Talk:Fascism in Europe

Fascist electoral performance

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)

There are often multiple parties which are often missing Braganza (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

especially hungary had dozens of them Braganza (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese Estado Novo is not considered fascist by the majority of academic source

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"

  — [Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes - Originally a chapter in the "Handbook of Political Science,"]

• 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).

  — [|Rober Paxton - THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.]

• "Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism"

  — [Payne - A History of Fascism, 1914–1945]

• "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"

  — [Silva R, Ferreira AS. The Post-Dictatorship Memory Politics in Portugal Which Erased Political Violence from the Collective Memory. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2019;53(1):24-43. doi:10.1007/s12124-018-9452-8]

• "He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative.His policies emphasized depoliticization"

  — [|Cook, Bernard - Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 pag 1027]

• "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

  — Rita Alemeida Carvalho [Ideology and Architecture in the Portuguese ‘Estado Novo’: Cultural Innovation within a Para-Fascist State (1932–1945)]

• "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."

  — [CRUZ, Manuel Braga da. Notas para uma caracterização política do salazarismo. Análise Social: Revista do Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, v. 18, n. 72-74, p. 773-794, 1982-83.]

• "Salazar was not fascist"

  — Albright, Madeleine ["Salazar não era fascista"]

• "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. "

  — [De Lucena, Manuel. “Entre Lucidez e Paixão.” Análise Social, vol. 36, no. 160, 2001, pp. 925–938.]

• "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."

  — [Sanfey “On Salazar and Salazarism.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, vol. 92, no. 368, 2003, pp. 405–411. JSTOR]

• "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"

  — Sánchez Cervelló, Josep, [Características del régimen salazarista, Stud. hist., H.ª cont., 21, 2005, pp. 115-136, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca]

• 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

  — [| Manuel Loff in Público Newspaper "A História de Rui Ramos desculpabiliza o Estado Novo?"]

• "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

• So, you should wait a bit to see if anyone has a similar non-exhaustive list of academics who think that regime was fascistic, and if nothing shows up, you can remove Portugal from the article -- but not Spain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

1) Jorge Pais de Sousa - O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra

2) Manuel de Lucena - Interpretações do Salazarismo

3) Manuel Loff - O Nosso Século é Fascista. O Mundo visto por Salazar e Franco

4) Manuel de Lucena - A Evolução do Sistema Corporativo Português: O Salazarismo

5) Hermínio Martins, S. Woolf - European Fascism, pp. 302-336

6) Luis Reis Torgal - España-Portugal: Estudios de historia contemporánea, pp. 87

7) Fernando Rosas - O salazarismo e o homem novo: ensaio sobre o Estado Novo e a questão do totalitarismo

8) Manuel Villaverde Cabral - Sobre o Fascismo, pp. 914

9) Eduardo Lourenço - O fascismo nunca existiu, pp. 229

10) João Paulo Avelãs Nunes - Tipologias de regimes políticos. Para uma leitura neomoderna do Estado Novo e do Nuevo Estado

11) D.L. Raby - Fascism and Resistance in Portugal: Communists, liberals, and military dissidents in the opposition to Salazar, 1941-74 -- 179.183.237.49 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, all these sources refer to the Salazar regimes as being fascist? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep. -- 179.183.237.49 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me then that we have a situation where reliable sources are divided, and there is no one consensus point of view of about whether the Salazar regime was fascist or not, and the article needs to say that, that some academics refer to the regime as fascist, others say it was influenced by fascism, and still others do not regard it as fascistic, and each of those statements can be accompanied by the appropriate references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this at all, quite the contrary, I do agree, however, with the exception of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and some of their client states during World War II, pretty much every regime that tends to be labeled Fascist is controversial and disputed, not just the Estado Novo, and even Nazi Germany is disputed sometimes, if you remove the Estado Novo, well you would have to remove many others, and well, this would require tons of discussion, I just don't think that the lack of unanimity on this issue is enough to remove Portugal from the list, while JPratas seems to think it is. -- 179.183.237.49 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that fascism falls somewhat into the "I know it when I see it" area: it's easier to recognize fascism than it is to define it, which is why there is no generally-accepted detailed definition of fascism, but greater consensus about which regimes were fascist and which weren't -- perhaps with the exception of Portugal? Personally, I was never aware of the Salazar regime being considered to be fascist, but the history of Portugal is not a subject I'm very conversant with. On the other hand, I have not seen any great dissension about Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany being fascistic, and I doubt that the editors here would ever agree to remove them from this article, so I'm not sure a "slippery-slope" argument is really appropriate here. I do agree that a clear consensus should be required to remove Estado Novo, given that its inclusion is the status quo ante, and the amount of support from reliable sources. I'd rather see a more nuanced approach, as I described above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken When I read Wikpedia's policies and guidelines I read the following.

• NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
• This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
• "It’s OK to state opinions in entries, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact."
• "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
• "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. "

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)

Your interpretation of these policies is incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

How come? Do you think it is ok to label Salazar's regime as fascist as a fact? As if the majority of studies in Comparative Fascist Studies don't count?J Pratas (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I have revised the article in light of what you wrote.

By the way. I've taken a look at the sources that are listed as sources that think that Salazar's Portugal should be considered fascist and I've also found the following:

* Source 1)Jorge Pais de Sousa also says the following: "in synthetic terms, this [Academic] community is divided between those who, like Luís Reis Torgal, Fernando Rosas, Manuel Lofff and Enzo Colotti, consider the Estado Novo a form of generic fascism and António Costa Pinto, Stanley Payne, Ernst Nolte and Emilio Gentile, who consider it rather a conservative authoritarian regime" The original in Portuguese: em termos sintéticos, esta comunidade [Académica] encontra-se dividida entre aqueles que como Luís Reis Torgal, Fernando Rosas, Manuel Lofff e Enzo Colotti, consideram o Estado Novo uma forma de fascismo genérico e António Costa Pinto, Stanley Payne, Ernst Nolte e Emilio Gentile, que o consideram antes um regime autoritário de carácter conservador. See: [Pais de Sousa O Estado Novo de Salazar como um Fascismo de Cátedra Fundamentação histórica de uma categoria política]

* Source 3) Manuel Loff says that: Rui Ramos is part of a 'large number of historians' who refute the fascist character. I myself reject this classification, I only consider this perspective of analysis between 1933 and 1945. The original in Portuguese: "Rui Ramos faz parte de um grande número de historiadores que refutam o carácter fascista. Eu próprio rejeito essa classificação, só considero essa perspectiva de análise entre 1933 e 1945 See: [| Artigo no Jornal Público "A História de Rui Ramos desculpabiliza o Estado Novo?"]

* Source 6) Luis Reis Torgal says that : We can see that 'the majority' of Portuguese and foreign historians, sociologists and political scientists (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne ...) either go beyond the question of the characterizing the Estado Novo, or recognize it as "original" or "singular" ”, not to be confused with the system named, in a generic sense,“ fascism. In Portuguese "verificarmos que a maioria dos historiadores, sociólogos e politólogos portugueses e estrangeiros (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne…) ou ultrapassa a questão da caracterização do Estado Novo ou reconhece-lhe uma “originalidade” ou “singularidade” própria, não confundível com o sistema nomeado, em sentido genérico, de “fascismo”.

* Source 11) Raby, David L says that: Weather or not the Salazar regime should be caractherized as "fascist" has been the object of intense debate. (page 3)J Pratas (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review my comment above about the proper way to present the academic division. Your attempt to do so was PoV, in that your preferred positytion was supported by sources, but the other position was not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It would be easier if instead of deleting the sourced material you could please add the sources that you think are missing. I've added the book from Rosas because I own a copy, but I am afraid I don't hold in my library books from Eduardo Lourenço or Villaverde Cabral. To the best of my knowledge there are no major international academic works on comparative fascist studies that say that the Estado Novo was fascist. I suspect there aren't. Historian Luis Reis Torgal says that the majority of historians, social scientists, political scientists, Portuguese and non-Portuguese (René Rémond, Pierre Milza, Stanley Payne…) recognizes that the Portuguese New State was unique and should not be confused with "fascism". In case you can read Portuguese see: [“O fascismo nunca existiu…”: reflexões sobre as representações de Salazar ]

Easier for you, perhaps, but you are the one seeking to change the article, so the onus is on you to come up with a change which is acceptable to other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• To repeat do not make changes to the article and say that you will be "adding sources later". The information you're adding has been disputed by other editors, and should not be added to the article until it can be done with all the need sourcing. At this point you are edit warring. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not edit warring. When I said later I was meaning a few minutes to an hour. Please be patient and feel free to add the sources you think are missing. No need to be destructive. Why not build on the material that is already sourced? J Pratas (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Then wait the few minutes to an hour. There is no rush. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was adding the Avelas Nunes work. It is easier for me to add (and I suppose for other editors as well) to add a few more sources on to of the existing ones than to come up with a complete work.J Pratas (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime can you please read the work from Rita Almeida de Carvalho? It is one of the few works that makes a balance between the different POVs. The author says 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,3 pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime.4 The latter argue that, after banishing the fascist National Syndicalists, the regime set about selectively borrowing some of fascism’s features, such as the militia, youth movement, leader cult and so forth, a process that has been called ‘political hybridization’.

