Talk:Right-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Fascism and Nazism[edit]

An IP has removed reference to Nazism without explanation.[1] Unless some reason can be provided for removal please do not continue to remove. Also, another IP previously removed Nazism and fascism from the categories section. After reflection, I agree with that - they are part of the category of right-wing politics, not vice versa. TFD (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Nazis were socialists, left wing politics. As were all fascists. They nationalized industry, mandated employment, introduced tenure for a variety of positions, set wages, set prices and directed the output of production. See Hayek's book. We can do this another way, how about I list ten very obvious moves to the left that fascists and the Nazis specifically have moved their countries for every 1 that can be posted as moves to the right, and we will see how runs out of material first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6cb0:3840:ebad:9e05:8ffb (talkcontribs) 14:20, 11 December 2015
Words mean what they mean. The use of "right-wing" to include Nazis and fascists is well-documented. The second poster above, who did not sign his post, apparently wants "right-wing" to have a new meaning, but Wikipedia provides information, based on references. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet Neo-Nazism is clearly recognised as (far) right. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's go over their policies and see where they line up. Why don't you name one movement to the right, for every 10 I name that are clearly movements towards the left. Game? Hayek was to the right of what he called conservatives, which he though were weak capitalists. He called NAZIs socialists, because they were. Just like Mussolini, who was a socialist leader his whole life. He just abandoned international socialism, in favor of national socialism. 11:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)~ John (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk)
We do not determine which groups are right wing by going through a checklist of policies because that would be synthesis. Instead we allow experts to do that and report their conclusions. Hayek for example did accuse nazis of rejecting free market principles but never said that made them left-wing. See the chapter in Hayek's book, "Why I am not a conservative." TFD (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You ignore the policies, but cite polemical opinions from biased writers? OK. That should be included so readers get a better unbiased understanding. Something like "This position is not based on observable policies and fact, it is based on the beliefs of experts, or in this case a website definition for a introduction course to political science". Let's cite Jonah Goldberg then. He goes over what fascism is in extended detail, far more than in the current citation. It is based on policies, and not stated in a conclusory fashion. As to your other point, you are playing on the different use of the word "conservative" and "liberal" in Europe vs. America. " There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense." from the same chapter you cite. Hayek was European. In Europe if you are for limited government and laissez faire politics they call you a liberal, or a neo liberal these days. In America that same person is called a conservative. Both are on the right side of the political spectrum. Socialism is a product of the left everywhere. Hayek is squarely on the right in modern understanding, and especially in America. To the right of even Milton Friedman. )~ John (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:3840:EBAD:9E05:8FFB (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You do not need to persuade other editors of your opinions, you need to provide sources to say that those opinions are generally accepted in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
TFD has it right-- Wiki works through reliable sources, not personal speculation. Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that! For some reason (usually among Americans, and I am one, but have lived in Europe most of my adult life), people focus on the words and actually believe them. Political words are often used deceptively for PR purposes. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is hardly "democratic".
While the National Socialists (Nazis) (mis)used the word "socialist", and, in the beginning had certain socialist elements, they quickly changed and became very fascist, and, along with other fascists, were right wingers. When uncertain, look at who were friends and enemies. Look who fought against each other: the communists fought the socialists (both were left wing, but bitter enemies), Social Democrats denounce socialists, the socialists and communists (left wing) fought the Nazis and Fascists (both right wing), the Americans (right wing) were (many still are) antisemitic and tended to side with the Nazis (also right wing) until their atrocities became apparent and they attacked England, etc. If Hitler had not been so barbaric (just hidden his misdeeds better) and had not attacked England, we would have been allied with him against the communists in Russia.
I have observed that Europeans are generally better aware of political ideologies and know their own place on the political spectrum. Their history and better educations teach them this stuff. Americans tend to be rather naive in this regard. (Fortunately there are Americans who are exceptions. Face-wink.svg) They rate right wing as being equal to socialism, social democracy, and communism, which is utter BS.
For our purposes here, we follow what RS say, and they place the nazis and fascists on the right wing. The KKK side with them, and the KKK is anything but left wing. At Donald Trump's rallies, some of his supporters use the "Sieg Heil" Nazi salute; he's classified as a fascist; and right wing extremists say he is on their side and that his rhetoric helps them. Food for thought! -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What a condescending diatribe. The KKK backed progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was also a big fan of theirs. Showing their propaganda film "Birth of a Nation" to everyone who would watch -inside the White House no less. George Wallace loved the KKK, and big government. The KKK got many of their members into seats of power, nearly all with the Democratic party, and all of them supported larger government intrusion into the economy. The Democratic party is considered to be left wing.

