Talk:Falange Española de las JONS

redlinks

I removed a number of links to non-existing pages ("dewikified"). These are topics which aren't likely to become articles in the near future. If and when someone writes such articles, the links can always be re-entered. In my opinion, pages don't look nice when they have a lot of red links; it serves to emphasize what is missing in the encyclopedia. For further reference, please see: Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context -- Viajero 08:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Emphasizing what is missing encourages the wikipedia to grow. I find that, when I make a new page, I often enhance it by checking what pages already link there. I almost never do a search to create links to that page, even less when search has been disabled. I think that if the links will provide an enhancement to the article they should be explicit. Build them and they'll come.

About the likeliness of links, it's subjective. We have articles on very strange things and don't on subjects I deem more important.

I also think that November 20 is a capital date for Falange, so it is worth a link.

-- Error 04:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a point. If I remember correctly, I started the Falangist page because I encountered a red link. I looked it up in the dictionary and created a stub. You added a lot more information. Now we have a decent article. All right, how about a compromise: not every possible concept for an article wikified, just the more obvious. For example, minor(?) figures like José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Miguel Primo de Rivera, and Onésimo Redondo we leave unwikified... Or not?...

Onésimo, maybe. Miguel was dictator of Spain for some years. José Antonio was subject of a personality cult for 40 years. Lots of Spaniards were named José Antonio after him. -- Error

You seem to know a lot about Spanish history. I would be curious to know more about Carlism. Could you write a few lines? -- Viajero 12:05, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I prefer adding rather starting, like I did wtih Falange. But there you have a stub. -- Error 20:42, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Clerical fascism

Are you sure that Falangism is clerical fascism? Falangists were Catholics, but I think they often conflicted with clergy. I am not sure of their actual relation with the church. -- Error 03:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it depends on large part on which time period you look at. The Falange of Jose Antonio was not really involved with the Church. After the forced merger with the Carlists it became the only political movement of the nationalists and there was a lot more religious involvement, that is probably the closest to "clerical fascism." Later I think it became more conservative/less fascist, still with a strong religious component... Ak13 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The original Falange was mainly Catholic, but was not a supported of the Church. It could be clear with this: You can be Muslim, Jewish, or Atheistic and member of the Falange, but you should respect Catholicism. --TLF 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

Does Falangism support free enterprise? I thought it tolerated it but preferred corporatism.

Same 'bout regionalism. Isn't it a Carlist tenet? --Error 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Falangists were (and are) ECONOMIC SOCIALISTS, in fact, in the 1930s, they extolled the "economic feats" of the USRR, but they also regretted soviet "atheism" and "internationalism". Some Falangists said that Falangism was the sum of communism plus religion plus nationalism. I own a 1939 falangist doctrine book ("La conquista del estado") with all this stuff, but I am uncertain about the copyrighr status. Randroide 11:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sindicalismo

Does sindicalismo in this case mean syndicalism or trade-unionism? --Error 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either, in the way we'd think, though I don't know the original philosophy of it; it became more an "organic" way of representing the nation (via sectoral unions) that did not involve elections or political parties, and in the end wasn't "pro-worker" at all. AFAIK, anyway. Ak13 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Royalism

I have removed a mention of royalism. I doubt that pre-1936 Falange and later camisas viejas would like a king of any dynasty. I don't know if that can be described as republicanism. Of course, the Carlist element fused in the Unification Decree was monarchist. Thoughts? --Error 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The "real" Falange (that is, before the Unification Decree) was neither nor. Although Jose Antonio made his first candidacy in a monarchical list, partly on personal reasons (he felt the King and the monarchists had betrayed his father), partly on his own ideological evolution, by the time he founded Falange, he was strongly against monarchy. Probably not on the abstract idea, but against everything the fallen Alfonsine monarchy represented. Even more antimonarquical was the Valladolid group. They weren't either republicans, as this term was loaded with more than simply the "form of government" issue.

Even after the Unification, most of the "camisas viejas" and "falangistas puros" (pure falangists), mantained their anti monarchical stance, at least verbally till the end. Probably the only thing in common they had with Carlists was the rejection of Don Juan and his son. But they were overplayed by Franco himself, with the majority of the Generals and the "catholic" groups--Wllacer 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"No queremos reyes idiotas" ("We do not want moron kings", due to to the, er, excessive inbreeding of the spanish royalty) was a common (and unauthorized) falangist motto during the francoist era. There was a lot of feuding among the "familias" of the Franco regime. The "familias" (pressure groups) were, basically: Falange, the Traditionalists (carlists, supporters of the Carlos blood line), the Opus Dei (Technocrats, hated by the Falangists) and Royalists (supporters of the Borbon blood line). The Army was not really a "familia", because their loyalty to Franco was absolute.Randroide 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Splitting ?

