Jump to content

Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

New Idea

There is no reason Wikipedia has duplicative and conflicting articles on Right-wing politics, Far-Right and Left-Right politics. Not to mention the Political Spectrum and Political compass pages. I think the Jmabel version is far more accurate and less POV, but what we really need is some broader housekeeping that shifts some text around and avopids duplication. The problem here is that this is a complicated and hotly debated set of ideas, and we need to sort them out. WIth that in mind, I do not find the Leifern version to be as useful as the Jmabel version. The Leifern version guts the page and offers over-simplified text. I suggest we discuss the sections Leifern objects to one-by-one. And also start to sort out the material on the other pages. Far-Right should probably be merged into this page so that the fact that there is huge disagreement where the boundaries are can be discussed. --Cberlet 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have put merge notices up. On the merged page we could divide the dicussion right-wing politics along several dimensions: elitist-populist, authoritarian-libertarian, conservative-extreme right, etc. How the term "Far Right" is used in several ways by different authors. A discussion of where libertarianism and fascism fit, with references to Political Spectrum and Political compass pages. All of this would be much more useful and informative for the reader.--Cberlet 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be useful to merge Far-Right with the two other variants that were identified at Talk:Far-Right. It may or may not be useful to merge those with Right-wing politics: I could go either way on that. I could alternatively see drawing the line, at least post-1850, at whether the politics subscribes to liberal democracy; we could make the same division with the article(s) about the Left.
I think Left-right politics is justified as an article. We have articles about many individual models of the political spectrum. The Left-right spectrum is probably the most common one-dimensional model, and hence deserves an article. There may be material here that would better be moved there
Political compass might merge into Political spectrum. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

POV forks

Extreme Right, Far Right, Far right, Ultra rightism and Extreme right all need to be directed towards Far-right, not to here. Most of these are POV forks/stubs started by Cberlet. The concensus @ Talk:Right-wing_politics#Hopelessly_muddled_-_merge is to merge, so... why are you reverting to these stubs of yours? Sam Spade 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Get a grip, the discussion has been going on for just over 24 hours and has involved only a handful of editors. Relax.--Cberlet 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to discussion

So, Jmabel. You suggest we make the Right and Left pages symmetric. How do you propose to do that? We do need to change the names of Far-left and Far-right because they are not proper namaes for an encyclopedia. At least they should be changed to Far Left / Far right or Far-right politics /Far-left politics.

And how do we deal with the fact that the terms "Far Left" and "Far Right" are used differently by different scholars?

Other questions, do we keep Ultra-leftism and Ultra-rightism as pages that describe groups on the outer margins? Or do we direct them to Extreme left / Extreme right or to Far Left / Far right ? And do we use "Far Right" / "Far Left" or "Far right" / "Far left" (or Extreme or both)?

Or do we redirect everything to Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics and sort things out that way? Or do we create Far-right politics and Far-left politics?

One problem is that some of the existing links to Far-left and Far-right are discussing very different forms of political ideology and methodology.

For me a big issue is that there are literally scores of books on the Far Left and Far Right as well as Extreme left and Extreme right, and almost none of them are cited in any of the pages.--Cberlet 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, I have to question the whole premise for these articles, as I've tried to do with my bold edits. If the world of politics can be separated into what is left and what is right (a debatable proposition), it can't be assumed that ultra-left flows out of mainstream left, or ultra-right out of mainstream right. The issue has at least to be discussed properly. There are lots of conservative people to whom anything on the far right is as much of an anathema as anything on the far left. This topic requires nuance if we want to do it right.--Leifern 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Look, I understand your opinion, and agree with some of your points, but an actual cite to a published book would be nice. Your edit was almost entirely original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.--Chip 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not original research - you can go to any site or read any book that discusses this and it'll be consistent with what I wrote. Also, if you review all the parties that are supposed to be right-wing, you'll see these themes. This is not complicated stuff. --Leifern 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I don't have a specific proposal. I'm open to a lot of ways we could handle this, but given the inherent controversiality of the material, and the near-impossibility of true objectivity by the contributors (you and I are never going to see this the same way as a conservative, and vice versa), I just want to make sure that left and right are handled symmetrically. It also means (and sometimes I despair of this) that the commonly used categorization of Fascism on the Right and State Communism on the Left should both be used as starting points, with the criticisms of these views mentioned, but not with criticism swamping the prevailing usages.

