Talk:Neo-fascism

RfC: Should the article identify the MAGA movement as neo-fascist?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no; none of the sources given describe MAGA as neo-fascist, but rather fascist, with no adjectives or modifiers. Further, some sources do not mention MAGA sensu stricto at all, but rather Trumpism or similar near-synonyms. (non-admin closure) wound theology◈ 11:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the article describe the MAGA movement as neo-fascist? See the contested material in Special:Diff/1312378034/1312471678 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• RfC reformatted to comply with the neutrality requirements of the RfC policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Ample research shows the MAGA movement is a neo-fascist movement and should be identified here as such. Hoping to gain a consensus to update this objectively factual and unbiased information which is verifiable from research journals that consistently identify the movement as fascist/neo-fascist/proto-fascist. Rangooner (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  Currently, we already have Donald Trump and Fascism linked in the section of Trumpism that mentions neo-fascist elements present in the MAGA movement, with the Make America Great Again page focusing on the slogan and linking back to Trumpism as the movement associated with MAGA.

  
  

  With that in mind, it's worth noting that there's currently active debates on both talk pages for Trumpism and Donald Trump and Fascism regarding whether to use Wikivoice to describe the movement as fascist or not.

  
  

  This article already describes the alt-right as a neo-fascist movement, which is connected to Trump and Trumpism. I think it's worth keeping these details in mind during this discussion 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• No. Not one of these sources describes him as neo-fascist, so why would we put it on the article about neo-fascism, which is a specific movement that not one of these sources identifies him as? This is the article on neo-fascism, not fascism, which we helpfully have another article for: fascism. We have an entire other article about Donald Trump and fascism, but not trump and neo-fascism, which is a specific movement. It is WP:SYNTH to attempt to add material where none of the sources used mention the subject of the article. These sources do not mention neo-fascism, or use the word or concept at all! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA, who is "him"? The question is about whether "the MAGA movement" (=not any individual man) should be described this way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  "@WhatamIdoing The sources this person used are all about Trump as a person, not MAGA, so that is what I addressed. "It is time to use the F word about Trump" "The fascist body politics of Donald Trump" "Trump, Fascism, and the Authoritarian Turn", "Trumpism, Fascism and Neoliberalism". Well, the last one is about Trumpism, but not MAGA. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  I did a quick search in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and did not find anything clearly saying that the MAGA movement is fascist. The closest I got was a quotation from a politician calling them "semi-fascist", and a paper saying that the rise of MAGA had caused people to talk more about fascism. I don't think the suggested claim that the MAGA movement is (neo)fascist can be supported. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  It may be hasty to assume "trumpism" != "MAGA Movement". I will have a look at the sources tomorrow. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing I am digging into wikipedia library and am getting a lot of peer-reviewed hits off both "+trumpism +neo-fascism" and "+trumpism +fascism" so I'm not sure where you're saying nothing close. I'm reviewing specific sources now. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  1. A review of Richard Saull's Capital, Race and Space, Volume 2: The Far-Right from ‘Post-Fascism’ to Trumpism in the Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities states, Various national case studies fill the rest of this final section, with the list opened by the American far-right and the Trump phenomenon. Not perceived as a deviation of democracy per se, given its undeniable continuities, Trumpism is nevertheless thought to reveal “the most likely form that a contemporary American fascism will assume” which would indicate Saull's book discusses Trumpism as a paradigmatic example of what fascism in the United States will look like. This book was written in 2023 so... recent developments are indicative.
  2. Perverted Containment: Trumpism, Cult Creation, and the Rise of Destructive American Populism. By: Diamond, Michael J., Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 07351690, Feb/Mar2023, Vol. 43, Issue 2 says, in its introduction, 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