And then please pay attention to the sources the author lists. J Pratas (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I have included all the sources listed by the IP. I was able to find them all online with the exception of Hermínio Martins. I understand he published in 1969 so it is a bit outdated. I don't feel I should be adding sources that I cannot check, and, anyway, the IP or anyone familiar with the source is always free to add it.

When making a judgement on balance please note that we are trying to balance things that are different in nature. On one side we have researchers in comparative studies and on the other side we have mostly Portuguese historians (focused on Portuguese history, not comparative), and with strong political views, as it is the case of Fernando Rosas, a political activist.

Note that there are also many Portuguese scholars that think that Salazar's regime was not fascist, a few examples :Rui Ramos, Jaime Nogueira Pinto, Maria Filomena Monica, A H de Oliveira Marques, Veríssimo Serrao, Luis Campos e Cunha, Joao Medina, etc.. I did not add any of these because they did not publish comparative studies. Please let me know if you think there is any relevant work missing and feel free to add sourced material. Thank you for your time and patience. J Pratas (talk) 23:18, 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)

Nope. No cherry picking. Most sources were taken from Rita Almeida Carvalho's work where the author says that: 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-- [Ideology and Architecture in the Portuguese ‘Estado Novo’: Cultural Innovation within a Para-Fascist State (1932–1945)]. António Costa Pinto also uses a similar list of sources in his seminal work. I don't think you can accuse both these scholars of "cherry picking". Just saying "cherry picking" is a weak argument, you have to come up with something better than that, something like a list of equally solid academic works, by international researchers in comparative studies on fascism. Can you please provide such a list? It would be very useful.J Pratas (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your source begins with:

"This article challenges the common assumption of the fascist nature of the Portuguese Estado Novo from the thirties to mid-forties".

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).

Also, it seems you have "forgotten" to fully quote the source on the previous comment. Here, let me help, highlighting what you missed:

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.

Last but not least, your source is about state architecture. JMagalhães (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not forget. Pay attention to the text and to where the call-outs to sources are placed. The callout is right after the label "authoritarian". Then read the sources, sources say authoritarian. What about the sources that support your statement? On what basis are you saying "Portuguese Estado Novo is not considered fascist by the majority of academic source" ? Where are the sources to support such a statement?J Pratas (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

So, you "forgot" to include the part "[...] pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime" because it was after a callout. Sure... JMagalhães (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You've deleted a significan ammount of content that is not related to Portugal or your claim. Rita Almeida Carvalho uses the expression "common assumption" as opposed to academic works. JL Andrade says the same "contrary to what the contemporary popular history teaches...¨. Da Silva also says "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. And George Orwell once said he had heard the word fascist applied to fox-hunting, bull-fighting, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, etc. We have to stick to academic sources. You have not sourced your claim. Where is your list of academic works saying that the Portuguese regime was fascist and please show that the list makes a majority. Please source your claimsJ Pratas (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

JPratas You neglected to provide an end quotation mark for the Da Silva quote. Is the observation about Orwell theirs, or yours? And we do not "have to stick to academic sources". We are not an academic encyclopedia, we are a semi-popular one, and editors are allowed to make use of the full panoply of sources, as long as they are reliable. It's not as if academics don't have their biases, ideologies, and pet theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, can you read your own sources? 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)

Do you have any proof that the majority of academics don't consider the Estado Novo to be Fascist then? -- 177.207.51.103 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the dueling lists of reliable sources indicates a lack of academic consensus, however the point made above about the "common assumption" is, I believe, an important one, in that it implies that the "not fascist" point of view needs considerable RS support to overcome the "is fascist" PoV, which is the default assumption. In this respect, I think that the current wording serves the article well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@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

  — Rita Alemeida Carvalho [Ideology and Architecture in the Portuguese ‘Estado Novo’: Cultural Innovation within a Para-Fascist State (1932–1945)]

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.

You cannot list a lot of sources and then say "See, that a majority of academic sources that agree with my position", because, frankly, you don;t know how many academic scholars there are focusing on the subject. Nor do portugese scholars count less that those from anywhere else. The very existence of long lists on both side implies (but does not prove that there is no academic consensus, just as there is not academic consensus of how to define fascism.