It may be that certain titles won't line up one-to-one ("ultra-left" has a specific meaning within communist circles that will not be symmetric to ultra-right) but the only way this is going to be something other than a mudslinging fest or a whitewash is that we make every effort to handle left and right as similarly as possible, regardless of our individual politics. That means (for example) that if we have a near-essay on the left and the War on Terror, we have a similarly structured near-essay on the right and the War on Terror. And that left-right politics remain as an overview of the concepts, and the main place where we explain the basics of the history of this terminology.

There is also a need to keep our eye on the ball. Libertarians are over-represented among our contributors. That doesn't mean they should be overrepresented among our citations or discussed at great length as subject matter in articles that are supposed to be about something else. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Are advocates in the USA of "English Only" proposing a right wing or a left wing idea? Stettlerj 04:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the context of the USA today, this idea is almost entirely supported by the right. It's more an issue of monoculturalism vs. multiculturalism than of right vs. left, though, and there have been times historically when the left was more on the monoculturalist side. I don't think it is an inherently left-right issue, but that's how it lines up in the U.S. right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm very liberal in my ideology, however, I feel that English is the national language in the USA and should be spoken by ALL citizens. In the old days to become a citizen you had to speak English is an understandable manner, write it, and use it. I'm for it being that way again. The Native Language of the USA is the various American Indian languages. So if we promote true USA Native Language then we'll have to go far before the Europeans entered the picture. User: bumpusmills1

Discussion

Sam Spade has systematically removed all the merger flags, redirected multiple pages, moved text, and and essentially short-circuited the discussion on this proposed set of changes. I have been told to negotiate. Sam Spade, let's negotiate. Where is the "consensus" you claim you are enforcing?--Cberlet 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You made it clear what you had in mind above. Lots of people weighed in, nobody agreed w you. I am saying that having separate articles for Far-right, Far right, and Extreme right is unwarranted. If there is a special term called Ultra-left or whatever, so be it. Political science isn't math, we can't expect a perfect symatry using these (nearly worthless) terms. Instead, we describe what experts think, and make it clear where they disagree. That way the reader (who we are writing for) can make up his own mind. The hard part is when he can't find our articles because the redirects are all mixed about on newly created stubs... Sam Spade 20:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I honestly do not see a consensus, especially in 48 hours with a tiny handful of entries. I was not proposing Far-right, Far right, and Extreme right all exist as full entries. I was proposing merging and redirecting Far-right because it is a lousy title for an entry, and sending readers to an expanded Right-wing politics. Far right would become a disambiguation page that sent readers to Right-wing politics and Extreme right. Extreme right is an appropriate page because there are scores of scholarly books that use that term in the title and the writers do not mean conservatives or even right-wing populists. --Cberlet 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You said much the same thing above. I disagree. All others also have disagreed. That means consensus against your proposal, not an excuse for these POV forks to remain in existance, and the reader to remain in limbo, unable to find the content they desire.
I understand scholars use terms like "extreme right". If you can show a number of scholars showing a clear difference between "extreme right" and "far-right", that might warrant a separate article. What it would not warrant is the creation of far right, or the attempt to force a merger of all of them into right wing politics, which no one agrees with.
Food for thought:
I challenge you to show that these terms have a substantially different meaning, and justify the creation of these POV forks. Sam Spade 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

<-------Sam Spade, I NEVER suggested merging all the pages together. If we are to attempt a civil conversation it would help greatly if you actually criticize what I propose instead of making claims that misrepresent what I am proposing.

Here are some of the books that discuss terminology and point out that between conservatism and the extreme right there is a sector of right-wing politics:

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

Here are some books and articles that focus on the extreme right:

  • Durham, Martin. 2002. "From Imperium to Internet: the National Alliance and the American Extreme Right" Patterns of Prejudice 36(3), (July): 50-61.
  • Hainsworth, Paul, ed. 2000. The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London: Pinter.
  • Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Note that not all groups on the extreme right are neo-fascist or Neo-Nazi. Most klaverns of the Ku Klux Klan are examples]].

