Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notorious POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Labour Law of January 20, 1934

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political compass

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

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

Classification

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

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

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

Notorious POV Strikes Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My POV?

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

Laissez-faire capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted from political spectrum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left vrs. Right extremists

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

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

racialist nationalism and populism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nolan chart

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Unabomber

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

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

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

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

Libertarians?

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

When are you going to learn...

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

Title is adjective form???

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

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

Affirmative action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, "racism is not simply race prejudice?"

198.160.96.7 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party of Japan

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

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

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

Hayek & libertarian claims about fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read a dictionary!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Authoritarian government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I am talking about idealogies, not about countries

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

mean you said all right wingers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

File:Lincoln18.jpg

This line was removed, because it is POV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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