Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notorious POV

While some apply the term to fascists and neo-Nazis, those groups share as much with the left wing as they do with the right. Sometimes the term "far right" is used pejoratively by those on the left wing to describe any view they perceive as hostile to socialism.

I can't begin to describe what is wrong with the neutrality of this sentence. Rather than get involved in a pointless edit war with notorious edit warrior Sam spade I've marked this page under dispute and let someone else fight it out. --Axon 17:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A wise thing to do. It surely isn't NPOV anymore. Djadek 18:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where your coming from, but facism surely isnt right wing, and your edits to this page surely arn't NPOV. Sam [Spade] 21:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of this line of argument: perhaps you would also like argue that black is white, poor is rich and war is peace. I rather thnk you do know "where I'm coming from": Facism is, by definition, a right-wing movement, is commonly held to be as such by a vast majority of people and arguments against it are generally along weak and easy-to-dismiss lines such as "National Socialism has the word Socialism in it". I would bother to discuss this with you, Sam, but judging from your rather unpleasant habit of auto-reverting any edits you dislike, I think discussion would largely be a waste of time.

I would actually suggest this page be deleted altogether and a redirect created: the content more properly belongs in the Right wing page where it can be watched more carefully and this page can only ever be a magnet for the more extreme political elements to vent their spleens. --Axon 10:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. Why would "far right" be a separate article from "right"? That's like having separate articles for "coal mines" and "deep coal mines". The only purpose of this article is to give people something else to argue over. -- Bblackmoor 00:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your lack of interest in discourse is telling. Sam [Spade] 13:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism are most clearly right-wing (and extremely right-wing at that) by all accepted definitions of the Right and Left in politics. You can only exclude fascism from the right-wing if you re-define the "right-wing" to suit your own agenda.

Just so there can be no confusion, let me remind you what the key values of the right-wing are:

• Tradition and "family values" - clearly upheld by the Nazis (the perfect German mother, as embodied by Magda Goebbels; the patriarchal German family; traditional Germanic culture, etc. etc.)
• Hierarchy and obedience to authority - again, clearly upheld by the Nazis (see Fuhrerprinzip)
• Patriotism/Nationalism/love for one's country - "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles..."
• And last but not least, private property - see Hitler's pro-business policies

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, "Deutschland über alles..." is not about the primacy of Germany over other nations, but as a rallying cry for Germans to put aside their internmecine differences and band together as Germans, rather than as Prussians, etc. This is pretty obvious if you pay attention to the lyrics (and understand German). It was written at a time when Germany was one of the last nation-states in Europe which still operated more as a collection of principalities than as a unified state. It's actually unfortunate that the "Deutschland über alles..." movement was succesful: it undermined Germany's role as a buffer state between other countries, and made them appear more threatening to their neighbors (who were already pretty twitchy). -- Bblackmoor 17:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am fully aware of this, but I was referring to the Nazi use of the song. At any rate, I don't think there is any dispute over the extreme nationalism of the Nazis. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for fascists vs. socialists vs. "far right", if you go far enough to the right you reach the far left: they both hit "totalitarianism" if you go far enough. "Left" vs. "right" is a false dichotomy, anyway: the real political spectrum is from "libertarian" to "totalitarian". -- Bblackmoor 17:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do some libertarians insist that our current simplistic and biased political spectrum should be replaced with their simplistic and biased political spectrum? "The real dichotomy is not between left and right, it's between libertarian and totalitarian, because we want to portray ourselves as the good guys and make our enemies look 'bad' by association with totalitarian governments". Those sort of tactics are disgustingly hypocritical. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How charmimg. Of course "libertarian vs. totalitarian" is simplistic. "Luminance", "contrast", and "hue" are all simplistic, as well. It's only one axis. The difference from "left vs. right" is that "left vs. right" doesn't measure anything objectively -- it's a mish-mash of unrelated concepts that just happen to be clumped together at a certain place and time. It's like putting potatoes and forks in the same category call "plateness", and putting spoons and crackers in a category called "bowliness". It's a completelty self-referential taxonomy. -- Bblackmoor 00:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True. But when did I ever voice my support for the "left vs. right" axis? I completely agree with you that it's simplistic and misleading. Any one-axis model is simplistic and misleading. And why is that? Because the political spectrum consists of three major opposing tendencies, not two. Therefore, any one-axis model will privilege two of those tendencies at the expense of the third, or it will privilege one of those tendencies by squashing the other two together into the opposite end. The three tendencies I'm talking about are the Conservative Domain, the Liberal Domain and the Socialist Domain. Each of these "domains" is built around one core concept. The core concept of the Conservative Domain is hierarchy. The core concept of the Liberal Domain is property. And the core concept of the Socialist Domain is equality. Each domain has an "extreme", which seeks to take the core concept of that respective domain as far as possible and destroy the core concepts of the other two domains. If you look at things this way, the differences between fascists (extreme conservative domain), libertarians (extreme liberal domain) and communists (extreme socialist domain) become clear. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Besides, "totalitarianism" itself is a false category. Totalitarianism only means that the state has absolute power. But what does the state do with that power? The answer to this question outlines the immense differences between all the very different kinds of "totalitarianism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does the state do with that power? Historically, it kills its citizens in rather large numbers. Anything else is kind of beside the point. -- Bblackmoor 00:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Typical libertarian garbage. You willingly impose a simplistic (not to mention warped and flawed) vision of the world onto yourselves, for fear that an honest look at complex reality would shatter your ideology. First of all, historically speaking, the number of people killed by the state is very, very small. Of all the people who died in the 20th century, only 3-5% were killed either directly or indirectly by that state. And most of those died in the two World Wars. If you take out wars and indirect causes (i.e. people who weren't killed directly by the state, but by some thing that the state could have prevented), the percentage plummets below 1%. That's nothing compared to the number of people whose lives were saved, lengthened or improved by the state. Hell, just by eradicating a disease like malaria inside a single country's borders, a single state could save more lives than all the states in all of human history ever took away.

But besides that point, the notion that "all states are the same no matter what they do" is utterly idiotic. A state that funds the military is not the same as a state that funds hospitals and schools. And even among totalitarian states, one that imposes a certain religion on its citizens is not the same as one that imposes atheism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

.....................

The PUBLIC PERCEPTION of Fascism as Far Right is not at issue in the article as currently written. The public perception can be right or wrong. Presumably, an encyclopedia exists to do more than catalog any mistaken idea that is commonly held by the uninformed. There is in the article only the observation, certainly true, that the movement is not simply more conservative than conservatism. Fascism and Naziism are not, for instance, Monarchism, and they are anything but conventional when it comes to religious matters, yet no one is disputing the mention of religious traditionalists or fundamentalists as properly belonging to the category!

Fascism and Nazism may not be Monarchism, but, with a few exceptions, they support exactly the same policies you would expect from a reactionary monarchist. Hitler did not declare himself king, but he was a de facto absolute monarch. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fascism DOES indeed incorporate revolutionary and social themes historically derived from the Left and did or does see the traditional Right as one of its enemies (along with those on the Left). Anyone who hasn't studied Fascism enough to know this needs to study the governmental policies and philosophy of Fascism more closely.

Stalinism also DOES indeed incorporate reactionary and social themes historically derived from the Right, and it sees the traditional Left as one of its enemies (along with those on the Right). To be more exact, many stalinist leaders adopted social policies close to what you might expect from an American conservative: Restrictions on abortion, a complete lack of rights for homosexuals, nationalist fervor, etc. (see North Korea as the best example of social conservatism on the part of a stalinist regime). In addition, stalinists are notorious for hating and attacking left-wing movements such as social democracy, socialism and all communists who don't agree with them.

Given those similarities between Stalinism and right-wing politics, would you conclude that Stalinism is part of the political Right? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might also be noted that Axon objects to and wanted the removal of the sentence that makes the observation that some on the Right consider the term (Far Right) to be perjorative. This sentence is, however, virtually an exact copy of a sentence on the Far Left page, but with the terms reversed. How can parallel descriptions and language for the opposite ends of the political spectrum NOT be neutral?

I second all of that, naturally. Sam [Spade] 13:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I deleted those sentances is very simple: it is patently obvious that they express as fact that which is actually opinion.

The commonly held view (not just public opinion, but held in general by most political thinkers as well as the average man on the street) is that Facism, and by extension the Nazis, is a right-wing movement. Opinions that Facism is a left-wing movement are certainly held by some groups and individuals, most notably in America, but are certainly a minority view. This is not detailed anywhere in your edits and in fact they give the (false) impression that this view is not only the common one, but is actually self-evident, undisputed fact.

Finally, bias on one page is not really an excuse for bias on another page. Otherwise, we might as well just turn Wikipedia into one big war zone and see who can fight it out by editing the fastest and most.

Also, it is considered good manners to sign your edits. --Axon 15:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's an anon. Sam [Spade] 17:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I took a stab at NPOVing it, but I figured that it would be premature to peel the NPOV tag off of it before you guys had a look. I think it's important to note in this debate that none of these left-right definitions are established in a vacuum; the twentieth century saw stark changes in the meaning of these constructions.

Hence, the disagreement. Adam Faanes 09:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried my own overhaul, after refuting below some of the communist / far-left comments above. Sam [Spade] 21:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response

Dr. Goebbels said, "Germany is a republican Fuhrer-state". He also said, "Besides, I pay homage to the French Revolution for all the possiblities fo life and development that it brought the people. In that sense one could say, if you like, that I am a democrat."

Meanwhile, Hitler said "1789 is undone" upon taking power - referring to his intention to erase the effects of the French Revolution from history (particularly democracy, Hitler's hated enemy).

Nazism is called the "Brown Creed". (brown refering to the brownshirt SA, the working class)

The SA was the (first) Nazi paramilitary organization, not the "working class". It is true that most of their members were working-class, which is precisely why Hitler purged them during the Night of the Long Knives. They were useful in his rise to power, but he got rid of them as soon as they had outlived their usefulness.

Hitler said, the Third Reich was a "people's republic"; (eine volkische Republik).

Hitler also said "We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

Hitler said, "I am not only the conqueror but also the executor of Marxism--of that part that is essential and justified, stripped of its Jewish Talmudic dogma.". He also said, "This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution."

I suppose the first quote is the only one among the thousand of so Hitler quotes about Marxism that doesn't portray Marxism as an entirely vile Jewish conspiracy responsible for all the evils of the world, isn't it? As for the second quote, it says "counterpart" as in "mirror image", or "opposite".

And while we're at it, how about the dozen or so Hitler quotes saying he was a Christian, and the other dozen or so Hitler quotes saying Christianity was an evil Jewish plot to weaken the Aryan race? There's a Nazi quote for almost any occassion, and the Nazis contradicted their own previous statements hundreds of times. Clearly, Nazi propaganda is not a good source of any coherent political views. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Labour Law of January 20, 1934

[1] "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under the control of the government." Large public works projects, 100% employment, these sorts of things are socialist. Sam [Spade] 18:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so Ancient Egypt was socialist? Those pyramids were pretty big public works, after all...

Let me make one thing clear: Government intervention in the economy is a feature of (most forms of) socialism, but it is by no means the sole domain of the socialists. Governments have been funding public works for 5000 years, millenia before even the earliest roots of socialism began appearing. The heart of socialism is the idea of EQUALITY. Not public works, not full employment, not anything related to the government. These are all details, secondary features that weren't even originally invented by socialists. At the center of anything socialist lies the principle of Equality. Without this principle, there can be no socialism. Those who try to separate humanity into "superior" and "inferior" people - or "superior" and "inferior" races - strike against the very heart of everything socialists hold dear. Think about it for a moment: What unites the greatest enemies of socialism? What do libertarians and fascists have in common? Where do Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler agree? On the principle of Inequality. Whether through the State or through the Market, the anti-socialist attempts to impose inequality and hierarchy. And those are the things that socialists despise above all others.

But the Nazis were anti-socialist through much more than just their hierarchal ideology. For example, the National Labour Law which you've just quoted enforced the following measures:

• all labour unions were abolished.
• employees were forbidden to strike.

You can't get much more anti-socialist than that. The Nazi model of economy-state relations was corporatist, not socialist. The state intervened in the economy, but it did so on behalf of business, not on behalf of the workers. This is the antithesis of socialism.

Besides, Nazi interventions in the economy did not go any further than the interventions of most other national governments starting in the 1930's, including those of the Allies. So if these policies were enough to make Nazi Germany "socialist", then, by the same token, you're living in a "socialist" country right now.

Overall, you seem to be using "socialism" as a label for "anything that isn't pure laissez-faire capitalism", which is where your confusion comes from. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Socialist states always ban labour unions and strikes. Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And which "socialist states" would those be, exactly? If you're referring to the Soviet Union & its clones, then the fact that they banned labour unions and strikes is an argument in favour of the view that they were not socialist states of any sort. After all, "socialists" banning unions are a bit like "capitalists" banning private property. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we were to accept certain Socialist propoganda's, perhaps. Thank God I don't. Sam Spade Arb Com election 16:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Funny. I was under the impression that "accepting certain Socialist propoganda's" is exactly what you are doing - since you insist that the claims of certain self-proclaimed "socialists" (like Stalin, for example) about their political views must be taken at face value and upheld without question. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political compass

politicalcompass puts Hitler as a centrist authoritarian, Stalin as a far left one. Most political spectrums place Communism and Facism together as Totalitarianism. I think its important to note that while Communism has nothing in common with family values, Nazism certainly has no monopoly on it, Libertarians tend to enjoy family values at least as much as anyone. Sam [Spade] 18:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Political Compass puts Hitler as a slightly right-wing extreme authoritarian, and the Political Compass FAQ explains why Hitler IS, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a right-winger. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Classification

Respectfully, I don't think that it is possible to justify the classification of Hitler left or right based on anything he said. That might sound counter-intuitive since we're describing Hitler, but the term "far-right" has no authoritative and final definition outside what the public deems it to be. The originators of the term are dead a century and a half, and their definition is clearly unsuited to the modern sense; as the far right cannot in any fair way be called universally monarchist today. It is not a question of historical or scientific veracity; it is a question of veracity in the public eye.

