Jump to content

Talk:Italian Socialist Party

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

History

[edit]

This article lacks of information about the history of Socialist Party before Craxi. It seems like nothing important happened from 1892 to 1976, and people like Turati, or Mussolini (who was one of the most important leaders of PSI) or Nenni had never existed. Later I will write something about that.--clemi 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well..since i have writen most of this article, i find it really insulting people saying i shud of added more...anyway...if u can..then write something..thank you

Symbol

[edit]

The historical symbol of PSI (from 1976 to 1994) was not that presented in this page, indeed it was very similar to that of the New Italian Socialist Party. --Checco 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol used by PSI in its last years is that of this page and in this other page. --Checco 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Tessera'

[edit]

How to translate 'tessera' into English? I encountered it at [1]. Is it the membership card or something? --Soman 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement needed

[edit]

I have started adding some material, and rewriting some sections, but the article needs a lot of work. It is really very superficial.Giordaano 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. --Checco 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree - I'm no expert, but much of the section on the history of the party jars sharply with fact. For instance, no mention is made of change in the Maximalist leadership, or the Abstentionist wing around Bordiga (much less, Gramsci's L'Ordine Nuovo). You'd be forgiven for thinking the Mussolini continued to lead the party! And surely, the split off of the two left factions is worth noting as it eventually left the PSI a solidly reformist organisation!

Also, some mention of the factory councils would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.140.42 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you improve the article? --Checco (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

[edit]

I have begun the process of copy editing. Thought he English is generally very good good in parts it is rather 'Italianate'

Can anybody enlighten me as to what the following means:- 

 'From 1987-1992 the PSI threw three governments' ?

Does it mean it 'overthrew three governments or it lead three governments?

Gallese

I really don't , but what is sure is that in 1987-1992 there were four governments (all led by a Christian Democrat) and PSI was part of all four. --Checco 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have changed the text to reflect that fact. Gallese 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Are you sure about "Socialist Unity"? There was no electoral pact with PSDI, indeed the two parties ran separately both in 1989 European elections and in 1992. --Checco 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check on that and get back to you Gallese 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are correct. I was trying to make sense of the original written text . I will use a translation of the Italian page as it is far clearer.

Opinion or Fact

[edit]

In the section Golden Years it reads as follows:-

'The 'Social Unity' political pact with Italian Democratic Socialist Party (historical) proposed by Craxi in 1989 after the fall of communism began to bear fruit; the alternative which Craxi had wanted so much was taking shape. It was, in his view, inevitably going to come after the collapse of communism in the Eastern European states undermined the PCI.

By 1985, Craxi had taken the symbol of communism off the PSI logo, and replaced it with a rose. If Tangentopoli had not taken place, the PSI was in line to become the second party of Italy. However, the "advantage" that the Socialists had obtained by taking public money and bribes on a massive scale during the 1980s was finally going to end, and with it the Party itself.'

I think this section should be edited out on the grounds that at the very least it is little more than conjecture and at best ignores the willingness of the PCI to reform itself and to retain significant membership and electoral support and to compete for that support something which without a shadow of doubt Craxi, who was no mug, would have surely understood. Maybe it would be better to argue that the collapse of communism would have provided a more favourable conjuncture for the development of Craxi's ' Third Way' if the events around Tangentopoli had not taken place. To go much further than that is, in my opinion, to go too far.

A translation of the relevant much more carefully argued paragraph on the Italian page would be better. 'Con la caduta del muro di Berlino avvenuta nel 1989, reputando imminente una conseguente crisi del Partito Comunista Italiano, Craxi inaugura l'idea della "Unita Socialista" da costruire insieme con il fidato Psdi e nella quale coinvolgere anche ciò che nascerà dalle ceneri del PCI. Craxi dimostrerà così una certa lungimiranza: come previsto infatti il PCI viene sciolto e gli ex comunisti confluiranno nel più moderato e riformista PDS, anche primi riscontri elettorali da parte del PSI paiono incoraggianti, poiché alle elezioni regionali del 1990 i socialisti .......' Would be interested to see what others think.

Gallese 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the text in from it.Wiki was very badly translated in English, including several mistakes (for example in the symbol there wasn't a rose, but a carnation). --Checco 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

italia world war 11

[edit]

i am trying to find out about the two parties in italia in world war 11 any information will be apperiacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.134.65 (talk) 05:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

PCI or PSI?

[edit]

I cite from the article: "At the same time, the PCI increased its presence in the big state-owned enterprises, and became heavily involved in corruption and illegal party funding which would eventually result in the Mani Pulite scandals".

It says PCI, but I am unceretain whether it is a typing mistake. Should it be PSI? --Oddeivind (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a typing mistake. See it:Mani pulite. --Soman (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup and diaspora

[edit]

The followiing excerpt is taken from the article "Party organisations and alliances in Italy in the 1990s: A revolution of sorts", written by James L. Newell and Martin Bull and published in West European Politics, volume 20, number. 1, pages 81-109. The exact page for the reference is page 91.

