Talk:Red Shirts (Mexico)

Not fascist
Please do not re-add this tag to the article as this group does not fall under the term "Fascism", its simply a hate group. Mexico's fascists were called the Gold shirts which is a different thing. - Gennarous (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a reliable source which describes them as fascist. And your recent edits do not even relate to the Red Shirts and are merely a mix or OR and your own opinions.Mamalujo (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is just one source. And Actually, I didn't remove that source. I Actually just added more information which included a source. Don't remove it. If you're too lazy to read the history of fascism, to see that it is not anti-Catholic in ideology, then perhaps you shouldn't edit articles in that field. - Gennarous (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many strains of facism have been anti-Catholic and there is abundant authority to support that. See here, here, here and here.  Mussolini's fascism was originally anti-Catholic and he contemplated confiscation of church properties.  He only later made accomodation due to the sentiments of the Italian people.  In fact, a biography of Mussolini states that "Initially, fascism was fiercely anti-Catholic."Mamalujo (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dubious info again, Mussolini's own mother was devoutly Catholic. You think Mussolini was "anti" his own mother? And then "anti-Catholic" as a whole despite the fact that he helped the Church greatly by helping them gain the Vatican from the Kingdom of Italy? And despite the fact that, as an adult he even chose to be baptised as a Catholic?


 * So apparently, according to you, Mussolini was anti his mother, anti his own actions and anti himself.


 * You're using the fact that you're a Catholic American, to try and distance the fact that actually Fascists did not hate Catholics and over-all, if they were religious, they were probably Catholic in Italy (though there were Jewish Fascists too). The point I put in the article is sourced. Please do not remove it. - Gennarous (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, please refrain from getting personal in talk page discussions. It's the edit that's under discussion, not the editors. Secondly, the edit that you propose:

''Though this is somewhat dubious for several reasons; first of all the fascists of Mexico were the Gold shirts who the Red shirts clashed with. Second of all, Fascism as an ideology does not feature anti-Catholic discrimination, exemplified by Italian fascists helping to conclude the Lateran Treaty. Thus the Red shirts fall under the banner of a hate group as their only solid purpose was anti-Catholicism.''

has the "feel" of an original research statement; could you please quote exactly what Warwick Palmer is saying? I will note that a Who's Who is, I feel, less likely to be a reliable source for objective political analysis than the sources cited calling the Red Shirts a fascist movement. Thanks. --Stlemur (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with presenting both views, is it? Obviously there are both people who claim the red shirts were fascists and people who claim they weren't, so the best solution would be to present both views. I think it's better to watch out with using terms like 'hate group' though. That's a pretty new (and often politically (ab)used) term, I don't think it was used in the 1930s, so it would be better to avoid it in order not to become anachronistic, unless there is a source that explicitly calls them a hate group. Mixcoatl (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's alright to present both views so long as they both have mainstream scholarly support; see WP:FRINGE. At the moment we just don't have a source which convincingly says they weren't fascist. --Stlemur (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The description of this political group, sounds more like a communist one, rather than a fascist one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.102.96 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say they don't sound fascist. Fascism was traditionally anticlerical (see fascism article section on religion). Both Hitler and Mussolini were anticlerical. Mussolini was an atheist and was originally stridently anticlerical but only moderated out of political prudence. Hitler and his henchmen had a plan to destroy Christianity even before they came to power. The sources say the Red Shirts were fascist. I haven't seen any say they were communist. As to the color red (often associate with communism), I believe they borrowed it from Garibaldi who was also anticlerical. Mamalujo (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They were not fascists. Garrido named his son Lenin which a fascist would never do. They do not seem to be truly communist, however, they are clearly leftist based on their leader. As the sources say, some consider them fascist, however that doesn't mean they should be added to a list of fascists without any real proof that they are fascist. The fact that Garrido named his son Lenin quite clearly proves that he was not a fascist, and thus his group is not fascist either. Also to be a fascist you had to be inspired by the ideology of Mussolini and the Italian Fascists, Garrido was not. _ The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.245.46 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, stop adding weasel words. Nonetheless his politics were more akin to Mussolini and Hitler is POV and also nonsense. Marxist groups are often anti-clerical. Fascist groups can be anti-clerical, but it is not a core tenet. Explain to me how Garrido and his Red Shirts are fascist? You can't because he clearly isn't. He didn't have specific Fascist policies nor was he inspired by Fascism. He was just an Authoritarian Socialist (and some would say a brutal one), which is what Marxism ideally is as it is not Libertarian Socialist in character.