What was done on the left-right politics page was to list a series of statements that people classify ideologies left and right based on. I find this to be well-suited to this article as well; it is the only way we can capture what meaning there is in a pure social construct. I will agree with you that certain modern fractures of the far right have little to nothing in common with certain other fractures of the far right, just as many anarchists, Greens, and communists have sharp disagreements on the far left. The best we can do in an article such as this is to explain what the general belief of "far right" is, explain the controversies surrounding that definition, and admit the fundamental contradiction. Adam Faanes 08:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree w most of that. I want to stress that while the words of certain groups or individuals (in this case Hitler and Nazi's) may be dismissed as propoganda, the actions (such as the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934) should not be. Also, we must give proper attention to the concept that the far left and far right have a great deal in common, both seeming to have a tendancy towards Totalitarianism, revoloution, and anarchism (at different times, in different ways, and for different reasons, of course). A far right libertarian extremist who hates all taxes and govt. intervention, practices combat maneuvers with his militia buddies in preperation for "WTSHTF" (civil war) etc... is not so far off from an anarchist ideologically, as well as theoretically in practice (altho lefty activists tend to do a bit less in the way of gun trafficing ;). Similarly, a far left or far right dictator often has a fairly similar social program. And of course all extremists currently out of power favor revoloution, it seems a given. Sam [Spade] 14:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notorious POV Strikes Again

Sometimes those on the Far-Right are said to be "Reactionary", but this is largely a perjorative from the left, and indicative of their adversarial relationship more than any particular platform or ideology on the Right.

Again, stating what is opinion as undisputed fact. This is self-evidently POV and does nothing to further the neutrality of this article, and seems only to provoke.

Many are of the opinion that the both political extremes have a great deal in common, or are perhaps even identical (i.e. tending towards either Totalitarianism, revoloution and / or Anarchism, or perhaps one after the other in alternation)

This is weasel words - rather than attempt to pass off partisan opinion as general, public opinion this article must state who holds such opinions, preferably with referenced, reputable sources to back up your claims. Who holds such opinions? Do they form a substantial majority? Is there evidence of this? --Axon 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you ignore all the above debate and citations, and focus instead upon this new complaint, but I will attempt to address your concerns. Sam [Spade] 16:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/587544/posts] [2]

You have yet to actually address my questions directly to substantiate these edits. Your attempts to draw me into a pointless discussion serves no purpose. Others have adequately responded, and I'm sure will continue to do so. My problem with the above edits is that they are blatant POV. No amount of linkage to other right-wing forums can alter this. --Axon 17:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those links are not to forums. I have substantiated. You have postulated. I refuse to be frustrated. In the future, I will ignore you as obstructionist. Sam [Spade] 17:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As you wish. --Axon 18:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Your attempts to draw me into a pointless discussion serves no purpose. ... My problem with the above edits is that they are blatant POV." Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot. You guys crack me up. -- Bblackmoor 00:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever it is you are talking about, please get over it. --Axon 09:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I am talking about is you and Sam Spade, having a tug-of-war over who can more stubbornly impose his own POV on this article. -- Bblackmoor 18:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My POV?

I find the above suggestion that I have attempted to place my POV in this article ludicrous. My POV is that the left right dicotomoy is a false one, and that the terms as traditionally used have no value. Anyone interested in my POV can review User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 12:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Laissez-faire capitalism

Laissez-faire capitalism may be referred to as "far right"? That's absurd. Both "right" and "left" politics are strongly in favor of government intervention in the economy (the left imposes forcible redistribution of wealth, while the right favors back-door deals that favor certain industries). "Laissez-faire capitalism" isn't even on that spectrum. -- Bblackmoor 04:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But some accuse it of being so, and even more important, it is part of the debate about what this term means. Most political spectrums put Laissez-faire capitalism on the far right. Sam [Spade] 12:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"...some accuse it of being so..." Not meaningfully -- this use of "far right" has as much substance as calling supporters of gender equality "Nazi's": it is strictly pejorative, and has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word "Nazi". The pejorative use of "far right" is covered in an earlier paragraph, and lumping in "laissez-faire capitalism" (or free speech, or freedom of religion, or any other unrelated political ideology) with various flavors of totalitarianism serves only to obscure whatever meaning "far right" might actually have. "Laissez-faire capitalism" is anathema to both "left" and "right", and is diametrically opposed to fascism, communism, etc.

You seem unfamiliar w the political spectrum. Please read the article on it. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 21:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no "the" political spectrum: if you were familiar with the field (or if you had read the Wikipedia entry to which you hyperlinked), you would know that there are quite a few political spectra, and "laissez-faire capitalism" does not fall on the left-right spectrum. -- Bblackmoor 23:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). Note that certain right-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies (see dirigisme)."

Quoted from political spectrum.

[[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 21:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right-wing governments have strongly interventionist economic policies. All of them. And the more "right wing" they are, the more intervention there is. That some on the "left" call something "right" does not mean that it is so. It's like a dog calling a giraffe "cat-like" (i.e., "if it's not a dog, it must be a cat"). Wikipedia entries should exist to clarify and enlighten, not to perpetuate misunderstandings based on ignorance. Incidentally, the text quoted in the comments in your recent edits had already been removed from the article (by me). Therefore, I assume that you were viewing an outdated or cached version of this article when you edited it, so I am restoring it to its previous state. -- Bblackmoor 23:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. And you accused me or enforcing my POV? I'll let you fight about this with someone else, its not worth my energy. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Laissez-faire capitalism removes all *government* intervention in the economy (all intervention by elected, accountable representatives of the people) leaving the rich free to do as they will. Laissez-faire capitalism is far-right because it leads to plutocracy.

No, people who identify themselves as "left" fear that it would lead to a plutocracy, which is why they incorrectly refer to it as "right". It is a perjorative based on ignorance. "If a giraffe is not a dog, it must be a cat." The cats feel exactly the same way. That doesn't make a giraffe a dog, either. -- Bblackmoor 23:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, people on the left fear that laissez-faire capitalism would lead to plutocracy, in the same way they fear that standing in front of a speeding train would lead to death. I'm sure there are laissez-faire capitalists who believe the endearing fantasy that it might lead to something other than plutocracy, but I don't think Wikipedia articles should be based on the discredited theories of the destructively naive.

Feel free to discuss that over in the article devoted to laissez-faire capitalism. What is relevant for this article is that "right-wing" political ideology is (like "left-wing" ideology) directly opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. -- Bblackmoor 00:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That isn't the case at all. Laissez-faire capitalism is one right-wing ideology. It may well be opposed to other right-wing ideologies but there are opposing views within the left as well. Most current right-wing politicians support laissez-faire capitalism.

Left vrs. Right extremists

• Left tends towards internationalism (in theory), the right towards nationalism
• Left tends towards Atheism, the Right towards traditionalism
• Left tends towards Radical egalitarianism (in theory), the Right towards hierarchy
• Left tends towards expansionism, the right towards imperialism

These are a few pointers I think we might be able to agree on. Sam Spade Arb Com election 14:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

racialist nationalism and populism?

These are not the most common usages of this term. Please discuss your ideas in talk. Sam Spade Arb Com election 15:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The parties usually called far-right (like the BNP in Britain or the Popular Front in France) are nationalist parties holding or seen as holding racist beliefs, or else they are populist parties. There are some more general uses of the term, but these are comparatively much more rare. I have added a list of parties normally described as far-right.

Good job. Sam Spade Arb Com election 21:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nationalism itself is not clearly far-right. Defining nationality by one's race is. Nazis and Fascists differ on the matter of race.

How do Nazis differe from other fascists on the matter of race?

The far right has no monopoly on racism, many on the far left are racist as well. Centrists tend not to be racists, but they also can be. Just because the far right often (not always) makes race an important platform issue should not confuse matters. Sam Spade Arb Com election 16:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Far-left racists? Excuse me? Just who are you talking about, exactly? For your information, one of the typical features of the far-left is virulent opposition to everything and anything related with racism. And, for that matter, I'm not aware of any centrist racists either. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

modern day anti-semites are mostly left wing intellectuals who denounce Israel every chance they get. Conservatives support Israel. It might be a POV but I will say it anyway, since 1945 people from the 'left wing' have incessantly told us how racism is right wing when it clearly isn't. Conservatives believe everyone can achieve the same thing through hard work, though no one should get a handout. Left wingers however believe minorities must be given handouts otherwise they cannot achieve anything. Which is the more racist view? Racism, like nationalism cannot be labelled 'left' or 'right'.--Marcel1975 19:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How about Stalin? Or Mikhail Bakunin? That took me about 30 seconds to think of. Your definition of the far-left is absurd, BTW.

Here's an idea: First you have to define what your twisted and unusual definition of the "left" actually is, then we can talk about the views of "leftists". It's true that Bakunin was indeed leftist, and he was indeed racist - but his racism played no role in his political beliefs. As for Stalin, he was more nationalist than racist, and, in any case, his views are in many ways so similar to those of right-wingers that one has to ask: Was Stalin a leftist with a lot of right-wing views, or should we classify him as a right-winger? Or as something else entirely? I vote for "something else entirely". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, Stalin certainly seemed to have it in for the Kulaks. Does anyone know if this was due to him despising them as a class, or as an ethnic group?

Other known racists / racist agenda's on the left:

• Margaret Sanger
• Red Army Faction
• Affirmative action
• Anti-Americanism
• Marx Quote: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money." (Marx, 1844)

Sam Spade Arb Com election 14:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see, your special definition of racism allows you to brand some leftists as "racists" because you include things like Anti-Americanism and Affirmative Action (the last of which is actually meant to fight against racism). As for Karl Marx, perhaps you should read the full context of that quote. Perhaps then you'll remember that he wasn't talking about Jews in general, as a people (hell, he was a Jew himself, so accusing him of anti-semitism is like accusing an African-American of being a member of the KKK). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hilarious that you call Afiirmative action 'against racism' when it is clearly racist in itself. The idea that minorities cannot achieve anything on their own but need handouts and government interference is in itself racist, and also left wing. --Marcel1975 19:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that affirmative action is motivated more by a desire to "level the playing field" and get minorities a bigger piece of the pie--not necessarily to end racism. In fact, many believe that affirmative action programs only serve to *increase* racial tension, not decrease it, by introducing different legal standards for different skin colors. (unsigned, intespersed March 6, 2005)

I agree that there are racists on the left, but the examples you choose there may not be the best. "American" is a nationality, not a race. Affirmative action is motivated by a desire to eliminate racism (whether it achieves this goal is obviously a matter of debate). Marx's quote seems to be talking about the Jewish religion rather than race.

I'd say more damning is the view of some on the far-left that seems to be "the more minorities you're a member of, the more valid your views are". They contend that people who are a member of the white, heterosexual, male patriarchy are always speaking from a position of priviledge and hence are always wrong. This is an ideology you encounter a fair bit if you get involved in university politics, I've found. You'll also find a lot of unionists (ie generally left-leaning people) who support keeping out foreign immigrants due to fears of job losses.

That said, I think the number of people subscribing to these views is relatively fewer than those racists belonging to the right of the spectrum. I have no hard evidence of that (how do you even measure racism objectively?), just my personal observation. Shane King 01:04, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Your make some good points, but I still think the idea that racism is a determinant of left or right is an innaccurate one. Of course I don't agree that ant-americanism isn't racist, or that affirmative isn't an obvious example of state sponsored racism, but those are debates for another time and place. The same w the "the more minorities you're a member of, the more valid your views are" concept, which is a rather curious phenomena, often presented as a given, and one which I have had occasion to rebuke in my time ;) Cheers, Sam Spade Arb Com election 12:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If your point is that racism tends to be the effect rather than the cause, I'd agree with that. Shane King 00:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that we've all made our points, let's go back to discussing the actual article involved. Does anyone dispute the fact that the term "far-right" is often used to describe racists? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. What I dispute is that this is accurate. If you phrase it as you do here, that "the term "far-right" is often used to describe racists" I'll have no objection. Sam Spade Arb Com election 14:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that is how the article phrases it ("In most cases, the term "far-right" is used to describe persons or groups who hold extremely nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, traditionalist, and/or reactionary views"), so I don't see any reason for dispute... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do see a reason to dispute, right wing politics and conservatism are utterly opposed to racism. Conservatives believe everyone can achieve good things through hard work without needing government handouts. I do NOT dispute that racism is generally seen as 'right wing' but I do dispute that it actually IS a right wing thing. Take for example the rabid nationalist NPD (National Party of Germany) in Germany, they are considered right wing, yet they advocate big government socialism and are dead set against capitalism. That they are called right wing is a perversion of reality. How can right wing be against capitalism and for big government socialism? --Marcel1975 19:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I made the needed change. Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nolan chart

Why does the Nolan chart link keep getting removed? Sam Spade Arb Com election 12:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To anon user 205...: If you are reading this, you are welcome to write here your reasons for removing the link to the Nolan Chart. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nolan is no authority. He is a little known founder of the Libertarian party. The Nolan chart (as opposed to mentioning the shortcomings of the flat-line system of categorizing political movements) is a partisan chart that in the beginning of its page states that it is rating how LIBERTARIAN various movements are. Get it? HOW LIBERTARIAN they are, not how they rank as left or right. Further, our article on the Far Right makes almost no claim that the Far Right IS Libertarian, instead describing it in comventional terms as concerning traditionalism, racism, etc. To include this so-called "Nolan Chart" amounts to little more than a promo for the Libertarian Party. Shall we include a paragraph in the Libertarian Party page giving the Constitution Party's assessment of the LP?

