Talk:Nasserism

message: As of June 10th, 2006, this section read:
Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system, and the mixture of dictatorial methods and socialist-style land reform and other efforts to improve life for the poor, yet however opposing or ignoring Marxism and the concept of class struggle and fervent nationalism, has prompted some opponents to compare it to Fascism. (citation needed) Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself.
This paragraph is a mess.  Nasserism may have avoided direct association with Marxism, but it certainly did not ignore the concept of "class struggle".  After all, the pursuit of "socialist-style land reform," one of the primary goals (if not the primary goal) of the early Nasserists, demonstrated the simple fact that the early Nasserists were keenly aware of the plight of the peasant (the Arab "masses") in Egyptian society .  Furthermore, it is astounding that someone would assert that Nasserism ignored "fervent nationalism," for Nasser was the face of Arab Nationalism throughout his period of rule. Finally, I have never seen a history which has attempted to compare the policies and practices of Nasser to any Fascistic regime. 
In the end, the only practical criticism is the initial statement, "Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system."  I am going to cut the rest of the paragraph and add a section stub.  If anyone has any problems with this, discuss it here.  I am kind of on a wikibreak, but I will check back as frequently as possible to see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter.  --(Mingus ah um 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated a revised version of the last sentence of the former Criticism section at the end of the current Introduction.  As such, the former statement ("Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself") has been revised and reinstated as: "Most present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, and tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology."  I cut out the assertion that modern day Nasserists "are generally more left-wing than Nasser," for their views on "hard" left policies (one party rule v. open democracy; systematic change v. minor-to-strong alterations of the status quo) are far less dogmatic (that is, radical) then they were in the past.  --(Mingus ah um 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: The ''Criticism'' Section

message: What was the difference between the two? I know that Nasserism was pro-Nasser and Egyptian whereas Baathism was Syrian/Iraqi. But what were the ideological differences? BillMasen 12:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not much.  ;)  Schwael (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it would be good if someone could explain the real differences if any. [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nasserism vs. baathism 

message: I think this statement is misleading understatement: 
:: During Nasser's lifetime, Nasserist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Egypt, to the extent that many became seen as willing agents of the Egyptian Government.
The Arab socialist Union was founded by Nasser and was the only official party. It is like saying that "Communist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Stalin in the USSR." Were there other Nasserist groups who were supported? [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I imagine it means "nasserist groups" in other countries. BillMasen (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading understatement 

message: : Though mindful of the Islamic and Christian heritage of the Arab World, as with Ba'athism, Nasserism is largely a secular ideology.
* How is it considered secular when it stresses on Arabization (using Arabic language as the only written language & if natives spoke other dialects/languages they should learn Arabic language) which is the language of Quran?
* If Arabism has something to do with Christianity, why almost all of the Arab league nations have Islamic favoring legislations, rather than treating all citizens as equal individuals? Why do many of them have Islam as their official religion? What else has to be made to prove the political-Islamic identity of Arab Nationalism & its supporters? Their flags, their constitutions, their policies! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are clear that Nasserism is a secular pan-Arabist ideology. Here are a few , , . nableezy - 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Muslims feeling a connection to Arabism, or Nasserism, does not make it non-secular. Bring sources that say it is not instead of just saying that it is not. nableezy - 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: There are third party, reliable secondary sources published by university presses that flat out say Nasserism is a secular nationalistic ideology. You need to provide a source of the similar quality to even dispute that, much less say otherwise as fact. nableezy - 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, the paper itself is not the problem, the problem is that it does not say that Nasserism is not secular. They say that certain Nasserists advocate for greater integration of Nasserism and Islamism. Those are two different things, and you are attempting to use that to introduce a an argument that those sources do not make, and which other high quality secondary reliable sources directly dispute. And finally, I can answer you, it just is a wast of my time to do so. I dont care what you think, bring reliable sources that actually support what you want to put in the article, not just things you think prove your point. nableezy - 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular nationalism? 

message: Nasser was a racist and a failed politician  now ofcourse I wont add  this to this already POV propaganda piece with no sources but just to remind everyone this man deported nearly all the jews of Egypt in the name of his racist arabism in 1950s he arabized the Egyptian identity, his socialist policies meant that businesses were nationalized and private property and the Copts who then were 20% of the population but owned 50% of commerce lost out due to his Arab fascist ideals and many left the country in consequence. He turned the country into a police state which only would stem fanatics support and made them go through countless of wars for Palestine in the name of Arabism in consequence meant alot of EGYPTIAN got occupied instead and many Egyptians died for nothing. also the prescne of ethnic Minorities 
(Italians,Armenians,Greeks,Turks etc) all began to their communities fade or suffer from this man and his silly failed racist policies ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM, take your rant somewhere else. nableezy - 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The fact that you think Nasser was a Nazi shows how ridiculous this is. nableezy - 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You are relying on a self-published book to make these wild claims. Learn to recognize scholarship and ignore such low-quality sources. That book is not a reliable source. nableezy - 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Stop removing actual reliable sources and replacing them with garbage. You removed two books published by high quality presses and replaced it with an opinion piece first published here. nableezy - 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Socialism and Nazism are two different things, and the paper you linked to is not a reliable source. The books you removed are. nableezy - 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Read what I wrote more carefully. Nazism and socialism are two different things. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say such things stop wasting my time. nableezy - 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAILURE 

message: I see that the article is left with no criticism. Well, stating half the information, even if sourced and true, makes the article biased. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of a criticism section is not because Nasserism is immune to criticism, but just a reflection of the article's poor quality. It is poorly developed and mostly unreferenced. Nasserism is not well-defined here and its difference with say the more romantic, fascist and racially-driven Baathism isn't made clear. It's far-reaching influence on the Arab world during Nasser's lifetime is not gauged accurately and the Nasserism espoused by certain political movements today (Hamdeen Sabahi's Karama in Egypt for instance) is also not well-addressed. Bashing Nasser or his ideology (like in the section above) is not warranted in an encyclopedic article of course. If you are concerned about the article's state, you should go ahead and start a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Nasserism immune to criticism!