Here is the problem with the term "Far Right" from one of the pages you seek to delete:

Much confusion is caused by widely varying usage of the term.
Far Right can refer to:
  • The Dissident Right, Activist Right, Right-Wing Populism, or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are all forms of Right-wing politics located between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. In this case particpants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of drastic reform rather than actual revolution.
  • The extreme right, which includes neo-fascists, White supremacists, and Neo-Nazis. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist.
  • The whole range of right-wing politics from the Dissident Right to the far reaches of the extreme right.
The page Right-wing politics helps sort this out.

So the issues are not as clear cut as you imply.--Cberlet 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is content I merged into Far-right. You gave a bunch of cites above, none of which clarify a difference between far-right, far right, extreme right, and ultra right. Citing irrelevant texts is unhelpful. Sam Spade 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You might consider glancing at one of the cited texts to see that this discussion of terminiology is complicated. The Durham book has a good dicussion, and you will enjoy the fact that he cites my use of the term "Far Right" as an example of how terminiology gets confused--and in fact his argument is one reason I did more research and decided that Durham was correct and that the term "Extreme Right" was more useful to describe that sector of the revolutionary right.  :-) --Cberlet 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have your cited texts here in germany, and from what you yourself have said, your sources do not verify "a number of scholars showing a clear difference between "extreme right" and "far-right", that might warrant a separate article." Perhaps you can cite a source in which detailed distinction between far-right, far right, and extreme right is made, and some independant party can visit his local library to verify it, but the truth is we all know these terms are imprecise, and that the reader is best served by a single, coherant article written in a NPOV manner based on a variety of verifiable expert sources.

Sam Spade 15:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware

Sam Spade 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight. Sam Spade does not have time for substantive edits; does not have access to the basic texts in the field; apparently has not read them; is not willing or not able to cite any published sources for his views; but Sam Spade is willing to enforce his views on how this and eight other pages relating to right-wing politics are handled here on Wikipedia. Do I have that correct? I just like to know where I stand when trying to have a discussion.--Cberlet 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That was inaccurate, rude, and unhelpful. Please check yourself and come correct. Sam Spade 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

OK, What books or reputable published texts can you cite to defend your point of view? I cited a number of books, but you say even if I supply the page numbers where terminology is discussed, you do not have access to them, so you simply dismiss them as relevant to the discussion. How am I suppposed to defend my edits and proposals if you simply dismiss my research into the topic and ignore the texts I cite to back up my arguments. This is the same set of issues that has resulted in am impasse between us in previous editing disputes. I suggest that by comments above are a very accurate summary of the situation here.--Cberlet 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. The following are citations for Right-wing, right-wing, and extreme right being synonyms with a definition distinct from that of the conservative right. Some of these illustrate a relationship between far left and far right ideologies.
  • Letter from the Publisher. Spring 2002. Europe Turns Right. European Affairs
  • Fithin, Caspar. (2000). European Union — Sanctions against Austria lifted. Oxford Analytica. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from Columbia International Affairs Online
  • Ishiyama, J.; Breuning, M. (1998). Ethnopolitics in the New Europe — The Volksunie and the Vlaams Blok in Belgium. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from Columbia International Affairs Online
  • How to stop the far right , By: Fieschi, Catherine, Fieschi, Catherine, New Statesman, 13647431, 4/5/2004, Vol. 133, Issue 4682
  • Immigration, Insecurity and the French Far Right , By: Adler, Frank, Telos, 00906514, Summer2001, Issue 120
everything i could find illustrates this same synonymous connections between the terms "far right" and "extreme right". I decided to stop at five cites, but there are tens of thousands available. Now I'm off to do some homework. Sorry for being busy, but my work on the wikipedia is entirely volunteer. Indeed if anything it harms my reputation, rather than enhancing it. Sam Spade 18:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In English could be diferent, but, in latin languages, there is only one expression ("extrema-direita", "extreme droite", etc.).--81.84.81.184 01:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the Durham book:
  • “In such a contentious field, it would be wise to be particularly careful in the way we describe movements. Such terms as mainstream and extreme, moderate and radical, all bring with them implications and assumptions, and we will return to some of these in the concluding chapter. For now, it will be suggested that while those on the right who are committed to white supremacism and/or anti-Semitism are best defined by the term 'extreme right', those that hold a conspiracy theory of history, without attributing an ethnic identity to the conspirators, are better described by some other term. To render the situation more difficult, there are strands of the right who seem at the same time to he attracted to a racial framing of politics and resistant to it, an indeterminate battleground between other more settled forms of rightism. Elements within both the Patriot movement and the Buchanan movement, it will be argued, are just such strands, just as the Christian Right occupies the ground that stretches from mainstream conservatism to non-racist conspiracism. Rather than stretching the term 'extreme right' beyond breaking point, non-racist conspiracists will instead be described as the radical right, while in discussing the two groupings together, along with those still unresolved between them, another category, that of the far right, will be used. We will see as the book progresses whether such definitions and distinctions prove valuable or not. This, no doubt, will be a matter of dispute, as will the account it informs.”
Durham, 2000, pp. xii-xiii.
Similar discussions over terminology problems in Kaplan & Weinberg, 1998, pp. 8-13; Diamond, 1996, 88-89; Berlet & Lyons, 2000, pp. 61-71.--Cberlet 01:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We're surely not going to be accepting the self cite, but your above excerpt does help your case for an extreme right page somewhat. Sam Spade 14:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


