Talk:Rexist Party

flag

Is the flag a Wikipedian's invention?--Wetman (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested mode

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Rexism → Rexist Party – "Rexism" seems, from all my research, to be a totally arbitrary name for the page. The organization is known as "Rex" or the "Parti rexiste" in French (I have no preference about which). Rex's ideology was so vague and changeable that it never inspired an "-ism" like the Nazi party. In any case, the party itself is far more notable than its ideology. I therefore propose a move to either of the above titles. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

contemporary fascist parties

"The party was founded by a journalist, Léon Degrelle, and, unlike contemporary fascist parties in Belgium, advocated Belgian unitarism and royalism." Please enlighten us who those "contemporary fascist parties in Belgium" are! --165.165.92.246 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Flemish National Union and Verdinaso are the big ones... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Religion

At present it seems that one of the only two Belgian political parties party to have entries an entry for the "Religion" field in the infobox is one that was condemned by the bishops as a danger to the Church and was led by an excommunicate. The affiliation given is "Roman Catholic", added a day ago by an IP editor that is going round adding "Roman Catholic" to infoboxes on many far-right parties. (But not, for example, to Catholic Party (Belgium), where it might actually be appropriate.) Could we perhaps establish some consensus that being endorsed (rather than condemned) by a Church is what constitutes being affiliated to that Church? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (Edited to reflect that User:Brigade Piron has already reverted the addition on the other party's entry) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I take silence as consent? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to the argument that "religion" is not a viable perimeter for political party infoboxes, but I do maintain that Rex must be described as a Roman Catholic movement. The church's (temporary) condemnation of the party is, to my mind, totally irrelevant; the party claimed to be Catholic and, objectively, held many principles in common with other right-wing Catholic political movements of the period. Ironically the Catholic Party was more conservative than it was "Catholic" per se but for Rex the same cannot be said. For VNV religion is pretty much irrelevant (except in so much as it was anti-Semitic) - that's why I reverted the change. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But affiliation to an organisation is surely a two-way thing? When one institution claims affiliation to another institution, it is by no means irrelevant whether that claim is accepted or rejected by the second party. Action Française drew upon Catholic Action in much the same way, and was repudiated in much the same way. You might be of the opinion that Rex was more Catholic than the Catholic Party, but the Catholic bishops of the time would clearly have disagreed with that assessment. We might as well say Martin Luther was a Catholic, because he was a Catholic monk and theologian, claimed he was a Catholic, and what the bishops (or the pope) said is apparently irrelevant. It's not as though I could claim to speak on behalf of the city of Sheffield, because I once went to school there. The connection has to be mentioned, but it is tendentious to present it as though a straightforward affiliation, and the editor whose addition I reverted, with all the good faith in the world, clearly had an axe to grind. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andreas. The condemnation by the church was certainly not temporary. It was condemned even before becoming influenced by Nazism yet Degrelle`s excommunication happened during the war and was never overturned by the church, only the German government on a technicality. The party differed from mainstream Catholic Parties it that it considered itself Socialist and in favour of revolution while Pope Pius XI had unequivocally stated that one could not be at the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist. Also the Rexist Party collaborated with a very anti-Catholic occupying force. Additionally Degrelle seemed anti-clerical. 83.128.173.145 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Leon Degrelle himself described the party a Socialist

From an interview with Leon Degrelle:

Q: You were arrested, were you not?

A: Yes, I was arrested in 1940 by French troops, beaten, and moved around from damp jail cells where I was tortured until finally freed by German troops. They knew who I was since I was a leader of the Rexist Party, which was a Socialist anti-Communist political party. Seeing that I would not receive any help, let alone justice from the authorities in Belgium I knew that that government was illegitimate, and I decided that the corruption must be challenged. 83.128.173.145 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed. This is a self-serving retrospective description. Find something from before 1940 that says this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC) 

Well I have a quote from during the war. Note that much like Italian Fascism Rexism was rather opportunistic and had an evolving ideology as described in this article.