Mussolini, a lifelong socialist, was a leading member of the socialist movement until he supported WW1. He rote for Avanti, (socialist newspaper), was jailed for opposing the invasion of Libya that he saw as capitalist imperialism, etc... He then decided that international socialism would not work because people preferred their nation's sovereignty and distrusted outsiders. So he combined nationalism with socialism. That is all he did. The state good still came before the individual good, just like in every socialist society. Socialists like Bernard Shaw enthusiastically supported him and Hitler. Just like W E B Dubois - a racist socialist who kept blacks out of jobs in America. Or Will Rogers, an ardent leftist, or Sam McClure, another important socialist. The famous author HG Wells thought very highly of him, prior to WW2 at least. Just because the history of your team is bad, doesn't mean it is not true. In any event, I look forward to hearing of this policy that moved Germany or Italy towards economic liberalism. Keep your condescension to yourself please until you can get that straightened out.

Just because fascists fought other socialists does not mean they are not on the left. When establishing single party rule, sometimes you have to go to war with people who are on your side of the political spectrum but are opposed to your one party rule. I noticed you did not list a single policy that moved Italy or Germany towards economic liberalism. You had time for all those insults, and no time for an argument? Use that grand education you received and please list where the fascists differed from socialists economically.

If a "Trump supporter" is your argument, what was that person's name and are you sure they weren't there with the rest of the protesters? ~ John M

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6cb0:317c:a84:d8a8:cd6 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 20 December 2015

Ladies an gentlemen. Please take a moment to understand that nobody cares about your opinions here and nobody is interested in the rights and wrongs (or rights and lefts) of your arguments. You may or may not be on the verge of a breakthrough in political thought that will change the world but this is not the place to argue for it. We only care about the established consensus (or established landscape of debate where there is no consensus). Nothing is going to go into this article just because anybody makes a plausible sounding argument on a Talk page. It will only go in if reliable sources support it as a notable aspect of this subject. Now, I love bickering about politics as much as the next blowhard but I have enough respect for Wikipedia not to do it here where it would disrupt constructive discussion about how to improve our articles.
Constructive suggestions, supported by reliable references are welcome here but argument from personal opinion is just wearing out your keyboard for nothing per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please can you all just cut it out? --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place to discuss your opinions. You need to follow policies and I have posted links on your user page that explain them. You cannot list a number of ways in which fascism and socialism are similar and conclude fascism was left-wing. You need a mainstream reliable source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Four Deuces, does Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, and Goldberg count? If so, can I go ahead and update the page? I respect wikipedia, you will notice I have not changed the main page. I was under the impression that the talk pages were available to discuss items presented as fact that are in dispute. In none of the cited research is there any supporting claims that the policies embodied right wing politics. In most citations no policies are discussed at all. Those 3 authors I have referred to published major works discussing the idea at depth, and their policies. The citations against their position are definitions from a website for a Political Science Introduction course, and a text written by a then Associate Professor. They do not discuss nor explain any policies that support the claim that fascism is on the right. They just state it as conclusion. "We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!” - Joseph Goebbels. Why is it wrong to cite the stated positions of the people who adopted the policies, the supporters at the time before they became an embarrassment, as well as prominent scholars later, but an Internet dictionary citation trumps all of that? What would be superior citations to this dispute than the people who adopted the policies, their contemporaries, and scholars? ~John M
Neither Hayek nor Mises said fascism was left wing. Neither writer considered themselves right-wing, although Mises was a Fascist. Goldberg's book is not to be taken seriously - he has no credentials and the book received no acclaim. And both were like Mussolini former socialists. Do you think they were left wing? TFD (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Mises was most certainly NOT a fascist and saying so is completely unsubstantiated. Nice try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.28.251 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
See Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Meaning of the Mises Papers," 1997: Mises was one of the closest advisore to Austrofascist dictator Engelbert Dollfuss." In Liberalism (1927), he praised Italian Fascism's "best intentions" and "their intervention [that has, for the moment, saved European civilzation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." Of course he saw it as an emergency measure, but so did most fascist supporters. But the point is he and most informed writers saw it as a defense against socialism rather than as socialist. TFD (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
JohnM should realize that "national socialism" is a right-wing variety of socialism. Left wing ideologies are all = rule by the working class and that was never the case with fascism/ Nazis. What they meant by "national socialism" was the submergence of the individual into the nation especially as expressed by Hitler/Mussolini. Private ownership and capitalism continued as a major force. Rjensen (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Right wing socialism? Since when does that exist? What do you think makes it right wing, I am curious. The state before the individual is a hallmark of what it means to be on the left. Are the communists not willing to subjugate the individual for the public good? All left wing ideologies depend on taking from the individual and giving what they have to the state to further the public good. You have the Labour Party on the left on the Left Wing Politics page, the fascist nations had far more control over the economy than the Labour Party even campaigns on, let alone carries out. The nationalized more industry, they de facto nationalized even more, they mandated wages and prices, created tenure systems for employees. They make Bernie Sanders look like a capitalist.