"Rather than stretching the term 'extreme right' beyond breaking point, non-racist conspiracists will instead be described as the radical right, while in discussing the two groupings together, along with those still unresolved between them, another category, that of the far right, will be used. We will see as the book progresses whether such definitions and distinctions prove valuable or not. This, no doubt, will be a matter of dispute, as will the account it informs."

This certainly makes it clear Durham proposes this distinction, but he seems ambiguous as to if it is useful.. How does this conclude? Does he find this distinction a good one? He seems to me to be saying that Far right is the broader catagory, so until we have more than a stub's worth of content on "extreme right", I say it stays a redirect to Far-right (or Far right if you prefer). None of these should be redirected here, this article is busy enough as it is, and an easy argument can be made for the concepts being largely unrelated.

I would like for us to draw a clear line between those who are individualist vrs. collectivists, reactionary vrs. revolutionary, and legalist vrs. kinship based. These distinctions are more useful IMO than the Left right politics false dichotomy. Sam Spade 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I don't see any reason Chip Berlet should not be able to cite himself. Regardless of the fact that you clearly dislike his political views, his work falls well within the standards for citable sources. If there is any standard that says that the author of a source that would normally be citable is (unlike everyone else) ineligible to cite that, I'm unaware of it. If there is such a standard, please indicate where. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Chip is not an expert witness, he is a controversial investigative journalist. But why does it even matter? Chips argument doesn't hinge on his self-cite. I disregarded the self cite, but his point remains. This discussion might be important to have elsewhere (like @ Wikipedia talk:No original research), but I don't see it as anything other than a distraction here. Sam Spade 13:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade: I do not dispute that I am a "controversial investigative journalist" but I am also the author of a large body of published scholarly work on right-wing social and political movements. That you continue to deprecate and dismiss my work and my expertise is cheap and petty. There is a reason I have asked for mediation--and now arbitration--concerning your personal animosity toward me and my work. I cite sources, do research specifically to answer qustions posed on Wiki talk pages, and work collaboratively with many editors here across a wide range of political viewpoints. Once and a while I cite a piece of my published work, usually when I cannot readily find another authority to cite. Often I go back and add other cites as I find them. The issue here is sorting out a set of pages that need work. There is a legitimate disucssion to be held as to what pages should be retained, which should be created, which should be renamed, and what they should contain. When I tried to set up a system of pages where this discussion could take place, (following what I thought were the procedures mandated by Wikipedia), you had a childish temper tantrum and reverted all of my work, making snide comments in the process. The arbitrators have told us to work this out. I am willing to do so, but I do think that starting by assuming good faith (as hard as that might be for both of us) would be a commendable starting point. --Cberlet 15:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
We should not be discussing this here, but the reason you took me to arbitration because you claimed I was part of a nobs led conspiracy against you. Discussing that at length here is unhelpful.
If you would like to have an adult conversation, dismiss with personal attacks, abuse, and invective such as "you had a childish temper tantrum". That would be an important first step towards you fulfilling the arbiters request.
As far as what actually happened when you created POV forks, I think thats very clear. If you would like to continue to discuss a solution to the problem you created, I am willing to resume, so long as you refrain from from further outbursts. Sam Spade 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it best if I walk away from editing until the arbitration is concluded. Back later.--Cberlet 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: Can you provide us with a list of all works you have published in the Covert Action Information Bulletin? Thanks. nobs 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
That would probably be a moderately inappropriate question in the arbitration process. It is a completely inappropriate question on this talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Back to the article...