Looking at some of the questions in this page. Would no be a good idea to split (at least internally) the article in two?. One dealing with original falange (1933-1937, 1977 onwards) and their ideological tenents and other dealing with the Unified Party,(aka FET y de las JONS, aka Movimiento Nacional) and its history. I think most of the confusion would disappear--Wllacer 09:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there has to be three articles: Falange Española, Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista and Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista. This page Falange could deal with Falangism in general (historical context, ideology) as well as link to the different falangist organizations in Spain and abroad. --Soman 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made today some minor changes (mainly rewording, lifting some errors and adding a few details) till i can get enough good info to reshape the article. If anybody could do it prior to me, i'd be glad. I'm not an expert on Falange ... I removed also the link to Jose María Aznar López. If we were to put a list of every modern politician who has been a member of Falange or their block organizations, we would not end ;-)--Wllacer 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Socialism

Was really Miguel opposed philosophically to socialism? Didn't he have some kind of agreement with PSOE or UGT? --Error 02:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Miguel tolerated both groups during his dictatorship, and he also supported Keynesian programs: "Estado de obras", think about it about something like the Rooselvet´s TVA. Randroide 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Glaring omission

The role of the Spanish Republican government's murder of Catholic clergy, religious and laity in inspiring the Falangist cause into action is missing. There's a good reason the Spanish Church supported the Fascists: they weren't engaging in murderous pogroms against them.--FidesetRatio 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Debate??

I just added an NPOV template to the so-called "Debate" section, because it reads more like one editor's personal essay supporting his own POV on the issues raised in the section. A more accurate heading might be "Pseudo-debate". This section needs some serious attention; if it isn't thoroughly overhauled with WP:NPOV in mind, it should be removed. Cgingold 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The section actually states that everyone whose opinion is respected associates with the far right and similar to fascism, but then asserts that "in fact ..." That's just not acceptable. Fascism proper had roots in syndicalism too, but it that doesn't make it socialist left. ~Switch ^{t c g} 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with SwitChar:This article reads like the ideological hoop jumping of neo-falangists. It is nothing less than absurd. Jaimehy (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Falangism as a political ideology is an Iberamerican branch of political and ideological fascism. Article needs serious revision and incorporation into Fascism political series. Perhaps "falange" page should be a strict definition of the word and its roots, while the linked "falangism" page should be about this specific branch of fascism?--David Barba (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Derivation of the word "falange"

The etymology proposed is erroneous; there is no Greek word "phalangos" meaning "finger", the word is simply the Spanish version of "phalanx", which in Greek is used with the general meaning of "battle formation" or "army arrayed for battle". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucius Domitius (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You are right, but the Greek "phalanx" (battle array for heavy pikemen) in turn derived from the Greek term for finger.

Relation to fascism

This was removed at 2007-11-26T09:25:42 by Mamalujo with the comment "Popular imagination aside, most scholars don't link it with fascism. Hence, removed unsourced statements.":

In style and ideology it was similar to Italian fascism. It shared its contempt for Bolshevism and other forms of socialism and its distaste for democracy, as well as its ideological centre-piece of National Syndicalism. Its uniform and aesthetic was similar to contemporary European fascist and national socialist movements. The Falange did not, however, share the fascist quality of national socialism

This paragraph is unsourced and not even that well written. But the movement certainly is linked with fascism (and sourced statements to that effect are in Fascism, although I haven't confirmed that the sources, which are off-line, really link Falange to fascism), not least because both Falangistas and fascists joined Franco's rebellion and government. It's also true, of course, that Falange and fascism are different things, and were different movements even within Spain (at least before the civil war). So I won't put this back as it is, but it should be moved here; hopefully somebody with knowledge and good sources can explain the relationship accurately. —Toby Bartels (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

It says: "After the opening to the United States and the Spanish Miracle of the 1960s, Franco began working with younger, more technocratic politicians linked to Opus Dei."This may or may not be true. In any case, what is the source?