[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Totalitarianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why does this article say that the Nazis were right-wing?
Because that is the consensus of reliable sources, in this case historians and political scientists.
But the word "socialist" is right in their name!
Many political entities have names that can be misleading. Consider, for example, the Holy Roman Empire (a confederation of mainly German territories during the Middle Ages and the early modern period) and North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a totalitarian dictatorship). The usage of the word "socialism" by the Nazis is different from the common usage of the term "socialism" to refer to an economic philosophy involving advocacy for social ownership of the means of production. The phrase "national socialist" was a nationalist response to the rise of socialism in Europe by offering a redefinition of "socialism" to refer to the promotion of the interests of the nation, as opposed to ideas of individual self-interest. But there was no policy of social ownership of the means of production. The Nazis did talk about capitalism being bad, but they defined it as a Jewish-originated economic philosophy based on individualism that promoted plutocracy in the interest of the Jews, at the expense of non-Jewish nations and races. This was put in contrast to the Nazis' conception of socialism, which was done in order to win over people attracted to anti-capitalist and socialist ideas to their cause. They rejected ideas of equality and working class solidarity, instead advocating for social hierarchy and national strength. This article sums it up well.
I made an offhand comment about it and somebody just came along and deleted it! What should I do?
Nothing. See this discussion where the community came to a consensus that we have entertained the numerous questions and claims about the Nazis being left-wing enough, and that continued engagement with people pushing this line of reasoning is not helpful to the article.
That doesn't seem very fair. Don't Wikipedia policies require editors to assume good faith? What if somebody posts that position here with a really good argument?
See the following links, all of which are to discussions about this very question over time. Any argument someone thinks is novel has already been made, been responded to, and failed to convince anyone. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]
But what if I find a large number of very reliable sources all claiming that Nazism is left-wing?
Then you will be more than welcome to show them to us, so that we can see that they are very reliable and that they assert that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. If they are, then we will change the article.

Benito Mussolini

[edit]

I think that some of the wording around Mussolini should be changed. While Mussolini most certainly expressed totalitarian views, he is regarded by some to have failed to carry out those views in practice, notably in his allowance of several aspects of civil society, such as the Catholic Church.[1] While I don't entirely object to his being called a totalitarian–given his ardently totalitarian views, noting that he wasn't totally totalitarian in practice may be a good idea (I'm going to add some of this stuff tomorrow, but I need to sleep now). In light of this, I also wish to discuss his inclusion in the introductory photo. Thoughts are appreciated. Good night (or whatever time of day it is for you). ¡Ayvind! (talk)

On second thought, there may not be sufficient mention of Mussolini to justify elaborating, though I would still like to discuss his inclusion in the photo. ¡Ayvind! (talk)
He didn't simply “express totalitarian views,” he explicitly proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian, after having popularized and arguably coined the term specifically to describe fascism. As you say, the degree to which he lived up to his statements and the internal consistency of those statements can be disputed, theoretically in much the same way one can debate the practical accuracy of Lenin's description of himself as a democrat, but one can not disagree that Mussolini was a — perhaps the preeminent — self-declared totalitarian. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:FD76:104:98B4:28D7 (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share skepticism that Mussolini was totalitarian in the vein of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. Besides the Catholic Church, king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy still reigned until 1946 as a figurehead. Mussolini was ousted in 1943 (by a vote of 19-8), led by Dino Grandi.
Also Mussolini is widely considered to be one of the first fascist dictators, the fact other political and religious institutions existed during his reign and had significant influence inclines me to be skeptical that Mussolini's regime was truly totalitarian. Mussolini's regime is comparable to other authoritarian, right-wing regimes in interwar Europe, like Horthy's Hungary and the Metaxas regime in Greece. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heywood, Andrew (2003). Political ideologies : an introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0333961780.

A very flawed paragraph

[edit]

This article, in the lede, writes:

Various scholars and historians have considered Vladimir Lenin,[1][2][3] co-founder of the Russian SFSR and later Soviet Union,[4][5][6] to be one of the first to attempt to establish a totalitarian state.[7][8][9][10][11] Some scholars have had a differing view and attributed the establishment of the one-party system in the Soviet Union to the wartime conditions imposed on the Bolshevik government[12] and others have highlighted the initial attempts to form a coalition government with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries.[13] According to historian Marcel Liebman, Lenin’s wartime measures such as banning opposition parties was prompted by the fact that several political parties either took up arms against the new Soviet government, or participated in sabotage, collaborated with the deposed Tsarists, or made assassination attempts against Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders.[14]

Now, there are many things wrong with this (I have myself removed much of what is said here.)

  • Excessive citations on what is only tangential to the topic in the lede; the lede is not a place to spend a few sentences on Lenin, then one on Mussolini, and so forth, with most of the material about Lenin on the dissent - "Some scholars have had a differing view."
  • How do scholars have a differing view? The statement in question is "Lenin... to be one of the first to attempt to establish a totalitarian state." How do Liebman at. al in any way actually dispute the substance of that in the cited sources. They don't. They indeed say that the pressure of "wartime conditions" and so forth encouraged the one-party system, but none of them say that this wasn't Lenin's intent, nor attempt (Lenin did in fact establish such a system). "To be one of the first to attempt to establish" is not disputed here.
  • Unbalanced set of scholars. The scholars of "differing views" are a) a Marxist historian, b) a Trotskyist sociologist. How on Earth is this balanced? Especially when considering that a statement is made - somewhat short, about scholars generally considering a view, following by a load of sentences of "scholars" in dissent. Surely if the "various scholars and historians" as described initially were of primary importance, they would be most mentioned, not some fringe communist theorists.