What do people think about the definition of left and right being based on equality? Leftists want a greater degree of equality (either of process, status, or outcome) and rightests want a greater degree of hierarchy (aristocracy, theocracy, meritocracy, etc...). I think that, and the sociological dichotomies like "Kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist" will be helpful, particularly when discussing these extremes of far right (and far left). Sam Spade 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think kinship (right) vs. legalist (left) is probably relevant. I don't think collectivist vs. individualist is a left-right distinction though. Individualism tends to be a liberal notion, and by a present-day political spectrum, liberals straddle the center. I suppose it is relatively hard to find a truly anti-collectivist view on the far left (left anarchists certainly have a strong dose of individualism, but tend to advocate voluntary association, mutual aid, etc.), but on the right you have everything from "rugged individualist" conservatives to religious communitarians who don't even embrace individual rights of conscience. Thatcher differed from the "Tory Wets" precisely in being much more of an individualist, but can one really say the Tory Wet defenders of aristocratic privilege were not part of the Right?
Sam, I find it a bit odd that you seem to go back and forth between saying, on the one hand, that you completely reject the notion of left vs. right and, on the other hand, trying to define it, rather than cite sources that either reject the dichotomy or attempt to use/define it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see those as mutually exclusive charateristics on my part. In order to dispute the utility of the concept it is best to cite examples of people variously using it, as well as disputing it's use, and of course to bring in different criteria, like kinship vrs. legalist and individualist vrs. collectivist, to help to clarify just what exactly were talking about. You brought up the wide range of thoughts on the right; how could we even discuss these with out some outside terms? Sam Spade 22:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Redistribution and wanting the state to promote social justice are characteristics of most left-wing political parties, but there are plenty of left-wingers who don't believe in either. It's an indicator, but hardly essential. (Or in other words, I agree with Jmabel) --- Charles Stewart 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your not understanding. I'm not saying these terms will help you understand if a given group is left or right. I am saying that these catagories will help readers make sense of where these groups stand, regardless of how useful the terms "left" or "right" are. Sam Spade 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Postscript I should add that I think the essence of left vs. right lies in the existence of a parliamenetary process determing a political spectrum. If there is no such process, or it is hard to pick out which side is the left- and the right- wing, then the terms become highly problematic family resemblance terms. --- Charles Stewart 23:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And I think their arbitrary labels invented by self described leftists to catagorise their opposition ;) Sam Spade 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were to offer my own oh-so-clever characterisation of what is the essence of the left vs. the right, then I would say that left-wingers have a tendency to believe the end justifies the means, whilst right-wingers tend to believe the means justifies the ends. I've spent time in both contexts where it is awkard not to be a left-winger and likewise not to be a right-winger (I've got good camouflage skills: I like both Trotsky and Hayek), and I don't think either label has much content-independent force. --- Charles Stewart 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think either label has much content-independent force."

I'd like to hear you elaborate on that, I think it might raise an important point of agreement. Sam Spade 13:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean "context-independent" not "content-independent". By this, I meant that, while many right-wingers often feel defensive about calling themselves right-wing in social situations (think of a true-blue conservative finding themself in a political argument in a sophisticated liberal New York bar), the same is true for many left-wingers (think of a gay marriage advocate in Kansas), and in fact challenging these social pressures is often an important experience that shapes these individuals political character. I'm guessing that's not what you were after.--- Charles Stewart 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

nope. I was hoping you ment that left/right was an artificial, topic specific distinction, rather than a functional general category. That was what I was hoping I could agree with ;) Sam Spade 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with that, but I will agree that it is frequently ill-founded and misleading distinction. It mostly works well in the context of party politics, not well in the realm of ideology. --- Charles Stewart 15:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That is part of why I am so quick to object to it, being that I have lots of ideology and no political party. Anyhow, I'd like to repeat myself and say:

"I think that ... the sociological dichotomies like "Kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist" will be helpful, particularly when discussing these extremes of far right (and far left)."

