Talk:Eurasia Party

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurasia PartyLogo2.gif

Image:Eurasia PartyLogo2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

This should not be a redirect from "Eurasianism" in my opinion. There are Eurasianists – persons who believe that Europe's natural affinities are or should be with Asia, particularly in contrast to the Americas or North America (Atlanticism) – who have little to nothing in common with a Russian neo-Fascist party. Rlquall 13:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Europes affinities, Russia's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.151.42 (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger 8 February 2016

The Eurasian Youth Union article should be merged into this article, there is no good reason why they should be separated. It is a branch of the Eurasia Party. --Ritsaiph (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 Disagree Should be a seperate article. They (ESM) have done enough to warrant a full-fledged artcile just for them.--Piznajko (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A case in point: US / Canadian sancations were on ESM, it's activities are more prominent than Eurasian Party -> separate article is needed.--Piznajko (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Political position

Neo-Eurasianism & National Bolshevism is undisputed syncretic ideologies, whoever edited it to far-right need to stop vandalizing Ghostangel1 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Syncretic" doesn't describe a position on the political spectrum, and even if it did that doesn't begin to make the party ambiguous. Dugin is a well-known neo-fascist, and National Bolshevism (especially as Dugin espouses it) is a form of neo-fascism. Never mind that the rest of the party's ideology is explicitly right-wing. Docktuh (talk)

I agree, Dugin defends leftist movements in the Americas, secular regimes in the Middle East, and the national-conservative right in Europe. And when you read what "Eurasianism" is about, you see that it is indeed something else, like ethnocacerism or CCP Han nationalism. Armando AZ (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources describe it as “far right”, “fascist” or neo Nazi. Personal opinions and interpretations are irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There are sources that cite it as extreme right and others that cite it as syncretic, I think it is best to add both or leave the space blank Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I reiterate that "syncretic" doesn't describe a position on the political spectrum, and fascism (National Bolshevism in this case) is syncretic by nature. To put both is to misunderstand and cause misunderstanding. Docktuh (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, as the one above says, the sources are what matter. Second, there are already articles where it is explicitly indicated in the infobox that a political party or movement is syncretic (two examples: Ethnocacerism and National Bolshevik Party). Why can't it be added to this one? And third, Wikipedia is not a primary source, it has to be based on sources made by third parties, and they have not yet decided how to qualify this party (this is my opinion, but I think those who say it is a syncretic movement have more points in their favor). Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

One, the sources don't back this claim up, so they're irrelevant. Two, you can't appeal to Wikipedia not being a primary source and then appeal to it as one (i.e. mentioning the articles for Ethnocacerism and National Bolshevism as arguing points). And lastly, this conversation was pretty much closed. The party was called far-right, and you've shown little if any evidence for it to be otherwise. Docktuh (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

1.- This discussion was never closed, as evidenced by the fact that it began on August 2, 22, and continued until almost December without any agreement. 2.- Read more carefully the sources, in the first it is described as "radical right", in the second it is described as a superior synthesis of fascism, Marxism and liberalism, and in the third Dugin's position is reaffirmed. And it is not necessary to go very far, the whole article goes to this last address. 3.- I never used Wikipedia as a primary source, what I wanted to do with this is show that your argument that syncretism is never a political position is false, hence the citation to these two articles (one by the way, which was cited by user armando az). Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please learn to format correctly, that looks hideous. So you agree with me that the first source isn't supporting your position of "syncretic" (and again, it's inaccesible, I can't read it, nor can anyone else, so it's useless). The second source doesn't support the position either, Dugin is still well known as a neo-fascist and self-identifies as a National Bolshevik (i.e. a form of neo-fascist). Just because he's carrying on with the fascist tradition of mixing things in doesn't change what it is on the political spectrum. And again, at no point in that third article is the word "syncretic" even used, and in fact even refers to Dugin's National Bolsehvism as a variant of National Socialism (i.e. Nazism). You are a making point that isn't backed up by anything, and this borders on edit warring. No one had said anything in this page for quite some time, and it was started by a user who went around making visibly erroneous edits, almost all of which have been reverted at one point or another. Docktuh (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole mistake is summed up in that you identify National Bolshevism as a form of fascism. Clearly (and from what you read in this article) it is not. There is talk of a "traditionalist-communist party" (an otherwise curious expression), "Bolshevik values", etc. Dugin talks about imitating the way of doing things during the Stalinist period; fascists HATE anything that smacks of Bolshevism. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

NazBols are rightists, they may be "Syncretic" and that doesn't matter as has been already pointed out.

for example even though someone like Abimael Guzmán and his erstwhile organization the Peruvian Communist Party-SL are often accused of holding reactionary, rightist viewpoints, he is certainly agreed to be an radical left extremist.

