| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dictatorships and Double Standards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Cut from article (with reluctance):
- The article drew criticism from advocates who thought the concept of totalitarianism was being used to tar the far Left with the same brush as the far Right (see Cold War).
I don't know what this means. Probably because the political spectrum terms are so hard to pin down.
Kirkpatrick wasn't saying Hitler (far right) was better than Stalin (far Left). Both were pretty bad, weren't they? I'll have to find a copy of her article - not just an on-line review of it to check - but I think both Nazism and Communism qualify for Kirkpatrick's neologism "totalitarianism". The Merriam-Webster definition of "fascism" mentions:
- the forcible suppression of all opposition; and,
- the regimentation of society
(That's from memory, so let's check www.m-w.com later.)
Kirkpatrick wasn't saying that ALL left-leaning regimes were bad, and that EVERY right-leaning regimes (whatever "right" means) are good. Was she? Uncle Ed 17:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
No she wasn't.
Dictatorships and Double Standards is also the name of one of her books. 216.255.40.172 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)