Sam Spade 15:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If what you mean is: analysing the particular points under dispute is more helpful than invoking overl;y broad labels like left and right outside of the context of party politics, then we are wholly in agreement. --- 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, that is what I ment. Sam Spade 01:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that "kinship vs. legalist" (although I would suggest "traditionalist vs. legalist", since it embraces kinship, but also includes, for example, sectarian groupings that may not be kin groups), may be a perfectly valid article in its own right—I'd certainly be all for an article on that—but is a different spectrum than right-left. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, but can you understand that:

  1. Left/right is a controvercial and ambiguous dichotomy not accepted by all
  2. That "kinship vrs. legalist" and "collectivist vrs. individualist", as alternate categories, can help us to define what were even talking about.

Sam Spade 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I see traditionalist vs. legalist as more on the mark than kinship vs. legalist, and I think that collectivist vs. individualist is largely beside the point. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of the terms

Two points about the organisation of this section:

  • I think it would be better if the discussion of the history of the term preceded the list of issues at stake, and a very brief summary of the key issues were put in the lead section.
  • The second through the fifth point are mainly concerned in practice with free markets. Should we add some hierarchical structure to the list, grouping similar sorts of issues together? Free markets are probably the best example we have of an issue that has crossed the parliamentary divide: we should say so somewhere, but I'm not sure where is best. --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I meant to make my proposal for the Left-right politics page: it certainly seems to make more sense there. --- Charles Stewart 22:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian theories about fascism

A libertarian advocacy website does not trump dozens of academic scholars. The primacy of the Nation and the State are the primary hallmarks of fascism. Collectivism is one of many other secondary aspects. The libertarian concept of fascism as ultra-collectivism is hardly given any credence in serious scholarship on fascism. The fascist idea of collectivism, as posted above, was that the State organically represented both the individual and the collective. The failure to provide any serious cites other than Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn should settle this question. This same debate is now taking place on three Wiki pages: Fascism and ideology, Fascism, Right-wing politics. Can we at least seek to have the discussion only on the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's kind of an odd statement, given that, today, a very large proportion (if not the lion's share) of scholars are libertarians. Statists are pretty anachronistic today, if you haven't noticed. RJII 19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
On what planet are most scholars libertarians? Come on! Most scholars are not libertarians. Especially in the Social Sciences that is not the case. Most scholars are moderate Republicans or Democrats with less ideologically narrow views than most who identify as libertarians. A significant number of economists and scholars of economics are libertarians in a vague "Free Market" sense of the term, but hardly in the camp of von Mises. Anyway, could we PLEASE move this discussion to the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know where you've been but this is not the 1960's anymore. Libertarianism is mainstream among intellectuals --statism is fringe. RJII 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is one libertarian who disagrees with you: Young oped.--Cberlet 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The survey didn't ask if the respondent was a libertarian. What's a libertarian supposed to say when he opposes both left/liberal and right/conservative? RJII 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that even the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that fascism is a form of collectivism when it defines collectivism as "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class." RJII 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we PLEASE move this discussion to the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you started it. RJII 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. but now?--Cberlet 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As long as fascism continues to be discussed here, it's relevant. -- Jbamb 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
For now can we temporarily have just one conversation over at the Fascism and ideology page? Then after things are sorted out somewhat, those who want to can revisit the text on this page?--Cberlet 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Forks

There are several places in this article where synonymous terms meaning "far right" are treated as seperate and distinct when there is little real distinction between them and they all refer to the same thing. This is called POV forking. It is a neutrality problem because it adds tons of volume to the article repeating the same viewpoint in different terms. I added a header until this is resolved, so please clean up this article. - Antimetro 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, POV forking is when people create their own version of an article. And there are definitely scholars—and I use that word advisedly, I mean academics, not political commentators—who make these distinctions, especially between those whose views are extreme but who still subscribe (at least in principle) to liberal democracy, and those who advocate putschism. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Cleanup and NPOV

