Jump to content

Talk:Right-wing dictatorship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The reason why Nazi Germany and it's various puppet governments (as well as other fascist nations) are considered right wing is because they were, and that is how they saw themselves. Hitler in his Munich speech of 1922 made the political context clear. “....There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people are in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning...” ?

To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. It is undeniable that some of imagery and language used by the Nazi's deliberately mirrored leftish sentiment but this was propaganda deliberately employed to assist in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the semblance of democratic structures to attain his goals.

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the Nazi party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to rhetoric that appealed to the lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of the left nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the ( nominally ) left wing of the Nazi Party, but the die for the ideological soul of the party had been cast. Beside that any pretence of egalitarianism or equality was now out, and Gregor Strasser argued for an 'Unequal' society in which 'Natural' inequalities in society would be encouraged.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of left thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.253.62 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition of non-democratic?

A definition of non-democratic is missing. Please refer to a NPOV definition of non-democratic. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC). When a supposedly democratic government attempts to bar free speech, denigrates human rights, states that military force can be used against law-abiding citizens for having views the government dislikes or disapproves of, and strongly limits access to the legal justice system, quells protests and makes protest difficult, and entirely controls the media, and actively censors parts of the Internet, such a government is a right-wing semi-authoritarian regime, bordering on fascism. Such is the case in the UK at present (2015).

Every Latin American regime right-wing?

"Most people[who?] agree that every Latin American regime (except that of Cuba since 1959) throughout the last two centuries was a right-wing one."

Yet we learn on the on the Latin America entry in wikipedia: "In most countries, since the 2000s left-wing political parties have risen to power."

At best, the "every Latin American regime" assertion above is dated. No one would consider Hugo Chavez a right-wing dictator, for instance.

--Codehead1 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

and also the Sandinists were not right wing. That phrase is pure crap.It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.100.167 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-communist section

it says cuba and north korea can be considered not right wing and china, laos and vietnam apparently are. The only explanation given is that a free market economy has been integrated into the latter three. free market does not mean it is not left-wing. It ought to at least say something like economically liberal instead of just the general term right wing. and china is not a dictatorship, it's a single-party authoritarian country but not a dictatorship. they're a little democratic, used to be a dictatorship but I wouldn't say they are anymore. anyone know about Laos or Vietnam, whether or not they are single party "democratic" states or actual dictatorships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-communist states section needs to be revised or deleted

China, Laos and Vietnam hardly have free market capitalism. That's a very ignorant statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing dictatorships

This is rubbish unless there is a sister page listing left-wing dictatorships (there is not). What do you call the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, among others if not authoritarian left-wing dictatorships?

Also, it should be made clear that a "right wing dictatorship" is in context of the time and place. Classic American style conservatism has little to do with National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, they were "to the right" of the Communists, but so are American Democrats and Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycollab (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew

I think Lee Kuan Yew's leadership was also a right-wing dictatorship. We need to add him on the list.--JohnGao (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Of questionable neutrality...

"There are various definitions of the term "rightist". The broadest one includes all dictatorships that do not consider themselves communist."

Anything that's not communist is rightist/right-wing? Does anyone, apart from some hardline communists, actually use this definition? Neither OED nor Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com include this definition.
If nobody has a valid argument against it, I will change the section to:

"There are various definitions of the term "rightist", the most common being "conservative" or "reactionary". Those are often to some degree pro-market in economic matters and conservative in social ones. The term fascist dictatorship is sometimes erroneously used interchangeably with right-wing dictatorship."

Reasoning:

  • the above definitions
  • "pro-market" is unambiguous, "capitalist" is very vague and politically charged, probably should be considered a weasel word
  • ideological matters include practically anything, "social matters" is more precise in this case
  • fascist is not a synonym for right-wing, in no dictionary

191.114.6.33 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that. By Zeus' beard. The whole article is one big ideological desaster and needs rewriting. Not sure if I'm up for the task... 191.114.6.33 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is Nazi Germany described as anti-religious?

Nazi Germany were in bed with the Vatican [1], and their soldiers wore the words 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckles [2]. There's also Hitler himself declaring the whole movement as Christian [3]

RabSimpson (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Nazi Germany where quite tolerant of both atheism and christianity

See Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. Nazi Germany was considerably hostile against Judaism in particular, while also having some criticisms against standard Christianity, the NSDAP having even kind of created their own split off Christianity, "Positive Christianity." 45.234.133.47 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good article, but...

Where is the list of right-wing dictatorships in South America and Africa? 181.224.194.46 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Empire of Japan

In a controversial matter like the leadership of Imperial Japan in World War II, neutrality is obligatory and one side of the debate cannot be imposed. Therefore, I have opted by the only possible neutral way (Hirohito with Hideki Tojo) instead of my own judgment (if I followed my particular opinion I would only write Hirohito), while user 2401:e180:88a0:906e:e585:f98:f1c7:6148 insists on imposing his particular side of the debate (writing only Hideki Tojo).

Here is the opinion on Tojo from Takahisa Furukawa, a Nihon University expert on wartime history: "Tojo is a bureaucrat who was incapable of making own decisions, so he turned to the emperor as his supervisor. That's why he had to report everything for the emperor to decide. If the emperor didn't say no, then he would proceed." I agree with this opinion.