  3. Even as early as 2018 scholars were raising alarm, for instance Before Trump: On Comparing Fascism and Trumpism. By: Colasacco, Brett, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 19301189, Spring2018, Vol. 12, Issue 1 concludes It remains to be seen whether Trump, as president, will fulfill his pledge on the campaign trail to usher in not just reform, but sudden, dramatic change (“drain the swamp”). Regardless, the success of his candidacy is enough to suggest that the underpinnings of Trumpism—like those of fascism and other palingenetic-ultranationalist radicalisms—are cultural, even spiritual, in nature, and points to something forgotten, or ignored, by the America that was before Trump.
  4. It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history, Authors: Tourish, Dennis1 (AUTHOR) Source: Leadership (17427150). Feb2024, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p9-32. 24p. says The well-known UK journalist, Paul Mason, published an influential book in 2021 entitled How to Stop Fascism. In it, he writes: ‘Let’s state what should be obvious: Trump is not a fascist’ (p 39). He based this assessment on Trump’s record as President, where by and large democratic norms prevailed. But he also acknowledged that ‘both Trump himself, and his movement, are a work in progress’ (p. 40). The eminent historian Richard Evans reached a similar conclusion in 2021, mainly on the basis that Trump showed no desire to fight wars against foreign powers, unlike fascism in the past.14 I argue here that these conclusions have been overtaken by events. before describing, in detail, how Trumpism correlates to fascism.
  5. Originalism and Democratic Decline by Robin Maril writing in the Maryland Law Review concludes Although originalism was considered too far outside the mainstream in 1987, today it is a minimum qualification for judicial nominees and is embraced in one form or another by a supermajority of the United States Supreme Court. The quick steps and angry fists of fascism are at the threshold of our democracy. Intensifying polarization and exclusionary populist rhetoric will only amplify the knock, and over the next decade, nine Justices will decide how to answer. Originalism has already opened the door. Throughout the article, Trumpism is described as being fascist.
  6. Exit Right. By: Winant, Gabriel, Dissent (0012-3846), 00123846, Winter2025, Vol. 72, Issue 1 is explicit in calling Trumpism fascism, concluding, Trumpism can't be finessed because it speaks to real forces in American society—racism, misogyny, class frustration—and offers an obscene, satisfying expression to its addressees. It can only be beaten by direct confrontation—not just with Trump, but with what he represents, and the remaking of America he envisions. To call his movement fascism carries this unavoidable implication, which makes all the more galling the lack of appetite for such confrontation from so many who apply the label. "It takes little courage to mutter a general complaint, in a part of the world where complaining is still permitted, about the wickedness of the world and the triumph of barbarism, or to cry boldly that the victory of the human spirit is assured," Brecht once wrote. "There are many who pretend that cannons are aimed at them when in reality they are the target merely of opera glasses."
  7. It doesn't exatly have a good pull quote but On Collective Endurance: Thinking Gender Studies in Illiberal Times—A Conversation. By: Hemmings, Clare, Wiegman, Robyn, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 01609009, 2025, Vol. 46, Issue 1 involves a conversation in which one of the participants uses the terms "Christo-fascism" and "Trumpism" effectively synonymously.

  This isn't all the articles. It's just all I had time to review. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I will note that these sources do raise a reasonable question about whether the "neo" prefix is appropriate. A lot of the sources seem to treat Trumpism as fascism without adjectives, prefix or suffix. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is to add "the MAGA movement". I therefore searched for "MAGA", not for "Trumpism". I have no information that would be relevant to a proposal to add "Trumpism" (though I, too, noticed that articles tended to talk about fascism without adjectives, but that might be due to my search keywords). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ok so MAGA movement and trumpism are functionally synonyms. I'm not sure there is any daylight at all between these terms though I'd be happy to review any source that makes a distinction between them. I'd honestly think this is WP:SKYBLUE absent a source that treats them as separate phenomena. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  For an example of what I mean look at From the "Island of Garbage" to Dark Maga: The Resurgence of a Masculinist Alt-Right in the 2024 Election? Authors: MOURIER, PIERRE1 Source: Journal of Transnational American Studies. 2025, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p35-38. 5p.

