Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RFC Review questions

1 - Could an editor(s) please provide diffs of the article showing ledes that correspond to the "support" and "oppose" positions.

Could you please clarify this question? - BorisG (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2 - Is it a mainstream viewpoint that Fascism is primarily associated with the right spectrum of political thought? (Please keep your answer succinct)?

3 - Is it a mainstream viewpoint that Racism is primarily associated with the right spectrum of political thought? (Please keep your answer succinct)?

4 - (NB: purely for discussion's sake, this question assumes the answer to (2) above is "yes"). I note that the current version of Left-wing politics includes in the lede the observation that communism represents the extreme faction of that political orientation. What is the reasoning for why the extreme faction of right-wing politics (Fascism) shouldn't be similarly acknowledged?

Manning (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Diffs for "support" and "oppose" positions re lede

I'm afraid there's no simple way to answer this request. If we had used the entire text of the Oxford definition the dispute would only have been about whether to include or exclude it, and that would have made it easy to provide diffs. Manning's request becomes much harder to address when one starts to look at the various partial excerpts and paraphrasings based on that definition that have been added and reverted over time. In the way SlimVirgin framed this RfC, the question proposed was whether to include or exclude one particular summary passage; objections to that particular summary account for the several "Oppose full inclusion" !votes we've seen. Here's one diff, though, from the large number that are available, that documents a removal of that particluar paraphrase (let's call it "the RfC Oxford summary", when we refer to it subsequently) in favor of some alternate.

Others, too, have proposed different excerpts or summaries: Most of these exclude any mention of fascism or racism at all, as did, for example, Collect's preferred version that he took to NPOV/N (permalink) shortly before Manning agreed to try to help resolve this dispute. Here's an attempt made by Rick Norwood to try to address objections to the mention of fascist or racist ideologies occurring at the extreme end of the right-wing spectrum. That attempt was rejected by Collect who, like many editors, appears to object in principle to any summary or paraphrase that mentions fascism or racism at all.

The Four Deuces (aka TFD) made the same point that others have made in edit summaries: That it's desirable that the lede should eschew any verbatim use of the Oxford source's definition, in favor of a description or definition "in Wikipedia's voice". But he withdrew from that position after a discussion with me over the apparent inability of all parties to agree on what that "in Wikipedia's voice" passage should include. I'd made the point that verbatim use of at least parts of the Oxford definition seemed to be our only hope for agreement, since no side in this conflict seemed willing to accept any paraphrase that had been proposed.

The very recent diffs don't show it, because the wording was very recently removed, but there's also been some controversy over whether to include any clarification phrase to help our readers understand why the Oxford definition says that right-wing parties have included the philosophy of liberalism, a statement that seems likely to confuse Americans, for example, who are largely unaware of the two main (and quite opposing) branches of that ideology, as documented in the lede of our article on liberalism, viz. "Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century." The "RfC Oxford summary", and the earlier article versions on which it was based, included the phrase "in the European sense of the word" to clarify, as I understand it (although others have objected) that it's the classical variety of liberalism that's referred to in the Oxford definition of "right-wing", rather than social liberalism, to which adherents of the classical type are generally quite strongly opposed because of social liberalism's focus on social justice, a concept that is anathema to liberals in the classical sense of the word. ( It may help one keep the difference between the two opposing varieties clear if I suggest that classical liberalism might be loosely thought of as a kind of fervent individualism; others will no doubt disagree, but I think of it as being closer to libertarian ideology than to anything else on the current political scene in my own country, America. ) I won't provide them unless they're requested, but I have diffs showing the quite recent sub-battle over whether this (or any) clarification phrase should be included. The "in the European sense of the word" clarification was introduced in this 2005 edit, and the issue is discussed at some length in the "full-text definition" section on this talk page. (permalink).

Sorry for the long answer, Manning: I didn't see how a very short list of diffs could meet the requirements of your question. Other editors may wish to provide more diffs showing additions and reversions of the various alternative summaries or excerpts from the Oxford source that have been proposed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note particularly that I dislike being so grossly misrepresented. In fact, I find it reprehensible to have such misrepresentation of my views and edits. Collect (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I recognize I'm not at the top of your birthday invite list, Collect, but please dial it down: Intentionally injuring animals is reprehensible; making a good faith error in understanding an editor's views on Wikipedia is not. Feel free to clarify your views or to explain how you think I've misrepresented your edits if you like, but if you have any other personal characterizations you feel compelled to express, you're invited to do so at my talk page so as not to take up space here with remarks of that nature.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, quickly: I didn't understand your request this way, but please let me know if you were asking for diffs that show the reversion and restoration of only the exact, verbatim "RfC Oxford summary" that SlimVirgin framed this RfC around. It would take me a while to pull those from history, but I'd be willing to do so if that's what you had wanted.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a shorter answer: one version of the lede mentions that some authors use "right-wing" to describe fascism and racism. The other version omits this. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's only part of the story. A number of people object to the inclusion of the quote, in full or in part, not because they disagree with anything in this definition, but because this would give undue weight to a single tertiary source. Others are disputing whether or not a clarification of the meaning of the word liberal is necessary. - BorisG (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of using a quote instead of a reference. I believe the only reason for using the quote was that Collect objected to the paraphrase.

On the subject of an adjective on the claim that "liberalism" is right-wing. It seems to me that this is confusing unless an adjective (preferably "classical" with link to classical liberalism) is used.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(2) Is it a mainstream view that fascism is primarily associated with the right wing?

• Yes. It is what most history books dealing with Fascism say, even those written by people who are fairly right-wing themselves. It is what I was taught at school. There is a real consensus behind this as basic point even if there are nuances to discuss around this. For sources see the article on Fascism. The idea to the contrary is a relatively new one that is promoted primarily by American right wing ideologues seeking to change political classification and terminology for their own advantage. The view to the contrary is not mainstream in the USA, despite aggressive promotion, and not even on the radar in most other places. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. See Roderick Stackelberg's The Routledge companion to Nazi Germany: "But whatever the differences from Mussolini's Fascism, historians agree that Nazism was part of the broad right-wing counter-revolutionary movement that marked the era between the two world wars".[1] TFD (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Some writers (Cleon Skousen, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Jonah Goldberg) have argued that fascism was left-wing, but they they hold a minority opinion. Some scholars recently have written of the left-wing influence on fascist ideology, while acknowledging that fascists in power governed from the Right, in alliance with traditional right-wing parties (e.g., Conservatives). TFD (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Very broadly accepted tertiary sources generally strive to make their presentation as "mainstream" as possible; that's what makes them broadly accepted. With this in view, here's the definition of "fascism" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Fascism: The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism.

Likewise, the first sentence of our Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics' definition of "fascism" reads as follows:

Fascism: A right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with a totalitarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

This definition was not contributed by the author of the Dictionary's definition for "right-wing", btw, but by a different contributor from a different school altogether.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:35 20, February, 2011 UTC, and condensed for brevity at 01:35, 21 February 2011 UTC )

(3) Is it a mainstream view that racism is primarily associated with the right wing?

Here are two examples, one about the US Right, the other about the European Right. More will be provided on request.

From "Roads to dominion: Right-wing movements and political power in the United States" by S Diamond, p 21, (1995): "The construction of the post-war American Right was largely the work of conservative intellecutals, as opposed to the more grassroots based echelon of activists who would become influential in the 1950s and beyond. Initially it was a group of intellectuals who viewed with trepidation the expansion of the welfare state and some seemingly related trends: racial minorities nascent demands for civil rights, the spread of secularism, and the growth of mass, popular culture.

"These concerns were less prominent on the Right during the first part of the twentieth century. The early decades were marked by cycles of nativist activism waged against the newly arrived immigrants from Europe and Asia. It was during the 1920s that the Ku Klux Klan, then largely an expression of nativist bigotry, reached its heyday of membership and influence. Then in the 1930s the Depression spread economic hardship across ethnic, religious, regional, and even class lines, swelling the ranks of the Left and the trade union movement.

"This is not to minimize the prominence of a proto-fascist movement active inside the United States during the 1930s and 1940s."