Anti-clericalism, even if it was a trait of fascism, is not enough to make any movement fascist and neither does totalitarianism. Garrido doesn't have the core features of fascism, and his ideology is clearly not based on that of the Italian fascists. He is clearly a Marxist as he named his son after Lenin, a renowned Marxist hated by Fascists, his men wore red (the colour of Marxism) and sang the Marxist anthem 'The Internationale'. He was also against vanity and make-up, banning women from wearing makeup, supporting equality between men and women. He was not a strict nationalist either which he should be if he was a fascist.

This page should not be referenced strongly on fascist article nor should he be placed under fascism (as that category is for parties that descend from Italian fascists). People claiming that Garrido had some fascist tendencies (which he doesn't) is not the same as him actually being a fascist. Infact, the edits of people like Mamalujo reek of bias and are either to divert blame away from Marxism (and I say this as a Marxist myself) or are the work of right-wingers who are trying to imply that Leninism can be an influence on fascism, which is can't.

Garrido is not a fascist. Fact. 86.131.246.108 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that Garrido named his child Lenin does not mean R.S. were not fascists. Mussolini was originally a devout socialist, Nazis were National Socialists after all, and virtually every scholar of fascism discusses how it takes from both the left and the right. Of course all that is beside the point because it is not your or my analysis as editors that matters but what sources say. Otherwise it is WP:Original Research. Btw, scholars of fascism do say it is typically anticlerical (with notable exeptions), as was Mussolini and the Nazis(see fascism article). This is about sources, not our own opinions.
 * Just did some more research. There are even more reliable sources that call the R.S. fascist, including encyclopedias, historical works, news magazines, etc. You seem to think that because Garrido had some leftist sympathies he cannot be fascist, but fascists did typically have leftist sympathies. Mussolini grew the government from 5% of gdp to 20% in a very short time. The Nazis likewise. And although fascists are frequently categorized as "right wing", far right or the like, that typically began because they were described as such by Marxist, whom they were to the right of. However, they were, by a common measure, to the the left of classical liberals who believed in small or limited government and civil liberties, fascists seeking larger government and more control by government. Marxist and fascists not uncommonly worked together when politically expedient and were often so contentious with each other because they were competing for the same political space and constituents, i.e. workers, those dissatisfied with liberalism, revolutionaries, those seeking a utopian remaking of man/society. Mamalujo (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, any source that calls a hardline Marxist, who named his son Lenin and made his Red Shirst sing the Internationale, a Fascist are not really reliable enough to actually put this group in the fascist category. If anything, Garrido and his Red Shirts just had fascist-like qualities without actually being or considering themselves fascist. To be a fascist you need to have a political lineage traceable to the fascism of Italy, which Garrido's ideology didn't have, he simply was anticlerical (not a core characteristic of fascism in the first place). I have accepted that scholars sometimes declare him a fascist, but the fact that many do not and that there is no evidence that he considered himself a fascism or was inspired by Italian fascism means that we cannot put him or his group in the fascist category, we should have to note what some scholars say. If some strands of scholarship say that the Ancient Greeks were descended from proto-Illyrians, we cannot then just put them in the Illyrian category just like that because it is still just an unproven theory. It is the same with Garrido and the Red Shirts.

And your claim that Fascists are not really far-right is not the consensus of most scholars. It is true that Mussolini was originally a socialist (due to the influence of his father - who named him after Benito Juarez, a socialist leader of Mexico. Mussolini's father always remained a socialist). Fascists are to the right of Classical liberalism, as noted by most political theorist and historians. But that is an irrelevant point because Garrido considered himself and his Redshirts to be Communists. No fascist would be so reverent towards Vladimir Lenin and declare themselves to be Bolsheviks because, regardless of were fascism lies on the political spectrum (it is far-right, but I'll humour you), it was still a reaction to communism and the Bolshevism of the Soviets in general.

You may (erroneously) believe that Fascism is left, or a mix of left and right, but that would still not make Garrido a fascist, it would just mean that both the ideology of Garrido (Bolshevism) and Fascism are both left of your classical liberalism. 94.7.58.116 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and infobox
I just did some minor editing and added an infobox to the article. I have no stake in it, I just wanted to clean it up a bit after I stumbled upon it. I hope no one objects. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Category addition
I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)