This page is much cleaner, deals with several countries, and has more cites. If editors want to tag the page or a section, please do so AND actually have a discussion here.--Cberlet 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion was started here even though two people have now tried to remove the tags. Also, you did not clean up the problematic sections. You only changed their order in the article. I would like to see a satisfactory answer for the questions I've made. What is the substantive material distinction between radical/far/hard/extreme/ultra right? These terms are all synonyms. They are all used interchangably by many commentators. Quote a credible source making a substantive distinction between them and then show that the distinction he/she makes is widely accepted. - Antimetro
The specific scholars cited make the distinctions. You simply ignore them. What are your cites for the terms all being used the same way by scholars?--Cberlet 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Please quote them and show how their distinctions are accepted in general use. Anybody with a simple dictionary can see how they are synonymous and interchangable terms in regular use. - Antimetro

See:

Radical adj 1: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: extremist, ultra] (Princeton Wordnet)

ultra adj : (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: extremist, radical]. WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

extremist adj : (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: radical, ultra]. WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I say a well regarded and widely used dictionary of English is a better indicator of the most common and proper usage of these synonymous terms - not obscure distinctions made by sources that aren't quoted and don't seem notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles. - Antimetro

<----That is so anti-intellectual as to be silly. I have cited contemporary major scholars in the field of study. They are raising the problem of how the terms are used. Dictionaries and encyclopedias follow these tendencies in academia by years--sometimes decades.

Please don't engage in insults Cberlet. Collegiate dictionaries reflect established standard usage of words. Usages that differ with the established ones by obscure "contemporary" scholars aren't acceptable if they haven't been established. It appears Wikipedia also has a rule about this called Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. It says "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary" and it says they should be avoided. The usages of the terms you apply don't appear in any dictionary and they differ significantly with the usages that do appear in the dictionary. If you want to, why don't you write a section on how the list of people who use the neologisms of those terms do it? The article's general use should reflect the accepted dictionary use though and it should be described how your list of scholars differ from that use. - Antimetro

And if you read the recent edit, that's essentially what I did.--Cberlet 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bioconservatism

Why is Bioconservatism in the list? It doesn't strike me as particularly right-wing, or even necessarily right of center. Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent bioconservative, is usually counted (and presumably counts himself) on the left. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

One-dimensional or two-dimensional

Can I have a clarification of the "Many libertarians do not consider themselves to be right wing and reject the traditional two-dimensional political spectrum, preferring to think in terms of liberty vs. authority rather than socialism vs. capitalism." comment? It was fairly clear to me that "two-dimensional" is an error here - left/right, socialist/capitalist and liberty/authority are all one-dimensional, not two-dimensional. "One-dimensional" is the correct phrase here, according to the Libertarian presidential nominee for 2004 [1]. At the very least, I'd like to know what the traditional "two-dimensional" spectrum is. StuartH 04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Using "two-dimensional" here also clashes with the Libertarian page here on Wikipedia, I've reverted it to the more correct "one-dimensional". StuartH 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at The Political Compass for a good analysis of two dimensional politics. Indeed on this scale libertarians would be considered economically right wing, but socially liberal, as opposed to conservative. Alun 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Defining right-wing values

Part of the problem with this article is defining the content of right-wing ideology. A point of contention might be this: "The dominant modern strand of right wing thought is concerned with traditional values (often associated with Christian values in nature)", in such that 'traditional values' is in fact relative. As time proceeds tradition goes with it. In an area like San Francisco in California USA, homosexuality has been openly accepted for, arguably, 40 years or more. It could be said that various traditions about romance, child rearing and so forth have been expanded to include homosexuals in San Francisco, although this is not the case in other places even within the same state. As such, it is certainly valid to contend that what is meant by 'traditional values' is not only geographical, but temporal. The association to Christian values attempts to give shape to this, but this is also overly broad, as Christianity itself is varied. One simply has to look at the recent Anglican gay bishop issue to see this. In short, I believe this level of generalization to be inappropriate to the article. It leads to the inevitable question of how maleable are right-wing values? If left-wing values prevail, do they not become traditional, or would left-wing be more aptly described as differing from the prevailing standard? I also see it as a furthering of the false dichotomy, as most politicians of any affiliation at least superficially give the impression of living a 'traditionalist' life in the relative sense. Athemeus 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, this is a conceptual issue. Is "the right" defined by traditional values (whatever tradition happens to be), or by pro-religious pro-capitalistic pro-military values? What do "left" and "right" mean in "traditionally leftist" places like the former Soviet Union? DanBishop 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If one takes the Political Compass POV, then right wing applies to economics, especially the personal ownership of property and capital (the means of production). By it's very nature this must rely on law and some semblence of statehood to enact the law and a provide a judiciary to make legal rulings (so right-libertarians cannot advocate the complete abolision of the state, as the state provides the legal framework for ownership, conversely libertarian socialists or anarchists do advocate the abolition of the state as ownership is not an issue). The promotion and especially the coercive implementation of traditional values would constitute authoritarianism, as opposed to right-wing. I should point out that certain types of socialism are also authoritarian, such as communism. Alun 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WTLIRATRIW!