From "Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe" by H G Betz, p 4, (1994): "They are right-wing first in their rejection of individual and social equality and of political projects that seek to achieve it; second in their opposition to social integration of marginalized groups; and third in their appeal to xenophobia, if not overt racism and anti-Semitism."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

See Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: "militant white supremicists" are normally referred to as "far right".[2] TFD (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification of question #3 by mediator Manning. The fact that there are racist groups associated with the far right is not in dispute. My question is - is it a mainstream viewpoint that racism is primarily associated with the right wing? Alternatively my question could read: "Is is the mainstream viewpoint that racism is NOT associated with the left wing?" Manning (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While there are doubtless racists in every group, Betz quoted above classifies groups as "right-wing" because of (among other attitudes) their racism. "They are right-wing...in their appeal to xenophobia..." (emphasis added). During the American civil rights movement, the characterization of those in favor of segegation as "right-wing" and those in favor of civil rights as "left-wing" was nearly universal. Here is an example that explicitly classifies the Civil Rights movement as liberal and the opposition to it as ultra-conservative.

From: "Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort" by Berlet, p. 199. (2000): "The first half of the chapter traces several major threads of ultra-conservative politics... George Wallace's electoral campaigns showed how scapegoating in the form of implicit race-baiting could be coupled with populist antielitism to attract millions of White voters alienated by civil rights liberalism."

And a Europen example, from "Children of a New Fatherland. Germany's Post-War Right-Wing Politics" by Brinks (1999), from the introduction by David Binder: "Children of the New Fatherland is a powerful study of the growth of the right wing in a reunited Germany.

"Since the end of the Cold War, an explosion of xenophobia and attacks on foreigners -- some of them asylum-seakers -- has attracted world wide media attention. ... These phenomena are not exclusive to Germany, but their undertones of Nazism have raised the question: how could this happen in a country which had so firmly repudiated its past and rightly prided itself on its anti-fascism and liberal democracy."

In short, writers use "right-wing" to describe groups or individuals because of their racism. I cannot recall anyone ever describing a group or individual as "left-wing" because of their racism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The strict answer to this is yes, it is a mainstream viewpoint (amongst others) that racism is primarily (though not exclusively) associated with right wing politics. That's supported by the source in contention: [3].

Obviously, racism is not a political ideology in the same way that fascism is. It is, rather, a key characteristic of some types of right-wing ideology, alongside various other isms.

It might be argued that, by the normal definition, racism can belong ideologically only to the right, because it is anti-egalitarian by nature. That is not to say that the right is always racist or that the left never is. A similar situation arises with regard to privatisation, for example. This is generally a feature of right-wing policy, but not in all cases. I think a suggestion that we should be looking for things that are always true of the right and never of the left would be misguided. It would leave us with nothing at all to say.

Overall, although it may seem like on obvious thing to say, I think the question of whether "racism" should be mentioned in the lead is a question of what else is mentioned. The Oxford Dictionary of Politics is an example of a quality tertiary source that thinks it is worth a mention in what is a fairly short entry, which is as good a guide as any. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Manning asks: My question is - is it a mainstream viewpoint that racism is primarily associated with the right wing?. I don't think so, and I do not think the sources cited above (or indeed the editors themselves) assert this. In fact, the Oxford quote in question does not assert this. It only says that that extreme right have included racism (whatever included means). - BorisG (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to provide more sources, since in my view citation of sources is the heart and soul of Wikipedia. This from "Playing the Enemy, Nelson Mandela and the Game that Made a Nation", by Carlin, p. 16, (2008) "White right-wing terrorism was to be expected in such circumstances." Note that here "right-wing" is applied to a group specifically because of its racism, not because of any other beliefs that group may or may not hold. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As Rick observed elsewhere on this page, groups aren't normally described as "left-wing" because they're racist. Nor can I imagine any modern leftist group, anyway, being ordered to disband by a court for being a racist organization, as "Europe's most successful far-right party" was ordered to do for that reason in 2004. Very much to the contrary, actually: Modern far-left groups, at least, including communist groups, are outspoken in their stand against racism.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From "Conceptualizing Racisms", p 350, a literature-review paper included in Racism: essential readings, (2001), Cashmore & Jennings, eds. :

The ascendancy of the political right in Britain during the 1980s prompted commentators to identify a new period in the history of English racism... Its focus is the defense of the mythic 'British/English way of life' in the face of attack from enemies outside ( 'Argies', 'Frogs', 'Krauts', 'Iraquis' ) and within ( 'black communities', 'Muslim fundamentalists' ).

Emphasis mine. Perhaps this address Manning's question more directly?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, few racists claim to be racist. They use terms such as Separate but equal. TFD (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The following is from a book review of New Right/New Racism, (1986) by Paul Gordon and Francesca Klug:

... the authors illustrate the particular form of racism that is prevalent among a range of right-wing authors. Racism, it is argued by Powell, Honeyford, Scruton, Kenny, and many others, is inherent in human nature; that people 'naturally' ally themselves with their own groups, and that black people are 'naturally' different and outside the British nation.

The emphasis is mine. By comparision, I've never seen correponding charges against the left, i.e. I've never seen anyone write that "racism is prevalent among a range of left-wing authors."  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The following is from the entry for "Race and politics" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

To a varied extent, [the existence of minority groups in 1970s Europe] aroused racist responses among some sections of the 'white' population and anti‐racist campaigns among the minorities themselves and liberal allies.

Emphasis mine. The Dictionary doesn't say that right-wing and socially conservative groups allied themselves with minorities to conduct anti-racist campaigns. The sympathies and actions of those groups were very much in the contrary direction.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Manning specifically requested such, I searched assiduously, taking over two hours, for sources that compare racism on the left versus the right. That search yielded just one relevant result. It comes from a two part blog essay by Tim Wise, author of two books on racism. He writes, beneath a heading labeled Distinguishing Racism on the Left from Racism on the Right:

... racism on the left is not exactly the same as its counterpart on the right ... conservative theory lends itself almost intrinsically to racist conclusions ... liberal theory is generally egalitarian and intuitively antiracist... So too, virtually all the activists in the civil rights struggle ... were decidedly to the left. Liberals and left-radicals populated the movement and provided its energy, while leading conservatives like William F. Buckley and his colleagues at The National Review published paeans to white supremacy... But despite the overwhelming role of liberals and leftists in the struggle for racial equity, and despite the antiracist narrative that dovetails with left philosophy, liberal and left individuals and groups in practice have manifested racism in a number of ways.

( Emphasis mine.) This last sentence sounds promising, like we're finally going to get the dirt on leftist racism. Not so much, as it turns out. Wise goes on to give examples like when leftists say, "Some of my best friends are black people." Lefties aren't burning black churches, or whipping up anti-immigrant hatred, evidently. But they do seem pretty annoyingly self-complacent, Wise says. I'd like to find a better treatment of this topic; it merits serious consideration. I'd especially like to see sources about it that deal with the pre-1945 years, a time when what we'd now identify as racist ideas were nearly universal in English-speaking countries, according to what I've read in going through this learning process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- Blogs are not RS on WP. As for assertions of leftwing racism - try the anti-semitism in the USSR over many years (WP article on it even), the Han-centric policies in China under Mao (WP article on it, even), the anti-Hmong policies in Laos [4] etc. Yep - racism is rather orthogonal to any left-right divide. Collect (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your caveat, Collect, but I don't need wp:rs for a talk page comment. You're aware, too, I expect, that your statement that blogs aren't admissable isn't unqualifiedly true? I don't intend to try to introduce Wise's comments into the article, but a case could be made for doing so, viz. that according to our policy on self-published sources his having had a couple of mainstream books published on racism makes him a reliable source for this purpose. Your points about non-Western racism are interesting, though; perhaps I'll reply when I have time to do so.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for refutation of mediator's acknowledged bias

I remind all parties that I am not a subject matter expert. Also no editor is without bias of some form, and I am currently being biased by my familiarity with the "ethnic cleansings" (my choice of term) conducted by Stalin and other communist regimes in the 20th century.

For me to rule in favour of inclusion of the term "racism" in the lede, I need to be satisfied that it is a mainstream viewpoint that racism is "primarily associated" with the right wing. I thus invite evidence that my (admittedly unqualified) perception identified above is not in accordance with the mainstream viewpoint.

For my benefit, and purely as a device for expanding this discussion and exploring the idea of whether racism is primarily associated with the right wing, here is a (completely unqualified) statement I have concocted. Please examine it and give a response.

• Assertion - "Racism routinely manifests as a factor in 'extreme' political ideologies, regardless of left/right orientation".

