The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Humanities desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 17

Old English Adjectives as substantives

[Moved to WP:RD/L] Tevildo (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between fascism and dictatorship

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i know fascism has to have an authoritarian state which can be a dictatorship or otherwise, but this seems to be a case of WP:WHAAOE (see articles fascism and dictatorship) ~Helicopter Llama~ 14:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See Fascism and Dictatorship (and Authoritarianism might also be useful). Basically, in fascism, the emphasis is on the rule of the State and what's good for it (as opposed to what the people might want, or what might be good for them as individuals). The fascist state may be (and all real examples have been) personified in a dictator, but it's theoretically possible for a state to be fascist yet run by a body of people (Plato's Nocturnal Council comes to mind). [No article! See the Laws and the Epinomis, then.] A dictatorship, on the other hand, is just a state (effectively) run by one person, with no connotations of political ideology. Tevildo (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is one type of dictatorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between different types of authoritarian dictatorships is the stated goals or philosophy of the dictatorships; that is the justification the use for their hold on power and their oppression of dissenting views. In practice, all authoritarian dictatorships are functionally equivalent for the people who disagree with them, or the people whose ethnicity or religion they feel are a threat to their power. Philosophies used to support dictatorships include fascism (the devotion to the nation-state), communism (promotion of worker's rights), national socialism (racial purity), cult of personality (pseudo-religious devotion to the dictator and his/her family, see Juche), etc. etc. It's quite important to remember that none of these ex-post-facto justifications makes one lick of difference to the average people living under these regimes. It's either "agree vehemently with the dictator and his stated philosophy" or "get imprisoned, tortured, or killed". It was probably best said by Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakunin, who said "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."" Bakunin had a lot of crazy ideas, but that one probably comes a little too close to the truth... --Jayron32 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prominent examples that we have had have been dictatorships, but is that required of fascism? That is, if you have a "fascist-like" state where power ultimately rests in a committee, or a nebulous group of party elite, or even an "elected" representative council, would that still be "fascism"? I'm thinking of an analogy with (20th century) communism, where early examples could arguably have fell into the "dictator" bin (Stalin, Mao, the Kims in North Korea), but where, at least for the Soviet Union and China, they transitioned into a model that was still arguably "communist" but not really "dictatorship" per se. Could something similar have happened to "fascist" regimes, were they have to persisted, or would a transition to a looser control structure mean they no longer would be "fascist"? -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were certainly authoritarian regimes; oligarchy if you will; where the state apparatus still operates as oppressive and authoritarian, though without the singular leader. The Soviet Union in the late 70s - early 80s in the post-Brezhnev years were run by the Nomenklatura, for example. Dictatorship by bureaucracy is still dictatorial... --Jayron32 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Fascist theory, it is certainly possible for a fascist state to be run by an oligarchic body rather than a single autocrat. See Grand Council of Fascism. I don't really know how much authority they had in day-to-day decisions, but they were certainly relevant on 25 Luglio, 1943. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baker McKenzie article

Why is it that the Baker McKenzie article is still flagged for advertisement when it has been updated with appropriate citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.217.246 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This question would be better on the Baker & McKenzie talk page. However, looking at the article, the "Transactional focus" and "Awards and Rankings" sections need to be drastically cut down and re-written as prose rather than a list of bullet points, and the list of cities where the firm has offices and the "Practice Areas" section should be replaced by a couple of summary paragraphs in the lead. Tevildo (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]