Actually, I think we should spend some time discussing how Libertarians are seen to be far-right in the USA. Sam Spade Arb Com election 15:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Libertarians are seen as being far-right in the US. Certainly not in the same way that things like the Ku Klux Klan are. Their economic agenda may be seen as right-wing, but far-right tends to get reserved for groups that may have that economic agenda but are mainly known for racism or fascism.

I guess there is alot of subjectivity here. I don't normally think of groups like the KKK in terms of politics, but it's being made pretty clear that many editors here (and apparently other wikis as well, reading the interlanguage far right articles) associate the far right with racism. That’s quite significant, since I have often seen people who are even mildly conservative labeled "fascist" (as in "my principal/dean called me into his office the other day... He's such a fascist pig!"). So while we obviously need to discuss the associations with racism, we also need to make clear that alot of people are called "far-right" and even "fascist" (I personally see fascism as left wing, but whatever) for reasons having nothing to do w extremist racial politics. It’s an unfortunate smear, probably similar to how American democrats are sometimes referred to as "communists" and "traitors". Sam Spade Arb Com election 08:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with recent edits

A torrent of POV has been added recently, and since I'm sure that Sam won't let me remove it without fighting for every inch, here's a list of things that were wrong with his edits:

1. "A common slur against the far-right is that they are fascist". Much of the far-right IS fascist. The term "far-right" ITSELF is often a slur (hence the comment that "far-right" is a pejorative term).
2. "Leftist political models often reject democracy as well...". More like sometimes, not "often". And those sometimes are highly unusual cases - in general, the Left is defined by support for equality and democracy.
3. "...as with Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat...". The dictatorship of the proletariat is a democratic workers' state. Read Marx before you comment on his views.
4. "In particular, libertarianism, anarchism, totalitarianism are best placed on...". I don't need to go any further to show the POV of this paragraph. It makes recommendations about the "best" ways to represent the political spectrum. This isn't even a subject that should be covered by the far-right article. Just mention that the Left/Right dichotomy is disputed, and insert a link to political spectrum.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is a slanted view, treating the Right as necessarily fascist or nearly so, while demaning that the Left be seen not as it is but only as it theorizes itself to be (#"Leftist political models often reject democracy as well...". More like sometimes, not "often". And those sometimes are highly unusual cases - in general, the Left is defined by support for equality and democracy). Marx was no proponent of democracy and the Societ Union was no example of "quality and democracy!." Next, Mihnea will be insisting that there are no Communist governments and never have been, or that they were not Leftist regimes.

I'm treating the far-right as necessarily fascist or nearly so, because that's the common definition of the far-right. And both the Left and the Right are, by and large, theoretical constructs. They are ideologies or categories of ideologies. "Left-wing" is not some sort of characteristic that a person or government carries from birth to death. It is possible for former leftists to become rightists, and vice versa. As far as Karl Marx is concerned, he most certainly was a proponent of democracy (I invite you to read his work if you don't believe me). And regarding the Soviet Union, you are perfectly correct in saying that it was no example of "equality and democracy". Which is why you have two logical choices in defining the "left-wing" and "communism":

1. The Soviet Union was leftist, which means the Left is NOT about equality and democracy, which means that social democratic, socialist and communist movements who DO support equality and democracy are not leftist.
2. Social democratic, socialist and communist movements who support equality and democracy ARE leftist, which means equality and democracy are basic values of the Left, which means the Soviet Union wasn't leftist.

To put it simply, there is a great divide between the Soviet Union and the rest of the Left. So either the Soviet Union wasn't leftist, or the rest of the Left isn't leftist. Make your choice. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the existence of "communist governments", I'm afraid you've just proven your ignorance on the topic, because the term "communist government" is an oxymoron. See the communist state article for discussion on this much-abused oxymoron. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I understand the theory as well as anyone, and the point still stands that you are intent upon contrasting the far left with the democratic center, considering there to be no far left. That will not work. If we don't want to discuss the left here, at the least we cannot treat right as the only authoritarian system that exists.

Since "fundamentalism" is listed as a word not to be used, let's respect that. Accepting the several fundamentals of traditional Christian belief--deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, Scriptures, etc.--is hardly the issue anyway, but rather the fanatical advocacy of religion. (by ?????)

---

Was Stalin a leftist with a lot of right-wing views, or should we classify him as a right-winger? Or as something else entirely? I vote for "something else entirely". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:15, 23 Nov 2004 Exactly. The something else is a second DIMENSION. A political chart, a political compass, a Nolan chart are all EXAMPLES of a two dimensional attempt to better characterize the similarities and differences of important historical political points of view. Please don't judge an idea by its name or by a person who suggested (horrors) using two dimensions to categorize an idea rather than one. If using MORE information rather than less makes someone ELSES point of view look better than yours, do we throw out the additional data or think anew our prior held ideas? (by anon. 4.250.xxx.xxx)

---

One way to avoid some of the controversies of recent days would be to omit from the page any attempt to describe the one-dimensional, two-dimensional, or circular attempts to categorize political groups. The article, after all, is only about one such position and could stand without undue comparisons to other positions, so long as "far right" is properly described. That would, for instance, sidestep the idea that Libertarianism is at one pole (Nolan) or that the far left is not the far left (Mihnea), neither of which is essential in order to understand what is far right. In my view, the article is reasonable as it stands, but I do not know how many others agree.(by ?????)

---

Yes, in my view also, the article is reasonable as it stands. But I am perplexed, puzzled, and shocked that you say dimensionality can be ommitted, maybe should be ommitted. The concepts of right and left include dimensionality in their very concept or definition. Right or left of what, by what criteria, by what measure, in what direction. How can I be clear? Maybe an analogy? Imagine an argument over whether the north pole or the south pole is more east or more west and the two sides deciding that they are the same because at both places, east and west lose meaning. Now I jump in and suggest the use of a second dimension namely north versus south, and someone says don't introduce dimensions, north and south are not essential to understanding how east the north pole is. At the very least this analogy communicates my puzzlement over anyone thinking that political positions everyone agrees are opposites yet are both called far-right can be adequately discussed without introducing a second dimension. (by anon. 4.250.xxx.xxx)

---

I don't oppose the discussion of dimensionality. I just said you discussed it in a biased and slanted way. You also reverted all my other changes for no apparent reason. As such, I've returned the article to its better form, and added some more comments regarding dimensionality, which point the reader towards political spectrum (where dimensionality is and should be discussed at length). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Unabomber

I removed the link to the Unabomber manifesto once from this page. I don't think it belongs here. I don't think Kaczynski was particularly "far-right". I think he was crazy, anti-human, and a few other things, but I think far-right is a polemical and inappropriate description.

Anyway, I don't want an edit war here. At the very least the description of the link should be edited into something like Wikipedia style, but I don't think the link should be here. I'd like to see a few others speak up to get consensus on this, though, rather than an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'd consider him far-left actually, a particularly violent primitivist. I also think it should be removed. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's been 6 weeks, and the only comment here is to agree with me. I will remove. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians?

In the usage section, I doubt the remark about "far-right" being used to describe libertarians in general, although I guess it is possible to be a far-right libertarian, such as some of the rural county secessionist movements. Does anyone have a citation for the term being used for libertarians in general? Otherwise, I would say that it would be more appropriate to single out radical local-rights advocates, rather than libertarians. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When are you going to learn...

...That fascism (including communism and national socialism) are far-left ideologies??? YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF!!! RRROOOOOAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!! (anonymous rant 20 April 2005)

Title is adjective form???

The term "far-right" with a dash is an adjective form. As in "far-right groups". The proper title for this page is "Far right" or possibly "Far Right." Any discussion? I plan to change it otherwise and then run around and deal with all the redirects.--Cberlet 21:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Either that or "Far-right politics" or "Far right politics". All of these should exist as redirects, I don't really care which one houses the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Affirmative action

The remarks on Affirmative action seem to me to be rather off-topic (this is not the article on affirmative action) but they keep coming on this page, and for some reason I'm in the mood to respond. I hope this will not be seen as inappropriate: if I reply elsewhere, my remarks will not be seen in the same context as those to which I'm responding.

An aside first: racism is not simply race prejudice: it is race prejudice united to a system of power that can effectively enforce oppression.

The concept when affirmative action was introduced (in the Nixon years) was that various groups—most notably,blacks—had been victims of a racist (and sexist: the program soon focused on women, as well) system that had, for generations, deprived them of equal opportunity: in schools, in employment, in opportunities to borrow money at decent rates, in short in virtually all of the areas that have been key to advancement of individuals and groups in America. It was also premised on the basis that mere "neutrality"—a simple declaration of equality of opportunity moving forward—was doomed: that "old boy networks" and the tendency of those in power to promote others who were like themselves were far too entrenched to be overcome simply by saying "stop doing that".

It was conceived from the outset as a transitional program, intending to bring enough blacks, women, etc. into the power structure that in a few generations -- Arthur Fletcher thought it would take about 50 years -- the original motivations would become moot, because the power elite would, itself, be sufficiently mixed that the old prejudices would be broken.

In the early years, affirmative action relied heavily on quotas. Within a decade, U.S. courts ruled that this was not acceptable: that it too directly disadvantaged individual white men, who did not deserve to suffer as individuals for the advantages that might have been granted in the past to white men as a class.

Since that time, affirmative action has changed dramatically in form (although, in a few economic areas, there remain a few quota-ish elements, such as "minority set-asides" in government contracting). Most affirmative action programs today have more to do with actively recruiting more women and minority candidates to apply for positions than with how positions are granted from within the applicant pool; until recently, quite a few college admission programs gave "points" to women and/or minorities, the same way they give points to football players, oboeists, and "legacies" (relatives of alumni). A recent Supreme Court decision makes that almost impossible, too, so more and more it's going to come down to a matter of recruiting.

Frankly, in my view affirmative action has been a partial success, and might have been more of one if some of its more aggressive forms had been allowed to run a bit longer. When I was growing up, it was almost impossible for any significant number of non-white people to get into any of America's leading institutions of higher learning (with a slightly less drastic situation for East Asians than other minorities). Outside of the HBCUs, their presence on a faculty was almost unheard of. I don't remember seeing a single black local government official, and certainly not a black policeman, in the 20% black town where I grew up. This was certainly not because there were no blacks qualified to be police, dogcatchers, office workers at city hall. (By the way, this was in the North.) I had only two black teachers, and one of those was for gym. And, you know, the one black English teacher I had was the first English teacher I ever had who exposed us to any literature by black authors. Think about that: think in particular what it meant for the black kids. Saying that one needed more such teachers is not tantamount to saying that blacks "need handouts", but it is precisely a matter of saying that some "government interference" was the only way to break the back of a racist system. It does not demean the victims of such a system to say that they may need some outside help in achieving their rightful place. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your "aside:" from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition at Dictionary.com, we have

racism 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So, "racism is not simply race prejudice?"

198.160.96.7 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party of Japan

I guess someone is insistent they be on. Instead of adding them when there's no agreement could this person or persons just discuss their reason here? The reason I initially took them off is because they are only listed as "conservative" on their Wiki page and they have been an established, often ruling, party in Japan for many decades. Although I think some of their members do sound far-right I don't think they fit what is meant here by far-right. My sister lives in Japan and, I think, doesn't like them. However I just got the sense from her that they are very conservative, not far-right. Although she's an American living in Japan. What do Japanese people here say?--T. Anthony 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Japanese, but this is a ridiculous inclusion in this page. Clearly a conservative party, not a far-right party. On the remark calling a particular faction far-right, I have no idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just did that for whoever it was insistent they be mentioned in some form. On getting confirmation it's ridiculous I'm taking the faction down.--T. Anthony 23:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hayek & libertarian claims about fascism

Where is the discussion? These are marginal POV views of a small group of libertarians See the discussion at [Fascism and ideology].--Cberlet 21:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone recently added to the article "Some scholars claim that fascism is not on the political right. F. A. Hayek, as well as a few others state that these parties are state controled collectivists, and therefore leftwing." If this is an accurate description of Hayek's views -- I haven't seen an actual cite where he says that fascism simply is left-wing, as against putting unusually strong emphasis on the left-wing influences on fascism that we all acknowledge -- than as far as I can see, all this shows is that either he chose to define the "left-right" axis in such an unusual way as to amount to Humpty Dumptyism, or that Hayek was one of those people who can't ever admit that people he (rightly) despises might, nonetheless, fall somewhere near him on the political spectrum. I can't think of a single case where bona fide 1920-1945 fascist parties ever allied with the left; the only time historically that I can think of a "red-brown" coalition is recently in former Soviet areas, and it seems to me that throws the "left" credentials of the Communists into far more doubt that the "right" credentials of the neo-fascists. I believe that this passage should be removed unless it is (1) accompanied by a clear citation and (2) clearly characterized as the view of a small minority of scholars, strongly rejected by most others. -- Jmabel | Talk

Sam Spade has been trying to insert his POV on this subject on other pages over a period of months. Unless he can produce some evidence to document his claim that his is a widely held view, I suggest we restore the text to a more reasonable order of text.--Cberlet 02:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim that this is my POV, I claim that it is hayek's. The only person I know here who is fond of inserting his POV regarding fascism into articles is our op-ed specialist, Chip Berlet.