I like the way the fox link was snuck in! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.6.211 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006.

Hardly snuck. See the section above discussing it; the first three entries were already there when you wrote this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

TRUE POLITICS

Is anyone familiar with Dr. Frederick Schwartz? In The Three Faces of Revolution he has a graph. It is the true structure of politics.

most GOVERNMENT CONTROL least INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY


Communism, Nazism, Fascism

Democratic Socialism

Liberalism

Conservitism

Anarchy


least GOVERNMENT CONTROL most INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

Iampublius 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Frederick Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade? Haven't you posted pretty much exactly the same thing to several other talk pages, possibly under a different name? - Jmabel | Talk 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have used the name Iampublius. There are many of us. Those who believe the way of the Constitution. Those of us who see it as a living and breathing document. Those who oppose any kind of change that DOES NOT follow the laws set forth by it. The name was used by three great men to put forth ideals and it should be used as such. Iampublius 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Which constitution of which country? I hesitate to guess so as not to be offensive. Grant65 | Talk 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, good heavens. If this was shown with a graph, then obviously it must be true! I'm convinced; where do I sign up? KarlBunker 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Imbalance and proposed merger

The concepts of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are supposed to be mirror images of each other. Any issue that can be discussed in relation to the right can also be discussed in relation to the left. And, indeed, it is often inevitable that a discussion of right-wing ideas will also entail a discussion of left-wing responses and objections to those ideas. You cannot talk about the right without also talking about the left, albeit briefly.

As such, I am wondering why exactly do we have separate articles about left-wing and right-wing politics instead of discussing all the issues from the perspective of both left and right in the article Left-Right politics. As it stands now, the attempt to separate the articles on the left and right has produced major imbalances - as a case in point, this present article about right-wing politics is little more than a stub. I propose to merge left-wing politics and right-wing politics into Left-Right politics. That will allow us to discuss both left- and right-wing perspectives on a whole range of issues. It will provide a more NPOV approach to politics and it will give us one article on the subject of the left-right spectrum instead of the three overlapping articles that we currently have. -- Nikodemos 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Include the merger of far left and far right as well? Intangible 14:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly support that, yes. But merging five articles at the same time can be messy. Let's merge these three first, then propose the merger of far right and far left. -- Nikodemos 03:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sound okay with me, these article are already too much concerned with ideologies instead of being concerned with how these terms are used by political science scholars or historians. Intangible 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't object, but I'm unconvinced that this will be a positive. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Left-Right politics makes some sense, but since there are large bodies of scholarly work on the "far left" and "far right" I certainly would oppose merging them. --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently there is some confusion as to what I mean. I won't object to meging left-wing politics and right-wing politics into Left-Right politics; however I will vigorously oppose any plan to remove Far Right and Far Left through any merger plan or deletion. Yes, there is some overlap of text, and this should be cleaned up. However, there are hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of published studies on the ideologies, institutions, groups, and indvidual thinkers and leaders of the "Far Right" and "Far Left"; and there is no way one article discussing the concept of "Far Right" and "Far Left" can adequately address the content of these published sociological, historical, anthropological, or political science studies.--Cberlet 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Americanised Wikipedia

Considering how multinational wikipedia is supposed to be i do find that it is very Americanised. "Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right)" This is bollocks, the politics of many nations have these views.84.9.115.6 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, it is unlikely that an American wrote that phrase. It was presumably written by someone, probably European, who rejects the view that there is such a thing as a left in the United States. - Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-wing_politics/Archive_4&oldid=299528225"