Nonetheless, I know there is no unanimity on this matter among historians, so I have opted for a neutral formula. I would like everyone to respect the neutrality that is the norm in Wikipedia instead of trying to impose our particular side of the debate on a matter subject to controversy.--84.125.30.50 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the "Empire of Japan" line should be included at all. It is not directly supported by any citations of reliable sources, and appears poorly supported by any of the linked articles. "Dictator" does not appear in the article Hirohito. It does appear in Hideki Tojo, but in a negative sense, and attributed: The American historian Herbert Bix wrote that Tojo was a "dictator" only in the narrow sense that from September 1942 on, he was generally able to impose his will on the Cabinet without seeking a consensus, but at same time noted that Tojo's power was based upon support from the Emperor, who held the ultimate powers. "Dictator" does appear at Japan, but only in describing the Shōgun. "Dictator" does appear at Empire of Japan, but only in the Infobox & in categorisation, not in the article text.
I'm also not convinced that the neutral formula proposed isn't a classic Argument to moderation. - Ryk72 talk 00:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I can agree with the questioning of the term "dictator" for the leader of Imperial Japan in World War II or "dictatorship" for its regime. I rather think it was an oligarchy in which the emperor (its only member who remained throughout the entire war period) was an active participant in a plural decision-making process. But it was not me who included the Empire of Japan in this list of Right-wing Dictatorships and it is not the first time that (even in history books) an assimilation is made between the Japanese regime of the time and the dictatorships themselves, despite their differences. Therefore, I have only tried to point out the corresponding leadership as best as possible, based on the recognition that there is a controversy in this regard among historians.
A classic Argument to moderation? Is this a case of intermediate point between truth and complete nonsense? I don't think so, because it is undeniable that, on this matter, historians are divided between an interpretation and the opposite, without a consensus to this day. And I want to make it very clear: at no time have I said that the neutral formula that I have chosen to use is "the truth". The only "truth" is that the emperor's critics point to Hirohito, and his apologists point to a "military clique". As I said, I am on one side of the debate (the emperor's critics), but I do not intend to impose my particular opinion, just as I hope that those on the other side of the discussion do not seek to impose theirs. Should Wikipedia pretend to resolve a debate that historians have not settled for years?
Ok, if someone has a better solution than the one I used to try to be neutral I will be happy to read it and more than open to accept it if it is neutral and adjusted to the historical data available. But please, don't question my good faith or offend me personally to defend your own opinions.--84.125.30.50 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sourcing in the Empire of Japan section of the List of Asian right-wing dictatorships remains an issue; both the reliability of sources and their alignment to article text.

The section currently relies on the following:

Crosier (sic), Andrew (1997). The Causes of the Second World War. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 200. ISBN 0-631-18601-8.; supporting the inclusion of Imperial Way Faction (Kodoha). Available at the Open Library. It does not describe either Hirohito or Sadao Araki as a dictator, and does not describe the Kodoha has having achieved power.
Harries, Meirion (1994). Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army. Random House; Reprint edition. p. 191. ISBN 0-679-75303-6.; supporting inclusion of Control Faction (Toseiha). Available at the Open Library, as the 1991 edition. The cited work is a 1994 reprint (not revision). The work does not describe either Hirohito or Tojo as a dictator, and does not describe the Toseiha as having achieved power.
Wolferen, Karel J (1990). The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation. Vintage. p. 351. ISBN 0-679-72802-3.; supporting the inclusion of Imperial Rule Assistance Association (Taisei Yokusankai). Not readily available. But added in the same edit as Crozier, Harries & Bix' Hirohito and the making of modern Japan. None of which support the inclusion of the current article content. Bix outright contradicts it; twice.
"Chronological Table: Birth of the Constitution of". ndl.go.jp. National Diet Library. Retrieved June 5, 2020.; for "Years of rule" for the IRAA possibly. It does support that the IRAA was extant during that time; but not that it was dictatorial.
Tu, Elsie (May 1, 2003). Colonial Hong Kong in the Eyes of Elsie Tu: Historicities and Moral Politics in Industrial Conflicts in Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press. p. 307. ISBN 978-9622096066. Retrieved December 11, 2022.; supporting the inclusion of Hirohito as a dictator. An autobiographical memoir; Tu's opinion might possibly be noteworthy somewhere, but is not reliable for statement of fact.

And has also recently referenced the following sources:

Fleury, Jean Sénat (January 22, 2021). Japan's Empire Disaster. Xlibris Corp. p. 287. ISBN 978-1-6641-3871-1. Retrieved December 11, 2022.; supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as self-published.
Rigg, Bryan Mark (January 1, 2020). Flamethrower: Iwo Jima Medal of Honor Recipient and U.S. Marine Woody Williams and His Controversial Award, Japan's Holocaust and the Pacific War. Fidelis Historia. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-1734534108. Retrieved December 11, 2022.; supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as self-published.
Bix, Herbert P. (September 4, 2001). Hirohito and the making of modern Japan. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-093130-8. Retrieved November 11, 2011.; supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as directly contradicting the article text.