Anyways, are you disputing the signifigance of Hayek, Libertarianism, or the American Right? My citations are as obvious (The Road to Serfdom, Hitler was a Socialist, fascism, etc...) as Cberlets bias regarding Fascism. The question is, where are yours? Where is your citation for "most scholars"? Anytime I hear "most _____", I become very suspicious of an Appeal to false authority. Sam Spade 02:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not an appeal to false authority. A review of the major scholars on fascism in the past 30 years (remember I work in a library) shows that Hayek's claims are marginal, at best. I do not deny they exist, but I place them in the proper perspective, as a minority viewpoint. Furthermore, as you well know, we have had this debate before on other pages, and I have written a substantial defense of the majority viewpoint now located at Fascism and ideology. Please don't pretend this is a new debate. As you are well aware, on the fascism page your attempts to hype your marginal POV were resisted by other editors; and your aggressive style finally forced me to request mediation over it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_17/Cberlet_and_Sam_Spade. So please do not pretend this is something you just thought up.--Cberlet 22:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead, I will add it to my list of pages you have editorialised. I ask again, where is your citation for "most scholars"? Your claims to work in a library are the best example of appeal to false authority I've heard in ages, but lets focus on the basics. Do you have a citation for your claims? Sam Spade 22:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above: Fascism and ideology, but I don't have to (and it is impossible to) prove a negative, you need to demonstrate that reputable published authors who specialize in studying fascism have highlighted the work of Hayek. But if you check Griffin, Eatwell, Payne, and a score of other major books on fascism in the past 20 years you will see that Hayek is not a significant source for citation by major scholars of fascism. Hayek is marginal in the field, he is only a fawned-over demigod among libertarians.--Cberlet 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously attempting to cite a wikipedia article you yourself wrote 4 days ago??? Sam Spade 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I did a survey of major recent authors on fascism when you tried this gambit months ago on the [Fascism]] page where you first lost this debate. The Fascism and ideology page was carved out from the Fascism page a few days ago. It would really help if you actually bothered to do some research once in a while rather than just posting your own idiosyncratic opinions on an ad hoc stream-of-consciouness basis as if all the editors on Wikiepdia had nothing better to do than answer questions that would be obvious with two minutes of reading. Just a polite suggestion. Hope you are not offended.--Cberlet 02:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate it if you showed the respect to properly cite your sources, and insist on NPOV, despite your blatant bias. I am still waiting on your Wikipedia:Citations (hint, I have more where mine came from). Sam Spade 03:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I cited my sources in Fascism and ideology. You might try reading them.--Cberlet 03:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in NPOVing yet another editorial you wrote at this juncture. What I would like is for you to provide some evidence that "most scholars" believe hayek, and his "nazis are socialists" POV are marginal, and should be treated as such on a page about the Far Right! Sam Spade 03:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, it did not occur to me that you might suffer from a physical handicap that made it difficult for you to click on the link, Fascism and ideology. To make it easier to discuss this matter in a sensible way, I will paste in the material where I cite several authors who represent the mainstream in fascist studies in academia.

Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. In one sense, fascism can be considered to be a new ideological development that transcends the right/left framework. At the same time, it does contain ideological elements usually associated with the right. These two facets can be seen in the following quote from Mussolini himself, writing in The Doctrine of Fascism: "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."

Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism, and they are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism allies itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

Laqueuer: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right" p. 223.

Eatwell talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" p. 39.

Griffin also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described Fascism as "Revolution from the Right" pp. 185-201.

Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." p. 8.

Thus according to these scholars, there are both left and right influences on fascism, and right-wing ideology should not be considered part of the "fascist minimum". However, they also show that in actual practice, there is a gravitation of fascism toward the political right.

I hope this makes it easier for you. Apologies for not realizing that you had a physical disability that made it difficult to click on a link; and all along I simply assumed that you just couldn't be bothered. I am too quick to judge people as aggressive, arrogant, lazy, and glib. Please accept my sincere apologies.--Cberlet 03:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Could any of these scholars in academia have a leftwing bias and/or be wrong. Just cause most say its true, don't make it true! Most scholars in academia are left wing. (Is my last statement a generalization, pov or biased, like your statement about all scholars believing fascism is rightwing and disagree with Hayek)- anonymous ex-commie

I think a case can and is made that Nazism isn't right-wing. Although Fascism, of the Italian or Francoist variety, is certainly not left-wing. I'd have to agree that thinking it is would be a minority opinion I've rarely read before. Fascism has few to no socialist elements and I don't think ever claimed to. Many of them were ex-socialist, but that doesn't mean much. Several people deemed "Neo-Conservatives" were once Trotskiyite, but that doesn't really make that movement left-wing. Although Hayek is something of a major figure on studies of totalitarianism so I imagine his view deserves mention.--T. Anthony 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is complicated, and a variety of scholars across a range of politics debate many issues concerning fascism. It's just that Hayek's views on fascism as left wing are not considered very significant. I am not urging that the sentence on Hayek be deleted, just demoted. Most of the scholars I cited are centrist, and they are considered to be among the top scholars in the field. I can cite several leftist scholars of fascism who would see any claim that fascism is left wing as ludicrous. So I am trying to arrive at a fairr, NPOV, compromise outcome that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Incidently, the page title: "Far-right" is a grammatical error, as it is in the adjectival form, and as such is proper for a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. It should be somehting like "Far right ideology" or something like that.--Cberlet 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but even if Hayek's views are marginal among scholars (although he has a following in economics) it seems like some voice must be given to the lowly blogger, journalist, voter, or activist. I personally haven't seen any polling data on usage for this term ("Do you believe that fascism or Nazism are left-wing or right wing ideologies?") but I have met in my own personal experience a considerable minority of people with the view you criticize. A simple "Some believe..." would satisfy, I think, and with all due respect, this entire controversy makes exceptionally little difference to a reader of this article who will probably already have his mind made up on the matter. Adam Faanes 18:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia NPOV policy is clear, we cite sources, and allow the reader to make up their own mind. What we do not do is editorialise based on our assumptions of what "most scholars" may or may not think. Sam Spade 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet Sam Spade has not cited any published material revealing that Hayek has a wide following among recognized scholars of fascism, and I have cited the leading scholars in the field making statements that reject Hayek's conclusions. Sam Spade has been renewing this argument on a regular basis on a variety of pages. In the long run he loses the debate, becasue the underluing research does not support his right-wing libertarian POV. The last edit was a complete distorion of the scholarship in this area. The main discussion is at Fascism and ideology. Let's just send people there.--Cberlet 03:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In my case I think I was thinking of Ludwig Von Mises who I think was important to the history of studying Fascism. I do think Nazism, even Neo-Nazism, doesn't entirely work as far-right. In least there is enough difficulties there that should be mentioned. I don't think it's left either, I think it's just its own odd form of insanity. If you look at some of the Nazi mysticism types though some of them have values that would generally be deemed Left. They do glorify war and racial hatred, but some of them also argue strongly for animal rights and socialism. If I can I might in least make some reference to difficulties there.

Nationalism or state socialism is not rightwing. It is socialism, because it requires supreme devotion to the state as supreme concern and focus of all citizens. The citizen serves the state and promotes the states interest. It is not the state promoting the concern, protection, interests and individual liberties of the citizens. It is anti-communism, because it allows capitalism and personal ownership of property or capital, as long as the companies and individuals do what the state tells them to do with the capital or property, like oscar Schindler. He snuck behind the Nazi's backs to help the Jews, so he wouldn't lose his property.

Socialism isn't just the state ownership of capital; it is the state control of all capital. If it were just the state ownership of all capital, then it would be Communism. They hated communists because the communists wanted to have the state own all capital. The National socialists just wanted to control everything, that way they wouldn't be responsible for all the upkeep of capital, they could have the companies and individuals do that. Plus, it is easier to play policeman(or macro-manage)over private owners[national socialism], than to try to fully control(micro-manage) every action of the people running state owned property[communism].

Read a dictionary!

Socialism is: n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or run by a centralized government that controls the economy.

State socialism: n. < stAt 'sO[sh]&"liz&m > : 1. An economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed.

- (Neutral nobody 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Nazism can not easily be placed on the Left or Right IMO. The Nazis maintained several socialistic policies throughout so economically they had left-wing aspects. However they believed in a Darwinistic survival of the fittest so in several areas competitive market driven approaches survived. Added to that, political compass aside, there are non-economic aspects to a regime being deemed Right. The glorification of conquest, obedience, and the Volk is right-wing by most reasonable standards.--T. Anthony 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And the page for this, and the discussion of this--after many, many, edit wars (including the active participation of Sam Spade)--is at Fascism and ideology. It is not appropriate to create a POV fork on this page just because Sam Spade is unhappy with the results.--Cberlet 13:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Boy, do you have an issue with Sam Spade, keep your personal hatred out of this. This has nothing to do with Sam Spade or your far left bias. He did not put it there. I did. I am a centrist and I think you guys (left and right) need to keep your personal politics out of Wikipedia. Cberlet, for example, has a personal issue with attacking anything right(He wrote an article about the mainstream right trying to bring facist thinking into the mainstream public-from a centrist piont of view-how ludicris), so his editing on wikipedia and objections against Facism being left wing are suspect. Keep your politics out of nuetral articles. The NPOV belongs on the Far-right article, because the issue is with this article, not Fascism and ideology. (added sig: Neutral nobody)

I'm not far-left or any kind of left. However I don't think Fascism is a left-wing movement. I think it also can be seen as right-wing in that traditionally the Right is nationalist, militarist, and Social Darwinist. Fascism generally glorified the state, conquest, and the strong defeating the weak. That said I don't think it entirely works as Right-wing either as even Cberlet's sources indicate. Also I keep thinking I'll edit "far-left" to be a bit less praising of it, but I don't want to make an article become disputed if I don't have to.--T. Anthony 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yikes! Hey Neutral nobody. some comments. I was objecting to this last entry by Sam Spade:

Several scholars indicate that there are difficulties with seeing fascism as simply or solely a right-wing ideology.(Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber) F. A. Hayek, as well as a few others, go even further then that. They state that these parties are state controled collectivists, and therefore leftwing. The issue of Nazism being far-right or somewhat left is made complex by their history. Before the Night of the Long Knives several of the party's key figures were socialistic, for example the Strasser brothers and Ernst Röhm. These men were to the Left on economic issues and were not generally viewed as religiously or socially to the right either. (Rohm being actively homosexual).

Do you really think that was an NPOV entry? Have you checked the Fascism and ideology page? I created it and did the major edit. I moved much material off several pages, and included left, right, and centrist views--in detail. Just before your post I went there and added this text:

Some libertarian scholars such as F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises are noteworthy dissenters from the idea that fascism is a right-wing movement.

So I am biased? I cite the major centrist scholars of fascism and I am some left-wing crackpot? If I wanted to push POV I would also be citing the Marxist and leftist scholars of fascism, which I do when I write scholarly journal articles and book chapters. Check out the theories of Dave Renton, for example.[3] Here on Wiki I edit with NPOV in mind. I go out of my way to include right-wing libertarian views in an article and according to you I have a vendetta against the right? --Cberlet 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you may be nuetral on wikipedia(and i'm not convinced of that yet), but your non-wiki-articles are biased. ExampleBerlet article You state orginizations that are hate groups, but you also tie in groups that are not 'hard right', as you call them. I have friends who are hard right who are not bigots. There are many hard right groups that are not racists. I'm not nessicarily saying there is intentional bias, sometimes people's bias seeps in, I would consider that. It is hard to believe it isn't there in some form, strong beliefs in anything guide us in everything we do. (Neutral nobody 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Hmm some of that paragraph was by me, maybe all of it. I figured indicating "a few go further" essentially states this is a minority view. And a slightly further out one at that.(I do think calling Fascism left-wing is a bit out there. I think Fascism is just nutty, I'm not sure it fits any traditional left/right axis) And indicating the Strassers had left-wing aspects is accurate. This is stated by people who hate any equating of Nazism with socialism.--T. Anthony 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism/nazism is rigth-wing and far-right. The problem is that many people (specially in US) forget that "right-wing" has nothing to do with "free-market", "limited government", etc.

I'm not even patriotic, but I find that condescending. I don't consider libertarianism or being pro-Capitalist to be necessarily right-wing.--T. Anthony 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The original meaning of "right-wing" is the supporters of monarchy, established church and hereditary aristocracy.

This would work somewhat with Mussolini. He did keep Victor Emmanuel III in power and made a Concordant with the Vatican. Although even there his movement had an element of anti-clericalism, he disbanded Catholic Action against Papal objection, and gave the king only a minimal role.

Yes, fascism don't defend these principles, but share many ideias in common with traditionalists conservatives:

• Authoritarian government

Exists both on the left and right. For that matter there is in least one nation with a monarchy, an established church, and a hereditary aristocracy that isn't deemed Authoritarian. Namely the United Kingdom, but I think most of Scandinavia would also count until the 1990s.

But, in these countries, the King don't have real power. The original "right-wing" supported the power of the King against the Parliament.

• An hierarchical order, where the lower class respect the higher class and the higher classe takes care of the lower classes

How did Fascism do that? Yeah it had a hierarchy, but so did most every nation in the thirties. Britain certainly had a hierarchy of some kind. For that matter so did Stalinist Russia. As for the taking care of the lower classes, again how did it do that? Unless you mean killing the lower classes by genocide or having slogans like "long live death."--T. Anthony 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

All nations have hierarchy. But hierarchy is a central point in fascist (and conservative) idealogy, unlike, for example, communist or libertarian idealogy

• The idea that faith is more important than reason (the diference is that traditionalists prefer traditional religion, and fascists prefer some exoteric and mystical cults)

This could be said of all kinds of regimes. It's vague, it's meaningless.--T. Anthony 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about regimes, I am talking about idealogies. While, for example, communist or libertarian idealogy give much importance to "reason" (even if these 2 idealogies, using "reason", came to opposite conclusions), fascism and conservatism are explicitly "anti-reason".

• Nationalism

Agreed.--T. Anthony 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Even in economy, the traditionalist position ("landowners - good!; money capitalists - bad!") is similar to the fascist position ("industrialists - good!; international bankers - bad!")