  It uses MAGA in the title and then puts Trumpism in the Subject terms metadata but not MAGA. Then Trumpism does not appear in the body of the article although MAGA does in various iterations that also mark "dark maga" as synonymous with Neoreaction. All this sort of indicates the author understood Trumpism to be equivalent to MAGA. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Trumpismo y Relaciones México-Estados Unidos. Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe1, Norteamérica: Revista Académica del CISAN-UNAM. ene-jun2024, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p1-5. 5p.

  refers to MAGA as a phrase used by the movement of Trumpism. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I honestly don't care if it goes on some other article about fascism but this article should remain tightly focused on the neo-fascist element. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Very few people discussing the MAGA movement's relationship to fascism believe it is a revival of Italian Fascism or that it promotes corporatism, which are associated with classical fascism. Classical fascism is often thought to be unique to the conditions of the 20th century. Discussions about contemporary fascism are this usually discussions about neo-fascism, treated as the more recent (and broader) form of fascism rather than as a wholly separate movement from classical fascism. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  See I get where you're coming from but that's not holding up in the literature. It could simply be that academia is not as concerned with the neo/fascist distinction as we are on this specific wikipedia page but I just spent all morning reading journals about Trumpism and fascism and the neo- prefix just isn't being used. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I do think academia is less concerned with the neo/fascist distinction. If so, it makes sense to me to reserve this page for the academics who do make such a distinction. If none of them are calling Trumpism, Trump, or MAGA neo-fascist, then in including that could middle a term that's already a little obscure. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Articles about political extremism are definitely a place to keep the citations as close to academic best sources as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fascism also already links to Donald Trump and Fascism when mentioning present day fascism, so it seems like this link has already been mentioned in the more appropriate place, too. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Academia is the only place concerned with this distinction. Why would we have this article at all if there is no meaningful distinction? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Most academics of fascism probably don't know much about the concept of neo-fascism beyond seeing it as a synonym for contemporary fascism, and thus don't see a need to use the word. The academics who define neo-fascism as a separate movement are a little more obscure in an already heavily specialized field. It's comparable to other terms without widespread acceptance like proto-fascism or ur-fascism or post-fascism. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is not true. And if it was true, why would be bother to include him on the page for a technical sub-definition? Why bother having this page at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The article itself explains this. Contemporary fascist movements are less concerned with elements of classical fascism like corporatism and are less likely to identify themselves as fascist. They also rise to power in different ways, due to the different sociopolitical context of the modern age. Many scholars prefer "neo-fascism" to "contemporary fascism" because they believe "fascism" should be reserved for either Italian Fascism or some small set of the countries that identified as fascist in the early 20th century. This is because fascism itself has a wide range of competing definitions. This is already covered by the sources quoted in the article. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by bot). Is there some WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about this? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Weak technical no Because, while I see the MAGA movement as synonymous with Trumpism, the most current reliable sources don't call Trumpism neo-fascist but rather just straight-up fascist without any prefix or adjective. I am on the fence as to whether this would make Trumpism in-scope for this page. I will say my !vote here is very weak and I could easily be persuaded either to strengthen my opposition or to switch to support if a compelling policy argument is brought forward for the fascism / neo-fascism distinction within the context of scope of page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

Neo-fascism is left wing

Neo-fascism is a left-wing ideology. There's nothing right-wing about it. A Joint Bulletin (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Not according to sources. — Czello ^(music) 11:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

Hi, I'm from New Zealand and I'm someone who agrees with our Prime Minister that the victims of the Christchurch Mosque Shooting deserve to be remembered instead of the perpetrator. I say this to give you the context about my request. Can someone please reword the section under "Australia and New Zealand" so the murderer's name isn't the first thing you read? I remember wishing never to learn the gunman's real name but unfortunately the world doesn't respect our country's wishes on the matter, and so I'm unfortunately aware of this human piece of refuse (sorry for the hostility, he's currently trying to get the Supreme Court to allow him to change his plea from guilty to "self-defense"). That said, it's incredibly jarring for it to be the first thing I read in that small section of text. As an example, instead of starting with: NAME "the Australian perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings ..." it could be altered in small ways like swapping the name to the end of the sentence, instead of the main subject. "The Australian perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings," NAME ", was an admitted fascist..."