Who cares what political positions authors held at any point in their life, their work is what I am citing. The authors cited currently are on which side, and why doesn't that color their work? Goldberg's long book is not to be taken seriously, but an Internet definition with no context trumps it? OK. What are the requirements for a source in your mind if the very people who enacted the policies cannot be used, or any of the people who studied the issue at length, or any of their contemporaries before their association was considered an embarrassment? Only works from then Associate Professors and unpublished Internet Dictionary definitions. Why would those be considered superior authorities? Mussolini wrote quite a bit, can we just cite him, or the American and British left that were enamored with him? It seems to me the citation's only requirement that it be from a left wing writer after the Holocaust took place and the term fascist became a pejorative. Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's appointed Finance Minister was a member of the German Democratic Party, you have them listed on the left according to wikipedia. All of the people in German and Italian high power were members of some other left wing group prior to the creation of their respective fascist parties. Can I cite any of their work? ~John M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8200:6CB0:317C:A84:D8A8:CD6 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No you can not do so on Wikipedia. Use your own Facebook page for that. Is not true that "all of the people in German and Italian high-power were members of some other left-wing group..." You have not given a reliable secondary source for that claim. Wikipedia editors are required to use reliable secondary sources --when they rely on fringe sources that discredits their efforts in the minds of other editors. Primary sources cannot be interpreted by Wikipedia editors, according to our rules. So please don't try. read WP:OR closely. Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
We have to follow Wikipedia content policies and if you disagree with them then you should get them changed. That means that academic textbooks written by associate professors are used as sources in preference to books written National Review commentators or our interpretations of fascist writing. In an intro to a column by Goldberg, the conservative Daily Mail says his book is "controversial" and "he believes that - contrary to conventional wisdom - fascism and left-wing philosophy are inextricably linked..."[2] Some of the leading fascism scholars have commented on Goldberg's book and you can find their comments here. My argument is not that Goldberg is wrong, but that his views are outside the mainstream, which means this article cannot reflect them. TFD (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same thing as "nativist nationalism"?[edit]

I just read an article comparing Trump with Marine Le Pen of France and other Europeans who are promoting what the author of the article refers to as "nativist nationalism". Is this the same thing as right-wing politics, and if so should the editors here add "nativist nationalism" to the list of things that right-wing politics is? The article is: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/atlantic-crossings/482448/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.24.2 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Read into Nationalism. This ideology is sometimes positioned as right-wing.
Nativism would probably be something about being native to a country. --JamesPoulson (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The article discusses nationalism. "Nativist nationalist" is not a usual term to define an ideology. Normally it is just called nationalism, although there is also a civic nationalism that seeks greater autonomy rather than exclusion of minorities. But there are usually called independence movements. TFD (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Introduction: Le droit and Ultra-royalists?[edit]

This sentence isn't clear and seems grammatically incomplete.

The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when le droit was applied [something missing here?] the Ultra-royalists.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Biased article[edit]

This article is biased in favor of leftist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.121.98 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In the words of Stephen Colbert, reality shows a liberal bias.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Section on right-wing terrorism is uneccessary[edit]

Political groups of many different motivations have committed terrorist actions, does anyone with the least bit of political awareness really learn anything from having a section stating that this has occurred amongst right-wing groups? Also having this as a major section in the article appears to insinuate that right-wing terrorism is a major component of right-wing politics.