Then, I think that fascism is much more closer to traditionalism than, for example, to comunist, and, in conclusion, is clearly in the far-right

BTW, I think that even Hayek did not call fascism "left-wing": I have a vague ideia that he calls fascism "right-wing socialism" --194.65.151.249 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, hayek does not call fascism "right-wing socialism", just try reading his book; The rosd to serfdom. Hayek says the furthest left is totalitarianism and the furthest right you go chaotic anarchy. I follow that line that's why i am a free market centrist. I believe we need limited govenment, but not no government.Thats why I'm not a socialist or a anarchist, not a modern liberal or a modern conservative. (Neutral nobody 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

In this article, Hayek makes much references about a "socialism of the right-wing". ---212.113.164.103 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a response to the above linked article. Here are quotes from that article:

"Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp."

"The doctrines which had guided the ruling elements in Germany for the past generation were opposed not to the socialism in Marxism but to the liberal elements contained in it, its internationalism and its democracy."

"The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning."

He does refer to the socialist left and right coming together , but you have to realize in Hayek's writings and Karl Marx's writings they both mention varying degrees of socialism. On Hayek's left-right line there are on the right side of the spectrum a group of weak socialists, still to the left of the center(or what he called Classical Liberalism or non-socialists for limited government). (Neutral nobody 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

There are any quotation of Hayek were he says that Fascism or National Socialism are "left-wing"? I am saying "left-wing", not "socialist"--212.113.164.103 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think you've managed to show problems in calling Fascism right-wing. Although I think you're getting right-wing confused with conservativism in general. Anyway an aristocratic monarchial state with an authoritarian government that values faith over reason and is Nationalist. This would fit Italy and Spain under Fascism to a degree, but not that well. Surprisingly in many respects it might fit Bhutan pretty well. Although the nations it'd probably fit best are the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia. The problem with Bhutan or SA is I'm not sure how nationalist either is. Saudis are Muslims who believe in loyalty to the Umma, or so I presume. In the 1920s and 1930s I imagine Haile Selassie's Ethiopia fit all this better than the Italy that attacked him.--T. Anthony 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I am talking about idealogies, not about countries

Note to Neutral nobody. Nowhere in my SPLC article do I state that everyone on the political right is a bigot, nor do I believe that to be true, nor have I ever written such a thing. The article also is very clear that not all of the groups I am discussing are "hate groups." Berlet article. It would be refershing if you stopped making statements about me and my work that show an alarming lack of careful research. Not all the claims by right-wingers about me on the Internet are true, especially the material by Horowitz and his gang. Please sign your comments. It's a sort of tradition here on Wiki.--Cberlet 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

mean you said all right wingers

Sorry, I thought I did sign it. Sorry, I didn't mean that you meant all right wing people were bigots, what I meant was you lumped people in that bigot group that didn't belong in that group. David Horowitz's group is not a hate group, but you list it. I have never read any claims from right-wingers; I based all my statements from your articles (Neutral nobody 17:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)).

Who is not signing or at least not writing anonymous. Example: "Again, I am talking about idealogies, not about countries". Who is this? (Neutral nobody 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

This passage is from me (194.65.151.249 and also another IP)--212.113.164.103 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So, Neutral nobody, but then how do you conclude that I called David Horowitz's group a "hate group" when the article specifically did not call David Horowitz's group a "hate group?" The article discusses groups that "have helped spread bigoted ideas into American life." The ones listed with an asterisk are considered "hate groups" by SPLC.--Cberlet 18:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You said on this page, that you were writing about hate groups in your article , and you mention his group in the article. So, I thoght you said you were calling his group a hate group. You are parsing words: "The article discusses groups that "have helped spread bigoted ideas into American life."" is indirectly saying that their group promulgates hate. (Neutral nobody 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

And, if fascism/nazism is not far-right, why, when self-assumed fascist parties (for example, Italian Social Movement) elect MPs, they choose to sit in the far-right?--212.113.164.104 19:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cause modern Facists/nazis are stupid, unlike their intelectual, though deluded forbears. Or mabye, they bought into the same rehtoric as most others have about the topic. Or maybe, thats where they are made to sit. I think its the first and second choice. - neutral nobody

---

Original fascist movements of all forms tried to appeal to right but also appear more progressive than the left and in turn appeal to certain leftist demographics. The radicalized right have clung on to the fascist iconography only because what is unsucessful is always usually relegated to the category of 'reactionary' (anything resurgent from what has formally been vanquished comes across as "reactionary" moreso than revolutionary) though this doesn't have much to do with what a fascism would have done if such movements were historically successful. However, "left" or "right", much like 'black & white', cannot describe any "colouration" of political opinion whatever, it is merely a derisive term only useful for a vulgar simplification as a way to blind demographics to polarize themselves into not thinking for themselves. Any label to Fascism (or for that matter, anything) of 'left' or 'right' will always be coercive and POV, because it is relegating its entire dynamic and all of its 'loyalties' to "this" or "that" with nothing inbetween except for 'more of' "this" or "that" (moderate, extreme, far, etc.). Nagelfar 19:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Right on nagelfer! I mostly agree, I think there is some room for left right labels. Neutral nobody

Again, I repeat my question - there is any quote of Hayek or Mises saying "Fascism is left-wing" (or anything similar)? Yes, Hayek and Mises put fascism and socialism in the same side, but, for I have read, it is not much clear if they are putting fasicm in the "left-wing", or are proposing a political spectrum different from the lefr-right spectrum.--194.65.151.17 12:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in The Road to Serfdom, Hayek puts facism in the left-wing. He does so because he says it is collectivist an socialism. I will have to dig in that book to find it, but I know its there.

I may be dead wrong on what I am about to say, but I believe the communist manifesto in its call to all socialist brethern, mentions national socialism as one of its brethern, as a strand of socialism that uses capiltalism to its socialist ends. I believe Marx and Engles encompass national socialism, but not nazism. A lot of people put national socialism and nazism as the same thing, but they are not. I will re-read The Road to Serfdom and The Communist Manifesto and get back to you. (Neutral nobody 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Yes, you may be dead wrong. There is no refernce to "national socialism" anywhere in the Communist Manifesto, and if there were, it would not have a meaning related to the Nazi usage of the term, which is a strictly post-world-War I usage. I believe that the closest thing to what you are saying that can be found in the Communist Manifesto is the following: "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie." But this is simply a statement that national revolutions are part of the path to proletarian internationalism, a concept that has nothing in common with "national socialism" as that term is now understood, or was understood during the time of the Nazis. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say Marx or Engels called it by the name of National Socialism in the manifesto. I said they mentioned ' in its call to all socialist brethern, mentions national socialism as one of its brethern, as a strand of socialism that uses capiltalism to its socialist ends. I believe Marx and Engles encompass national socialism, but not nazism.' In other words they called to socialists, who embrace capitalism to further the socialists ends or accomplishments, to unite with other socialists. The discription of socialists who embrace capitalism to further their socialist means sounds like how national socialism used capitalism to fit their whims. I don't know if this is mentioned in either the manifecto or the long introduction or in the section written to devote the book. But I know they refer to the different types of socialists and claim that they are all brethern. Neutral nobody

P.S. Hayek strongly believied in the left-right line. He put totaltarianism at the farthest left and anarchy at the farthest right. The more collectivist or controling a regime the further left it was, the more individualist or government-free you were the further right it was. He put nazism the furthest left of even communism, according to his book The Road to Serdom. (Neutral nobody 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

There is, of course, a bit of Humpty Dumptyism in this use of left-right (which may be Hayek's, but I'd sure like to see a precise citation, I don't remember this, but I read him decades ago). By this standard, Louis XIV was a leftist, and Noam Chomsky is on the right. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky is a self professed Socialist anarchist. No such thing. Its an oxy-moron. He is for socialism, he distrusts authoritarian regimes, but to carry out his beliefs you must have an authoritrian regime. He dislikes the authoritarian regimes because they oppose his wordview on war, economics, philosophy. Let's say a theocracy, for example, might conflict with Chompsky's views, but a theocracy is authoritarian and their for socaliast and leftwing. Chompsky probally wouldn't mind an authoritarian regime if his guys were in control. (Neutral nobody

Then, for you, the defenders of absolute monarchy are left-wing, also???--212.113.164.104 15:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In "Why I am not a conservative[4], Hayek wrote "The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third". Don't seems a gteat defense of the rigth-left line.

In a condensedversion of "The Road to Serfdom"[5], the words "right-wing" and "left-wing" does not occur in any point (however, is a condensed version)--81.84.252.170 01:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all the editors who stepped in and insisted on neutrality. Thank you for those who wrote the content which Cberlet reverted, and which I moved in my complex edit. Thank you to anyone and everyone who gives a damn about writing a neutral encyclopedia article, rather than a commie rag editorial. This article is ready for the dispute header to be removed, as far as I am concerned. Please come and help me @ Fascism and ideology / Nazism in relation to other concepts. Sam Spade 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please, can you link the Star Spangled Banner to the above text?--Cberlet 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Add the Star Spangled banner? Cool and the stars and stripes too! I'll supply the jpg. (Neutral nobody 21:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

File:Lincoln18.jpg

This line was removed, because it is POV:

This line was removed, because it is POV: "Strictly speaking this usage is incorrect as libertarians are ultimately liberal in many senses while conservatives are usually defined as against revolutionary changes of the Right or Left. Still it does occur in some quarters."

It could be argued that libertarians are not liberal in many senses, like economics, gun rights, government interference, ect. Or argued that old conservatism is defined that way, but new conservatism is very active in changing what they see as the liberal status quo. You could say conservatives wish to radically alter the left, by hoping they could help make it passe. You could also say that they wish to radically alter the right, so it is fully conservative.(Neutral nobody 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

You should look up what liberal originally meant. It meant the individual having minimal restraint from the state. In Europe minimal economic interference and even gun rights can be called the "classical liberal" or "neoliberal" position. Still the sentence was awkward, if accurate. Whatever works--T. Anthony 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have. It is now called classical liberalismthough. If that is what the author meant, then he should state it as 'ultimately classically liberal', with an internal link to classic liberal, classically liberal or classic liberalism. I don't believe that that is what he meant though. Either, he thinks classic liberalism is the same a modern liberalism(today a.k.a. liberalism), or it was a intentional mislead. I hope it wasn't the second and will have to take him in good faith that it was the first. (Neutral nobody 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

As I wrote it I think I know what I meant. However as I meant classical liberalism, I probably should have said that. Apologies.--T. Anthony 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies on my part, I didn't know it was you who wrote it. cool! (Neutral nobody

No sweat. I was maybe a bit snappish and I'm not 100% certain I wrote it.(Although I'm pretty sure)--T. Anthony 03:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

This article underwent a complicated merge December 2005. The other branch of its history is preserved at Talk:Far right/tributary; despite the talk-space designation, this was originally created in article space, and is preserved mainly to keep a record of the contribution history. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Fascists for themselves

This is a portuguese blog[6]. It is a fascist blog (the name means “fascism at the net”). It links to Italian self-proclaimed fascist parties. Many posts of the blog are essays written several years (or decades) ago.

The post: it is a text from 1938. I know that 99% of you don’t read or speak Portuguese, but is a text saying that republic and democracy does not work and only a hereditary King can rule a country: “A Família é possível, porque o seu chefe é hereditário; uma vez que se introduza na Família o sistema electivo, a Família morre. Ora as Nações não são mais do que Famílias em ponto grande” (“The Family is possible because is chief is hereditary; if we introduce the elective system in the Family, the Family dies. Well, the Nations are nothing more than Families in big size”). The author of the text, Alfredo Pimenta, was a Monarchist, who supported Germany during WWII.

Another post of the blog[7]. The issue is a lament for the “absence of the right-wing” (“a ausencia da direita”); apparently, the author considers himself a right-winger…

Another portuguese blog[8]. It is also a pro-fascist blog – look to the pictures: Ezra Pound, Celine, Abel Bonard, Robert Brasillach, Drieu La Rochelle, Julius Evola, Arno Brecker (there is also Hemingway, but these is because the author is an aficionado of the bullfight)…

The post: an article criticizing “the empty rhetoric of the left-wing” about the riots in France. Should be noted that the author, Bruno Santos, is one of the leaders of the National Renewal Party, a party with strong conections with the Front National of Le Pen (who claims to be right-wing)

The site of the “New Rigth”[9]. Many texts are from or about Evola, Carl Schmitt and Oswald Spengler, fellow-travelers of fascism (remember, the title of the site is “New Rigth – Nouvelle Droite”!)

An article about Spengler[10]: “Prussian socialism is thus essentially «not concerned with nominal property, but rather with techniques of administration --- The Old Prussian method was to legislate the formal structure of the total productive potential while guarding carefully the right to property and inheritance, and to allow so much freedom to personal talent, energy, initiative, and intellect as one might allow a skilled chess player who had mastered all the rules of the game. This is largely how it was done with the old cartels and syndicates, and there is no reason why it could not be systematically extended to work habits, work evaluation, profit distribution, and the internal relationship between planners and executive personnel. Socialisation means the slow, decades-long transformation of the worker into an economic civil-servant, of the employer into a responsible administrative official with extensive powers of authority, and of property into a kind of old-style hereditary fief to which a certain number of rights and privileges are attached.»”

Aparently, the model of National Socialism (or “German Socialism”) is not the left-wing socialism, but the feudal order.

From these articles, seems to me that: a) it is usually fascists consider themselves “right-wing” (in reality, I don’t know of any self-proclaimed fascist calling himself “left-wing”); and b) It is a great tradition of close cooperation (and ideological juxtaposition) between fascists and the traditional conservatives, monarchists and nostalgical of the feudal Old Order. If this is not “far-rigth”, what is “far-rigth”???--81.84.81.90 02:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

First Spengler was ultimately alienated from Nazism and not a leader in it. Also I agree they're certainly willing to use traditional conservatives and monarchist. I just disagree that that makes the two things identical. Many "traditional" types in Italy and Germany considered were suspicious of fascists as radicals who would upset the existing order. Much of their support in those quarters came from fear of socialism and communism. And to think the Nazis would sincerely want feudalism is either taking a few films they did as literal ideology, or is wish fulfillment on your part or is just blatantly ahistorical. Lastly modern fascists don't necessarily represent the actual ruling kind. Still all that said I agree fascism is far-right. I just think that we've moved beyond 1848 so "far right" now means something different then it did in the revolutionary days.--T. Anthony 05:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is not if Spengler was pro-Nazi, but if the Nazis was pro-Spengler (and I think they was).