With Dugin, though it may be argued back and forth about exactly what makes him "Bolshevik" in the first place, it is clear regardless that he is a radical right extremist. Freyheytlid (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Greetings! At no time was the part in which it says that it is an extreme right-wing party eliminated, precisely because there are sources that endorse it (like the first), but there are others that also affirm that it is syncretic, as in the cases of 2 and the 3 (see below). In the case of Abimael Guzmán, I have not found any source that refers to him as a reactionary extremist, even though I was one of those who edited the article in Spanish. Of course that could be discussed, but it is not as clear-cut as it is in this article. Armando AZ (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll wait until some other group of people comes along to this article and maybe then they can find consensus. Ultimately I just think syncretic is misleading given the primary orientation of this party politically. It's interesting that you dispute the label of "fascism" but then revert the link to "Ruscism" (a page which we might agree is farcical) to something mentioning "fascism" which to you should be no better. What's up with that? Anyways, I agree with you on Guzmán and I'm glad the article in Spanish is written that way— I'm just pointing to the fact that despite someone's politics may be confusing or syncretic we can usually identify a left or right bias relative to the status quo (and for Dugin it is obviously a right bias).

In fact Dugin is obviously a radical right thinker, and shares many deep intellectual affinities with the more mainstream, non-NazBol radical right. His party reflects this. It is indeed notable that he appropriates parts of communist symbology and ideology towards the aims of his ideology.