Manning (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) How quickly are you looking for answers? I don't know the right one at this point, but I don't want to begin any research that I won't have time to finish well. Can you accept a 48 hour window from the time you say "go", given that RfC's typically run 30 days? Also, (2) My currently-uninformed guess is that Stalin probably was a racist. Is proving he wasn't one a requirement, or are you looking for more of a summary that could have a title like, "Racism across the political spectrum: At which end is it most prevalent?"  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

48 hours is fine. Just remember that I am chiefly exploring the assertion that racism is "primarily associated" with (any manifestation of) the right wing. My assertion exists only to suggest a direction for discussion, it has no other real merit. Manning (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But like siafu, I'm also finding it hard to understand "is primarily associated with", so bear with me for an outlandish but concise metaphor to frame a question: The Oxford source says the right-wing feeds from a buffet of five dishes, and the really hard-core among them add two more very spicy ones to the selection: fascism and racism. The Dictionary asserts that these 5+2 are something akin to national dishes of the right wing. But you think it's really 5+1 on the right, that the seventh dish, racism, appeals pretty broadly across the political spectrum, and isn't primarily a rightist morsel at all. Is this correct? If so, then I'd also like to ask what sort of evidence or argument would seem admissible to show that racism is a national dish of the right wing, even though other groups indulge in it too?

Would a literature-review paper like this seem relevant to you? Or a paper that showed a high correspondence between right-wing authoritarian (RWA) attitudes and racial prejudice? Anti-racism declarations ( see two following ext. links → ) from major socialist and communist parties? Books from political scientists that speak to racism and the right-wing? Overwhelming mainstream acknowledgment of fascism as a deeply racist ideology? Or maybe just a straightforward argument saying that because the left is generally much more attached to social justice than the right, that the left is therefore less likely to indulge in racism? Please advise.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A little history: racism was not included in the lede until after Collect repeatedly sought to remove fascism, and racism was added only because the Oxford source included it. However, the more I read, the more often if find major academic authors using "right-wing" to characterize racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic views, particularly in European politics. As for Stalin, he would make most people's lists of the top ten most evil men of all time, and should not be seen as a poster boy for the Left. The point, I think, is that while every part of the political spectrum includes racists, I have given examples by major academic authors who use the expression "right-wing" because of racism. I don't know of anyone described as "left-wing" because of their racism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Left will copy the Right and vice versa. Recently Cuba has eased restrictions on free enterprise - it does not mean that the government is not left-wing. Stalin's policies too were a reversal ot the Bolshevik nationalities policy. TFD (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(4) Assuming "yes" to 2, why exclude fascism when communism is in lede of LW-politics?

• Because it upsets some right-wing people? Seriously though, no good reason at all. The real question is how to include it so that it is not given undue weight and it is make clear that Fascism is considered right wing without implying that the right wing as a whole is akin to Fascism. Perhaps we could explicitly point to the diversity of the various political groups and ideologies that are considered right wing? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Because mainstream right-wing movements claim that they have little if anything in common with the far-right and neo-Fascists, and reject any association with them. In contrast, Communism is an integral part of the left-wing, and many people on the left continue to defend Marxism and communist ideologies (while rejecting some of their more extreme practices). Personally I have no problem with inclusion of Fascism as part of the extreme right, as long as it is not given undue weight. - BorisG (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Boris, I have to question your view that fascism is not a part of right-wing politics in the same sense that communism is a part of left-wing politics. The vast majority of those on the left have rejected communism, just as the vast majority of those on the right have rejected fascism, but both viewpoints are still defended by some in exactly the same fashion. I think it's a rather biased view to claim that communism is clung to more tightly by the left than fascism is on the right. It is more common for Marxists to call themselves such, however, though modern day fascists or those who adopt elements of fascist ideology tend to seek less contentious terminology-- think of the various "National Front" parties, for example, some of which in older times would have been unabashedly fascist by name. siafu (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that this article is not exclusively about current usage but also about the way the word is used in books by major writers that are still read today. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

5) Why do we disagree so strongly? This is not one of the question asked by our mediator, but it occurs to me to ask. I suspect age may have a lot to do with it. During most of my long life, both "right-wing" and "left-wing" were insults, and the only reasonable response was, "No, I'm not!" I believe it was Carl Rove who advised conservatives to remake the words with new meanings: "right wing" meaning "freedom loving patriot" meaning Republican, "left-wing" meaning commie pinko liberal hippie weirdo freak meaning Democrat. He was successful to the extent that today in the United States mainstream media use "right" as a synonym for Repubican and "left" as a synonym for Democrat. People who grew up seeing this usage may simply be unaware that this usage is very recent, post 1980, and that older writers often use the words in the older sense. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick, this may well be true, although I wouldn't attribute this tendency to just one guy or movement. But I suspect a broader issue is that the term right-wing (and left-wing) is vague, and its meaning depends on time, yes, but also on geography. And above all, on context. How can we give a definition that captures all this vagueness? BTW the Oxford quote is anything but a definition, since none of the characteristics mentioned are its defining features. - BorisG (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Left is easy to define - they're the parties and ideologies that developed out ot the parties and ideologies of the First International, viz., communists and socialists. There is for example the Labor Party of Australia, which is a member of the Socialist International. The Right is defined as the opposition to the Left. There is for example the Liberal Party of Australia, which developed out of the Anti-Socialist Party. What is confusing about that? TFD (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediator's interim assessment

There are two issues of subtance here and I have been (and will continue) treating them as separate matters.

Here is my interim assessment. This remains subject to change, however I felt it prudent to alert all parties as to the state of my current thinking.

• Fascism. Based on the evidence provided above and my own investigation, it seems appropriate that a reference to fascism be included in the lede, as long as it is not given undue weight and is identified as being at the extreme end of the ideology.

• Racism. I still consider this matter unresolved. I have been presented with substantial evidence that there are extreme right groups which have racist philosophies, however this was never the matter in dispute. I have yet to be convinced that racism is "primarily associated" with right wing ideologies. Please see section 9.3.1 above for more discussion of this matter.

Manning (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about the hangup on racism; the proposed sentence does not claim that racism is primarily associated with the extreme right, but rather that the extreme right is associated with racism. That is, while B includes A, A is not limited to B. siafu (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A fair observation. My hesitation is based on my expectation that any and all attributes mentioned in the lede of an article should be primarily associated with that subject. It is also based on the fact that this is not an article about the 'Extreme Right', but about the general topic of 'right-wing' politics.

I am presently satisfied that it is a mainstream viewpoint that fascism is primarily associated with the right wing (albeit the extreme end), therefore it merits inclusion in the lede. I do not current see that racism has the same solid 'primary' association. If we begin to permit such "associated but not limited to" mentions in the lede, then it follows that Fundamentalist Christians, gun control opponents, anti-abortionists, pro-choice proponents, small business owners, Objectivists, and any number of other "associated but not limited to" groups/philosophies would also merit inclusion. This is just not workable or appropriate for a lede, in my opinion. Manning (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I also think that the connection between rightwing and racism is an sideeffect of the right wing's tendency not to embrace egalitarianism, but rather endorse inequality and favoritism of scertain groups over others (national, ethnic, racial, political, religious)·Maunus·ƛ· 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bartlett, welcome back. Sorry if I have posted this late in the wrong section, but the book The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right describes three mainstream views of fascism on page 48 [5]:

It could be argued that there are three mainstream political interpretations of fascism.

First, according to Mosse, Sternhell and Eatwell (among others), fascism was a radical new political solution. While Mosse, a historian of Germany, depicts Nazism as a "Third Way" between Marxism and capitalism, Sternhell, a scholar with French interests, interprets fascism as a revolutionary synthesis, declaring that fascism was at the same time a fusion of left and right, and an ideological creed that was beyond left and right ... British Historian Eatwell takes a similar view, depicting fascism as "elusive because it drew from both left and right, seeking to create a radical "Third Way" which was neither capitalist nor communist"…

Second, fascism has been viewed as counter-revolution, particularly by those on the left…..

Third, fascism has been interpreted as totalitarianism. … Associated in particular with the work of Hannah Arendt, this explanation depicts fascism and Communism, controversially, as symptoms of an all-embracing totalitarianism. Liberals in particular favour this view.