The sourcing is either not reliable or does not support inclusion in this list. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 09:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Have removed the sources per the above. If alternative reliable and verifying sources can be found, then they should be added. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 10:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A new source addition:

Butler, Daniel Allen (October 30, 2020). Pearl: December 7, 1941. Casemate. p. 20. ISBN 978-1612009384. Retrieved December 13, 2022.; the supporting text here is ... the emperor was not only aware and informed of Japan's affairs, domestic and international, but took an active, if not always highly visible, part in them. The idea of a "Showa Restoration" - stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power, reducing them to mere functionaries, in the process making the emperor an absolute monarch - reveals the presence of a more forceful personality willing to actually exercise his imperial power than would be expected of a detached, isolated monarch.
There are two issues immediately apparent with the use of this source: 1. "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator"; per WP:NOR; 2. the source describes an idea, the Showa Restoration, which was not realised; attempts to bring about absolute imperial rule failed; e.g. the February 26 incident.

The source does not support inclusion in this list. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Rotary Engine says: "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator"; per WP:NOR. I couldn't find anything about "absolute monarchs and dictators" in WP:NOR, but I found in Dictatorship this: Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. Therefore, if this user claims that "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator" my question is "why?".
2. The key to the use of this source is not "the idea of a Showa Restoration", but the description that the text of the referenced page makes of Hirohito's form of government. One part is the one already quoted by Rotary Engine. Other in the same page is ... By the time Hirohito succeeded his father, however, only one of the genro remained alive, with no one of sufficient moral and political stature and prestige to take their places. Hirohito, then, when making imperial decisions, felt far less constrained by temperament or tradition to defer to the counsel of his advisors. Hirohito possessed, by all acounts, a first-class intellect, and as he had subtly demonstrated during the first six years of his reign, then openly displayed, during the February 26 Incident, a will of iron and a measure of ruthless determination. (...) This ruthlessness manifested itself not just in domestic politics but in Japan foreign affairs as well.
Is this description incompatible with the object of the article? I'm not sure it is. Regarding this, I think it would be useful to talk about where I stand on this matter and why include the Empire of Japan and its leaders in this article.
Personally, I believe that the Empire of Japan was not a "dictatorship", at least as it is understood in the West. It was certainly not a democratic regime, but it was more like an oligarchy coordinated by the emperor. Minoru Genda explained that ... "the whole organization was split into three -that is, the Navy, the Army, and what is known as the government- and the only one who could coordinate the three was the emperor." We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. My personal point of view is closer to that held by Professor Herbert P. Bix, who states that ... although the emperor was more akin to an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch, he was not by nature a combative man eager to start wars. Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution, and advised by his palace entourage or "court group." Not until the late 1930s did Hirohito become a real war leader, actually exercising his constitutional prerogatives of supreme command. So I repeat: my point of view is that the Japanese Empire was an oligarchy coordinated by its emperor rather than a "dictatorship" in Hitler's or Mussolini's model.
Nonetheless, it's evident that the Empire of Japan, because of its non-democratic character and its alliance with the fascist dictatorships in World War II is frequently assimilated to that regimes by several authors. I think this is the reason why it has been included in this article. After all, it is an opinion whose existence should not be ignored, but taken into account and properly indicated. That is why I have been bothering to look for sources that clearly make this assimilation, to referencing this fact. It is evident that the Empire of Japan, whether or not it was a dictatorship in the strict sense, is very often assimilated to the dictatorships with which it was allied, and this fact is worth noting.
What does not seem appropriate to me, in this context, is to demand that any reference used must show the Japanese Empire as a dictatorship identical to the European ones, and if it is not exactly the same, dismiss it by stating that "the source does not support inclusion in this list", because what it is about is showing the assimilation that various authors make between the Japanese regime and the Western dictatorships, not demonstrating that they were exactly the same.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ulises Thank you for the ping.
For 1.: See WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. We cannot take a source which asserts that someone was an absolute monarch (and I do not concur that Butler's "Pearl" does that) and combine it with a definition of "dictatorship" to reach a conclusion not in the source.
For 2.: The text, stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power ... making the emperor an absolute monarch, is clearly a parenthetical describing the Showa Restoration; a state which did not come into being. The next quote from Butler, By the time Hirohito succeeded his father ... felt far less constrained by temperament or tradition to defer to the counsel of his advisors. Hirohito possessed, by all accounts, a first-class intellect ... isn't necessarily incompatible; but it's also not incompatible with someone merely more independent minded & actively involved than his predecessors. What it doesn't do, however, is actively assert that he was a dictator. Which is what it needs to do to be a source which verifies content stating that he was a dictator. (As a side note, it's ironic that the example of ruthlessness determination is the February 26 incident, in which Hirohito's actions were to thwart a coup which sought to bring about a Showa Restoration & make him an absolute ruler.)