What makes this material special enough to have a whole section devoted to it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.126.143 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The labels, "right" and "left", are completely artificial and inconsistently applied to politics, and this section is blatant NPOV and editorializing. The Soviet Union was called "left-wing" when it was nice and "right-wing" when it was evil. The same for most other groups. The radical mass murderer Pol Pot/Kmer Rouge could be called right wing if nationalism is the criterion, or left-wing if economics is the standard. The writers who use those terms usually use "left-wing" to mean the things they like, and "right-wing" to mean the things they don't like, resulting in a blurry definition like multiple images superimposed. Very few writers stand with pride and pronounce themselves aligned with "right wing" goals. The subject has encyclopedic value on the level of Clinton's "deplorables." Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." (Alain, 1923) The complaint by right-wingers that only the Left thinks there is a left-right distinction goes back to the beginning of the terms. TFD (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice. It belongs in the article. Can we get an RS? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Gauchet, Marcel. "Right and Left". In Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions, p. 266. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997 ISBN 0-231-10634-3[3]
Everyone has become distracted, let's get back to the point: what makes this material on right-wing terrorism special enough to have a whole section devoted to it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.126.143 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
We have an article Right-wing terrorism so there is undeniably a subject here and it is relevant to right-wing politics. This stuff is real and I believe that it is worthy of a small section here as well as its own article. I write this from the UK and I can assure you that right-wing terrorism is not some flash in the pan. It has been going on for many decades at a variable but mostly low level. In the past there were areas where the synagogues needed regular police protection. Now the Mosques are at more risk in some areas but it is the same sort of far right groups presenting the threat in both cases. I can only reiterate, "right-wing terrorism" is not some rhetorical flourish favoured by the left. It is real. Not huge, but real. So it makes sense to introduce it here, without too much detail, and link to the articles about it. Nobody should be trying to taint normal right wing people with association with terrorism but, just as articles about left-wing politics shouldn't ignore left-wing terrorism, it makes sense to link to right wing terrorism here. That said, I just looked at the Left-wing politics article and was surprised to see that it doesn't link to Left-wing terrorism either, only to eco-terrorism. I'd argue that both articles should adopt the same approach (for fairness) and that each should link to the appropriate terrorism articles (for honesty and completeness) using a very similar and careful wording in each case which avoids any implication that the wider ideology is tainted by terrorism committed by these fringe groups. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
well let's take UK-- which right wing politicians sponsor terrorism there? can we have some names. this is the article abput Politics after all. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree to the removal. Domestic terrorism is not normally carried out by right-wingers, except for the far right, or in dictatorships and weak democracies where terrorism is a tactic used by all sides. TFD (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You have only to look at the article on Right-wing terrorism to find many examples, including in the UK. Of course any right-wing terrorist is part of the far right. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is weight. The far right is a small part of the Right, terrorism is a small part of the far right. Timothy McVeigh for example did not have the same stature as Ronald Reagan. TFD (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that anybody is suggesting otherwise. I certainly don't think that this article should do much more than note that right-wing terrorism exists as part of the far right and then link to it so that those who want to know more can find out. A sentence or two would cover it. It might not even need to be in its own section but I do think that it deserves a mention and that the same is true for left-wing terrorism in the left-wing politics article. I know that people feel concerned that any mention of terrorism can give the impression of tainting a whole wider ideology, and I understand why people are jumpy about this because there certainly are some people who would seek to do that, but with careful neutral wording I'm sure this can be avoided. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think though that it is wrong to assume symmetry between left and right. Searches for "the Left" and "left-wing" return lots of hits and despite the range from Maoism to New Labour, the various forms at least have some sort of historical connection with one another. But a similar search for the Right returns hits for the far right and no one has written about the Right globally. TFD (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

So is the section being maintained or not? I ask since there's no equivalent on the left-wing page, even though the reasons for having a right-wing terrorism section could easily be applied to the left-wing page as well. I raised the issue there, especially given each article talks about certain topics (nationalism, economics, culture) and the political wings relationship to them, so it seems odd for the left-wing not to have a segment (as DanielRigal said). So should it be kept or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit by 2607:fb90:4c47:72c9:c006:4b18:6b7c:c013[edit]

The revision says "The nobility and aristocracy remained but bankers and merchants began to join their ranks.".

The change was from:

From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.
(switch from support of a political system to an economic one)

To:

From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from feudalism towards capitalism.
(switch from support for one economical to another)

This most likely represents an opinion unsupported by the reference, ignores the past monarchist tradition in Europe and obscures the past meaning of European conservatism as in to "seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy" and "emphasizing stability and continuity".

Furthermore, Europe would have been transitioning from mercantilism in the 1700s to 1800s rather then feudalism (Middle Ages). --JamesPoulson (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)