In other words there is the view of historians that fascism is neither left or right, the view of the left that fascism is anti-revolutionry thus right wing and the view of liberals that fascism and communism are similarly totalitarian. It is a complex subject, given these three mainstream viewpoints, including fascism in he lede of this article would give undue weight to the left-wing view point. That's my two cents worth. --Martin (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, but the question here is not what fascism "is", but whether "right-wing" is often used by major writers to classify fascism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's interesting, and I could have made the argument that Martin presents here, too, without having to blush for it. "But the debate over a precise definition will roll on", and at some point you have to stop writing a dissertation about this admittedly complex ideology and just go with the most mainstream definition if you're going to be able to use any words in conversation at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin's source, Fascism and the far right accepts fascism as far right. Of course all right-wing groups, other than the legitimists, have incorporated ideolgies that were considered centrist or left-wing. Neoliberalism for example derives from classical liberalism, which circa 1830 was the main challenge to the Right. The Tea Party champions the common man against the elites, which again would not have been considered a right-wing view during the French Revolution. TFD (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is Pop-pedia, then by all means run with the populist left-wing view of Fascism. What has Neoliberalism got to do with Fascism anyway? That book I referred to actually compares and contrasts fascism and far right politics (not right-wing politics) as separate phenomenon. Regular right-wing politics is about conserving the established order, fascism is about overturning that order, it is anti-conservative. On page 42 is states:

"The consensus view is that fascism represented middle-class rebellion against the established Enlightenment influenced order; it was invariably irrational and anti-Communist, and sought to impose a new age, a new civilisation".

So clearly Fascism is more revolutionary than conservative or classic right wing. The next sentence sums up the problem with including fascism in the lede:

"However, the fact is that the study of fascism has become a battleground, an arena where competing ideologies have taken centre stage. there is no single interpretation of fascism; moreover, at certain junctures, the plethora of explanations that do exist merge and overlap."

So while this debate continues to roll on, I don't think we should pre-empt the result of that debate and include it in this article. In my view, and I've expressed this here in the past here, it that is should be mentioned in the lede of Far-right politics (which oddly enough it is not even mentioned) if anywhere, not here. --Martin (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascism differs from other groups in the Right, just as the other groups in the Right differ from one another. What they share in common is their opposition to the Left (i.e., the Communists and Socialists), which is the definition of the Right. TFD (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with your viewpoint is that it squeezes out the middle, so all we are left with is a definition were left-wing = Communism/Socialism and right-wing = Fascism. The world is not black and white (or left and right). The right-wing isn't defined by their opposition to the left as you claim. Traditionally right-wing is about conserving the current status quo while the left wing is about changing the status quo. Both Communism and Fascism are revolutionary. --Martin (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how it "squeezes out the middle". Right-wing populists, conservatives, christian demcrats and liberals also oppose socialism and communism. Not all right-wingers seek to "conserv[e] the current status quo" - some seek to restore the status quo ante, others propose radical reforms, such as neoliberalism, others seek to overthrow existing Communist, leftist, or even liberal regimes, while others support programs of reform. TFD (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Centre left and Social democrats also oppose Communism too, and Communists deem them to be Social fascists. Even Stalin and Trotsky accused each other of fascist sympathies. So this claim that right-wingers are defined by their opposition to Communism is a meaningless definition. --Martin (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How does it do that? The exact quote from the article, and the source is "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism"(bolding mine). I think that is an undeniable fact and sourced beyond doubt. Not only in the lede, but in the article. In any case, I find the exclusion here not backed up by policies or sourcing. Dave Dial (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing parties have elements of fascism too, if you accept the second of the three mainstream viewpoints articulated in the reference I mentioned: "Second, fascism has been viewed as counter-revolution, particularly by those on the left….." Hence the term Social fascism. --Martin (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Most beliefs have been labeled as "mainstream" by someone, at one time or another, but very broadly accepted reference books present as truly mainstream a view as possible; doing so is what makes them so broadly accepted. They may lack the sophistication and finer distinctions that subject-specific books bring in, but they're certainly as mainstream as one can get. So I'll add that It's not just the Oxford English Dictionary and the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that associate the right-wing with fascism, The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1983, from Columbia University also finds the connection significant enough to merit notice:

Fascism: A philosophy of government that glorifies nationalism at the expense of the individual. ... The term was first used by the party started by Mussolini, ... and has also been applied to other right-wing movements such as National Socialism, in Germany, and the Franco regime, in Spain.

The emphasis is mine, of course.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Back from a trip - I suggest that the lede only contain the first sentence of the CODP definition - that any other material and discussions thereon do not belong in the lede, but more properly in the body of the article, and with the usual criteria of RS sourcing for claims, rather than only a single source. Further that definitons of "fascism" do not belong here, but only in articles on that particular topic. Collect (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, what does Stalinist theory from the 80 years ago have to do with anything? TFD (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Manning: Your interim statement seems reasonable to me but, like other editors, I am still having trouble with your criterion of "primary association" in terms of racism. It doesn't seem entirely clear what you are asking for information about.

Taking a guess: It seems clear that there are ideological movements on the right that have racism as a central component in a way that is not seen on the left. These include Nazism, Apartheid, the Ku Klux Klan, the early part of the reign of Hirohito, the Rhodesian Front, white nationalism generally, etc etc. These are obviously not representative of all right-wing politics, but they are very historically significant.

Personally, I am unsure whether "racism" needs to be specified in the lead to the article or not - as stated above, I think it depends on what else is in there. We need a balanced lead, but what that looks like varies according to its overall content. However, I do think that a determination that racism should be excluded on the grounds that it is not significant in terms of right-wing politics would be mistaken. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism isn't unique to the right wing, it was also prevalent in some Communist regimes, for example the Khmer Rouge adopted a philosophy of racial superiority and purity that resembled that of Nazi Germany. --Martin (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the Second World War, official racism was practised in the American Southern states and in South Africa, while nativism is an aspect of right-wing populism and the American radical right. Anti-Semitism was a key part of the ideologies of Europe's interwar right wing parties (not just the fascists of Italy and Germany) and continued in countries that embraced "Latin conservatism". Conservative institutions in the U.S. and other countries often placed restriction on Jewish membership. While there was also racism on the Left, left-wing organizations attracted more minority support and membership. TFD (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism also featured in leftist political institutions and regimes, as any Rootless cosmopolitan would confirm. --Martin (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is however more typically associated with the Right. TFD (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that left-wing regimes have never been racist or practised racism. Various right-wing political movements have had racism, explicitly, as a key defining feature (Nazism, Apartheid etc). I'm suggesting that this is something that is only to be found on the political right. --FormerIP (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your positions are very consistent - no "left wing" organization may be described as "left wing" and every "right wing" organization may be associated with racism, fascism, Nazis, "radical" etc. on a regular basis. :) I do not buy adding "laundry lists" to any articles at all, and especially do not feel that sociological or religious positions should be confuted with political ones. BTW, one of the most ardent anti-Semitic politicians was Stalin, who was scarcely a radical right wing exemplar. Collect (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you are not accurately reflecting what I said. TFD (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All I dealt with is what is in a nice font just above what I wrote. Meanwhile, I suggest that the mediator apprise himself of the following: Japan in the Fascist era E. Bruce Reynolds, Macmillan, 2004 - History - 205 pages pp3-4 [6], Fascism in Britain: from Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to the National Front Richard C. Thurlow , I.B.Tauris, 1998 - History - 298 pages page 1 [7], Fascist Italy: A Concise Historical Narrative Cristogianni Borsella, Adolph Caso , Cristogianni Borsella, 2007 - History - 158 pages page 28 [8], Russian fascism: traditions, tendencies, movements Stephen Shenfield, M.E. Sharpe, 2001 - History - 336 pages page xi [9], Fascism: Post-war fascisms Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman ,Taylor & Francis, 2004 - Political Science - 513 pages page 194 [10], Winners and losers: social and political polarities in America Irving Louis Horowitz, Duke University Press, 1984 - Social Science - 328 pages page 209 [11], Russian fascism: traditions, tendencies, movements Stephen Shenfield, M.E. Sharpe, 2001 - History - 336 pages page 114 [12], Fascism - a reader's guide: analyses, interpretations, bibliography Walter Laqueur, University of California Press, 1978 - Political Science - 478 pages page 379 [13], Marxists in face of fascism: writings by Marxists on fascism from the inter-war period David Beetham, Manchester University Press ND, 1983 - Political Science - 381 pages page 1 [14], The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right (Google eBook) Peter Davies, Derek Lynch , Psychology Press, 2002 - Political Science - 430 pages page 2 [15] each of which is "scholarly" and each of which presents significant material disagreeing with what some editors know about "fascism." Collect (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are also sources that argue Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, christian democracy and liberalism are not right-wing. In fact none of these ideologies are typically referred to as "right-wing". But if you remove all these ideologies you are left only with legitimism, i.e., "Right Side" in the 1830 French legislature. TFD (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all of these scholarly RS sources are somehow "fringe" because you "know" they are wrong? Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum would thus mean you reject Routledge? and the rest? I would have thought that, since you use them elsewhere, that you would surely accept them here. "There are also sources" seems that you feel all sources which disagree with your own knowledge are ones which assert "christian democracy (is) not right-wing"? Sorry - I find that where you specifically use a source, you have to take all of the source, not just single sentences which agree with an ominiscience edotoprs can not have. Collect (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that you have correctly reflected their contents, it is a minority view and you have not presented any sources that says fascism is considered not right-wing. TFD (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEANS anyone? --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) "Assuming" what??? I linked to precise pages. I represented nothing except that each and every one of these sources does not agree with what you "know" to tbe true. And I note you routinely cite Routledge - except where it disagrees with you. As for "minority view" - show me a reliable source stating that Routledge etc. are "minority views" - proof by assertion does not work. Lastly the "beans" inanity does not help any conversation on this page. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Politicized racism before and after 1945, and by region

So as to avoid interfering with the dispute resolution process that's currently underway, let's agree that any discussion that follows isn't automatically relevant to the dispute over the lead section of this article, and that our mediator on that issue is free to ignore any or all of it. But I do think some exchange of ideas ( as opposed to just more debate or wrangling ) over racism on the right versus the left will benefit the article, even if it's only relevant to its body, as opposed to its lead.