Nonetheless, it's evident that the Empire of Japan, because of its non-democratic character Do we have sources for this statement? and its alliance with the fascist dictatorships in World War II is frequently assimilated to that regimes. Oh absolutely agree that it is common for people to conceive of the Empire of Japan as equivalent to Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany and assume that it must have been a dictatorship. WW2-era Allied propaganda explicitly pushed that viewpoint. But thankfully we don't write articles based on 80-year old propaganda; we base our articles on mainstream scholarship. NOTE: I struggled with the use of "assimilate in this context; eventually reading it as a synonym for "associate with". If that's not the intent, please let me know.
It is evident that the Empire of Japan, whether or not it was a dictatorship in the strict sense, is very often assimilated to the dictatorships with which it was allied, and this fact is worth noting. & It is an opinion whose existence should not be ignored, but taken into account and properly indicated. It should be indicated in alignment with its prominence in mainstream reliable sources (per WP:DUE); and so far, we don't seem to have (m)any which support it.
That is why I have been bothering to look for sources that clearly make this assimilation, to referencing this fact. I was impressed by a comment I saw earlier today, Targeted searches for any phrase invite bias, as they may overlook other phrases. It's best to search for the person, as unbiasedly as possible, and see which ... labels naturally seem to be most commonly used
What does not seem appropriate to me, in this context, is to demand that any reference used must show the Japanese Empire as a dictatorship identical to the European ones ... emphasis added. This is a straw man argument, and unworthy. Nowhere have I asserted that sources must show the Japanese Empire as identical to European dictatorship. I do assert that for us to include it in a list of right-wing dictatorships, there should be sources which describe it as a dictatorship, as right-wing, and that those sources should be reliable.
Of the sources provided so far, 2 have been opposed because they are self-published; 1 because it is an autobiographical memoir & reliable for attributed opinion only; and one because it doesn't directly support the assertion that Hirohito was a dictator (per WP:V).
Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 13:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
And, why are we walking past Bix' Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution. or Eri Hotta's Unlike its fascist partners, Japan was never a dictatorship, even though its parliamentary politics had formally ceased to exist in the fall of 1940. It's decision making process was drawn out and often baffling ... in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy. Or Stephen Large's Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography While the military was the dominant political elite by 1941, Japan did not have a military dictatorship. The power of the military was hegemonic, not absolute, and depended on the acquiescence of other elites. These sources are not equivocal. Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you to you.
Well, point by point.
1. You haven't answered my question. I was not talking, at this point, about whether the specific reference calls Hirohito an "absolute monarch" (although there are plenty of authors who qualify him that way, or talk about his "absolute power" before 1945, for example historian Francis Pike in this article, attention to 'Myth 2' or Axel Berkofsky here), but why are you asserting that "absolute monarch is not equatable to dictator". Talking of "unworthy straw man arguments"... I have not disrespected you at any time, and if you were not demanding an identity without distinction between the Hirohito regime and those of Hitler and Mussolini, I apologize, but that is what I understood. Personal attacks should be avoided.
2. It is highly debatable that the February 26 Incident was intended to make Hirohito an absolute ruler, even if its promoters claimed so in words. It seems to me that they intended to establish a military dictatorship more similar to a "shogunate", which is why Hirohito felt his position was threatened and acted against the rebels of the Kodoha. And yes, Hirohito's description in the source is compatible with the object of the article.
3."80-year old propaganda..." Again, the "unworthy straw man arguments". I'm not talking about allied propaganda during World War II. I'm talking about modern historians and authors who qualify the Japanese regime as "totalitarian", or "dictatorial", or "authoritarian" and assimilite it to his fascist allies in the West, like here, for example. Again, avoid personal attacks. They can turn against you.
4.In relation to the above, denying that there are historians and authors who considered the Japanese regime of the time to be totalitarian, authoritarian, or dictatorial (regardless of the never-settled controversy over which of its leaders was the most similar to a "dictator," on what I have my own opinion, but it is not in my power to settle this controversy) it seems to me, as can be seen in works like the one I have linked, that it is denying the obvious.
5.About "bias", I think this is not the case. If we are trying to illustrate the different points of view on a topic, we must find sources on each of them; In the case of this list, those who consider Imperial Japan as a "dictatorship" (or equivalent) and one of its leaders as a "dictator" (or equivalent), especially when it is already known that this position exists among the authors on this matter. If not, what should I look for on this list?
In short, we can discuss whether the reference currently used is adequate or another should be sought, but I think it is clear that a global disqualification of the inclusion of Imperial Japan in this list is out of place, unless we first define what we mean by "dictatorship". Regarding the "right-wing" character, I think the traditionalist and conservative character of the Japanese imperial regime is hardly questionable. As far as I know, traditionalist and conservative politics are considered "right-wing", although if a specific reference in this regard is considered necessary for each country, then it will have to be sought... and I do not think there is any "bias" in proceeding to it.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
1. Our policies require that we reference reliable sources that directly support the material; explaining that a source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (WP:NOR).
That's the standard that the referenced sources need to meet.
We can't take a source which asserts "absolute monarch" and use it as a reference for "dictator", because it's either a) an original interpretation of the source, or b) a synthesis; in this case a synthesis of the source and an (unsourced) assertion that "all absolute monarchies are dictatorships".
It doesn't matter that a source's text is compatible with a particular viewpoint; for us to assert that viewpoint, the source must directly support it.
If there's a different question that I've overlooked, please let me know.
