Template talk:Fascism sidebar

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Nazism or National Socialism?

Trakking is encouraged to engage here rather than edit warring over their preferred change. I agree with what Vipz said in their edit summary: Don't change "Nazism" to "National socialism" again until you manage to have the article about it moved. This is a very clear, POV and disruptive behavior. Trakking's argument in their edit summary that National Socialism is the scientific term appears to betray a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY (leaving aside the fact that that's not how the word "scientific" is used in English). Nazism is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, and whether or not it emerged as a slur by political opponents is immaterial. In any case we are all political opponents of Nazism here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the term "nazism," the dictionaries and encyclopedias to which I have access direct the reader to look up "national socialism," where the term is defined, proving that it is the official term. Wikipedia only uses the abbreviated term because it is more comfortable and easier to find and type in for you average Joe. Trakking (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be an opponent of national socialism—obviously, one might say. But this was not so obvious in the 30s and 40s. Many of the most prominent left-wing intellectuals at the time—H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Marie Stopes etc.—supported the ideology as a modernist and progressive force for advancing the common good. Many socialists living today would have been fanatical national socialists if they had lived in Berlin or München together with Hitler. This is something that every self-proclaimed socialist should look himself in the mirror and admit. Trakking (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep believing whatever crap you're spitting here, but you were told the prerequisite to having it changed here - manage to have it changed on its own article - Nazism. No further waste of time needed here. –Vipz (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Alejandro Basombrio, who first corrected nazism to national socialism.

You said we should keep the status quo—well, the status quo was not set by me, but by Alejandro. So I suppose I should restore it, by your suggestion. Trakking (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect utopian universe, every left-winger would be able to distinguish properly between completely different ideologies such as conservatism/fascism and socialism/social liberalism… Trakking (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The national socialists were progressives. They modernized Germany, building highways all across the old country. They lived in big modern cities like Berlin and München, like all progressives. They wanted to build a welfare state. They turned their back on the old order that had ruled Germany since the Middle Ages—Monarchy and Christianity. They embraced biologism and other popular modern ideologies, which the old Europe had known nothing about. There was not much conservative, traditional, or reactionary about the ultra-modern, ultra-progressive, ultra-utopian National Socialists. :)

Please read the voluminous work The Menace of the Herd (1943) by Austrian aristocrat and intellectual polymath Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who gives a full picture of the left-wing character of national socialism and its ideological development. Trakking (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is abject nonsense. If the best text to support this proposal predates 1945 then this is not even worth discussing any further. The key point to be understood is that Nazism is an intrinsically dishonest political ideology that regards its followers with as much contempt as its opponents. It cynically and dishonestly coined itself as "National Socialism" at a time when Socialism was widely considered as a positive selling point. It marketed itself as "socialism" to those who thought socialism was a good thing and as nationalism, conservatism and many other things to those who didn't. As such, there could be no complete and coherent analysis of what Nazism actually is until after all the horrific facts became known and could be included in that analysis. In other words, any pre-1945 assessment of what Nazism is going to be somebody's best guess based on the limited (and often false) information available to them at the time. It's not their fault if they called it wrong based on limited information but it is absolutely our fault if we arbitrarily choose to give their view priority over the entire post-1945 historical consensus. DanielRigal (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was an extremely knowledgable scholar. National socialism did not arise out of nowhere. And it is impossible to understand it without tracing its history: its context, its forerunners, its influences. Some modern scholars have a shallow view of nazism precisely because they are not authoritative historians.

Many prominent nazis were typical socialists: Strasser, Goebbels etc. And many of the government policies and programs were distinctly socialist. Many prominent socialists in other countries praised Hitler and nazism, as I mentioned above. And it is easy to see the connection between socialism and anti-semitism, as lower-class Germans suffered during the economic crisis while many Jews were wealthy, thus evoking envy and hate. And so on and so on. The "Socialism" in National Socialism was serious. This is why Stalinism and Hiterism were so similar. Trakking (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're really not going to debate this here. Nazism is not a form of socialism –– despite the fact that some Nazis had previously been socialists and some held ideas in common with socialists until they were forced to renounce them (Goebbels) or were murdered by the Nazis (Strasser). The mainstream scholarship has been surveyed many times over and the issue is settled. What we include here in the template will reflect article space, and the consensuses that govern article space, per WP:CATEGORY. We are certainly not here to cause "self-proclaimed socialists" to "look themselves in the mirror and admit" things. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"typical socialists"? Are you actually serious here? Please tell me that this is all some elaborate prank?

No? OK. I'll try to engage with this as best I can. I can see how somebody in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's position, writing in 1943, could completely misread the situation in that way and I'm not blaming him for that. He had enough sense to see that Nazism was bad, which is more than an awful lot of his fellow aristocrats did. As an aristocrat, Nazism would have looked like a working class moment similar to socialism and communism to him. He would have seen them all as similar threats to aristocratic privilege with some stylistic similarities. He would have seen them all fighting for support among the same working class communities and people moving support from one to the other. It's not his fault for interpreting it wrong. He didn't have the benefit of the post-1945 academic historical consensus. We do and, as Generalrelative correctly points out, that's where this discussion ends. DanielRigal (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Austrian aristocrats were jailed after Anschluss. And the ultra-Catholic dictator Engelbert Dollfuss was murdered by Austrian nazis. A chasm separated traditionalist conservatives and national socialists.

Are you aware that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn lived until the very end of the 20th century? He died in 1999. He did not revise his positions because there was nothing to revise. Trakking (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this now. If you'd like to debate details related to Nazism or fascism, do so somewhere else. If you have an argument to make based on the WP:CATEGORY guideline, please make it. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But no serious scholars have taken Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's seriously. They only live on because of right-wing extremists in the U.S. Too bad he hadn't stayed in Europe and persuaded his conservative friends not to support the Nazis. TFD (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like do you call it sodium chloride and hydrogen dioxide or do you call it salt and water. Depends on whether or not you want people to know what you're talking about. Per WP:COMMONNAME,they were Nazis and the article can explain to readers what that meant. The argument that to change the name because the Nazis were socialists even if true has no basis in policy or guidelines. TFD (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

authoritarian democracy in nazism and fascism

this is a disputed concept, per wp:undue this is not a major concept in nazism and fascism Gooduserdude (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article was removed as sockpuppeting indef-blocked user R-41 created and tried to restore this historically disputed article Gooduserdude (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: This discussion has been settled, the term in question was removed. My previous edits were about something completely different: they were fixing links in the template and adding a missing term. Trakking (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded sidebar

@Biohistorian15: Hello. The sidebar is too extensive when expanded in the main article. I acknowledge that you tried to fix one of the images, but there are two other images that it interferes with as well. Please just revert it; it makes the page easier to navigate. The same thing could be said about the article for Conservatism in the United States. Most other sidebars are relatively concise and that's why they can be expanded without problem. Trakking (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the US article; fixed. In the future, please discuss such matters on specific talk pages.

As for this article: I don't understand why the illustrations cannot be resized and moved to the left. The sidebar offers an excellent overview for the topic area. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there were no lede image I would support your proposal. But it is too much with one large image and one extensive and expanded sidebar. We can have one of them, not both at once. Trakking (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could incorporate the image into the article—solving the problem. But maybe the consensus is that it ought to be kept there. Trakking (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have one idea: how about moving the current lead image further down and rm the second one as a redundancy with this new lead image of less height.

One good argument to make is that it is an svg and hence much easier to load. But I'm warning you, I don't personally have time for the long talk page discussion that might ensue. I'm not sure if the golden isn't too aggrandizing though, idk. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too many eagles; there's already one in the template. Trakking (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]