![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello,
I think it is pretty obvious that this article is of very low quality, with no methodological rigour and messing up things which are key and unimportant. But I sort of understand the reason: the topic is so vital, with so much literature and abundant competitive theories present, that anyone with minimum awareness and responsibility would feel overwhelmed if trying to re-write it.
And so feel I. Instead, I venture to offer statistical insight into one issue, namely genuine support for fascism in European countries. I include a table with electoral results, plus some necessary notes. Hope this is at least a minor improvement.
Of course I am acutely aware that in case of almost any party listed in the table there are doubts, questions and challenges regarding its fascist qualification. Moreover, there are probably some parties missing in the table (e.g. the Catalan Estat Català) which in historiography are at times also discussed against the fascist background. But I believe I have put enough reservations in the text not to engage in hair-splitting.
rgds, -- 89.76.22.216 ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Braganza has added a tag which claims that this section is incomplete. It may well be, though I have did my best to examine fascist movements from Iceland to Greece and from Finland to Portugal. However, I would expect some word of explanation or at least a hint what appears to be missing. Any particular country? Any particular party? Any particular period? Adding tags like this does not seem to improve the entry. Please could you make an effort and engage here, on this talk page, to say what is missing and what should be added. Regards, -- 2A02:A318:E142:AE80:E865:995A:97A5:25E5 ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Below a non exhaustive list of academics that think that Salazar´s Estado Novo was not fascist
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. something that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
"contrary to what the contemporary popular history teaches, Salazar did not share fascist tastes, neither aesthetic nor ethical... Salazar hated turbulence and living with the crowds. He did not appreciate mass choreography, nor did he die of love for the modernist exaltation of mechanical progress."
— José Luis Andrade [ O antifascismo de Salazar
"On the other hand, not having an original party to occupy the State, Salazarism was concerned, essentially with conquering the public administration as it found it, and not with eliminating it or replacing it with the party bureaucracy... Contrary to what was seen in fascism and Nazism, it was not so much the party that invaded and penetrated the State, but the State that created and penetrated the party ... he repudiated the militarization of the regime."
"Salazar was not fascist"
"Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no."
— Luís Campos e Cunha [ | Fascismo e salazarismo
[regimes like that of Salazar] "should not be listed as fascist, but considered classic conservative and authoritarian regimes."
— Renzo De Felice, "Il Fenomeno Fascista", Storia contemporanea, anno X, n° 4/5, Ottobre 1979, p. 624.
"fundamentally not fascist, although not immune to occasional fascist influences. These were much more traditional regimes and they lacked mass support and mobilization. They included Poland under Pisuldski, Portugal under Salazar..."
— Stephen J. Lee, The European Dictatorships. 1918-1945, (London: 1988), pp. 18.
"João Medina, after criticizing the "journalistic facility adopted by some hurried pseudo-historians" who define Salazar's dictatorship as a fascist, defends the thesis that Salazar´s regime should not be considered fascist. "
"almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case (...) the differences between Salazarism and that Italian fascism are more profound than the similarities "
— Maria Filomena Monica, Educaçâo e Sociedade no Portugal de Salazar (A escola primària salazarista 1926-1939), (Lisboa: 1978), p. 98.
"Furthest from the Italian Fascist model was the institutionalization of the single-party, which was much closer to the situation in Primo de Rivera’s regime in Spain in 1923. Created from above, with limited access to society and governmental decision-making, the UN had an elitist character "
— Adinolfi, Goffredo & Pinto, António. (2014). Salazar’s ‘New State’: The Paradoxes of Hybridization in the Fascist Era. 10.1057/9781137384416_7.
"The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless. "
— Meneses - Salazar: A Political Biography [ [1]
"Salazar did not allow all to compete (liberalism) but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; he espoused Catholic "corporatism": state imposed collaboration of the social classes.(...)In their essential design and purpose, while the regimes very much resembled each other, the Portuguese regime never relied, either in its foundation or development, on anything remotely like the Italian Fascist movement, which later became a party.(...) Salazar did take strong action against real Fascist."