At this point, I think you are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and need to WP:Drop the stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Again:

• Rita Carvalho wrote a paper about architecture. Even so, what she wrote is: "researchers in comparative fascist studies usually label the Portuguese New State as a conservative authoritarian, pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime". For some reason, you keep ignoring what I highlighted in bold and the only term you seem to be able to read is "authoritarian".
• Hugo Lopes is comparing Portuguese União Nacional with Italian National Fascist Party and German Nazi Party. In that context, of course Estado Novo is not a "pure" fascist party. However, applying the same standart, no party or movement in this article would be fascist, since they all have diferences from the canonical Italian fascism. In fact, most of the reliable sources on your list simply state that Estado Novo is different from the canonical Italian fascism. Yet, you misinterpret this as if they claim not to be fascist at all. JMagalhães (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• To a certain extent, every fascist state is sui generis, which is what makes defining fascism per se so difficult. What you're left with are general trends common to these regimes, not ideological equivalences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A few clarifications

1) I've never ignored the labels pseudo-fascist, fascistized or para-fascist regime" nor did I try to hide them. In fact I've included in this discussion page the complete paragraph. The accusation is groundless. The sarcasm is dispensable

2) When Lopes says that the 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 says "Estado Novo" e does not say "National Union" and Lopes is not talking about architecture.

3) Salazar based his political philosophy on a close interpretation of the Catholic social doctrine, The economic system, known as corporatism, was based on similar interpretations of the papal encyclicals Rerum novarum (Leo XIII, 1891) and Pius XI, 1931).(Meneses|2009|p=162)

4) Majority of sources are blunt: "Portuguese Estado Novo was not Fascist" (Gregor); The regime of Salazar where fascism as we characterize it has never taken roots" (Linz); "The Estado Novo of Portugal differed from fascism even more profoundly than Franco’s Spain" (Paxton); "Salazar made clear his rejection of fascist pagan cesarism" (Payne); "He was not a fascist, rather an authoritarian conservative" (Cook); "Salazar was not fascist"(Albright); "Was Salazar a fascist? The answer is, historically, no.(Cunha); ] "should not be listed as fascist" (de Felice); "fundamentally not fascist" (Stephen J. Lee); "almost nothing of what has been written about fascism applies to the Portuguese case", etc, etc... There is no but here. According to all these sources it is NOT fascist. The sources that say the opposite are a few Portuguese scholars, a minority POV J Pratas (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying that, and I understand that you believe it to be true, but cherry-picked citations have not established that, at least to my satisfaction, and -- it seems -- to the satisfaction of others. In this discussion, you are the only person arguing that position, while others disagree. This means that there is no consensus for the stance you seek the article to represent, and without consensus, the article cannot be changed. With no consensus, your continuing to argue this position is WP:IDHT behavior, and essentially disruptive. Please WP:DROPTEHSTICK.

For myself, I am walking away from this discussion, but I will continue to monitor the article and this talk page. I will revert any attempts to change the article which do not represent the consensus on this page, and will report the editor making those changes for disruptive editng by editing against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen until now any source saying that the majority of the scholars have considered the Estado Novo to be fascist. On the other side I have seen authors such as Lopes saying that majority of scholars tend to exclude the Estado Novo from fascism and totalitarianism, I have also seen António Costa Pinto saying exactly the same, Pinto argues that most authors tend to exclude Portugal from the fascist category. Where are the sources saying the opposite? J Pratas (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Francoist vs fascist using Nolte as a reference

@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)

I was the one who added Nolte, I find it interesting that you seem to apply so much scrutiny to sources who disagree with your POV, but not to ones who support your POV, you're always seeking to discredit or diminish sources who disagree with you, very telling. -- 138.122.83.167 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not about my point of view. The point is that Nolte can be a very interesting source, but does not seem the best source to defend that Franco was fascist for the reasons I've explained and you have not commented. Also using Nolte cited by Lewis does not make much sense, why not cite Nolte instead? Finally you should focus on discussing the topic and not discussing your assumption of the motives of the editor.J Pratas (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to balance things a bit more, if you can find an online version of Nolte's book for me I happy to cite it, I tried to but I couldn't, and I'm just curious why you don't see to apply much scrutiny for the sources you cite supporting your POV, but you do so for those who don't. -- 138.122.83.167 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear IP, I kindly ask you not to personalize discussions and restrain from commenting what you think to be my POV and present yours. Let as stick to the topic please. I can see you are fond of the topic and you have brought important sources to the debate and your inputs have been valued and included in the article. My point is that Nolte talks about Miguel Primo de Rivera dictatorship in the 1920s and not Franco. On the other hand Nolte's views on Action Fraçaise are usually considered to be fringe. I will try to get you a better source defending that Francoism was fascist and will be coming back.J Pratas (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

France: Republican Independents

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)

Lithuania: Tautininkai

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

@Hh1718: its about the 1926 election before Voldemaras was kicked out – he was even one of their three MPs, the section also includes other border-line cases like French Social Party: "In the interwar period many parties which in historiography are referred to as fascist, proto-fascist, para-fascist, quasi-fascist, fascist-like, fascistic, fascistoid or fascistized participated in general elections organized in their respective countries." Braganza (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Braganza please provide reliable WP-acceptable sources that back your claim about the Fascist nature of the Tautininkai. Until you do so, suggest to leave LTS out of the table. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)