Zilch-nada (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Riley, Alexander; Siewers, Alfred Kentigern (June 18, 2019). The Totalitarian Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781793605344. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Filipec, Ondrej (March 10, 2020). The Islamic State: From Terrorism to Totalitarian Insurgency. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000042023. Archived from the original on April 18, 2022. Retrieved April 18, 2022 – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Fuentes, Juan Francisco (April 29, 2019). Totalitarianisms: The Closed Society and Its Friends. A History of Crossed Languages. Ed. Universidad de Cantabria. ISBN 9788481028898. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Todorov, Tzvetan (2016). Hope and Memory: Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691171425. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  5. ^ Weigel, George; Weigel, Senior Fellow John M. Olin Chair in Religion and American Democracy George (1987). Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195041934. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  6. ^ Gerson, Lennard (September 1, 2013). Lenin and the Twentieth Century: A Bertram D. Wolfe Retrospective. Hoover Press. ISBN 9780817979331. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  7. ^ Lyons, Michael J. (July 1, 2016). World War II: A Short History. Routledge. ISBN 9781315509440. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  8. ^ Klatzo, I. (December 6, 2012). Cécile and Oskar Vogt: The Visionaries of Modern Neuroscience. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9783709161418. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  9. ^ Gregor, Richard (1974). Resolutions and Decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Volume 2: The Early Soviet Period 1917–1929. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781487590116. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  10. ^ Redner, Harry (July 5, 2017). Totalitarianism, Globalization, Colonialism: The Destruction of Civilization Since 1914. Routledge. ISBN 9781351471701. Archived from the original on May 1, 2022. Retrieved April 18, 2022 – via Google Books.
  11. ^ Wallech, Steven; Daryaee, Touraj; Hendricks, Craig; Negus, Anne Lynne; Wan, Peter P.; Bakken, Gordon Morris (January 22, 2013). World History: A Concise Thematic Analysis, Volume 2. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118532737. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022 – via Google Books.
  12. ^ Rogovin, Vadim Zakharovich (2021). Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years. Mehring Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-893638-97-6.
  13. ^ Carr, Edward Hallett (1977). The Bolshevik revolution 1917 - 1923. Vol. 1 (Reprinted ed.). Penguin books. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-14-020749-1.
  14. ^ Liebman, Marcel (1985). Leninism Under Lenin. Merlin Press. pp. 1–348. ISBN 978-0-85036-261-9.
I agree with these removals and the rationale presented by Zilch-nada here. The content was off-topic and UNDUE. Generalrelative (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zilch-nada disagree with the removal. None of the cited sources are fringe just because of their political perspectives. They are professional historians including Carr who brings attention to the initial coalition with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. The content could be rephrased rather than outright removed as these scholars are attributing the establishment of an authoritarian system to the historical context rather than the conscious intent of Lenin. I've added a few more sources and condensed the paragraph but all the sources are reliable. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly disagree. The point is to outline the origins of the application of the term, "totalitarianism", and then describe the disputes later in the article: not in the same paragraph. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl marx

[edit]

How is Marxism linked to totalitarianism, Marx’s ideas of communism were based around disestablishing the unfair power system in society, arguably the opposite of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. 2600:1012:B1C3:769D:B8C4:F909:8239:13B (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Lead paragraph: section on Lenin (proposed amendment)

[edit]
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.
Procedural close: as voorts said, there is no indication of RFCBEFORE being followed. And – just saying – any opening statement that begins 'IMO' is not going to be neutral. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO - The current paragraph on Vladmir Lenin has a number of problems in regards to neutrality.

Firstly - It presents the totalitarian model/view of the Soviet Union as a universally accepted fact among historians and scholars. This model is one school of thought which is often juxtaposed against the revisionist view of the Soviet Union.

Secondarily - It makes no reference to the historical context or whether Lenin consciously sought to develop a totalitarian state which later progressed into Stalinism or whether this was the byproduct of the specific event i.e. Civil War and foreign intervention.

I have sought to make a number of amendments for the purpose of neutrality and added the sources below.

This is the sentence I am proposing for inclusion into the main paragraph and would like to receive the votes of others for consensus.

"However, this view of an inherent totalitarianism in Lenin's views has remained a contested issue in modern historiography.[1][2] Some scholars have attributed the establishment of the one-party system in the Soviet Union to the wartime conditions imposed on the Bolshevik government[3][4] and others have highlighted the initial attempts to form a coalition government with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries.[5]"

I have included Marxist and non-Marxist historians/scholars for balance. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Priestland, David (1 February 2007). Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization: Ideas, Power, and Terror in Inter-war Russia. OUP Oxford. pp. 1–60. ISBN 978-0-19-152965-8.
  2. ^ Hough, Jerry F. (1987). "The "Dark Forces," the Totalitarian Model, and Soviet History". The Russian Review. 46 (4): 397–403. doi:10.2307/130293. ISSN 0036-0341.
  3. ^ Rogovin, Vadim Zakharovich (2021). Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years. Mehring Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-893638-97-6.
  4. ^ Liebman, Marcel (1985). Leninism Under Lenin. Merlin Press. pp. 1–348. ISBN 978-0-85036-261-9.
  5. ^ Carr, Edward Hallett (1977). The Bolshevik revolution 1917 - 1923. Vol. 1 (Reprinted ed.). Penguin books. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-14-020749-1.
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.

March 2024: Content removal and modification

[edit]

A number of edits by anon IP just occurred, with general edit summaries like "c/e encyclopedic style, correct terms, npov." This edit in particular saw a large amount of content removed with the edit summary "c/e encyclopedic style, correct terms, npov. Source, deleted off-topic text."

I will be restoring an older version of the page and have left a note on the editor's talk page. BCorr|Брайен 01:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Totalitarianism&oldid=1261362936"