That said, I'd like to state the strong impressions I've had from the reading I've done these past few weeks, and invite criticism of those impressions, distilled into these three propositions:

(1) Until the Third Reich was defeated in 1945, and its horrific scapegoating of Jews was correspondingly discredited, the belief that racial categories are important in determining human behaviour and abilities was nearly universal among people of European ancestry. Its hard for us to understand how pervasive this belief was: it was the air that people breathed, an unquestioned assumption from their earliest days.

(2) In post-1945 English-speaking countries, and in post-1945 western Europe, politicized racism has been an almost exclusively right-wing phenomenon, and it's a prominent factor in current western European politics on the right. The matter becomes much more arguable by far outside these parameters. ( ← principal thesis )

(3) To follow up on that "much more arguable", I'd also like to know other's opinions about whether the racism of Stalin and Mao (for example) is appropriately attributable to the left. I ask about this because I'm not convinced that those particular despots were so much leftists as opportunists, my idea being that the often posited notion that each "stole the revolution" and diverted it away from the pre-existing, more egalitarian ideals of the left is a plausible one.

Re this third proposition, Napoleon didn't give a hang for the values of the French Revolution; I likewise doubt that the racism of the Soviet or Chinese governments are much that Marx, say, would have been proud of, that forerunner of what we now call social justice. ( I know Marx was a racist, too, as were his contemporaries, of course, but he also spoke out strongly against slavery, and demanded rights for blacks. ) Anyway, I don't know a lot about racism under putative communist or socialist oligarchies. What do others think about that, and about (1) and (2), above, as well?  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC) ( Amended for clairty re original phrasing. -- Ohiostandard, 11:30 28 February, 2011 UTC )

Um -- I think that saying Stalin and Mao were not left wing is likely to be an exceedingly minority opinion. I doubt Mugabe would be listed by anyone as other than "left wing" either. I also think the communists in Laos are unlikely to be counted as other than left wing. I doubt the current Chinese government is other than left wing, and its actions in Tibet etc. are fairly well documented. Need more? Collect (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You could be right with your "exceedingly minority opinion" comment. I do have a lot of those, and my notion of communism is no doubt historically skewed relative to most people's: Before I think of putative modern examples of communism I think of the first instances of it that I'm aware of, viz. the early Christian church ( see, e.g. Acts 2:42–2:47 and Acts 4:32–4:35 ) and the "year and a day" and other rules for the establishment of "Compaignie" (various spellings) in medieval France, i.e. of joint ownership of goods.

But I'm sure some authors must have argued that whack jobs like Lenin and Mao weren't disinterestedly representing the ideology of Karl Marx. It has always seemed to me that people who are willing to kill large numbers of people in the name of a social or political program formulated to help mankind are probably not the best representatives of that program. I liked what you wrote, below, that you consider racism to be "more closely allied with nationalism, especially where the concept of 'nation' is allied with that of 'race'." I don't think that tells the whole story at all, but it tells a helpful part of it. "Race-based oppression" wasn't a euphemism for racism, incidentally. But what do you think of my second listed point? Are you aware of counter-examples?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Find RS sources that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Migabe, et al are not "left wing", I doubt you will find a single substantive source making that claim. Your aside about the early Christian Church being "communist" is not only erroneous, but not even relevant to this discussion at all. Collect (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, Collect, I'm trying to have a civil discussion with you to benefit the article; it wouldn't kill you to return the favor. On the contrary, being pleasant when you don't have to be has a host of benefits, including physiological ones re endorphins and immune system response. We're obviously never going to agree on our political views, and that's fine, but is it really necessary for you to use scare quotes so prolifically, to go out of your way to be derisive, etc, etc.? This isn't supposed to be a competition, it's supposed to be a collaboration. Would you please try to work that way with me?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The first requirement is that you use civil wording and cogent arguments. And part of that is to not make comments about "us(ing) scare quotes so prolifically" which is not a comment on anything substantive to do with the article. As is saying "go out of your way to be derisive." I simply have pointed out that your position that Stalin and Mao were not examples of left-wing racists is something for which you would have to provide reliable sources. I did not find any in support of that thesis, by the way. Now are there any such sources, or shall we accept that there are many examples of left-wing racism? Collect (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So it'd be more acceptable to you, Collect, if I were to just say that I find your characterization of my comments "reprehensible"? Would that be more "substantive to do with the article", in your view? The fact is that your consistently negative, hostile attitude interferes with the collaborative environment that's needed to develop and improve articles. It doesn't do you any good, it doesn't do anyone else any good, and certainly doesn't do this article any good. Please drop it.

I'd be pleased if you were to respond to my question #2, though, provided you can keep your feelings sufficiently under control to do so without making further derisive comments and approaching the interaction with attitude. I haven't asserted that Mao and Lenin weren't left wing, but rather have raised the question and asked for comments about it.

You said in one of your edit summaries, "Stalin and Mao were left wing. Really. And no cites say otherwise." Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but the question is interesting enough to me, and is obviously relevant-enough to the disputed definition from the Oxford political dictionary, that I'm willing to have a look and let others here know what I find. I probably won't report back until tomorrow, though, depending on what, if anything, I learn about the question. Do give us the benefit of your lights on question #2 in the interim, though, will you?  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and left-wing premier Tony Blair recommended appointments to bishoprics and the House of Lords to the Queen - that does not mean that support of monarchy, aristocracy and the established church are not usually associated with the Right. TFD (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How many more important left wing leaders than Mao, Lenin and Stalin have been around? Again - what is needed is assertion by a reliable source that they are right wing in order for the broad claim that racism is especially found in right wing groups to be remotely valid. Absent such a cite, I would suggest that the well established (at least by WP standards) facts of such racism would tend to show that some very major left-wing figures were racist or used racism. Collect (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They also supported capital punishment and opposed abortion and same-sex marriage - it does not mean that those positions are not normally associated with the Right. In any case, you need sources that support your conclusions. Please read the section about original research. TFD (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, you "know' that the left wingers who were racists were rightwingers in some sort of disguise? Since racism is intrinsically rightwing, then Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe etc. are really only showing some rightwing aspects of their leftwing outward appearance? As for sources that Stalin was anti-semitic, there are a bunch listed in the WP article, same with Mao. Mugabe? A slew from The Times if you wish ... how many would suffice? I gladly will fill up this page if it is needed to convince you that racism is, indeed, associated with some major "left wing" political figures and nations. Collect (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That is all original research. We do not conduct our own surveys and determine what right-wing means but rely on sources. It may well be that the scholars are all wrong and you are right, but until they acknowledge your insight, we're stuck with what they write. TFD (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are saying the fact that WP has articles on Stalin, Mao etc. referring to their racism is irrelevant? Is sure the heck it is not OR (which, by the way, only refers to ARTICLE EDITS in the first place on WP). And that SCHOLARS who wrote about this are all invalid for some reason? Hate to use CAPS but it seems a tad necessary after all this "conversation" on this page <g>. We have a large number of reliable sources calling these "leftwingers" "racist" and that is clearly relevant here. As for snarky comments about editors, surely you do not need to rely on them. Collect (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) There's very significant support for the view that Stalin ( I haven't had time to investigate Mao and Lenin ) utterly betrayed the egalitarian principles of socialism, and of the left more generally, to further his own very different political and personal agenda. The accusation is that, like Napoleon in France, he "stole the revolution". We can talk more about that, and I do have some sources I want to introduce that speak to the point. But I'd first like to observe that Collect has seized on the third of the three points I raised when I initiated this thread, and the one I'm least inclined to support: That Stalin et. al. might not be rightly considered as "left wing". I'd like to point out that I titled this thread the way I did for a reason: To provide context for what was essentially my thesis sentence:

• In post-1945 English-speaking countries, and in post-1945 western Europe, politicized racism has been an almost exclusively right-wing phenomenon, and it's a prominent factor in current western European politics on the right. The matter becomes much more arguable by far outside these parameters.