"Although Salazar introduced radical social reforms in some areas (the Estado Novo/New State) and emulated ‘fascist’ organizational elements (militia, secret police, etc.), the raison d’être of the regime was the preservation of conservative and Catholic values, as well as the defence of the existing system against radical alternative conceptions of domestic organizations.(...) Although in subsequent years Salazar accentuated his commitment to a mimetic ‘fascist’ model of domestic organization, this remained confined to the articulation of form and style rather than extending into the sphere of political substance. His regime remained an essentially pro-system pattern of conservative-authoritarian government whose ‘fascist’ elements of style were duly shed in the 1940s."
— Kallis AA. The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology. European History Quarterly. 2000;30(1):77-104. doi:10.1177/026569140003000104
"It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to generic fascism although it cannot be confused with it"
Rui Ramos is part of a 'large number of historians' who refute the fascist character of the regime. I myself reject this classification, I only consider this perspective of analysis between 1933 and 1945
"In the Iberian Latin context the "fascist" label has served often to obscure rather than assist our understanding of these systems, especially as the term implies a blanket condemnation." (p.5) "Iberian Latin model, here termed corporatist, conforms to neither the liberal-pluralist nor the "fascist"or totalitarian model....Fitting neither the liberal framework nor the fascist-totalitarian one, far more dynamic and change-oriented than often thought, the Iberic Latin model is a distinct type with its own philosophic traditions, characteristics..."
— Howard Wiarda "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience
"In Portugal, Goffredo Adinolfi argues, Italian fascism was one of the principal sources of inspiration for the Estado Novo, particularly in the conception of the “ethical state” and among other features, its corporatist organization. However, the limits of this inspiration were evident both in the ideological and the constitutional field. Wholly antidemocratic, the regime's “constitution” located its ideological roots in the most right-wing form of liberalism, Lusitanian Integralismo and Catholicism. Equally, Salazar himself was far from committed to a totalitarian state. Nor would fascism become a hegemonic force in Spain, although the process of fascistization there went considerably further than in Portugal..."
— Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (2019) Introduction. In: Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (eds) Reactionary Nationalists, Fascists and Dictatorships in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Studies in Political History. p 19, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22411-0_1
Beyond My Ken When I read Wikpedia's policies and guidelines I read the following.
So the current situations is that we have a clear violation of fundamental policies and guidelines. And the violation is being kept because a few editors and an IP prefer to not reach consensus in order to keep a minority POV as a fact. I am fine with having the minority POV in the article, but I don't think the minority POV can be presented as an undisputable fact. Last but not least, this discussion already happened in the Salazar's, where more editors interested in Portugal and Salazar have reached and agreement (with the exception of the disruptive IP) J Pratas ( talk) 10:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
And then please pay attention to the sources the author lists. J Pratas ( talk) 22:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Portuguese Estado Novo is not considered fascist by the majority of academic source
This is simply not true. The list of sources presented in this page is clearly cherrypicked. Some of them are of questionable reliability and/or clearly biased towards authoritarian regimes. JMagalhães ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your own source clearly states the fascist nature is a widespread assumption and its purpose is to challenge the status quo (i.e., a minority view)."This article challenges the common assumption of the fascist nature of the Portuguese Estado Novo from the thirties to mid-forties".
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime,2 researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime.
in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles.So, for you "not always agree" means the majority disagrees. Right... JMagalhães ( talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
So you don't have sources? That is all you have? Just twisting? Please bring the sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas ( talk • contribs)
@ Beyond My Ken: According to the dictionary an assumption is "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". When the author refers to common assumption she is talking about popular views, because in Portugal school books teach children that the Estado Novo was fascist, but the author is very clear when we move from "common" to academia.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
So one side we have some Portuguese historians and on the other side we have the most researchers in comparative fascist studies. (in line with the sources listed so far in these discussion page). Historian Ferrinho Lopes says the same:
*
The “problem” of fascism in Portugal has been the subject of numerous and distinct interpretations. Salazar's experience is one of the dictatorships that created the most difficult framing for academics (Colloti, 1989: 117). Even so, the majority of scholars on the subject, whether political scientists or historians, regardless of the school of thought to which they belong, tend to exclude the Estado Novo from fascism and totalitarianism.