I am not also saying that Fascism and Traditional Conservatism was identical, I am only saying that they are closely related.

In republican countries, like Portugal, Spain (in the 30), France and Germany, the nexus between Monarchists/Traditionalists and Fascists were very strong:

in Portugal, the National-Syndicalists were founded, in the 30s, by the former member of Integralismo Lusitano, a monarchist group; before that, in the 20s, both monarchists, fascists and Catholic activists were in the “Cruzada Don Nuno Alvares”, a group opposed to the Republic; after that, in the 60s, the fascist group “Movimento Jovem Portugal” were founded by former member of the “Junta Escolar Monárquica”. The main book of the leader of MJP, Antonio José de Brito (a self-proclaimed fascist), is “Our Masters – the Guidebook of Counter-Revolution”, a book about the De Maistre, Bonald, etc.(in these book, he says that the fascist tradition is different from reactionary tradition, but, simultaneousy, recognize the influence of these thinkers)

in Spain, the Falange was founded by José António Primo de Rivera, the son of the conservative military dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera, and many of his first members were disciples of the traditionalist group Action Española (today, Falange is for the republic, but only adopt this position when the King Juan Carlos begins to democratize the country)

in France, the Camelot du Roy, the youth wing of the monarchist Action Française, turns massively to fascism after 1934. Charles Maurras, the leader of the AF, was an admirer of Mussolini (but not of Hitler)

in Germany, the Nazis were inspired by the Conservative Revolution and by the “socialism of the chair” (a group of intellectuals who combined the defence of monarchy with economic planning)--212.113.164.104 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I think they dovetail into each other and have often been willing to feed off each other, in least to some degree. I'm just not convinced they are as interconnected as you believe. Especially in the case of Nazism because as I recall many conservative aristocrats were uncomfortable with the street-violence and radical social change the Nazis wanted. I think that's part of why they purged the SA and set up things like the Protestant Reich Church. In the case of Italian Fascism it's closer, but there's their connection to the Futurist movement and generally revolutionary nature that makes me skeptical. "Iberian Fascism", Spain and Portugal, or Clerical Fascism I could see as just fitting though.--T. Anthony 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth is that "left" and "right" are leftist terms. We can't very well let them set the terms of debate, now can we? ;) Sam Spade 04:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• You really don't think that saying "the turth is..." and expect people to believe it, do you? The truth is Sam Spade is stupid - see what I did right there? Now you have to believe it because I said "the truth is...". If ignorance is bliss, then so blissful are the predicates that happily lack a supporting premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortello (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned why facists call themselves rightwings, cause they are stupid and they believe the propaganda that the non-racist socialists, who think they are true libertarians or liberals(classic liberals) and think that Hayek and true liberals(classic liberals)and liberatarians are right wingers. Original facists, though nutcases, were intelectuals, but neo-facists are stupid on top of crazy. Neutral nobody

I don't agree w almost any of that. There are a number of reasons why people call themselves "right", and their are a variety of inteligences behind the "fascist far right". Le Pen, for example, is nobodys fool, nor is Silvio Berlusconi, who has some very interesting conections. What do you know about the international third position? Sam Spade 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If Spengler was pro-Nazi, then why did he sharply criticize the Nazis in his last book, The Hour of Decision? If the Nazis were pro-Spengler, why did they ban that book and any mention of his name in the press? And why did George F. Kennan and Henry Kissinger consider Spengler such an important influence on their Cold War containment policies if he was so dangerously radical? The latter figure was Jewish. Why did Northrop Frye cite Spengler as such an important influence, not only on his work but on all writers and historians? We are to believe that this brilliant man was a Nazi because he was generally right-wing?Shield2 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

distinctions

I saw a nice college tele-course last night that had alot to say on useful sociological distinctions (as opposed to false left-right dichotomies). One was individualism vs. collectivism. The other was legalist vs. kinship based societies. Sam Spade 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Individualism vs. Collectivism is the most proper left-right scale. Of course with Individualism on the right, unless you want the Left movements (Communist etc.) to become Right movements. Of course a scale based on Individualism vs. Collectivism will put Nazism, Fascism and Islamism side by side of Communism and Collective Anarchism despite being mutually incompatible. 83.92.119.42 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

However, individualism vs collectivism is not the most widely accepted left-right axis, partly because it is historically incorrect. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research, or for pushing particular points of view - we should report all significant points of view. Therefore, we cannot use the individualism vs collectivism spectrum as the left-right spectrum. Αργυριου (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is one of several left-right scales in use. Take a look at Wikipedias article on political spectrum. The Individual vs. collectivism is a very common left-right scale and has been used for many decades by libertarians. It is historically incorrect not to use it as well (the Old Left became the New Right when Socialism emerged and the Old Right became the New Centrum). The multiplicity (as introduced by the Socialist Left) of the left-right scale is a major problem. However that scale is not really what this article is about, though some criticism probably should be mentioned. Something a la "Some alleged Far Right movements do not consider other alleged far right movements as far right, but rather as Far Left). It should be made clear that two movements labeled Far Right can be as far from eachother as they can be from the Far Left - because some Far Right movements are actually Far Left in most issues. As it is now this article is merely marxist propaganda. 83.92.119.42 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In modern terms, the meaning of "Right" and "Left" is mostly economic, ie big government/small government. In a Western context, Republicans/conservatives/classical economists would be the Right and Democrats/liberals/Keynesians would be the Left. The former basically believe in a direct relationship between the people and the economy, in which the government should not interfere more than necessary. The latter believe in a direct relationship between the people and the government, at the expense of the business sector when necessary.

A more extreme vision is Libertarianism on the Right (the government shouldn't interfere at all, or have any duties other than the military and police) and Socialism on the Left (characterized not by regulation but by out and out nationalization of vital industries). Then the most extreme visions are Communism on the Left (the government controls everything), and the model that existed in late nineteenth century America or present day Japan, where the business sector (robber barons or keiretsu) basically controls everything and the government does as ordered by them.

On this strictly economic scale, Fascists and Nazis are actually right in the center, between Keynesian and classical economics (they believed in the welfare state and in concepts like military Keynesianism, but they also respected private enterprise and private property, and denied a lot of rights to workers). Remember though that the terms right and left also have meanings other than economic, and in those senses they were pretty clearly on the right... 213.181.226.21 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Current lead paragraph seems a bit weak to me, also a bit POV.

The term far-right refers to the relative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. Since, by definition, most people are not far from the center, the terms "far-right" and "far-left" are used to say that someone is an extremist, not in tune with the majority. "Far-right" is thus usually a pejorative term. Due to this circumstance, the division between far-left and far-right extremists can sometimes be difficult to discern. The rhetoric and positions advocated (Populism, revolution, social unrest, violence) can often appear very similar.

"…by definition, most people are not far from the center". Not necessarily: consider the Weimar Republic, or the Second Spanish Republic. Both were torn apart by polarization and the lack of a strong center.

What is going on in the fourth sentence: Due to what circumstance? That the word is usually pejorative? That makes no sense. Does "Due to this circumstance" actually carry any meaning here, or can we just drop it?

"…the division between far-left and far-right extremists can sometimes be difficult to discern." Seems POV. I happen to agree with it, but it still seems POV. Can't we cite someone on this, if we want to say this?

It seems to me that if we want to talk intelligibly about similarities between far-right and far-left politics:

1. We need to track down citable material of scholars pointing out the similarities, and if only the theoreticians of totalitarianism are being asked to carry all this water, maybe we should just link to totalitarianism and not try to replicate the arguments here.
2. We need to discuss similarity of tactics and ideology, above all the cocksureness and the willingness to resort to violence.
3. We need to discuss similarity of outcomes, that both far-left and far-right once in power tend to form dictatorships or, at best, plebiscitory democracies. The project of forming an elite tends to be explicit on the right; on the left, it tends to be disguised as the need to form revolutionary cadre.

Obviously, in those last two points, I've indulged my own views. That can't go in the article without finding someone citable who says it. Right now, all we have is an uncited remark ("The rhetoric and positions advocated (Populism, revolution, social unrest, violence) can often appear very similar," that I'm not sure belongs there. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also had concerns, particularly w that "most people are not far from center" bit. Center of what? "Most" people? Rather than try to cite this stuff, lets just keep rewording it until we have an agreeable intro, one any reasonable, informed party can accept. Disputed claims requiring citations don't make for the best intro.

I don't see leftists as being more able to disguise their intents, but maybe thats just me? Think about the communist party oligarchs, corrupt union leaders and so forth. All that "power to the workers" stuff is bunk, both sides make such populist claims. Hitler was very big on jobs and bread. I guess maybe leftists believe it more, since even lowlevel right-wingers generally arn't looking for equality anyways...

In any case, its clear to me that there isn't much substantive difference between these general catagories of extremists, despite their rhetoric, but as I have said I'm not that enthused w the current wording either. Sam Spade 01:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a kicking, have a look. Sam Spade 02:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some doubts about "eugenics" being a "leftist concept".

Perhaps the sentence "The far right has often been associated with social and religious conservatism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvanism and economic libertarianism, but this varies wildly." should be "The far right has often been associated with social and religious conservatism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvanism and economic proteccionism, but this varies wildly.": in Europe, the far-right is, absolutely, anti-"economic libertarianism" (and I suppose that, even in the US, the paleo-conservatives are proteccionists)--81.84.81.121 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I edited accordingly. Re: Eugenics, you may want to look into its history more closely, esp. planned parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. Sam Spade 06:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopelessly muddled - merge

This discussion was moved to Talk:Right-wing politics. Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realize I was starting the merge discussion on the wrong page.--Cberlet 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In sorting this out, note that a non-trivial article Extreme right was redirected here without merging any of its content, which included several academic citations. When someone sorts this all out, they will probably want to salvage at least some of the lost material. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats completely inaccurate. Sam Spade 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's sure what looks to me to have happened. If not, could you elucidate? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look @ [11] and [12]. I made sure all the factual info, links and book citations were merged. Chip deleted much of that. What I did not merge was this POV mess:

"The Extreme right or Ultra right is the term used by most scholars to discuss right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, militant racial supremacists and religious bigots, Fascists, neo-fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis."

Because it was variously POV, redundant, and factually inaccurate. As I have said all along, Cite "most scholars" saying anything, much less these generalisations. Sam Spade 02:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I must have looked at the state where the material was deleted. I didn't realize that the material was moved and later deleted, I just followed up the redirect and didn't find the material. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not what happened. Sam Spade rewrote the text and made it innaccurate. See:[13]. I then deleted the rewritten and now inaccurate text rather than have a text that misrepresented what the cites I added covered. The cites point out that the term is used by different authors to cover three different ranges of right-wing politics, not that some scholars use the term to cover all three different ranges mentioned in the three bulleted paragraphs. That was self-contradictory and false. I leave it up to others to make any changes. I am currently refraining from text edits, but I will step in to discuss claims that I think are false on talk pages.--Cberlet 12:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited his text. If he had made a counter edit (rather than a revert or deletion of a block of text) progress could have been made. This is a Collaborative editing editing project, mr. berlet. Sam Spade 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, please go back and read the two edits. You edited what I wrote to say something completely different.[14]. The problem is that originally what I wrote was cited to several specific books: [15]:

• Betz, Hans-Georg and Stefan Immerfall, eds. 1998. The New Politics of the Right: Neo-Populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical Right-wing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St. Martins Press,.
• Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian Right, the Far Right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

You rewrote the text, rewrote the subheading, and the end result was a set of claims that were not only not accurate, but also mis-cited to the books I had cited to buttress my original paragraph. Your edit is to collaboration, what the Visigoths were to non-violent civil disobedience.

And please do not refer to me as "mr. berlet."

Also, how can I pass up this opportunity to note that the original character of Sam Spade was created by a lifelong socialist.--Cberlet 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, why, why...

With a {{mergefrom}} tag sitting on this article, and a {{mergeto}} sitting on Far right—a noun, and therefore a suitable title for an article, unlike the adjective far-right—did Sam Spade turn the article with the acceptable title into a redirect to the one that violates the MoS. Sam, can you explain your action? Was this just a mistake, or did you really have a reason to do this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you an admin, Jmabel? If so, move this page to Far right. That would be fine. They have already been merged together, and I certainly won't object to that. Sam Spade 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Great! -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Prior to this rather complicated move, the only discussion at Talk:Far Right (where this is now being moved) was as follows:

"Note: a discussion involving this page and its future is taking place at Talk:Right-wing politics. Please leave this page here and do not redirect it until that discussion is completed. Thanks.--Cberlet 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And this notice:

Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

-- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

OK, now that the page has been renamed, why the dispute header? What is being disputed, why and by whom? Sam Spade 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, dispute header removed. Sam Spade 18:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Far Right Party?

What qualifies? Christian Heritage Party of Canada? Or maybe Nationalist Party of Canada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.116.198 (talk • contribs) 1 April 2006.

