Talk:Rastakhiz Party

On the continuous attempts to remove sources

The Rastakhiz Party, as it is shown in two separate sources (three counting one of the citations for democratic centralism) was a fascist party in nature. It is ridiculous that no dialogue on these constant attempt changes has ever gotten to a talk page, so here we are. Docktuh (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The first source states that the Rastakhiz Party was NOT fascist. It was simply musing about the structure of the political party and it's similarities with BOTH communist and fascist parties in regards to Democratic Centralism.

So firstly, please use the four ~ structure to sign your posts. Secondly, I'm assuming this is the same person who made these reverts, so I feel the need to address some things said in the History page (and bare with me there's a lot): Fascism is not an exclusively European phenomenon, there have been fascists on just about every continent and they often behave differently; Fascism is also not an ideology that uses democratic centralism, it's in fact marked by a hatred of democracy. Democratic centralism has it's roots in communist parties. Speaking of said parties, anti-communism was a trait that both the Shah and the fascists held in common; If the Shah's regime did emancipate women and Jews, obviously this is a damning point to anyone trying to call the Rastakhiz Party fascist, although nothing in the article actually states that so that in itself is unsourced; Thirdly, these are sourced claims. Wikipedia has a policy of using the talk page to debate the removal of sourced claims, and frankly this page in particular has been the subject of some edit warring in the past (why this is the case, I have no idea, seems like a weird place to do that to me). Fourthly, on the subject of my supposed bias and "aiding Khomeini" (ridiculous): Fascism is a specific phenomenon marked by telltale signs, such as ultranationalism, reactionarism, anti-communism, nominal anti-capitalism, a one-party state, and more often than not a form of corporatism. I'm an anarchist yes, and I oppose the state, but I am not so drunk on ideology that I can't tell the difference between reactionaries in their various forms. Docktuh (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Docktuh: The quote "This conception of the party, a hybrid construct of the Italian and Spanish schools of fascism, met with widespread opposition and was withdrawn once the queen sided with its opponents." implies that "fascism" was originally part of its concepts, but not the way the party would later actually function (as it was, quote: "withdrawn once the queen sided with its opponents"). In short, it appears that while it was part of its original design, it was seemingly never put into effect. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

As for the other source, cited without a quote (luckily I have both books at hand): "In theory, Rastakhiz resembled the fascist model of an organic party-state, with every societal group represented in a large corporatist system governed by a single command structure. Designed to be coextensive with the political system, every Iranian over eighteen was required to join. Rastakhiz superseded all of civil society—rural cooperatives, bazaar guilds, labor unions, and so forth. In practice, however, Rastakhiz became an even hollower royal appendage. Whereas New Iran at least began from a dowreh, Rastakhiz was artifi cially grafted onto the public from the start. Almost overnight, the government installed branches across the country, created a liberal and conservative wing, and even founded a political science college for cadres. Yet Rastakhiz had no ideological content. Despite its fifty thousand claimed cells and bombastic populist rhetoric, the party held few orgnizational events."

Looking more properly at both references, I believe the label "Fascism" should be rephrased, or a note has to be added. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So perhaps put something like "Fascism (early)"? Docktuh (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Docktuh: I'd suggest something along the lines of "Fascism (theoretical resemblance early on)". As per the two sources, fascism was never really put into effect and it seems the party only theoretically resembled the fascist model during its early stages. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:Would "Fascism (early, theoretical)" work? "Theoretical resemblance early on" seems like a mouthful, especially for a sidebar. Docktuh (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous. If you want to make the case that this is an authoritarian party fine but you're really grasping for straws here mainly due to your political bias. 731Resurgence

I think there is no doubt that the party was knowingly modeled after fascist parties. One source even narrates the Shah's first reaction to the idea as saying "But that is fascism..." (JSTOR 4284214). I am not sure if it was only theoretical or early. Rastakhiz had two factions, the majority "Progressives" and the minority "Constructive liberals". The former practically followed fascism according to Hossein Bashiriyeh:

The 'Progressive Wing' was the dominant bureaucratic fascist-populist wing and closely followed the mobilisation policies of the court after 1975. This wing was dominated by the elite of the previous ruling party, the NIP, and the 'members' of the wing were mostly senior civil servants and members of the cabinet. The 'Constructive Wing', on the other hand, was known for its advocacy of liberal policies, the relaxation of state control of the economy and a more independent role for the private sector.

— The State and Revolution in Iran, p. 95

From the same source it can be further understood that this approach did continue:

On the whole, during the 1975-7 period of economic upheaval, which caused large-scale mass grievances, the regime undertook a fascist mobilisation effort which created some important conflicts of interest between the state and the bourgeoisie.

— Ibid, p. 104

Also, Afkhami's book states (a few lines before the quoted part): "Azmun came up with a perfectly fascist plan, according to which each profession —farmers, workers, teachers, students, shopkeepers, doctors, and so on— was organized internally and joined at the top by the party’s command organs." I don't want to engage in original research, but we it is also a matter of fact that the party exactly used that organization. It even published newspapers dedicated to each organ such as Rastakhiz-e-Kargaran (Workers'), Rastakhiz-e-Keshavarzan (Farmers'), Rastakhiz-e-Javanan (Youth's), etc.. I think a new section for ideology should be created. Pahlevun (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

Remove "Fascism" from the Ideologies of the Rastakhiz Party. It did not have most of the chararacteristics of fascism, like ultranationalism or a positive view of violence JesuChristi123 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)