— Lopes, Hugo. (2017). Salazarismo: Autoritarismo ou Fascismo? A União Nacional em perspetiva organizacional e comparativa. 10.13140/RG.2.2.32382.69445.
And the sources listed in this discussion page also confirm that the majority of scholars vs some Portuguese scholars.
@ Beyond My Ken: You've used used Nolte’s Three Faces of Fascism (as cited by Lewis). However in his master worke Nolte provided an insightful account of the ideological similarities between the Italian and German regimes, only to obfuscate his paradigm by including Action Française in his analysis. Linking Action Française with fascism or pre-fascims is clearly a minority point of view. The two most elaborate recent works on generic fascism, by Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, have rectified to a large extent the inadequacies of previous comparative interpretations by Nolte through a significantly more elaborate theoretical paradigm of fascism and a notably wider pool of case-studies. (Kallis The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology). Furthermore when Nolte talks about Spain and the influence of Action Française he referes mainly to Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship in the 1920s. I think that if you want to balance views on Franco, you should find something less fringe than Nolte`s work. J Pratas ( talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken the liberty of removing Republican Independents from the table. The reason is there was no such party in France. The parliamentary minority was formed by various deputies, elected on various tickets, but never on a fascist one. Though this minority perhaps (maybe, in last resort, eventually, etc) might be viewed as fascistoid, in the table it is out place. The purpose of the table is to provide an overview of electoral support for fascist organizations. Also, have never seen in literature Republican Independents categorized as fascists. Payne in his typology of extreme-right parties (Fascism, p. 16) lists 9 various French organizations across 3 categories, but "Republican Independents" are missing. rgds, -- Hh1718 ( talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that in this entry too many groupings are labelled "fascists", and this is the case also of LTS. Except Soviet-times published works, including encyclopedias (where anyone not in agreement with the Communist Party might have been dubbed "fascist"), I do not remember I have seen the category "fascist" applied to this party. I have done a brief search for "Tautininkai" & "fašizmas" in GoogleBooks, but all I got were prints from the good old days when Lenin was leading you all the way from the Cathedral to Žvėryno tiltas.
Yes, the party was anti-democratic, yes, it was right-wing, yes, it was personality-focused, yes, it was nationalist, yes, it was dictatorial - but this is still not enough to be named fascist. Kestutis Skrupskelis claims LTS were watching Fascist Italy closely and that in the very late 1930s indeed the party was increasingly adopting some Fascist features into its ideological toolset, but falls short of calling them Fascists. Payne developed a typology of far-right parties in the interwar period, and constructed 3 segments: 1) conservative right; 2) radical nationalist right; 3) fascist right, and applied it to 18 countries. In case of Lithuania, LTS is categorized as "radical right"; the category "fascist right" is reserved for the Iron Wolf. And in fact, if you consider Lithuanian politics of the 1930s and how LTS-supported Smetona cracked down on Voldemaras and his friends, LTS might be deemed anti-fascist. Removing LTS from the table which shows electoral performance. rgds, Hh1718
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello,
I think it is pretty obvious that this article is of very low quality, with no methodological rigour and messing up things which are key and unimportant. But I sort of understand the reason: the topic is so vital, with so much literature and abundant competitive theories present, that anyone with minimum awareness and responsibility would feel overwhelmed if trying to re-write it.
And so feel I. Instead, I venture to offer statistical insight into one issue, namely genuine support for fascism in European countries. I include a table with electoral results, plus some necessary notes. Hope this is at least a minor improvement.
Of course I am acutely aware that in case of almost any party listed in the table there are doubts, questions and challenges regarding its fascist qualification. Moreover, there are probably some parties missing in the table (e.g. the Catalan Estat Català) which in historiography are at times also discussed against the fascist background. But I believe I have put enough reservations in the text not to engage in hair-splitting.
rgds, -- 89.76.22.216 ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Braganza has added a tag which claims that this section is incomplete. It may well be, though I have did my best to examine fascist movements from Iceland to Greece and from Finland to Portugal. However, I would expect some word of explanation or at least a hint what appears to be missing. Any particular country? Any particular party? Any particular period? Adding tags like this does not seem to improve the entry. Please could you make an effort and engage here, on this talk page, to say what is missing and what should be added. Regards, -- 2A02:A318:E142:AE80:E865:995A:97A5:25E5 ( talk) 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Below a non exhaustive list of academics that think that Salazar´s Estado Novo was not fascist
"Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist because fascist has always been revolutionary, anticonservative, anti-bourgeois, etc.. something that the Estado Novo never was."