While I consider the question of what RS have to say about Stalin on the "left versus right" model interesting and relevant, debating that question was not my primary interest in opening this thread. I'll say more about it subsequently, since Collect wants to focus on that, but I'm not as much interested in it as I am in the above proposition. We've not discussed that at all, and I don't want to see it slighted for a point that is of less interest to me, and which I'm much less inclined to support anyway.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if you decide Stalin was "right wing" I shall eat my hat. Now as to racism worldwide - it is found in Asia, Africa, Australian, North American, South America, Europe and Africa. Pretty much independent of "left wing" or "right wing" considerations. And therefore pretty much is not relevant to a definition of "right wing" at all. Nor does Fisher state that it is characteristic of a definition of "right wing". The "definition" is that it is hard to define. Just like anything on a "political spectrum" in the first place. All we can say is what the CODP says in the first sentence - more than that is quite arguable, and definitely does not belong in the lede. Collect (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think Stalin was a rightie, either, so your hat's probably in no imminent danger, but I also know that he betrayed pretty much everything he ever claimed to believe in, the egalitarian principles of Marxism not the least among them. ( That's why I referred to him as little more than an opportunist, previously. ) I'd not suggest that it's a wp:rs, but I'm sure you know that the author of the following is very far from expressing an isolated view of Stalin:

The purges [ that Stalin perpetrated in the latter half of the 1930s ] were by no means arbitrary. The terror was directed not against right-wing enemies of the Soviet Union, but against left-wing opponents of Stalin’s betrayal of the October Revolution. The blood purge resulted in the physical annihilation of an entire generation of Marxist intellectuals and workers whose lives had been dedicated to the goal of socialist internationalism and egalitarianism. It set into motion a process that culminated in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the final political repudiation of the socialist principles of the October Revolution, and the restoration of capitalism. If the Russian people knew the political identities of the victims of the terror buried in mass graves on the outskirts of St. Petersburg and Moscow, they would better understand the enduring significance of their own socialist heritage.

( Excerpted from a May, 2005 letter by a Socialist Party official to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Emphasis mine. ) The direction I'm heading with this is that I think Stalin was a Stalinist; his allegiance was to Stalin. Socialist rhetoric was just a vehicle that he may have mildly believed in at some point early on, but that he never hesitated for a moment to push off a cliff when it suited the ends of Stalinism to do so. But you still haven't said that you disagree with what I've called my "thesis sentence". Do you disagree? Or is it just that you don't find the question meaningful because you don't buy the whole linear "left versus right" conceptual model?

Please don't eat your hat; that could hurt you. But it makes me smile to hear the phrase; I bet you remember "Great Caesar's Ghost!", too? No, don't eat your hat, but what about volunteering for Manning's secret exercise? Who knows, it could be a cool Skull & Bones kind of thing, and the "oppose" contingent doesn't want let down its side, I'm sure. :-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In short - Stalin was still a left winger - even if he saw left-wingers as some of his "enemies." Meanwhile "Great Caesar's Ghost" was the favourite saying of Perry White. Everyone knows that. I hope I get another Jeopardy interview this year. Collect (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask some 20 year olds if they know the expression. But I didn't say "know", I said I bet you remember it. And in short, you really don't want to address what I've identified as the question I'm most interested in, my "thesis", do you? Now why could that be, I wonder? Could it possibly be that you might actually agree with me on something, but that you'd rather eat straw than admit it? ;-) Your hat already having been spoken for, I mean?  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually some libertarian writers descrive Soviet communism as right-wing, because it was statist and drew on German conservatism. But that is a minority view in the same class as fascism being left-wing. BTW, Collect did not say he had a straw hat. TFD (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD, will you take a look at the first 10 pages of The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century, (2004) A. James Gregor, Yale University Press, and let me know what you think. Both you and presumably Collect, too, are better read in this area than I am, but Gregor does cite other authors ( e.g. Agursky, but I can't access him online ) who make the claim that Stalin was a rightist. I actually think he was nothing more nor less nor other than a Stalinist, myself, and Gregor supports the point. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd really rather hear what you, Collect, and others (!!!) here think about the thesis I'm much more interested in. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me add my two cents, but first, let me suggest (1) let's try to keep comments civil and courteous, even in cases of sharp disagreements (2) let's refrain from calling for sources and allegations of OR. There is no requirement to cite sources on talk pages. Of course our comments are based on many published sources, but citation is only required if and when it comes to inserting specific wording into the article itself. - BorisG (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the substance of OS's thesis I do not support it. Stalin was a left-winger and his policies were left wing (nationalisation of all the private property being central). He was an extreme monster, but so were, arguably, many left-wing state leaders, from Lenin to Mugabe (to a variable extent). I think the question is not whether Stalin was left-wing, or whether he was racist, but whether such racism was typical or characteristic for left-wing leaders, or extreme left leaders. I don't think so, but I do not have a firm opinion. The only systematic pattern of racism of the modern left-wing I know is that in post-communist Russia and Serbia. In these countries the demise of ruling communist ideology occurred alongside the collapse of empires, and hence communist aspirations are associated with Chauvinism and imperialism. See National Bolshevism, National Bolshevik Party, Communist_Party_of_the_Russian_Federation. I can provide sources. - BorisG (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boris! I'm grateful for both these comments, and for the helpful "points of order": please let me know if you see me speak too heatedly, or have done. It's going to take me some time to review the articles you've linked to, and perhaps go to some of the sources they're based on before I can respond at all intelligently. If you can find the time, would you, also, be able to look at the first ten pages of the Gregor book I linked to, i.e. his Faces of Janus? They're a five-minute read, in a large typeface, and seem to me a very cogent summary of the problems we've been struggling with here. I know you're very well read in this area, and I'd value your lights on Gregor's analysis extremely. May I also just clarify as to what I've intended to identify by "my thesis"? It was this, in particular:

• In post-1945 English-speaking countries, and in post-1945 western Europe, politicized racism has been an almost exclusively right-wing phenomenon, and it's a prominent factor in current western European politics on the right. The matter becomes much more arguable by far outside these parameters.

The more I read, especially of Gregor, the less I like the simple "left versus right" linear spectrum model, although it does have its appropriate uses. But if I understand your immediately preceding re "the only systematic pattern of racism" then perhaps you don't disagree with the above after all?

I'll conclude by saying that I'm not really out to defend any particular position in all this for its own sake, but that this is much more of a dialectic argument for me rather than a debate. I feel very pleased to be able to try to come to conclusions about these matters by engaging with such well-informed participants throughout the world, and especially value the exposure to a broader perspective than would otherwise be available to me by just lapping up the U.S.-centric media that suffuses the culture in which I live. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What Gregor is arguing (and as you increase your familiarity with the writings of the numerous scholars who have written about this topic you will discover he is far from alone) is that the claim (which Gregor particularly associates with the political interpretation promoted by the Bolsheviks) that fascism (racism and nationalism) and communism (progressivism and anti-capitalism) are political opposites is false. This, he argues, helps to explain why, as Collect has pointed out (and contrary to what Boris G says!) communism has (right back to Marx as George Watson has proved) been associated with, and continues to be associated with, nationalism and racism. Without starting the discussion all over again, I will simply suggest that the inability of these pages to arrive at an agreed interpretation derives from the fact that this dispute relies upon fiercely contested political assumptions, and if we could agree on these political assumptions all ideological political arguments would come to an end, which is not going to happen. The best we can hope for in a Wikipedia article is that one side or the other refrains from denying that this issue is controversial. That is why (in my opinion) fascism and racism (and the claim that they are right wing) SHOULD be discussed in the body of the text, but should NOT be part of the uncontroversial definition of right wing in the lede, because this bit of the current lede is far from uncontroversial - as these Talkpages prove! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Eridu: I think all of us who are participating in this thread have implicitly agreed, so as to avoid disruption of Manning's resolution process, that we're not arguing about the article's lede in this section. I do understand your repeated statements objecting to that, perfectly though ( although this section isn't the place to make them ), and I want to thank you for taking the time to look at Gregor's Faces of Janus, and for your helpful comments on the same. I want to think about what you've said a bit more, before replying substantively, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard, I do agree broadly with your second thesis (post 1945 etc). I totally agree that linear left-right spectrum is simplistic to the extreme beyond its relative meaning (and then only in the most obvious cases). In this context trying to define what is right-wing (beyond relative) it is an impossible and futile task. As much is acknowledged in the Oxford source we are debating: As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context. - BorisG (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If some sources associate left-wingers and communists with racism, it would be a small minority view. I am more sympathetic to collect's view that racism cuts across the entire political spectrum, and some communists, such as Stalin and Mao were racist, while others, like Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg were not. But racism is not an essential part of communist or left-wing ideology, except, as I said, in post-communist Russia and Serbia (and among their compatriot minirioties in former Soviet and Yugoslav republics). - BorisG (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the perpsective on this, Boris. In math we'd say that "right" is a relation not a property, so I take your point re its relative nature. Now that I consider your comment, it occurs to me that the need I felt to break up the possible attribution of racism by time segments (pre and post 1945) and by region when I titled this thread could also be argured to be as urgent for definitions of "right" versus "left". In other words, if you'll refrain from trying to come up with a definition of one or the other terms that applies across all time and in all regions, if you'll "take a smaller bite", so to speak, then it becomes progressively easier to employ the terms usefully.

