Talk:Statism in Shōwa Japan

Requested move 29 December 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as there was no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Statism in Shōwa Japan → Japanese fascism – I am arguing that this article be moved to Japanese fascism based on two points. (1.) Firstly, the current title of the article is wrong, since statism was only one form of Japanese ultranationalism. See this quote from historian Richard Sims: "The divisions within Japanese ultranationalism:The great number and variety of different groups makes analysis of Japanese nationalism extremely difficult. Historians have tended to favour a dualistic division into kokkashugi (pro-Establishment statist nationalism) and kokuminshugi (anti-Establishment people-oriented nationalism), or alternatively, totalitarian (or renovationist) Right and idealist (or Japanist) Right." Therefore, I think we should all be able to agree that Statism in Showa Japan is the wrong title. (2.) While I admit that fascism is difficult to define, and while I admit that many historians do not associate the Japanese extreme right with fascism, many, if not most historians, do call it fascism. For example, historian E. Bruce Reynolds says, "surely Bernd Martin was correct in labeling prewar Japan 'a folkish imperial state' and itsemperor-centered ideology a form of 'Japanese-style fascism.'" Historian Christopher WA Szpilman says, "fascists were in charge in prewar Japan, even if they themselves spurned this label. After all, it is not the labels that are important, but the ideological content." If there is no consensus to rename this article to Japanese fascism, my second choice is Ultranationalism in prewar Japan. Hko2333 (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Surachit (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Briefly, this was not only something in prewar Japan, so "Ultranationalism in prewar Japan" would seem to be inaccurate despite the use of "ultranationalism" by Maruyama Masao and others. For what it's worth, the current title of this article is a direct translation of kokka shugi (statism). The cross-wiki link to Japanese is to tennōsei fashizumu ("imperial fascism"). As noted above, sources in English are split on whether or not the Japanese case should be called fascism. Dekimasuよ! 15:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• An earlier discussion, from before there was a page merge and a move to the current title, can be found at Talk:Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan#Merging with Japanese militarism. Some of those users might still be around/lurking and might be notified. I agree with the critique of the current title, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the proposed term is really best. Srnec (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support This is probably the best title we're going to get. No title is going to be without controversy, but most of the books I've read on the matter don't hesitate to use the word "fascism". Ultranationalism in pre-war Japan is okay too, I guess. This Wikipedia article mostly stops in 1945, so "prewar Japan", as opposed to "postwar Japan", is a sensible clarifier. LoosingIt (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1931–1945 (or 1937–1945, depending on how you count) is "wartime Japan", not "prewar Japan". Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would be a fundamental change in scope of the article. There is not a strong scholarly consensus that the various statist & nationalist forces, movements, thinkers, etc in Shōwa Japan should be described as "fascist"; though this is a viewpoint supported by some, predominately Marxist, scholars. We should understand which sections & content from the existing scope would need to be removed from the article as out of scope, and to where they would be moved. Could possibly support "Nationalism in Shōwa Japan" or similar, as a more plain English phrasing than "Statism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk72 (talk • contribs)

• I do agree that this would change the scope of the article, which is a somewhat different question from whether or not the wartime Japanese government can be described as fascist. It would also change the relationship of this page to other articles, such as Japanese militarism and Japanese nationalism and probably even Empire of Japan. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal is to define Japanes history in European terms. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2020 (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.

Lead section (and whole article topic?)

Currently, the lead section includes the following text:

Shōwa Statism (國家主義, Kokkashugi) is the nationalist ideology associated with the Empire of Japan, particularly during the Shōwa era. It is sometimes also referred to as Emperor-system fascism (天皇制ファシズム, Tennōsei fashizumu), Japanese-style fascism (日本型ファシズム, Nihongata fashizumu) or Shōwa nationalism. Developed over time since the Meiji Restoration, it advocated for ultranationalism, traditionalist conservatism, militarist imperialism and a dirigisme-based economy.

There are a few issues with this text, and its alignment with policy.

Firstly, the lead sentence defines the article subject as a singular ideology. This is unsourced in the lead, and not supported by the content of the article. It is also not well aligned with the sources referenced. There were a number of statist philosophers in Japan during the Showa era; while there may be significant similarities, they did not coalesce to a singularity.

Secondly, the lead paragraph then asserts alternative names Emperor-system fascism (天皇制ファシズム, Tennōsei fashizumu),Japanese-style fascism (日本型ファシズム, Nihongata fashizumu); referencing "Kasza, Gregory (2006). Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul (eds.). World Fascism: A-K. ABC-CLIO. p. 353. ISBN 9781576079409." and "Tansman, Alan (2009). The Culture of Japanese Fascism. Duke University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780822390701."

Blamires, Jackson (eds.) on page 353 has Scholars have used terms such as "military fascism", "Emperor system fascism", "fascism from above" or simply the term kakushin to capture the partial but momentous influence of fascism on Japan. This does not mention "statism". Moving from these terms as references to the referent "influence of fascism on Japan" to the referent "statism in Showa Japan" is original research.

Tansman on page 5, in discussing Japanese fascism, has {{tq|Emphasis was given to the peculiarity of Japan's fascism, to "Japanese-style fascism (nihongata fasshizumu)" or "emperor-system fascism (tennosei fashizumu)". This source explicitly deals solely with fascism in Japan, and uses these terms, in that context, to describe fascist thought in Japan during the Showa era. To expand this to include all statist thought is original research.

The same thread runs through much of the article body. Sources which only speak directly about fascism only are synthesised to cover all statism. But just as not all socialism is communism; not all statism is fascism. (Some readers may find themselves thinking: "actually, some statism is communism").

It may be that this article would be better to cover only Fascism in Showa Japan; there is certainly enough reliable sources for an article on that topic. But the article as it is currently titled does not cover only fascism, and we cannot assume that everything with four legs is a dog.

Intend to review the whole of the article, including the referenced sources, and revise the lead.

Input from other editors appreciated. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Categorisation

Some dispute in the article history as regards categorisation. Noting here the text from Wikipedia:Categorization, which includes:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ...

Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. ...

If it is not clear from the article text; it is not neutral; OR it is not defining, then a category should not be added.

For this article, several of the categories which have previously been applied do not relate to defining characteristics. While they may relate to some subset of the article topic, they are not commonly and consistently used by reliable sources to describe this article subject as a whole. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert Paxton, an expert on fascism, defined that neither Putinism nor Francoism is fascism, but there is a clear category of Fascism in the articles of Putinism and Francoism in English Wikipedia. Masao Maruyama defined 超国家主義 (lit. 'state ultranationalism') as Japanese fascism (source: 超國家主義の論理と心理).

Why not use the Conservatism in Japan and Fascism in Japan categories at the same time? 国家主義者 are conservatives who are not fascists and some who are not conservatives; it is rare that neither is true. ProKMT (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for the reply. Arguments relating to Putinism and Francoism are clearly other stuff exists. Do reliable sources routinely describe statism in Showa era Japan as Fascist? If so, then categories apply. I not, then not. It's not rocket surgery. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)