— A. James Gregor - Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1999)
"The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots"
Where Franco subjected Spain’s fascist party to his personal control, Salazar abolished outright in July 1934 the nearest thing Portugal had to an authentic fascist movement, Rolão Preto’s blue-shirted National Syndicalists. The Portuguese fascists, Salazar complained, were “always feverish, excited and discontented . . . shouting, faced with the impossible: More! More!” Salazar preferred to control his population through such “organic” institutions traditionally powerful in Portugal as the Church....His regime was not only non-fascist, but “voluntarily non-totalitarian,” preferring to let those of its citizens who kept out of politics “live by habit. (page 150)...The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain (pag 270).
"Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"
"It is also important to highlight that in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles because although it is considered to have been an authoritarian regime, Estado Novo did not portray all the characteristics of an ideal type of fascism"
"He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"
"Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, throughout his life Salazar shrank from releasing popular energies and he never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and in 1930 he created the National Union, a single-party which he marketed as a "non-party", announcing that the National Union would be the antithesis of a political party...While Hitler and Mussolini militarized and fanaticized the masses, Salazar demilitarized the country and depoliticized men"
— Gallagher, Tom (2020). SALAZAR : the dictator who refused to die. C HURST & CO PUB LTD. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1787383883.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
"contrary to what the contemporary popular history teaches, Salazar did not share fascist tastes, neither aesthetic nor ethical... Salazar hated turbulence and living with the crowds. He did not appreciate mass choreography, nor did he die of love for the modernist exaltation of mechanical progress."
— José Luis Andrade [ O antifascismo de Salazar
"On the other hand, not having an original party to occupy the State, Salazarism was concerned, essentially with conquering the public administration as it found it, and not with eliminating it or replacing it with the party bureaucracy... Contrary to what was seen in fascism and Nazism, it was not so much the party that invaded and penetrated the State, but the State that created and penetrated the party ... he repudiated the militarization of the regime."
"Salazar was not fascist"
"Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no."
— Luís Campos e Cunha [ | Fascismo e salazarismo
[regimes like that of Salazar] "should not be listed as fascist, but considered classic conservative and authoritarian regimes."
— Renzo De Felice, "Il Fenomeno Fascista", Storia contemporanea, anno X, n° 4/5, Ottobre 1979, p. 624.
"fundamentally not fascist, although not immune to occasional fascist influences. These were much more traditional regimes and they lacked mass support and mobilization. They included Poland under Pisuldski, Portugal under Salazar..."
— Stephen J. Lee, The European Dictatorships. 1918-1945, (London: 1988), pp. 18.
"João Medina, after criticizing the "journalistic facility adopted by some hurried pseudo-historians" who define Salazar's dictatorship as a fascist, defends the thesis that Salazar´s regime should not be considered fascist. "
"almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case (...) the differences between Salazarism and that Italian fascism are more profound than the similarities "
— Maria Filomena Monica, Educaçâo e Sociedade no Portugal de Salazar (A escola primària salazarista 1926-1939), (Lisboa: 1978), p. 98.
"Furthest from the Italian Fascist model was the institutionalization of the single-party, which was much closer to the situation in Primo de Rivera’s regime in Spain in 1923. Created from above, with limited access to society and governmental decision-making, the UN had an elitist character "
— Adinolfi, Goffredo & Pinto, António. (2014). Salazar’s ‘New State’: The Paradoxes of Hybridization in the Fascist Era. 10.1057/9781137384416_7.
