Talk:Paul Claudel

Fascism

It is true Paul Claudel was no fascist. And it is also true that his position on the Right, as an exponent of Catholic Reaction, facilitated the erection of Vichy as a collaborationist regime and ensured that Petain would become as covered in slime as Pierre Laval, who enthusiastically promoted pro-Nazi collaboration in France. Claudel and others of the Catholic Right became useful to the French fascist movement as one-way screens that opposed and rejected everything progressive because it was tainted with "modernity" but hesitated or entertained even if only momentarily the fascist alternative when it decked itself out as a promise to turn the modern world back.

Ummmm.... What? Claudel was most certainly a fascist. The paragraph above contradicts itself: "Paul Claudel was no fascist." and then "his position on the Right, as an exponent of Catholic Reaction"

Excuse me, but the definition of fascism is the political arm of the Catholic right wing. --Hexag1 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the only or even the prevalent definition. There are arguably two meanings of "fascism", or two distinct types of militant right wing that the word "fascism" can refer to. Fascism of generation 1 (Mussolini, Hitler) does not embrace existing obnoxious cults, it creates its own obnoxious cult; it does not embrace pure conservatism/traditionalism, but rather mixes it oddly with a pseudo-scientific/modernizationist flavour imitating Marxist socialism. In contrast, fascism of generation 2 (Franco, Pinochet) doesn't have much of a theory of its own; it does embrace Catholicism and does end up as little more than the armed force of conservative reaction. The radical left refers to both as "fascism" and likes to emphasize the similarities between the two, but the modern liberal mainstream prefers to emphasize the differences between the two and to reserve the word "fascism" for the first type (if not for Mussolini only). That is because the first type is more similar to Marxism and thus allows the generalization that fascism and socialism are the same genocidal thing, while conservatism is good. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Camille

'An exhibition of her bronzes in the Swiss Foundation Gianadda from 16 November 1990 until February 1991 shows clearly what can be considered only a small proof of the timeless beauty of her sculptures, inspired by a genuine talent.'

This is clumsily expressed, and non-encyclopaedic in tone. Can someone edit it? Best regards. Notreallydavid (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)