I'm sure part of my dislike of classifying Stalin et. al. as a leftie ( no, please God, don't let's re-ignite that subthread right this moment! ) is that I strongly associate the left with the notion of social justice; the association seems as nearly "definitional" of "leftist ideology" as one can get. ( Not a complete definition, of course, but a significant part.) But do you think it's useful at all to talk about left or right as absolute terms rather than just relative ones that apply to a given time and to a given region's political context at that time? Are there any clear common themes that can fairly be said to characterize either, in you view, regardless of time and place? That's what Fisher was trying to come up with, after all, and if he got it wrong, could you try to improve on that? Or is it your view that the terms are useless on any time and region-invariant basis?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are making this more complex than it really is. In the legislatures of Europe, conservatives sit on the right, socialists on the left and liberals in the center. Fascists sit on the far right and communists on the far left. Some writers have attempted to determine what values and qualities define the two sides and this has led some writers to question the use of the linear political spectrum. Notably the spectrum is questioned by liberals, especially when they attempt to describe themselves as the real left or the real right. In that case they must re-order the rest of the spectrum. But their's is a minority view.

Boris, the National Bolshevik Party is a fringe fascist party. Compare with National Anarchism. Eridu, your example of George Watson shows how minor those views are. Watson is a literature professor and former Liberal activist, not a political analyst. In any case, he sees socialism as a branch of conservatism and therefore on the Right.[16]

TFD (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

BorisG I entirely agree with you (and Collect) that racism cuts across the entire political spectrum. I am tempted to say this is beyond dispute, but of course this is what is being disputed! That racism plays no part in left-wing ideology is factually incorrect. But let us agree that being on the Left politically certainly does NOT ipso facto make you a racist. I disagree with you TFD that it is only a question of where politicians sit. If only it was that simple! As for your point about George Watson being an English lecturer, it is precisely because he reads original texts that he went to the trouble of finding out what people actually said. It is the texts that speak not George Watson. As for your point that he finds early sources that take socialism to be conservative, if by that you are implying that Watson is saying that Hitler and Stalin are both right wing, that would be a misunderstanding. His discoveries are very much in line with what Gregor is arguing.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the spectrum based on sitting in parliament is fine for parliamentary democracies of Wetsren Europe, and can be applied, with a lesser certainty, to place like the USA and Canada. This is not a very productive approach when we attempt to define a worldwide view. What about ideologies not represented in parliament (such as many trends in US poitics)? What about places like China, Indonesia etc? As for Russia which I am intimately familiar with, Chauvinism and ultranationalism have combined with and integrated into the communist ideology, so that all the left-wing parties and groups have it as an inherent part of their ideology. This is not confined to fringe parties, but is evident for CPRF. See Alexander Prokhanov. Their Russian chauvinism and imperialism even drew former anti-communist dissidents to join their ranks, see Igor Shafarevich. In the current Russian poltical spectrum the more left-wing party is, the more Chauvinist it is. In contrast, the democratic and pro-market opposition such as Yabloko and Right Cause (self described as right wing) is staunchly internationalist and anti-racist, seeking integration with the outside world. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will read the links you've given, Boris, thanks. But until I'm able to do that, may I ask what might be a simplistic question? I'm woefully ignorant of Russian history, but do you think its likely that the ultranationalism you inform us of is the legacy of Stalin's purge of his much more internationalist (and egalitarian) opponents? Do you agree or disagree, in other words, that the ultranationalism could rightly be attributed to the effect the Socialist Party letter writer I cited above decried, when he wrote, "The blood purge resulted in the physical annihilation of an entire generation of Marxist intellectuals and workers whose lives had been dedicated to the goal of socialist internationalism and egalitarianism."?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohio Standard, nationalism was a feature of pre-revolutionary Russia that the Communists first tried to suppress then to exploit. The Black Hundreds, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pogroms all pre-date the revolution and were associated with the far right. TFD (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

TFD, OS is not asking whether the current Russian nationalism derives from Stalin's purges, he is asking whether the current nationalism of the Russian left is a result of Stalin's purges of internationalists. I would say emphatically no. First of all, such a view would be historically incorrect, as these people were purged in 1930s, when Stalin had not yet abandoned internationalism himself. The whole campaign against these early Bolshviks did not show racist aspects. The chauvinistic and racist aspects entered Stalin's policies only in 1940s, including deportation of entire ethnic groups, and infamous drive against rootless cosmopolitans. These policies were largely abandoned after Stalin's death, and while unofficial discrimantion on ethnic grounds was widespread, it was covert, and not part of the offifical ideology. Any form of ethnic nationalism including Russian nationalism (as opposed to Soviet patriotism) was suppressed. As I said, I explain the origin of racist trends within the current Russian communist movement by their loss of empire. Naturallly, nostalgia for former power and glory is as much associated with unchgallenged role of the communist party as with the superpower status of the Soviet empire. That's also why current communists revere Stalin and openly advocate restalinisation. They do not necessarily advocate Stalin's policies, but the glory that Stalin, in their view, brought to Russia, culminating in the victory in the WWII. See e.g., March, L., The Communist Party in post-Soviet Russia

Thank you both, TFD and Boris, for this. I didn't know, TFD, about the Black Hundreds, or the pre-revolution nationalism of that time, and that's helpful background. Boris was correct, though, about the thrust of my question. Btw, I couldn't access the link to The Communist Party in post-Soviet Russia ( ← accessible from U.S.A. ) but have provided one that I'm pretty sure identifies the same page.

I appreciate the link, Boris, as I likewise appreciate this very intelligent commentary. I'll have to beg to differ, though, with the unmodified statement you make, "That's also why current communists revere Stalin and openly advocate restalinisation," if I understand your meaning correctly. I am very much a neophyte in this, as I've said, but I've read enough to know that there are a great many communists who absolutely loathe Stalin as having, in their view, "stolen the revolution", as Napoleon did in France, for example. They would claim that Stalin wasn't really a communist at all, but merely a Stalinist. If you'd qualified your statement to say that some communists openly advocate restalinisation, I'd have no cavil, though. Or do I misunderstand what you mean by "restalinisation"? And did you really mean "communists", or "socialists", instead? Or don't you differentiate much between the two? ( No slight meant; that's a serious question. The use of political terms varies so widely by region and cultural background. )