"The obstacles in twinning the New State with fascism are self evident. Among other one can pick out the lack of mass mobilization, the moderate nature of Portuguese Nationalism, the careful and apolitical selection of the narrow elite that ran the country, the lack of powerful working class and the rejection of violence as a mean of transforming society. To include Salazar, given his background, his trajectory, is faith and his general disposition in the broad fascist family is at first sight to stretch fascism to a point where it becomes meaningless. "
— Meneses - Salazar: A Political Biography [ [1]
"Salazar did not allow all to compete (liberalism) but neither did he have a totalitarian ideology like fascism; he espoused Catholic "corporatism": state imposed collaboration of the social classes.(...)In their essential design and purpose, while the regimes very much resembled each other, the Portuguese regime never relied, either in its foundation or development, on anything remotely like the Italian Fascist movement, which later became a party.(...) Salazar did take strong action against real Fascist."
"Although Salazar introduced radical social reforms in some areas (the Estado Novo/New State) and emulated ‘fascist’ organizational elements (militia, secret police, etc.), the raison d’être of the regime was the preservation of conservative and Catholic values, as well as the defence of the existing system against radical alternative conceptions of domestic organizations.(...) Although in subsequent years Salazar accentuated his commitment to a mimetic ‘fascist’ model of domestic organization, this remained confined to the articulation of form and style rather than extending into the sphere of political substance. His regime remained an essentially pro-system pattern of conservative-authoritarian government whose ‘fascist’ elements of style were duly shed in the 1940s."
— Kallis AA. The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology. European History Quarterly. 2000;30(1):77-104. doi:10.1177/026569140003000104
"It was an authoritarian regime, with some similarities to generic fascism although it cannot be confused with it"
Rui Ramos is part of a 'large number of historians' who refute the fascist character of the regime. I myself reject this classification, I only consider this perspective of analysis between 1933 and 1945
"In the Iberian Latin context the "fascist" label has served often to obscure rather than assist our understanding of these systems, especially as the term implies a blanket condemnation." (p.5) "Iberian Latin model, here termed corporatist, conforms to neither the liberal-pluralist nor the "fascist"or totalitarian model....Fitting neither the liberal framework nor the fascist-totalitarian one, far more dynamic and change-oriented than often thought, the Iberic Latin model is a distinct type with its own philosophic traditions, characteristics..."
— Howard Wiarda "Corporatism and Development: The Portuguese Experience
"In Portugal, Goffredo Adinolfi argues, Italian fascism was one of the principal sources of inspiration for the Estado Novo, particularly in the conception of the “ethical state” and among other features, its corporatist organization. However, the limits of this inspiration were evident both in the ideological and the constitutional field. Wholly antidemocratic, the regime's “constitution” located its ideological roots in the most right-wing form of liberalism, Lusitanian Integralismo and Catholicism. Equally, Salazar himself was far from committed to a totalitarian state. Nor would fascism become a hegemonic force in Spain, although the process of fascistization there went considerably further than in Portugal..."
— Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (2019) Introduction. In: Saz I., Box Z., Morant T., Sanz J. (eds) Reactionary Nationalists, Fascists and Dictatorships in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Studies in Political History. p 19, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22411-0_1
Beyond My Ken When I read Wikpedia's policies and guidelines I read the following.
So the current situations is that we have a clear violation of fundamental policies and guidelines. And the violation is being kept because a few editors and an IP prefer to not reach consensus in order to keep a minority POV as a fact. I am fine with having the minority POV in the article, but I don't think the minority POV can be presented as an undisputable fact. Last but not least, this discussion already happened in the Salazar's, where more editors interested in Portugal and Salazar have reached and agreement (with the exception of the disruptive IP) J Pratas ( talk) 10:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
And then please pay attention to the sources the author lists. J Pratas ( talk) 22:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Portuguese Estado Novo is not considered fascist by the majority of academic source
This is simply not true. The list of sources presented in this page is clearly cherrypicked. Some of them are of questionable reliability and/or clearly biased towards authoritarian regimes. JMagalhães ( talk) 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your own source clearly states the fascist nature is a widespread assumption and its purpose is to challenge the status quo (i.e., a minority view)."This article challenges the common assumption of the fascist nature of the Portuguese Estado Novo from the thirties to mid-forties".