"The party broke up into three groups: Giorgio Benvenuto's Rinascita Socialista (Socialist Renewal-RS), Del Turco's PSI (i.e. with the same name as the old party but a new symbol), and finally, the craxiani (Craxi supporters) which set up the Democratic Socialist Federation (FDS). The first two groupings eventually surf aced in the Progressive Alliance while the third entered the right-wing Freedom Alliance".

I am trying to find the Italian name of the Democratic Socialist Federation (FDS). Could anyone help? --Oddeivind (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard about Rinascita Socialista and Democratic Socialist Federation. I do not know where these names come from. I never heard of Freedom Alliance too, so I do not know how to help you. Sorry. --Checco (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Years - 1910-12, the 'Maximalists', Mussolini and the 'London Bureau'

[edit]

In the Early Years section there is a discussion of the split between the 'Reformists' and the 'Maximalists', saying that the Reformists were strong in the unions and that the Maximalists were associated with the 'London Bureau' of socialist groups. This comes in the narrative between 1910 and 1912 (where Mussolini is described as 'leader of the Maximalists').

The London Bureau however was not founded until 1932, so it is unlikely that the Italian Maximalists of c.1911 were affiliated with it. In the section on 'the Rise of Fascism' it further claims that between 1930-40, theh PSI was a member of the Labour and Socialist International, a rival organisation to the London Bureau. It isn't likely that the PSI (or the dominant faction of Maximalists in it, the text is not clear) was a member of both in the 1930s, nor could it have been in the 1910s, as the London Bureau didn't exist at that point.

The rest of the Early Years section implies that Mussolini was leading the Maximalists (or the PSI?) in 1919, when it achieved its best election results. It seems, rather, that he had been expelled by November 1914 ([2]). He founded his first Fascist organisation in 1919, so really wouldn't have been leading the PSI at the time.

82.7.178.188 (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the far-left wing of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), which at that time was led by the russian revolutionary Angelica Balabanova, was affiliated with the London Bureau in the 1930s. Balabanova's faction (the PSIm) had refused to merge with the reformists of the PSU at the XXI Party Congress in Paris in 1930 and to become a member of the Labour and Socialist International. Balabanova had managed to almost build up a parallel party to the official PSI, with separate party membership book, newspaper etc.--KoriAna 1 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Italian Socialist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italian Socialist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Socialist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology and position

[edit]

The notion that the one can draw a clear demarcation line between socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy is flawed. Lenin was a social democrat back in the day, but wouldn't be considered as a social democrat by today's standards. I'd say "Socialism" functions well as ideology in the infobox. 'Position' is even more fluid, and better removed. --Soman (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose this move! By that logic, en.wiki should remove all of its articles on political ideologies, as many of them overlap. The PSI was clearly in the mould of a Western European social-democratic party, certainly by the end of its existence – participating in national-level governmental coalitions in a EC/Nato member nation (including the presidency of the republic itself with Sandro Pertini), member of social-democratic international organisations (Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists), and lead to two social-democratic parties which were moderate elements of the centre-left and centre-right coalitions (SDI and NPSI respectively).--Autospark (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that you invoke the Socialist International and Party of European Socialists (my emphasis) to prove the point that PSI should be categorized as 'social democratic' rather than 'socialist' in the late stage of its existence? --Soman (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The SI and PES are after all the major umbrella organisations of social-democratic politics parties (and if you wish to argue in terms of taking names literally, the German name of the PES is Sozialdemokratische Partei Europas!).—Autospark (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is my point precisely, that you cannot draw that sharp line between socialist and social democratic parties, these terms are used interchangeably. To say an exact date when PSI went from 'socialism' to 'social democracy' isn't possible, and the nuances of the gradual shift in the ideology of PSI is better described in the article itself rather than in the infobox. --Soman (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also strongly opposed to what was done to the infobox's "ideology" section regardless of consensus. I fully side with User:Autospark on this. However, I would like to point out what is good about the debate that came out. In my view, the PSI was always a social-democratic party according to different decades' standards. I also think that is quite difficult to draw clear demarcations of the party's different ideological phases, thus my proposal is to have simply "Democratic socialism" (the PSI's majority was always democratic, social-democratic indeed!) and "Social democracy", without timelines. Two ideologies are enough! --Checco (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If perfectly fine with Dem Soc+Soc dem without timelines, as suggested by Checco. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good compromise and, most of all, a nice simplification. I can't stand infoboxes with tons of ideologies. Infoboxes should contain short, essential infos. The article itself, especially the "Ideology" and "Factions" sections, should provide more in-depth infos. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with this compromise solution, and agree with should aim to keep infoboxes as concise as possible.—Autospark (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology 2.0

[edit]

Why is PSI after 1976 called Socialist? They were rather third way @Checco and Autospark: Braganza (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After 1976, I would leave just "social democracy", the internationally recognised ideology. --Checco (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Socialist_Party&oldid=1207756939"