Does Canada have to have a party to label far right? Feeling left out?  ;-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which Canadian parties would qualify, but I don't believe the Reform Party of Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada should be included. Reform and Conservative are/were indeed on the right side of centre, and not anyone that I want running the country (sigh), but they are less right than George Bush's Republicans are. Including them on a list that has Aryan Nations and Vlaams Blok is inaccurate and insulting. Now, if someone wanted to redefine the list to include the Republicans, then I'd agree that Reform should also be added. Thraesja 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There did not appear to be a mention of either Reform or the Conservative Party of Canada in the reference cited, so I removed them. I'm beginning to suspect that Ignatz and Mudde are not reliable sources, but whoever added the major Canadian parties of the Right based on those citations appears to be making stuff up. Argyriou (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the Canadian entires because there doesn't seem to be any appropriate examples. Perhaps this page should be semi-protected so that those who cannot prevent their political bias from influencing their edits can be prevented from doing so? --70.48.217.65 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the current political parties labeled far right section?

Remove this section? Wikipedia is not a political blog... Intangible 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the list. Intangible 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added POV tag. This list is POV as hell, and putting the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party of Canada together with those other parties entails a POV bad company fallacy. Intangible 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely left-biased and very POV. The entire article is rubbish 83.92.119.42 08:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New List

I have started a new list, with citations. Please ensure that all new additions are cited to a reliable source. Please note that basing this list on terminology used in other entries on Wikipedia is not considered apparopriate--even when Wiki administrators do it.--Cberlet 04:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This list is inherently biased, and thus POV. The point is that labeling of these party only serves a purpose in academic discourse, beyond that, it is mostly used for its psychological effect. Creating this list entails that there should be common theme throughout those listed parties, which does not exist. Even political science scholars point out that: "it is suggested that scholarly focus on extreme-right politics has remained constraint by placing an excessive emphasis on conceptual and taxonomic debates...It was the dominance of the former taxonomic and conceptual concerns over the extreme-right paradigm that led one scholar to note that, 'the serious scientific study of right-wing extremism is still in its infancy at best' (Mudde, 1996). Mudde went on to label the extreme-right paradigm's near-obsession with taxonomy as the 'war of words'. This observation is equally applicable at the dawn of the twenty-first century as it was in the mid-1990s and to a large extent the situation remains relatively unchanged."

A scientific study in its infancy should not be used to make exaggerated claims, and certainly not to be relied on a just pointing to a (false) taxonomical nomer. Clearly if labels have different meaning for different political science scholars, one should not be tempted to claim that any such labeling is correct or factual; yes there are political parties that can be described rightly so as being xenophobe or nationalist, but this does not mean every every party on this list has those characteristics, but the list does make for a inherent guilty by association. Furthermore, almost no comparative studies exist on a large scale, making cross-country comparisons between parties (such as the current list) useless. The USA for example does not have a large social-democratic party, while France does, so a social-democrat would be quickly called "far left" in the USA, while in France one might describe a social-democrat as "centrist," who knows? As Mudde has noted, the use of the "extreme right" label does not appear in the definition of the concept. If there is no concept behind "extreme right" or "extreme left," why use the terms just for labeling? It does not serve a purpose at all, and in Wikipedia articles on political parties themselves there is enough room to describe the mischief of political parties and their ideology. Intangible 06:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No matter how impressed any single Wikipedia editor is with their own intelligence and original research, it does not trump properly cited scholarly material. Intangible should feel feel free to start a blog or write a book on the subject, but further attempts to impose idiosyncratic POV through tendentious campaigns of loading discussion pages with pointless arguments until other editors wear out will be further evidence of the disruption for which Intangible was put on probation in the first place.--Cberlet 13:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet. You are not using any scholarly material at all. You are only using low quality far-left sources with zero credibility. Why isn't there a list over Far Left parties? Despite the far-left movements actually describing themselves as far left (like the Danish Unity List which is self-declared far left) ? You are extremely POV and this article is against the intention of Wikipedia. Stop using Wikipedia for your own political crusade. 83.92.119.42 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be a general purpose encyclopedia; there is no denying that the labeling of political parties is widely done by the media, the political pundit class, voters, and even politicians themselves. To take an overly academic viewpoint is to deny reality and make wikipedia less useful to ordinary readers. Provided a party is labeled as "Far right" by an independent third party source, it should be so identified. Disputes about identification can be reported on the party's individual article (assuming of course that you are reporting the views of others). Neutral point of view means describing all significant points of view on a subject, not neutering the article. In other words, describe the fact that some pundits characterize a party as "Far-right" while other pundits or the party dispute it; don't pretend the characterization doesn't exist. Thatcher131 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 writes: "Provided a party is labeled as "Far right" by an independent third party source, it should be so identified.". ya know there are "independent third party" scolarly, verifiable and reliable sources who identify the US republican party as far right. Will they be included in your list? --SoLittleTime 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What would those scholarly sources be? Saying you have sources without producing them does not advance matters. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

merger

Maybe this page should be merged into Right-wing politics or Left-Right politics? I know that User:Cberlet and User:Jmabel would support at least the first option. I would support both, but have a preference for the latter one. Intangible 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This claim about my position on this matter is simply false. Here is what I posted on Right-wing politics about the proposed merger of Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics into Left-Right politics:

[...the merger of Right-wing politics into] Left-Right politics makes some sense, but since there are large bodies of scholarly work on the "far left" and "far right" I certainly would oppose merging them.

As in I oppose merging them into any other page, as should have been clear.--Cberlet 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the confusion came from your statement "Far-Right should probably be merged into this page so that the fact that there is huge disagreement where the boundaries are can be discussed." at Talk:Right-wing_politics#New_Idea Intangible 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are several possible reasonable breakdowns to fewer articles, but not all breakdowns are reasonable, and there is more material than will fit in one article. I gather that several people wish to decrease the number of articles.

Current arrangement:

• Left-right politics: an overall survey
• Left-wing politics
• Far left
• Right-wing politics
• Far right

Breakdown 1

• Left-right politics: an overall survey
• Left-wing politics: a broad article with everything from early liberalism and social liberalism to hard-left Stalinism and left-anarchism
• Right-wing politics: a broad article with everything from economic liberalism to fascism and traditionalist monarchism

Breakdown 2

• Left-right politics: an overall survey
• Far left: covering only leftist ideologies that reject such liberties as freedom of speech, broadly based electoral democracy, etc. Typically Leninists, some of them via Stalin or Mao. Probably a few of the more extreme left anarchists also belong here.
• Far right: covering only rightist ideologies that reject such liberties as freedom of speech, broadly based electoral democracy, etc. A slightly more heterogeneous group than the far left: monarchist revivalists, fascists of various stripes, ultra-nationalists, theocrats.

- Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very helpful and constructive. I prefer Breakdown 2, but both are reasonable suggestions.--Cberlet 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much none of the parties in your POV list would even be covered in Jmabel's Breakdown 2. Intangible 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes it tricky is that a lot of these parties talk out of both sides of their mouths. The British National Party, for example, seem to vary from year to year (if not from minute to minute) as to whether they are more akin to Margaret Thatcher or Oswald Moseley. Even the Spanish Falange occasionally talk a good game in terms of democracy, but, for that matter, so did Hitler. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did the Official Opposition in the Canadian parliament talk out of its mouth as well? Intangible 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE LISTS*********

How terribly biased to list "far right" parties and organizations, but not 'far left', which have been removed from that article. Perhaps Wikipedia should be the first entry under "far left organizations" based on the bias they are displaying in these bookend articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

POV, again

I see that the section Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right" is labeled as POV. What is the problem? - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See that above two sections. Basically the list is POV because each author has a different concept of "far right" or "extreme right". I removed the same kind of list at far left, but somehow that was not criticized. Intangible 08:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a longstanding dispute in which Intangible claims that slight variation in terminology used by social scientists allows Intangible to delete the political characterisation by social scientists of a variety of political groups from Wikipedia. The issue was taken to arbitration, and although on probation, Intangible continues to make the same claims on multiple pages. See: here, here, and here.--Cberlet 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We now have two scholars from which this list is derived. Editors need to be careful to not add parties in a way that misrepresents the scholarly cites. I am removing the POV tag, since it has been demonstrated that it is without foundation.--Cberlet 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, the tags have been removed - tendentious disruption noted.--Cberlet 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tags

I'm inserting the POV tags again. My main concern is that each scholar who does make a comparative analysis of political parties between some countries uses one's own pet definition of what is being studied, and then not even as determinant of what is being studied, but as abstraction and speculation. A list of political parties in this article would imply POV original research, and is currently even without context. Intangible 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Far Right, Far Left, Far Whatever

It's all the same thing. I think political wings as more of a circle. Far left and Far right are right next to each other at the top of the circle. They both run on practically the same core beliefs. Just different excuses for their beliefs.--Zeph1 23:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What was the real difference between Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot? - ClemsonTiger 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

easy; moustache, moustache, none, none... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Hitler was to most radical anti-communist in world history, the other tree were communists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.106 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i reckon whether you're far right or far left is much simpler than deep economic or social policies, if you look at the principles of the British National Party you'll find they want only white british people in England, whereas a far leftie wouldn't be hostile at all towards immigration. I am one of the two and someone i know is the other, we often argue and i find that this seems to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearfreid (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of parties list

Removed list & created page for this because these parties are listed as Nationalst & Right Wing & this article is only Far Right. They are no listed under these other article heading so a separate list is viable. Please see my reasoning here. Robert C Prenic 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don`t think there are pressing reasons to split the article at this point. --Isolani 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. The changed title covers a much broader spectrum of parties than those on the "far right", and thus even if your list article has any useful existence, this article should retain the well-referenced list which is limited to "far right" parties, and not just those which happen to be "right wing" or "nationalist". I'm restoring the list to this article, again. Argyriou (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Political Parties labeled Far Right, Extreme Right, Nationalist or Right-wing at Articles for Deletion. Argyriou (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

There are currently seven parties on the list which do not have citations for being called "far-right". I'm fairly certain that for most of them, the description is accurate enough, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources to back up such a description. Can someone please find citations for these parties?

• Austria – BZÖ (Bündnis Zukunft Österreich - Alliance for the Future of Austria)
• Croatia - Croatian Pure Party of Rights (HČSP)
• Netherlands - Nieuw Rechts - (New Right)
• Poland - Unia Polityki Realnej (UPR, Real Politics Union)
• Poland - Liga Polskich Rodzin (LPR, League of Polish Families)
• Serbia - Serbian Radical Party (SRS)
• Sweden - Nationaldemokraterna (National Democrats)

I'm willing to wait a little while for references for these, unlike for people who add the Republican Party (United States) or Japan's Liberal Democratic Party to this list. Those I'll delete on sight, as those parties are not "far-right", and anyone who calls them such is not a reliable source. Argyriou (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that the U.S. Republicans are not originally far right, quite a few of its powerful party members are, and I feel it should be seriously reconsidered whether or not we label the Republicans as far-right or not. Far right-based parties include values of conservatism, capitalism, Religious Right, nationalism, and militarism, as stated here. Even this page itself states that far right parties border on conservatism, and it is the general consensus that the U.S. Republicans go further than conservatism, but are not fascists, either. Furthermore, I will also agree with 83.92.119.42, below me, that this article is very biased. 68.35.65.211 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources for the idea that the Republican Party is "far-right" as the term is commonly used - not the way left-wing whingers use it - then I'll consider not deleting it on sight. But for purposes of this list, no left-wing source is reliable, as they tend to call everyone on the right "far-right" or worse. Argyriou (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More which need citations. The Danish one escaped my earlier check, the Turkish ones I've added based on their addition to the other list and reading the articles, but they really do need citations:

• Denmark - Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party)
• Turkey- MHP Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi)
• Turkey- BBP Great Union Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi)

Argyriou (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dansk Folkeparti isn't far right or anything close to that. It is a centrum party, in many ways more left than right (IMHO that's bad - that's with my left-right scale :P ). You shouldn't let your personal opinion colorize your work on Wikipedia. This article is terribly POV. 83.92.119.42 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Swiss People's Party

This is just silly. The same reference used for the Swiss People's Party, calls Francisco Franco a fascist [16] (which is a-historic), and includes List Pim Fortuyn and Livable Netherlands [17] in their guide as well, which is plain stupid. Livable Netherlands was founded by a former Labour Party board member Jan Nagel, and also Henk Westbroek, a VARA radio broadcaster. How can anyone take this article serious. Intangible2.0 12:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Intangible2.0 is undiplomatic he is right. The SVP and LN do not belong on this list. C mon 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Intangible2.0, Franco wasn't a Fascist, huh?? What planet do YOU live on you revisionist pig?! ElizabethR

Franco was a reactionary, not a fascist. Franco rounded up all the real fascists in Spain and volunteered them for service with Germany along the Russian Front, so they wouldn't make trouble for him at home. In particular, Franco was not a revolutionary, while Fascism is a revolutionary ideology, just like its ideological sibling, Communism. Αργυριου (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you will find sources to be about 50-50 on whether Franco qualifies as fascist. It comes down to which definition of fascism you use. There is no one universally accepted definition of the term, and Franco's regime was very strong on some aspects (one-party state, corporatism, glorification of the military, Führerprinzip, anti-liberalism, anti-communism) and weak on others (especially in its later years it slowly became more economically and even intellectually open; while nationalist, it wasn't as violently so as is typical for fascist regimes; it was more deeply conservative than is typical of fascism, in that it promised—and delivered—an eventual return to hereditary monarchy, and it upheld the role of the Catholic Church). I'm sure there is more that could be said; that's more or less off the top of my head. Franco's regime was probably most fascistic during and immediately after the Spanish Civil War, and slowly became less so (not too surprising when he had to seek alliances with NATO rather than the Axis). - Jmabel | Talk 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Party listing