2. Agreed that its highly debatable. Perhaps I should have put an "ostensibly" in there somewhere; for either Hirohito or the Young Officers, or both. But it's also a side note.
3. "Totalitarian" & "authoritarian" aren't equatable to "dictatorship"; per WP:NOR & WP:SYNTH. This is a list of (right-wing) dictatorships; we need sources which directly support that, not sources which support things that might be aspects or properties of that. I'm not overly worried about the "right-wing" aspect; only mentioned because it's in the article title.
Pike & Hoyt are interesting sources; both are available online. Hoyt's Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict mentions Hirohito multiple times; does not describe him as a dictator. Pike's Hirohito's War: The Pacific War, 1941-1945 mentions Hirohito more than a hundred times times, including In constitutional terms, although Hirohito was , at least in theory, an absolute monarch, head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and godhead, be convention he operated within a framework that allocated power to different elite groups; does not describe him as a dictator.
4. Agreed that there are likely sources who consider(ed) the Japanese regime to be totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. What we need here is reliable sources which describe it as a "dictatorship". What we need to include Hirohito, Tojo or Sadao Araki is sources which describe them personally as "dictators".
We can't equate "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" with "dictatorship"; even though dictatorships are likely to be both totalitarian and authoritarian.
We can't go: "authoritarian"/"totalitarian" (both sourced), therefore "dictatorship" (WP:OR); plus Hirohito & Tojo in power, therefore "dictators" (WP:OR). That's a string of original research. Not suggesting that anyone is doing that; just putting up an example of what's not permitted.
5. If we pre-determine the different viewpoints that we will include, and search for sources for them, we will likely end up with a non-neutral result. If we search neutrally, and include the viewpoints that we find, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, we will not.
If we search for "Hirohito", there's not much in the way of modern, reliable sources that describe him as a dictator; and some good sources which say he wasn't. We've both searched for "Hirohito" + "dictator", and not come up with much. I get the same self-published sources as previously discussed; plus a lot which don't describe him as a dictator (but which do use the term for several other world leaders). If we search for "Tojo Hideki", there's probably a bit more; mostly qualified with "virtual". If we search for "Sadao Araki", there's nothing to support describing him as a dictator excluding his unrealised aspirations.
If there's no reliable sources which directly support inclusion, then it should be removed. If there's no reliable sources which directly support inclusion, and there are reliable sources which contradict inclusion, then it should be removed and we should rethink the viewpoints that we feel are worthy of being searched for (per WP:DUE & WP:BALASPS). Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your answer, and for your tone.
As for Hirohito: as we know, he is a very controversial figure. We can find about him from quite apologist sources (such as Hoyt or Large, among whom we have cited) to other very critical ones that point to his personal active involvement in Japanese politics of the time (among those we have cited, Bix or Pike; Axel Berkofsky , as we have seen, directly qualifies him as an "absolute monarch"). Personally, after 30 years of studying his life, I count myself among Hirohito's critics, of course as a result of having consulted works from both sides of the debate (and from equidistant ones as well) and my view on him largely coincides, as I said, with Herbert Bix's description and, as a much more direct witness, with Minoru Genda's description of the system that I quoted in my first post. In short, Hirohito wasn't exactly a "dictator", but rather the coordinator of an oligarchy.
For the rest, I think (in view of your words) that now we are much closer to being fully in agreement. It will be interesting to talk about the exact limits of what should and should not be considered as "dictatorship" between authoritarian or totalitarian regimes and specify their differences. Of course, for a final conclusion on the inclusion or exclusion of the Empire of Japan and its leaders in this list, we will have to wait for a somewhat broader consensus to be confirmed.
All the best. –Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
P.S.: I forgot it. Sorry. When I'm using in this messages the word "assimilate" I mean "consider it comparable", of a similar category.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate the clarification. I think I read it as near enough to that meaning; but will re-read to check for any misunderstanding on my part. Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 22:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
P.P.S.: Your last paragraph about the texts by Bix, Hotta and Large was not visible to me when i wrote and corrected my reply, I ignore the causes. Maybe my connection was not very good at the time, and that's why a couple of issues came out with my IP. But it seems that it has already improved. Regarding those paragraphs, yes, opinions that feel Imperial Japan was not exactly what is meant by a "dictatorship" should be considered (as I said, that's my personal opinion as well), but opinions that believe it was should not be ignored or omitted. As with any controversial issue. As I also said, I believe that the Empire of Japan is included because there is this current of opinion among some historians, a fact that must be taken into account. The fact that I, or you, or Bix, or Hotta, understand that the affinities between the Hirohito regime and those of Mussolini and Hitler do not go so far as to consider Japan as a "dictatorship" in the style of these two does not mean that if other authors believe the opposite their opinion should be ignored. In disputed matters it is difficult to establish anything as a "fact". You can only verify what each side of the debate holds, without ignoring any.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, have removed the content which is both unsourced & contradicted by the linked articles; and tagged the remaining unsourced content as citation needed. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If the Empire of Japan doesn't exactly fit into the "dictatorship" category, then should that section be deleted? What is your opinion? That is, if IRAA has been removed because it can't be considered a dictatorial movement, then none of its leaders can be considered a dictator.-Ulises Laertíada (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Removed the "Empire of Japan" section per reasons explained above.-Ulises Laertíada (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski's Poland