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime,2 researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime.
in the popular discourse Estado Novo is often referred to as fascism. This label does not always receive support in academic circles.So, for you "not always agree" means the majority disagrees. Right... JMagalhães ( talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
So you don't have sources? That is all you have? Just twisting? Please bring the sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas ( talk • contribs)
@ Beyond My Ken: According to the dictionary an assumption is "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". When the author refers to common assumption she is talking about popular views, because in Portugal school books teach children that the Estado Novo was fascist, but the author is very clear when we move from "common" to academia.
Although some Portuguese historians recognize the existence of a Portuguese fascist regime, researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian,pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime
So one side we have some Portuguese historians and on the other side we have the most researchers in comparative fascist studies. (in line with the sources listed so far in these discussion page). Historian Ferrinho Lopes says the same:
*
The “problem” of fascism in Portugal has been the subject of numerous and distinct interpretations. Salazar's experience is one of the dictatorships that created the most difficult framing for academics (Colloti, 1989: 117). Even so, the majority of scholars on the subject, whether political scientists or historians, regardless of the school of thought to which they belong, tend to exclude the Estado Novo from fascism and totalitarianism.
— Lopes, Hugo. (2017). Salazarismo: Autoritarismo ou Fascismo? A União Nacional em perspetiva organizacional e comparativa. 10.13140/RG.2.2.32382.69445.
And the sources listed in this discussion page also confirm that the majority of scholars vs some Portuguese scholars.
@ Beyond My Ken: You've used used Nolte’s Three Faces of Fascism (as cited by Lewis). However in his master worke Nolte provided an insightful account of the ideological similarities between the Italian and German regimes, only to obfuscate his paradigm by including Action Française in his analysis. Linking Action Française with fascism or pre-fascims is clearly a minority point of view. The two most elaborate recent works on generic fascism, by Roger Griffin and Stanley G. Payne, have rectified to a large extent the inadequacies of previous comparative interpretations by Nolte through a significantly more elaborate theoretical paradigm of fascism and a notably wider pool of case-studies. (Kallis The ‘Regime-Model’ of Fascism: A Typology). Furthermore when Nolte talks about Spain and the influence of Action Française he referes mainly to Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship in the 1920s. I think that if you want to balance views on Franco, you should find something less fringe than Nolte`s work. J Pratas ( talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken the liberty of removing Republican Independents from the table. The reason is there was no such party in France. The parliamentary minority was formed by various deputies, elected on various tickets, but never on a fascist one. Though this minority perhaps (maybe, in last resort, eventually, etc) might be viewed as fascistoid, in the table it is out place. The purpose of the table is to provide an overview of electoral support for fascist organizations. Also, have never seen in literature Republican Independents categorized as fascists. Payne in his typology of extreme-right parties (Fascism, p. 16) lists 9 various French organizations across 3 categories, but "Republican Independents" are missing. rgds, -- Hh1718 ( talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that in this entry too many groupings are labelled "fascists", and this is the case also of LTS. Except Soviet-times published works, including encyclopedias (where anyone not in agreement with the Communist Party might have been dubbed "fascist"), I do not remember I have seen the category "fascist" applied to this party. I have done a brief search for "Tautininkai" & "fašizmas" in GoogleBooks, but all I got were prints from the good old days when Lenin was leading you all the way from the Cathedral to Žvėryno tiltas.
Yes, the party was anti-democratic, yes, it was right-wing, yes, it was personality-focused, yes, it was nationalist, yes, it was dictatorial - but this is still not enough to be named fascist. Kestutis Skrupskelis claims LTS were watching Fascist Italy closely and that in the very late 1930s indeed the party was increasingly adopting some Fascist features into its ideological toolset, but falls short of calling them Fascists. Payne developed a typology of far-right parties in the interwar period, and constructed 3 segments: 1) conservative right; 2) radical nationalist right; 3) fascist right, and applied it to 18 countries. In case of Lithuania, LTS is categorized as "radical right"; the category "fascist right" is reserved for the Iron Wolf. And in fact, if you consider Lithuanian politics of the 1930s and how LTS-supported Smetona cracked down on Voldemaras and his friends, LTS might be deemed anti-fascist. Removing LTS from the table which shows electoral performance. rgds, Hh1718