Although this does beg the question why this is in neo-fascism if he's "an admitted fascist". Also, you have the wrong tense. He "was" not an admitted fascist, he "is" an admitted fascist. Livegeekdie (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Livegeekdie I don't see the point personally (see Herostratus) but I decided to do it anyway because the text afterwards would still read fine. It's just as jarring afterwards to me as it is before, but this is an encyclopedia. I've fixed the tense.

I don't mean to invalidate your feelings or those of the millions of other New Zealanders who were traumatised (by something that almost never happens in NZ), but I think the point of "not naming" the perpetrator is to discourage repeat attacks (see Mass shooting contagion § "Don't Name Them" campaign and Stochastic terrorism), not firstly to protect the wellbeing of the communities victimised by the event that already happened.

If you still feel strongly about it then I'd suggest maybe a change to the Manual of Style is worth being discussed, especially if you can bring empirical evidence that there's a difference and it's in the interests of readers. Maybe this section unless you can find a better one: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § People accused of crime. If a discussion about this is started without leading with empirical evidence, then I predict "WP:NOTCENSORED" is likely to be the most frequent response. 🔥Komonzia (message) 19:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Tarrant was convicted so that section no longer applies. And I don't think the "no naming" thing has actually been shown to work, especially in this case; avoiding giving attention to the perpetrator was tried harder with Christchurch than almost any other shooting, and that case ended up with more copycats than almost any other crime of its nature in recent years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for rewording it, I don't know the evidence for oe against any of that, my request was simply made from the perspective of being respectful to those who experienced loss. I don't understand why it would count as censorship since it didn't change the content of the sentence, just the arrangement of it. ~2026-15125-35 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This page is bad

This page amounts to a listing of every single group that has been described as fascist post-war. It doesn't even attempt to define neo-fascism - contrary to the scholarship, where there is much debate on if Neo-fascism is a separate thing, its manifestations, delineations and characteristics versus the originals. The definition of what this ideology supposedly believes is totally uncited and also not in the body at all.

Fascism, as an article, does not even limit itself to pre-WWII or contemporary movements, it includes post-war movements, so I don't know what we're even doing here. What is the scope difference supposed to be? It's not clear, since the vast majority of sources do not use the word neo-fascism.

Much more fruitful, I think, would be an article on the overall concept, and we could shuffle off the various examples to some history of fascism or fascism by country page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Purge of reliable sources about croatia neo-fascism

@Blue-Sonnet: Mass purging reliable sources in order to whitewash a well know croatian neo-fascism is just wrong. --Mohamd67 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Several of the sources included don't even mention fascism, you added unsourced content - how were you adding content with a citation needed tag from 2018? Have you been working on this edit for 8 years? Also wildly WP:UNDUE here, undoubtedly neo-fascism exists in Croatia but we should be working off sources about it and not constructing it piecemeal from individual news articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was the second person to revert you, I wanted to encourage you to discuss this on the Talk page and reach a consensus - this isn't about whitewashing, we need to write solid & well-sourced encyclopedia articles.

Wikipedia isn't here to raise awareness or right wrongs. We're here to write neutral encyclopedia articles using reliable sources to verify their content. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Following the discussion, I corrected the section and added various references about Croatian neo-fascism. I also trimmed some unrelated parts. Unfortunately, it was reverted, although the content is reasonable. It's almost repulsive not to have a section on Croatia, as it's one of the most well-known and grotesque cases in Eastern Europe. --Mohamd67 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It was reverted because we haven't reached a consensus - you decided to change it to your preferred version without prior agreement from anyone else. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. What do you propose? Mohamd67 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)