Oh; one last thing: I don't supose anyone has access to, Racism in the Communist Movement? ( btw, Boris, can you access links like that, links to Google Books that we Yankees provide here? ). It was a publication of the "Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center". As explained here, the OCIC was evidently an umbrella group that coordinated the activities of various Marxist workers organizations across the United States, and that disbanded in 1981. The book looks like it could be a valuable supplement to this discussion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, OS, I should have clarified my statement. I do not for a second suggest that communists in 21 century revere Stalin. Communists in my sttaement above are meant to refer to the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and to its leader Gennady Zyuganov, who recently called for the restalinisation http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/communists-lay-carnations-for-stalin/story-e6frfku0-1225974765203. BorisG (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to compare Stalin's policies with what was standard in other countries at the time. In the U.S. for example, most blacks could not vote, there were restrictions on Jewish entry into many institutions, Japanese were interned in camps and there was discrimination against Catholics. The British and French empires were overtly racist and the right-wing governments of Europe, even excluding the allegedly "left-wing" German and Italian fascists, were virulently racist and anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, doesn't it suggest that racism crosses right across the political spectrum, and is not an exlusive realm of the right. I assume you are not suggesting that FDR (who ordered the internment of the Japanese) was right-wing? - BorisG (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying it is wrong to include private property as an element of capitalism, because there is private property in Communist countries too. TFD (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no private property in Communist countries, with the exception of Hungary. Strange that you don't know this. Bad example. - BorisG (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A small point of order: Can we be very careful, here, please? Please? We've been having such a fruitful exchange here. I'd just hate to see it get tripped up over minor pique. I'd hate to lose the value of your lights, Boris and TFD, by seeing the discussion descend back into a primarily competitive orientation, again. Let's stick with a dialectic model for our argument. Can we agree to use what Carl Jung called "jungle manners" here? No sudden moves that could be easily misinterpreted, everyone carefully respectful, so as not to touch off a fight unnecessarily, that kind of thing? You (TFD and Boris) have both expressed some really top-drawer, germane insights and observations, and I really don't want to lose that to vexation occasioned by a perhaps careless comment. Pardon me, for saying so; I don't in the least mean to be condescending. On the contrary, because both of you know so much more about this than I do, I don't want my "teachers" to fight. :-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A small point of order: Could OhioStandard please desist from falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Collect.

Thanks awfully. –  ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The preceding refers to this SPI.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was widespread. (It is more widespread than that, even though you assume I meant real not moveable property, and I was using the present tense. See for example Property Law of the People's Republic of China.) But the argument remains the same. There was racism in the Soviet Union, therefore racism cannot be associated with the Right. There was private property in Hungary, therefore private property cannot be associated with capitalism. TFD (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have never used that logic. If you read what I said elsewhere on this page, I do not consider Stalin's racism as part of some leftist pattern of racism. Rather I thought TFD's comparison suggested that at the time of Stalin's rule, racism was widespread and Stalin's racism wasn't extraordinary by those standards. I am not quite sure I agree with this, but you do have a point. However what it means to me is that indeed until certain time (say 1945), as mentioned in the title of this section by OS, racism was widespread and not confined to the right. As for private property, it is the best ditinguishing factor indeed, because, as I was taught at school, private property (in the Marxist sense, that is, the means of production, as opposed to personal property such as a bed, fridge etc) was either totally abolished (USSR, etc) or extremely restricted (Hungary, where you could have up to 10 employees). But let's not get into that debate please. As to the present day China, I don't think it is a communist country in anything but name (again, if you meant China under Mao, then I don't agree with you, but I suspect our disagreement is largely terminological; let's not go there please). I genuinely think that with racism it is a lot more complicated, beyond post-1945 Western Europe and North America. If we want to establish a worlwide veiw, we cannot use a definition that only have these restricted meanings. - BorisG (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is that left-wing parties may adopt policies normally associated with the Right, especially when the realities of goverment trump ideology. Vice versa is true as well. TFD (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This, I think, is a perfectly point. However, each policy position can be assessed on its merits. Deportation of entire ethnic groups by Stalin, however brutal, can be indeed explained by pragmatic considerations. But his campaign afainst rootless cosmopolitans can't be. It is perhaps too early to say whether ultra-nationalism of ALL communist and ex-communist parties after the collapse of communism in Russia and Serbia is strategic or tactical, but the pattern clearly points to the former. To be sure, racism in these countries also exists, in its more traditional forms, on the far right. - BorisG (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

@TFD re his 10:54, 27 Feb (UTC) post, above: I think framing Stalin's racism in the context of the racism that was endemic to the era in which he lived very nicely reiterates my first point, with which I began this thread,

(1) Until the Third Reich was defeated in 1945, and its horrific scapegoating of Jews was correspondingly discredited, the belief that racial categories are important in determining human behaviour and abilities was nearly universal among people of European ancestry. Its hard for us to understand how pervasive this belief was: it was the air that people breathed, an unquestioned assumption from their earliest days.

@Boris: Thanks for your clarification that it was Gennady Zyuganov and company you meant, when you spoke of advocates for re-stalinisation. I'm just gobsmacked; I hadn't understood from your earlier book cite that Zyuganov was alive today. I had no idea at all that anyone could still revere Stalin, that monster, that tyrant. Lord have mercy! It just amazes to learn what otherwise intelligent people are capable of believing.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Zyuganov is not just alive but is the leader of the main communist party in Russia, the second largest party in the Russian parliament, the Duma, behind the ruling United Russia party. I also find it appauling and beyond pale. But that is the reality of today's Russia. There are also a few minor communist parties which accuse Zyuganov of being too moderate and conformist. As for less extreme left-leaning parties, they by and large try to avoid the word communist, see A Just Russia- BorisG (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See? I told you I was ignorant of Russian history and politics; I'm sorry for that. But Boris, the things you tell me make me want to pull the blankets over my head with Mr. Whiskers ( the girlfriend's cat ) to comfort me and not come out until the world becomes sane again. ( Not that it ever was, but we didn't know that as children, did we? ) This is the man who could have Russia's nuclear arsenal at his fingertips, at some point? Yikes! He could make Stalin look like a minor player among the world's genocidal maniacs. Lord have mercy, indeed. I looked at A Just Russia; thanks for the link. Nice to see that it's not just us who have trouble agreeing over classifications. ;-) I don't want to go too far off-topic, but how does a party expel "thousands of members who were not aware that they were members"?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of restalinization, read the novel Archangel by Robert Harris. it will not only traumatize you, you're girlfriend's cat will never come out from under the covers. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Rick: I love an intelligently-written geopolitical thriller, and I'm sure Archangel must be so since you recommend it. I've placed it on "hold" with my local library, and look forward to reading it. Perhaps it'll be a painless way to learn just a little more of Russian history, too, if it includes any correct historical background. I'm afraid Mr. Whiskers won't approve, however. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"The conviction that socialism was always about class and never about race... has been a near-universal illusion for decades.... It would not occur to the Left... to ask whether socialism is or always was left-wing...." (Watson, p. 15) Read also the chapters "The idea of conservative revolution" and "The Tory tradition of socialism". TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside Europe we find the same families of political parties. The main parties in Canada, for example, are the Conservatives, the Liberals and the social democratic NDP. The mix of party types and the policies they pursue will differ depending on time and location. Eastern Europe presents a special case, because there are no parties that developed from 19th century conservatism and the "old regime" was Communist, leading political scientists to compare former Communist parties with the Conservative parties of Western Europe. But I would question whether they are in general more racist than other parties in their respective countries, and ask that you provide a source for this. TFD (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"The conviction that socialism was always about class and never about race... has been a near-universal illusion for decades.... It would not occur to the Left... to ask whether socialism is or always was left-wing...." (Watson, p. 15) Read also the chapters "The idea of conservative revolution" and "The Tory tradition of socialism". Well yes exactly. Gordon Bennett! How many times do we go around this particular roundabout. George Watson points out that the author of the first history of socialism he came across assumed that socialism (because it was anti-capitalist) was a conservative critique of free markets. Watson is quite correct. There was, and still is, a strand of conservatism that is suspicious of free market capitalism. He is NOT saying however, as you must know if you have read the book, that Marx and Engels (or any of the other of the various luminaries of the Left whose various racist writings he quotes) are right wing! At this point I generally refer you to the work of a dozen mainstream scholars who have written on this topic, such as Pipes or Furet or Sternhell or Gregor et al, and you reply that each and every scholar who has written about this topic who disagrees with you on this question should be ignored on the grounds that you do not think they are mainstream (cue outrage from other commentators) at which point you then hide or delete my replies saying I am a "sock puppet" of a banned author called “Yorkshirean” (or whatever his or her name is) on the grounds that they once disagreed with you on this topic as well and they got banned! I thought I would formally register as ERIDU DREAMING instead of clicking in Wikipedia every so often unregistered, on the grounds that although this routine is entirely predictable, it gets tiresome after a while. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of words have now been written debating the meaning of what is essentially meaningless. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know what! Let's all create a new section for each of our one-off comments! All this threading stuff is obviously unnecessary. Besides, we all know each of our comments is in a class by itself, relative to the blatherings of other editors, so why shouldn't they each have a section of their own? ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)