The page on far left had a party listing that was removed. There should be some consensus on this. I think the term is inherently POV, designed as a pejorative label, and shouldn't be on this page. I do not have particularly strong feelings on it, but either this list should be removed from here, or one should be added to far left. Please can you make up your minds. Nssdfdsfds 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As the far left is much more prone to factionalism, a list of far-left parties will be much less manageable than a list of far-right parties. I don't care whether far left has a list or maintains a separate list; the list in this article has been manageable so far, so there's no need to remove it. Αργυριου (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The number of alleged far-right parties are no less than the number of fascistoid-parties on the left. Individualists cannot see the difference between Castro and Hitler. Both are oppressors in the eyes of the individual. Nobody agrees on the right-left scale, nor on the definition of far-right vs. far-left so there shouldn't be such a list. It is extremely POV. 83.92.119.42 08:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a list of opinions posing as fact. You could add the Republican Party to the list, I'm sure you'd find a source to say that they were far-right. However, there is widespread consensus that they are not far-right, and they would be removed from the list. Therefore, it's quite clear that the list here is intended to be a listing of parties that factually *are* far-right. In other words, the listing is a list of parties that there is consensus are in fact of the far-right. So it is insufficient to simply say 'here's a source that shows some people think this party is far-right', as the list is intended to show parties that *are* far right. From the Constitution Party page I don't see evidence that they are unambiguously of the far right. Nssdfdsfds 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to find people stating as an opinion that the Republican Party is far-right, but none of the people who've added them to the list have provided a reference, and I doubt that a reliable source could be found for that contention. There are reliable sources for calling the Constitution Party far-right, including Fox News (which due to their political inclination, would be less likely than a purely neutral source to label a party or person "far-right"). Αργυριου (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution Party has no connection to the Far Right of Europe. The US equivalent would be a 1990s version of the Populist Party, which was somehow connected to Willis Carto. I think it became something called the American Nationalist Union and ceased functioning as a political party. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution Party is properly listed here with a credible source. Personal opinions of editors do not count in this discussion. What matters is the fact of the use of the term (or a stronger one) in describing The Constitution Party that apppears in a credible published source. These continued deletions are clearly disruptive and will be reported if they continue. Please learn and follow basic Wiki editing guidelines.--Cberlet 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Far Right" has different meanings; comparing the CP to the BNP or NF is a stretch. They don't acknowledge one another or have any connection, as the Eurorightists do. Polemics in credible publications are still not RS (and I find it odd that Chip Berlet thinks Fox News is a "credible published source.") If you want to keep the hit list, have a consistent criteria. Please read WP:A, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at your earliest convenience. Yakuman (数え役満) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have the common Wiki courtesy of refering to me by my editing name. I recognize numerous conservative and right-wing media outlets and authors as "credible" and WP:RS here on Wikipedia. The debate over terminology pops up over and over. It is not a trump card. The issue here is citing credible sources. In this case, a right-wing source calling the Constitution Party far right or extreme right is certainly significant. --Cberlet 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That you are Chip Berlet is certainly on point, since you do not hide your identity. You are a professional conspiracy theorist and your edits reflect that POV. There's no rule against it, but it can be noted. Don't take it personally. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "professional conspiracy theorist" ??? --Cberlet 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're a veteran professional conspiracy theorist, sort of a left-wing version of those guys on shortwave radio. My point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should contain only material that complies with its content policies. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia may be subject to a conflict of interest. WP:COI Yakuman (数え役満) 03:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

I removed the {{or}} template from the article, because there was no discussion in the talk page which claimed that any significant amount of this article is original research. People keep re-inserting the template without specifying what in this article is original research. Stop it. If you're going to claim that this article has original research, tell the rest of us what part of the article is original research. If you can't do that, you're just vandalising the article. Αργυριου (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no criteria here for what counts as "far right". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a WP:SOAPBOX. You can't just use this free encyclopedia as a base to attack your political opponents, right or left. This is an open city, WP:NPOV. We are not here to restate the conclusions of one political faction. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are not... propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." WP:SOAPBOX.

Also, do not threaten other editors' GF efforts with bogus allegations of vandalism. See WP:HARASS, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

"Vandalism is not... making bold edits... Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else." - so even if the edits were universally opposed, which they are not, it wouldn't be vandalism as one clearly believes that what he is doing is the right thing for the article. "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.".

I have moved the tag and added another, placing them at specific sections. Do not remove a validly placed tag.

Yakuman (数え役満) 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's about time someone actually supported the claim of "original research". However, sticking the {{or}} template on the list is reaslly unsupportable. Every single item in that list is sourced, usually with multiple sources. The original list was from two specific sources, which pretty much obviates the claim of original research. Mudde and Ignazi did the original research which led to the list.

As the earlier section reads like an essay, at least at the beginning, I've moved the {{or}} there, as it's possible that section may be, in part, original research. The list clearly is not OR. Αργυριου (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's OR in that there is no criteria for selection in the compilation as a whole. It is purely perjorative. It can't be a list of someone's least favorite political groups. If there were two or three obvious examples, they might be included as examples. But this big long list is unencyclopedic soapboxing. The rest of the article belings in a dictionary. Stop removing the tag! Yakuman (数え役満) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The criterion stated is Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right". The requirement for reliable sources, which has been enforced on this list pretty throroughly (every single entry has sources, most, more than one), means that not every group which the far-left dislikes qualifies, as far-left sources are generally inherently unreliable, especially when it comes to labeling of others as far-right. Please show how the list does any of the following (copied from WP:OR

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

In particular, pay attention to the "without attributing ... to a reputable source".

I've cleaned up the essay in the Usage section, and moved the {{or}} tag there, as it still needs sources to show that it is not someone's original research or synthesis. Αργυριου (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The different medias are not reliable sources for anything but quoting statements of people. Using 5-liners from centrum-left and far-left medias are inappropriate. reliable sources are 70-page reports from universities dissecting the parties and their policies - in details. Anything but such thoroughly drafted reports is unreliable. (Forgot IP) 83.92.119.42 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The list

I see that Parties labeled as "Far Right" or "Extreme Right" includes only Central and Western European parties. This is too western-centric. We need to include other parties (e.g., that party responsible for that murder in Turkey). Part Deux 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Look through the history - there were one or two parties in Turkey listed, but removed for lack of citation. The United States Constitution Party was listed, but removed for bad reasons. Feel free to add any other parties where you can find a citation in a reputable publication which labels the party "far-right" or "extreme right". On this particular issue, far-left sources are not reliable; this includes any communist or socialist or "progressive" (in the modern American sense) outfit. If they think Noam Chomsky is the best thing since sliced bread, they're not reliable sources for labeling parties "far right". Αργυριου (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Αργυριου. Note to editor who deleted Centrum parties: Please do NOT remove properly cited groups from list based on disagreement with published source. This violates basic Wiki policies. --Cberlet 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CBerlet, an undocumented claim from leftist BBC News doesn't qualify as documentation. The term "far right" is a communist term used to describe anything the Left is against. Blending several incompatible views on one scale is inappropriate (read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Political_spectrum#Multi-axis_models ). The list has been renamed to " Parties alleged to be "Far Right" or "Extreme Right" ". 83.92.119.42 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the BBC clearly has some left wing issues (though not as bad as some media), it seems to be a fairly reliable source on this type of matter. Cberlet, I would suggest you try to find another source to help out this situation; because if there are multiple sources alleging as much, it would be easier to support. Part Deux 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro as an Example of Far-Right?

"The label far right is usually applied to ideologies and political movements which embrace racism, male chauvinism, monarchism, military rule, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism to a degree significantly greater than is common in the society at large." Either we should agree to use Fidel Castro's Cuba as an example of a far-right government - or we need revise this definition? Would Communist China under Mao be another example of a right-wing government? What about Uganda under Idi Amin?Raggz 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism?

I'm challenging the use of nationalisim in this article at all. What nation state does not meet the definition in nationalism? Is Cuba? Is every nation on earth "far right"? Every nation state is nationalist, so this logically must be true?

Soon I will delete nationalism, unless there is an objection. Raggz 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are going too far. Certainly, most political parties are somewhat nationalist, though some have a much more internationalish focus, but the more extreme or hard-line forms of nationalism tend to be found mostly with far-right parties, and can be used to identify far-right parties. I'm not going to undo your changes, as I think you're at least partially correct. Αργυριου (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"The label far right is usually applied to ideologies and political movements which embrace racism, male chauvinism, monarchism, military rule, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism to a degree significantly greater than is common in the society at large."

Exactly. This is opinion only. (RealBigFlipsbrain 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

The reference to nationalism that was deleted did not simply equate nationalism and far right politics (which would be incorrect), it suggested that extreme nationalism is one of several themes that are often associated with the far right. Sorry, but that is a simple matter of fact in any usual definition of what constitutes extreme right-wing politics. I don't quite see what's controversial about that and will revert or at least re-write the change unless anyone can explain why I shouldn't. --Nickhh 09:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel

NDI ( Yisrael beytenu ) , is no longer considered extreme right. It was a secular liberal (not neo liberal though) party all along. (representing the russian-israeli citizens) and supports negotiations with palestinians for a state , etc. Nowdays the public consensus is that likud (a center-right party) further right then NDI. Someone check this out and fix it. The israeli far right is considered to be the "kach" movement now probably lead by baruch marzel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.155.10.41 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 August 2007

There is a reference which calls Yisrael Beytenu "far right". It is from the BBC, which isn't entirely reliable on Israeli politics, but before we can remove them from the list, it would be good to see some references for them being considered less right-wing than Likud. Kach belongs, though it has split, and some of its leaders are involved with other parties. It would be worthwhile to see which parties good references can be found for. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

United States

Here is a proposal for some far-right parties historically active in the United States; I am amazed that the US is not included at all in this list---I would think that far-right parties in the United States alone would be enough to constitute its own article. Try this for starters:

• United States - U.S. Labor Party; Populist Party; Liberty Lobby; National Alliance; American Nazi Party; LNSGP;

I would add them myself, but Wikipedia ironically does not allow other Wikipedia articles to be used as sources, and right now I don't want to take the time to research them. Shanoman 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We had the Constitution Party in here a while ago, but it was removed for lack of a reference. The American Independent Party belongs, too. The Liberty Lobby does not, as it is not a political party, it's a pressure group. Finding good references, when left-wing authors are inherently unreliable for this purpose, is pretty hard. Argyriou (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If we included the US, then we'd have to put both the Republicans and the Democrats on the list, and that would confuse the Americans.Ekwos (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism and Far Right

I have to say, this article doesn't really draw a distinction between racism and the far right. It shows bias against the right wing (yes, that's possible to do!), and it indicates that people on the far right are either religious fanatics or racial supremacists. It is possible to have extreme right wing views without being either of those things, and this needs to be stressed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbreenw2 (talk • contribs) 01:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I think that, today, being a "religious fanatic" or a "racial supremacist" (or, at leat, anti-immigration) is, more or less, a necessary condition for some person or organization be considered "far right".--81.84.198.220 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. Raggz 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory, there are another ways of being far-right (defenders of absolute monarchy, of colonialism, of military dictatorships, etc. can also be labelled far-right). But, in modern western world, these "far-rights" are so "out-of-date" that the only relevant far-rights are the religious fanatics or the racial supremacists/xenophobics.--83.132.156.103 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, individualist anarchists which are anti-racists and anti-fascists belong to the far right since the far right is also ultra-individualism whereas the left is collectivism, which makes nazism and fascism Far Left. The problem here is that a lot of idiots are abusing the left-right scale to express several opposites at the same time (the multiplicity of the left-right scale) and it just doesn't work. What is worse is that the elitist Left (which rules Wikipedia in reality) consider everything but International Socialism for Far Right, lumping together all opponents despite these opponents being quite the opposite of each other. You can have Nationalism vs. Internationalism on a left-right scale, or Collectivism vs. Individualism - but you cannot have both at the same time. The article should clearly state the problematic abuse of the Left-Right scale. The modern left-right scale is entirely Socialistic. Dylansmrjones 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "individualist anarchists" (I imagine that you mean "anarco-capitalists") usually are not considered "far-right" (many - most? - reject left-right axis)

Individualistic Anarchists are not Anarcho-Capitalists! Not all Individualist Anarchists are Anarcho-Capitalists and not all Anarcho-Capitalist are Individualistic Anarchists. They generally reject the left-right axis but only because the modern left-right axis is a socialist axis and as such do not allow for proper placement of Anti-Collectivists. Don't confuse Individualistic Anarchism with the purely economically model of Anarcho-Capitalism. Wikipedia has a good article on the branch of Anarchy known as Individualistic Anarchism (as old as the other branch, Collective Anarchism).Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that the left-right scale has a problem: while the "left" means a well-defined thing ("egalitarian" socialism), "right-wing" is a kind of big room where we put everything who is not left-wing (there is almost nothing in common between classical liberals, traditional conservatives and fascists). But this is a problem of the left-right scale in general, not a problem of this article--194.65.151.50 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also a problem of this article. The article should clearly state that the left-right scale has a problem and people on the Far Right may have absolutely nothing in common at all apart from being in opposition to International Socialism.Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A point: you noticed that only in english wikipedia these question arise? At least, in french, spanish and portuguese articles nobody is equating "far-right" with "libertarians", "individualism" or anything like that (all put in the far-right only the traditionalist monarchists, nationalists, racists and religious integrists, not the libertarians, or classic liberals, or the anarcho-capitalists...)--194.65.151.50 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is a problem in all Germanic countries and most other European countries. It is also a problem in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Finland, Australia and New Zealand. Add to that the fact that many Nationalist groups are Marxist-Leninists. This is true for Arab Nationalism (PFLP) and some Basque groups as well. The Danish Common Course (now defunct) was a National-Communist party and was placed on the Far Left, despite being Nationalistic.Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't seem to agree on the Left-Right scale. As I put below in "Neutrality disputed?" some here would like to see the more Libertarian form of the Left-Right scale that in this case more Liberalism equals more Right as opposed to Socialism that equals more government, but this scale ignores the fact that Liberalism and its philosophies actually were seen as Left-wing ideas back in the 18th century as opposed to old-conservative ideas that opposed democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.117.90 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)