Józef Piłsudski is a left-wing nationalist, not a right-wing nationalist. His government is not a right-wing dictatorship. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Turkmenistan & military juntas in Africa

Turkmenistans Democratic Party is a nationalist and conservative party that opposes LGBT rights and the country has slave labour. There are also several military juntas in Africa that could be added. I also feel countries like Uganda, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran should be added as well as the monarchys in the middle east. I also noticed there weren't any lists for South American country even though several countries in South America have been dictatorships, notably Military Brazil, Chile under Pinochet, Peru under Fujimori, Paraguay under Stroessner as examples I also feel The Confederate States of America under the Democratic Party could be added too. TYMR (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@TYMR: thanks for pointing this out. It is especially surprising that the article still lacks South America from the lists, despite right-wing dictatorships being some of the most prominent on this continent, under sponsorship of Operation Condor. Would you be able and up to adding these entries to the list? Thank you! –Vipz (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I would but I'm afraid I don't know how to properly edit the page and I don't want to mess it up TYMR (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@TYMR: Wikipedia:Can't break it ;) –Vipz (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I added two of them but I didn't do it properly, can someone fix it please? TYMR (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@TYMR: another editor reverted your edit because you did not provide reliable sources to back up the claims inserted into the article. Do you have sources that call Turkmenistan under Democratic Party of Turkmenistan / Serdar Berdimuhamedow or Confederate States of America under Democratic Party / Jefferson Davis right-wing dictatorships? You should post them here if so. Thanks! –Vipz (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources for the Confederate States. https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/ku-klux-klan, https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/confederate-states-of-america, https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/event/the-american-civil-war-as-a-conservative-revolution, https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm
None of these sources support inclusion; none describe the Confederate States as a right-wing dictatorship. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Democratic Party of Turkmenistan: https://www.indianarrative.com/opinion-news/after-afghanistan-turkmenistans-creeping-shift-to-conservative-islam-is-alarming-36272.html, https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/01/30/turkmenistan-at-twenty-five-high-price-of-authoritarianism-pub-67839, https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/turkmenistan/ TYMR (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
messed the article up again, my mistake. I think it would be better if someone else did this unless someone gives me some tips on how to edit it properly TYMR (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, was wondering why Empire of Japan was removed. It was a fascist state that was apart of the Axis powers and one of the most infamous right wing dictatorships in history. TYMR (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It was a fascist state ... and one of the most infamous right wing dictatorships in history. Sources? It certainly was part of the Axis powers, but it's not broadly considered to have been fascist or a dictatorship. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Also Afghanistan is a totalitarian state that opposes LGBT and women's rights. The Taliban is even listed as far-right on wikipedia TYMR (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Afghanistan should definitely be included on this list because it is arguably the most obvious example of a right-wing dictatorship of the 21st century TYMR (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
None of the referenced sources described Afghanistan as a right-wing dictatorship. It might be so, but to be included it needs to be referenced with sources which actually support that. - Rotary Engine talk 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do that TYMR (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-collapse-of-afghanistan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/03/far-right-america-taliban/ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/afghanistan https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/18/afghanistan-taliban-deprive-women-livelihoods-identity https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-taliban-afghanistan-social-media-facebook-twitter/let me know if any of this is okay. I will wait for approval before adding it back TYMR (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at these one by one:

Journal of Democracy. Uncertain as to the reliability of the source; explicitly not peer reviewed. But that may be moot, because the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Washington Post. Paywalled. What exact text from this source supports inclusion?

Human Rights Watch #1. Advocacy organisation, so best attributed in-text. But the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Human Rights Watch #2. As above. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Politico EU. Afghanistan & Taliban are not the primary focus of this source. But that may be moot, because the text doesn't describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

This article is Right-wing dictatorship. It's not Authoritarian regimes, nor Right-wing totalitarian regimes. To be included we need sources which describe the regime as both right-wing and a dictatorship. Sources don't seem to describe Afghanistan under the Taliban as the latter. - Rotary Engine talk 18:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-the-unhappiest-nation-under-the-dictatorship-of-taliban-says-report-515006 https://www.eurotopics.net/en/305917/afghanistan-two-years-after-the-taliban-takeover https://www.britannica.com/topic/Taliban Hibatullah Akhundzada https://www.the-sun.com/news/3483069/taliban-leader-mawlawi-hibatullah-akhundzada-who-afghanistan/ TYMR (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at these one by one:

WIONews. Video doesn't play. "About Us" does not inspire confidence that this is a reliable source. Does the source describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship?

Eurotopics. News aggregator; we would prefer to use the original sources. The only one which mentions "dictatorship" is La Repubblica, which attributes it to Alberto Cairo, Red Cross envoy to Afghanistan. This source doesn't support inclusion.

Britannica. Does not describe Afghanistan as a dictatorship. This source doesn't support inclusion.

The Sun. Deprecated source; per WP:RSP.

The sources need to be reliable and describe Afghanistan under the Taliban as both right-wing and a dictatorship? Is this unclear? - Rotary Engine talk 19:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/omar-sadr-afghanistan-taliban-rule-totalitarianism-human-rights-news-2441/ I apologize if I have not been helpful. This article describes it as a dictatorship but also points the extremism, Islamism, racism, Anti-LGBT sentiment and misogony under the regime. I'll try to look a bit more but if it still does not meet the standards you can revert it and I won't do anymore edits TYMR (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Interesting source. Looking at the website, "Fair Observer" takes open submissions for articles; similar in some ways to Forbes.com contributors. It's mentioned once at WP:RSN, with not much support. The author, Omar Sadr, while a scholar whose research includes political history of Afghanistan, is also explicitly described as an advocate of political reform, constitutionalism and pluralism in Afghanistan in the Fair Observer author page. Putting the above together, I'm inclined to think we reach at best attributed opinion, not reliable for statement of fact. The source text is The Taliban government currently installed in Afghanistan is not simply another dictatorship. That's not a particularly strong statement in support. It's more of an aside. Combining with the other sources which do not describe Afghanistan under the Taliban as a dictatorship, we're looking at a minority opinion, which raises WP:DUE concerns. - Rotary Engine talk 05:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Belarus?