It is not to save capitalism that we fight in Russia … It is for a revolution of our own. … If Europe were to become once more the Europe of bankers, of fat corrupt bourgeoisies we should prefer Communism to win and destroy everything. We would rather have it all blow up than see this rottenness resplendent. Europe fights in Russia because it [i.e., Fascist Europe] is Socialist. what interests us most in the war is the revolution to follow The war cannot end without the triumph of Socialist revolution. 83.128.173.145 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone invokes the term socialism doesn't make it so. Fascists adopted plenty of socialist terminology because it appealed to people, not because they took it seriously. For instance, the Nazi Party's ideology was "national socialism," but they massacred actual leftists including socialists. Just because an organization draws "inspiration" (for lack of a better word) from socialists does not make that group socialist, and the fascist ideology certainly was opposed to socialism. Master of Time (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be pulling a no true Scotsman fallacy here. What proof do you have Degrelle didn`t take Socialism seriously? The Nazis killed internationalist Socialists but also conservative Nationalists. Lenin and Stalin killed those Socialists that opposed them. This means what exactly? The Fascist ideology was opposed to internationalist Socialism not economic Socialism. Degrelle`s split with the Catholic Party mainly came from his embracement of radicalism and Socialism. 83.128.173.145 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a well-established rule that self-professions are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. If you can find a third-party source saying Rex was socialist, that would satisfy the usual requirements. Personally, I would settle for an official party document claiming socialism for the party, even though that is a primary source. Even a source for the quotation above would be a start. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source for the quote:

https://books.google.nl/books?id=IIV9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=It+is+not+to+save+capitalism+that+we+fight+in+Russia+%E2%80%A6+It+is+for+a+revolution+of+our+own.&source=bl&ots=Pgp_3UXlqE&sig=pa2ywz4qryf3E6Oo0FO4PvPUDWs&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid35mFzs3WAhVLmBoKHbp7B6UQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20not%20to%20save%20capitalism%20that%20we%20fight%20in%20Russia%20%E2%80%A6%20It%20is%20for%20a%20revolution%20of%20our%20own.&f=false

83.128.173.145 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Maurras is said to be a big inspiration Degrelle and he is said by wiki itself to have considered his movement pure Socialism. 83.128.173.145 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But there you run into the same problem: he considered his movement pure socialism; but how many scholars of political science regard it that way? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This very same Wikipedia regards it that way listing Action Francaise as a form of right-wing Socialism and in the same article mentions Christian Socialism is sometimes called right-wing Socialism? Did Degrelle believe in revolution yes or no? Wasn`t he openly anti-Capitalist and in favour of Socialist revolution, social equality and anti-bourgeois?83.128.173.145 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The only question that matters is: what do reliable sources say about the party? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.nl/books?id=7Yc8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=rexist+party+christian+socialism&source=bl&ots=mic8TTaRKX&sig=5Ey_iq746HE3_fE_e0ohSjnk0IY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilxKLAytLWAhUMXRoKHffZDKQQ6AEIbjAL#v=onepage&q=rexist%20party%20christian%20socialism&f=false

https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z06QAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=rexist+party+leon+degrelle+christian+socialism&source=bl&ots=32hyq9r2L-&sig=saI_cFiEyOnRszsdBSZ0ygj_alQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm977aytLWAhXC0RoKHdZCDE0Q6AEIggEwDg#v=onepage&q=rexist%20party%20leon%20degrelle%20christian%20socialism&f=false

83.128.173.145 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You asked for sources I gave them. Now stop reverting the edits I made.83.128.173.145 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The first link you provide goes to a message saying the content cannot be displayed. The second goes to a page that does not use the words you want to add to the infobox. You call this "giving sources"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Something must be wrong with your computer then. It does display it when I click on it. It says: "In this context, the historian John Hellman has argued that Nazi operatives were using avant-garde Europeanist idealism and Christian Socialist dialogue to infiltrate both the Belgians and their Catholic sympathizers in France." Just google that quote.83.128.173.145 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that Hellman's own book doesn't seem to mention Rexism. And the source linked just says Nazis were trying to fool people. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Léon Degrelle, 1941.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)