But if this is what makes someone not necessarily a far-rightist, then figures like Sellner or Bannon who claim to be "Leninists", or anyone who follows the tradition of "metapolitics" which has its roots in Marxist political philosophy (Benoist, Faye, Greg Johnson, etc) all of these figures and political parties associated with them need to be labeled syncretic! Because it is an oversimplification to label them as far-right! [personally I think this is total bullshit] Freyheytlid (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Another thing that I am beginning to notice is that you make the "syncretic" nature of Nazism very clear. Are you not saying that it is also a syncretic movement? Why that is what your allegations give me to understand. In that case, I think that the best way to tell that is to see their attitudes towards the left and other movements: the Nazis only cooperated with right-wing movements, the raison d'être of National Bolshevism is to unite both extremes (even if you call them "neo-fascists"), and in the same book by Dugin that I quoted, this is also discussed. In Neo-Eurasianism there is talk of fighting together different political figures and ideologies (Chavismo, black and white nationalism, separatism, Ulusalcılık, communists) against the Anglo-Atlantist order. That is, in the midst of this ideology there is also an internationalist project (like a Communism). Why exactly can this only be far right? Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You are being willfully obtuse. Fascists have called themselves "national [left-wing ideology]" here since Mussolini; (National syndicalism, National Socialism (Nazism), and in this form, National Bolshevism. Dugin himself is a known neo-fascist, and this call to meld traditionalism and "Bolshevism" is an explicit appeal to Russian nationalism. You ask how this can only be a far-right project, while still providing no arguments to the contrary, and explicitly ignoring that fascism has always melded deliberately contradicting elements in order to create a populist appeal (see Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism). You further ignore that Dugin calls for Russian imperialism and irredentism, and is trying to restore the old Soviet border in this way. You are being deliberately unhelpful here, and your sources make no real arguments. Docktuh (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Still not going against the argument I outlined. Nor has he said anything concrete about Nazism not cooperating with left-wing movements and Eurasianism yes. Why is there this disposition? Lastly, citing Umberto eco as a demarcation criterion is a very bad argument. To give you an idea, Castro's Cuba meets 12 of the 14 of the "F" scale. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You aren't making an argument, there is nothing to go against. Docktuh (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if you can't argue against it, that's fine. Just don't try to go against the sources. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alfredo18elguapo The sources don't support your argument! You are sealioning at this point! Docktuh (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Docktuh Yes, those do. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alfredo18elguapo Where? First source is inaccessible, second is Dugin himself (meaning you would have to prove he himself is not a figure on the far-right), and the third calls it another form of Nazism. You have provided no reasonable counters, no quotes in your citations that might be useful, and have been sidestepping. Prove that these sources work or I'm opening a request to review this as edit warring. Docktuh (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Docktuh:, Did you use the Umberto Eco's scale to define a group of fascists? that's a bad argument. To begin with, Umberto in his book speaks of "Ur-Fascism", not of Fascism as such. And that is important since what Eco wanted was to describe the characteristics of "eternal fascism", describing a total of 14. The problem is that we find those same characteristics in any other group, from MAGA to the Khmer Rouge. Therefore, it does not serve as a strict demarcation criterion, since it is too broad, it only serves to know how "fascist" or totalitarian a group is, or even how conservative it is, but it does not serve to define what is Fascism and what is not. For that there are other more exact definitions, even that differentiate between classical Fascism and neo-fascism, but I just wanted to point this out Armando AZ (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Armando AZ I pointed to Ur-Fascism to denote fascism's history of mixing deliberately contradicting ideas. IDK why you or the other person are interpreting it otherwise. Docktuh (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That is the problem of putting all the ideologies together in the same bag and not seeing what they say individually, hence the contradictions. But each ideological system makes sense within itself. Dugin cites Marxist authors such as Lev Gumilev or Stalin himself as the basis for his work. Is that contradictory to quoting Heiddeger? No, in the same way that the citation of Heiddeger by Sastre or some other left-wing intellectual is not contradictory. What is reductionism is to classify Eurasianism as a philosophy of the far right close to fascism, period, without even reading what it is about. Armando AZ (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that stating that it is syncretic clarifies more about this philosophy, which is more eclectic than anything else. Armando AZ (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is not, and has never been, about Eurasianism specifically. The Eurasia Party, very specifically, a neo-fascist party (by way of National Bolshevism), lead and founded by a well-known neo-fascist. Eurasianism, as a concept, is not exclusive to Dugin, which is why I am not arguing about the political position of the concept. Docktuh (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that this is not what appears in the infobox, neo-Eurasianism, National Bolshevism and the fourth political theory (among others) appear as ideologies. Furthermore, if we go by that, National Bolshevism is also a very broad ideology, ranging from the extreme right to the radical left. I'm not saying that there aren't far-right sectors in that party, but as its name says, its main ideology is Eurasianism. So it would be better to leave it as it is. Armando AZ (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the subject. The Eurasia Party is what we're talking about here. Docktuh (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Docktuh Third lecture: "Rather, he seems to be drawing from Mr. Dugin's 2009 manifesto The Fourth Political Theory, which became a sensation in Moscow circles. The other three political theories to which the title alludes are liberalism, fascism and communism; the first, (economic and political liberalism, including liberal democracy), is to be opposed by all means possible. Fascists and communists, Islamists and "defenders of the spiritual traditions of the pre-modern West" are described as crucial allies in this struggle." This is Eurasianism. Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alfredo18elguapo That is what I meant Armando AZ (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I like how you dodge the very next sentence: "He refers to his own ideology, the fourth, not just as neo-Eurasianism but frequently as "National Bolshevism" (a reference to National Socialism – he is an admirer of the Nazi legacy)." Docktuh (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(I answer here) There are almost no sources referring specifically to the Eurasia Party, most of those used in the article refer to Dugin or Eurasianism. Armando AZ (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So this then becomes a discussion of the Eurasia Party as the party of Aleksandr Dugin - a known neo-fascist. Again, non-argument. Docktuh (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Docktuh If we are guided by what the text says, it would be a mixture of Eurasianism and National-Bolshevism (with that "just" it makes it clear). So it would then be a mixture of "facism" (as you call it) and Eurasianism. As for what he says @Armando AZ, there is only one and it is the one that is quoted to say that it is a "traditional-communist party" and that it has Bolshevik values XD Alfredo18elguapo (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I say if anything, it's syncretic with emphasis on far-left, at least in the traditional sense. It may not be "far-left" by American standards, which means being pro-trans, pro-drugs, pro-sex work (think Antifa), and so on. In the US, political position is determined by one's stance on the culture wars. For example, the RT network is often considered right-wing to far-right in the US, when by most of the world's standards, it's very left-wing. And a few more traditional hardline communists podcasters like Jackson Hinkle (The Dive) and Miram Susli (Syrian Partisan Girl) draw far more support from MAGA than from the American far-left, despite having positions that in 90% of the world are considered left-wing to far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.204.229 (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)