Considering Lukashenko a right-wing dictator is absurd, since he has been a continuator of the Soviet legacy (to a much greater extent than Putin). Not only are there left-wing parties in his coalition, but if we considered Putin's United Russia party to be center-right, it would be to the left of Putin's party, that is, he would be a center-left dictator.

On the other hand, he would not be totalitarian, only authoritarian. 186.32.217.46 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point to portray Lukashenko as left-wing you have to twist and devoid the political spectrum of any meaning. Neo-Sovietism, irredentism, patriotism, nationalism, appeal to Soviet nostalgia, and opportunism, dressed in Soviet aesthetics; these are not left-wing politics. –Vipz (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz You could also add social policies, collective farms, state subsidies, weight of the state in the economy, etc. ComradeHektor (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Alexander Lukashenko#Controversial statements, Death penalty in Belarus, LGBT rights in Belarus, Women in Belarus#Role in society, List of political parties in Belarus#Deregistered parties, "socialism is when the government does stuff". Pretty sure those in power who are cozy allying with right-wingers and conservative policies are the real leftists, while regular people who oppose this system (from an actual left-wing perspective), for which they are being repressed, are not. –Vipz (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Soviet Union bro ComradeHektor (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I love how the criteria for this article is “misonia, homophibia, religion = right-wing” That's definitely not knowing anything about the political spectrum. Do you want a name? Daniel Ortega. ComradeHektor (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
But hey, there's always the classic ""It wasn't true socialism"" ;) @Vipz ComradeHektor (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, misogyny and homophobia are inherently right-wing stances, while religion is neither left-wing nor right-wing (see religious socialism, liberation theology, etc). Socialism is not just an economic ideology, its social aspect involves liberating all segments of the working class from oppression and inequality, including women and LGBT+ folk. Cuba is the only example of an "actually existing socialism" currently making positive social progress.
Whether or not Soviet Union was "true socialism" is another debate, but you're here arguing that modern-day Belarus is socialist? –Vipz (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No, apart from the fact that I don't agree with that (you're basically saying the entire Eastern Bloc was never socialist), my point is that Lukasenko is politically to the left of Putin (in the post-Soviet context), and since This is a centrist politician, why not consider him center left/left authoritarian, like Ortega? ComradeHektor (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If reliable sources call Lukashenko centrist or left-wing, then sure. Some freely accessible sources from the Internet touch on it:
  • Shchurko (2022), East European Journal of Society and Politics, "From Belarus to Black Lives Matter": Populist Lukashenko formally declares continuity between the Soviet command economy and his economic policy but, in fact, allows for many neoliberal transformations to happen in the country and facilitates the accumulation of wealth and capital in the hands of a few individuals that lead to state privatization, precarization of the labor force, and the devastation of the social services as state support for education and health care wither.
  • Kunitskaya (2020), Jacobin, "In Belarus, the Left Is Fighting to Put Social Demands at the Heart of the Protests" The left-wing movement has been in crisis for a long time, because Lukashenko himself used quasi-socialist slogans to come to power. When right-wingers call him “Soviet” and “communist,” he doesn’t seem to mind. Soviet monuments, street names, and holidays have been preserved in full in Belarus. So, somehow it was “decided” that he was a “leftist.”
A conservative populist with a coat of red paint is not a leftist, he is an opportunist. He himself stated during his first 1994 presidential campaign "I am neither with the leftists nor the rightists." Centrism is another word for maintaining the status quo, but the status quo of dominant Belarusian politics are heavily right-wing policies. –Vipz (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to accuse you, but sources aside, you left out the "antisemitic" part of Alexander Lukashenko#Controversial statements in that reply reading "I love how the criteria for this article is “misonia, homophibia, religion = right-wing”". It's very disgusting to even think of portraying someone who praised Hitler as left-wing. –Vipz (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Does Bakunin sound familiar to you? The Jewish Question? I'm not going to get caught up in that story, because the greatest exponents of today's neo-antisemitism are on the left. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz And about Hitler, well, Robert Mugabe has something to say about that (and about everything else): > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/robert-mugabe-s-most-eccentric-quotes-9143930.html . I like how liberal people believe that they were the ones who invented the left and that before them only the far right and conservatives existed. The Cuba that you admire so much created forced labor camps for homosexuals in the 60's. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not admiring historical Cuba, nor any of its contemporaries that pursued similar reactionary social policies not unlike most of their Western counterparts. You keep bringing up irrelevant politicians and topics to the discussion, while I actually went out and searched for sources on the political alignment of Lukashenko (the topic of this discussion). I don't know what's your goal here; I'm not going to respond to any of the inflammatory claims you put above. :) –Vipz (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz I was writing the text below but you didn't let me respond XD anyway, I can also look for sources that say the opposite, but most of them are in Russian. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Look, I'm going to be honest with you, if you had only focused on Belarusian politics you may have been right, but by mixing all this with Western politics you have made a mistake by ignoring the cultural differences of both (just to give you an example, Navalny is a liberal center-right politician who is in favor of same-sex marriage, while the Communist Party of the Russian Federation opposes it). Lukashenko is to the right of let's say Brehzniev, But comparing its political positions and actions with Russia, it is on the left of the political spectrum. That is why characterizing it that way, ignoring everything I explained here (and what the Russians and Belarusians themselves think) seems misguided to me. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This is what I found:
