Talk:Far-right politics and User talk:Matthew: Difference between pages

Revision as of 14:47, 10 November 2005

Revision as of 11:43, 12 July 2007

Line 1:

{{col-begin}}

==Archive==

{{col-break}}

[[Image:BB61 USS Iowa BB61 broadside USN.jpg|thumb|300px|right|HMS ''Matthew'']]

{{col-break}}

<div style="border:1px solid gray;padding:12px;margin:18px 0px 0px 8px;float:right;text-align:center;font:normal small sans-serif;background-color:#FFFFF8">

<br /><span style="font: italic bold large serif;">Matthew</span>

Lost items found. Paranormal Investigations.<br />

[[/Archive 1]]

Consulting. Advice. Reasonable Rates.<br />

No Love Potions, Endless Purses, or<br />

Other Entertainment.

</div>

{{col-end}}

== Keeping Up Appearances tables ==

== racialist nationalism and populism? ==

Hi Mathew its Edito*Magic (also known as Chris C. Nichols)

These are not the most common usages of this term. Please discuss your ideas in talk. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Arb Com election]]]] 15:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know you were one of the people who agreed with me on the discussion page that one neat table with all the Keeping Up Appearances specials together would look better than several separate tables per episodes, littered all over the page. I’m glad that you can see sense like I can. Hopefully we can make Updown see sense aswell. Please join in the debate further on the [[Wikipedia talk:Television episodes]]. Thanks! [[User:Edito*Magica|Edito*Magica]] 21:38, 11 July 2007 (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. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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. -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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'.--[[User:Marcel1975|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". -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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)

[[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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). -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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. --[[User:Marcel1975|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. [[User:ShaneKing|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, [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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. [[User:ShaneKing|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? -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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... -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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? --[[User:Marcel1975|Marcel1975]] 19:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I made the needed change. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Arb Com election]]]] 13:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Nolan chart ==

Why does the [[Nolan chart]] link keep getting removed? [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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. -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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 [[Libertarian]]s are seen to be far-right in the USA. [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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". [[User:Sam Spade|[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[User talk:Sam Spade|Spade]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|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:

#"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).

#"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.

#"...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.

#"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]].

-- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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":

:#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.

:#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. -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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. -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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). -- [[User:Mihnea Tudoreanu|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk: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. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

== Libertarians? ==

In the [[Far-right#Usage|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk: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.--[[User:Cberlet|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk: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&mdash;most notably,blacks&mdash;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"&mdash;a simple declaration of equality of opportunity moving forward&mdash;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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:47, August 21, 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?--[[User:T. Anthony|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk: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.--[[User:T. Anthony|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].--[[User:Cberlet|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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk: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.--[[User:Cberlet|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]], [http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html 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]]. [[User:Sam Spade|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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? [[User:Sam Spade|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.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 00:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously attempting to cite a wikipedia article you yourself wrote 4 days ago??? [[User:Sam Spade|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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:Citation]]s (hint, I have more where mine came from). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

:I cited my sources in [[Fascism and ideology]]. You might try reading them.--[[User:Cberlet|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'''''! [[User:Sam Spade|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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.--[[User:T. Anthony|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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. [[User:Adam Faanes|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. [[User:Sam Spade|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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.

- ([[User:Neutral nobody|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.--[[User:T. Anthony|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.--[[User:Cberlet|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.--[[User:T. Anthony|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.[http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/old/old3.html] 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? --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)