Looking at his entire history, apart from the fact that he was the only Belarusian parliamentarian to oppose the disintegration of the USSR in a vote, it leaves me with the image of a politician who took a turn towards the left and authoritarianism to ingratiate himself with what he thought his people, who in general did not experience the shock policy implemented by Yelsin thanks to him. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz and @LeonChrisfield I found this other one in English, the only one that talks in depth about the "shock therapy" policy (it cites many other sources): https://www.grunge.com/783615/who-is-belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko/ ComradeHektor (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the first quote, I found a source that contradicts it:
ComradeHektor (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
it leaves me with the image of a politician who took a turn towards the left: Your image of Lukashenko is original research.
Every subsequent source you've posted so far doesn't contradict my description of the guy as a "conservative populist with a coat of red paint" and an "opportunist". Potrafke and Bjørnskov (2011) in the above quote touch on the events of the 1990s, and whatever else is stated in this source is naturally out of date with events after its publication in 2011. Nonetheless, that "communist" label is very casually placed there, without offering an explanation on how is it "communist".
Bertelsmann Transformation Index report on Belarus from 2018 touches on Lukashenko's conservatism, opportunism, and privatization efforts in mid-2010s (BTI 2018 Country Report - Belarus):
  • His prevalent conservatism notwithstanding, the continuity of Lukashenko’s rule has come through expediency, pragmatism and opportunism in making changes, even where this would apparently contradict previous strongly-held positions.
  • After Russia’s decision to move toward charging market prices for its energy deliveries, and in the wake of the global financial crisis, some structural reforms were announced, including a privatization program and the reduction of administrative barriers to opening a private business.
  • In 2015 to 2016, the Belarusian government improved cooperation with the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the U.S. in supporting the private sector. The IMF and World Bank are assisting the Belarusian government in bringing new foreign investors and privatizing state enterprises. An ambitious action plan for large-scale privatization was developed by the National Agency for Investments and Privatization at the end of 2016, which includes 38 investment projects in various sectors of the economy.
Maslyukov (1998), "A Report from Minsk", Monthly Review; opportunism:
  • In 1995 Belarus elected its first parliament after the Soviet period. [...] Then there were the “independent” members grouped in the fraction “Agreement”—primarily local bigwigs and notables without a political program of their own, but ready to support Lukashenko (for a reasonable price) in everything. [...] The block “Agreement” could swing the parliament—either to the left or to the right—when it was convenient for the president.
I'll continue searching for sources to support inclusion of Belarus in this article. –Vipz (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Precisely, that gives the image of a centrist and pragmatic politician. He could not be characterized as conservative since at any time he can abandon said policy (as he has done on other occasions, for example regarding abortion). 186.32.216.85 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The abortion policy Lukashenko "abandoned" was legislated before his tenure; his government made changes to it in 2014, in line with conservative anti-abortion stances. He is characterized as conservative by the source I provided above, and there are probably more such sources (up to now I focused on "right-wing" rather than "conservative"). In centre between what is Lukashenko, anyway? There are only pro-Lukashenko and anti-Lukashenko currents, and the latter are simply banned from participating. –Vipz (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
There are radical left politicians who are anti-abortion: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latin-americas-leftist-leaders-are-abortion-gay-rights-rcna3935. You gave a good description of Belarusian politics, by the way ComradeHektor (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It is still in position #105 in the ranking. This is the same as if I said that Cuba became "right-wing" since in the 2000s they privatized water and allowed private businesses after the Special Period. In the same thing you quoted it says: "After Russia’s decision to move toward charging market prices for its energy deliveries, and in the wake of the global financial crisis..." That is, they were forced by circumstances. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources that talk about the economy of Belarus (citation format included):
Most scholars agree that it is a market socialist economy @Vipz. ComradeHektor (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The first source you bring up is luckily open access, and it is evident from the first sentence of its intro that the study is relying on the "fact" Lukashenko's government "halted privatization", when a publication whose primary focus is documenting economical and political transformations and changes strongly contradicts the claim. Being forced into rampant privatization by circumstances is irrelevant, it still happened. I only brought up Cuba because, despite its own (albeit much slower) economical liberalization, it's consistently making a left-ward social shift. Belarus has neither, it is still somewhat state capitalist but is on the path towards just regular Putin-style oligarchy (they've been integrating into one since the inception of the Union State). –Vipz (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Nowhere is there any mention of strong privatization, the most that is done is a mention of future plans and projects that by now have already been abandoned with current events. Now the entire region is being structured towards a war economy that will require strong economic centralization in the hands of the state and public-private cooperation in various areas. And regarding cultural and social life, all of this is inherited from the times of the USSR as I mentioned before. ComradeHektor (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz (Note that the source I cited is from 2020 and yours is from 2018, and is talking about said plans in the future tense). ComradeHektor (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
In fact, searching for more current sources, I found that no major privatizations have been carried out since 2011 ComradeHektor (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-wing_dictatorship/Archive_1&oldid=1251352148"