Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 9

Protestant work ethic

It seems religious people (at least Christians) with right-wing political views interpet their religion though the Protestant work ethic much like religious left-wingers tend to endorse liberation theology. Is there any validity to this and should the PWE be included in the section on religion? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, all Americans, religious or not, Right or Left, endorse the Protestant work ethic. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Secular right

There is also notably a minority of secular right movement(s) as well - the most radical one is perhaps libertarist philosophy à la Ayn Rand. It should be added to the Religion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.208.248 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hide unhelpful discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Very Poor Entry A lot of this entry seems to be written by people who have a very poor (and partisan) grasp of the topic. Preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies is true of some on the Right (just as it is true of some on the Left) but it hardly DEFINES the Right. The free market Right believes in precisely the opposite. Nationalism is as much a feature of the Left as it is of the Right. Bonapartists were not on the Right. The statement "left, right, and center representing the working, upper, and middle classes" is manifestly incorrect. Nor is conservatism an "ideology". The claim that "the Right has advocated preserving the wealth and power of aristocrats and nobles" is misleading. In the United Kingdom aristocrats were more likely to be "Whig" than "Tory". "Tories" supported the power of the King because he or she could hold the power of the aristocracy in check. Talk about "workers" is just Marxist boilerplate and should be identified as such. The idea that religious conservatives QUA religious conservatives are against global warning is manifestly untrue. The attack on (and support for) "science" comes just as much from the Left as the Right (although over different issues). The idea that "conservatism" in the USA was "monarchical" before the Cold War is frankly laughable. I deleted the Right = Fascism claim for obvious reasons - obvious that is to anybody who knows anything about the history of Fascism. The entry is very poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.71.151 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I would rather see the article explain how the term "right-wing" is used rather than attempt to define it. Various unrelated ideologies have become part of the right, and they are all explained in separate articles. I question some of your statements though. The Rockingham Whigs (Burke's faction) joined with the Tories to form the Conservative Party and the rest of the aristocracy (the Liberal Unionists) joined later. Fascists were seated on the far right of legislatures (and still are). TFD (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I suggest Unsigned discuss what the article actually says, instead of what he says the article says. Nowhere does the article say that the right equals fascism. It says that fascist governments are and have been described as Right-Wing, which is indisputably true. The use of Right-wing for Classical liberalism is relatively new, and reflects a political alliance between the religious right and the libertarians, not the standard meaning of the term. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Even then they are not called right-wing because they support free markets, rather the observation is that the Right now supports free markets. The evidence is that conservatives are now the strongest proponents of neoliberalism, while the radical right now usually adopts free market polices in addition to xenophobia, natinalism, etc. But tradtional liberal parties that support free markets are still considered centrist. You can see this in the seating arrangement of the EU parliament. The liberals (free market and reform) sit in the center (yellow), the conservatives sit on the right (dark blue), and the radical right and fascists sit on the far right (brown and gray). In regard to the seating plan, the only source of confusion is whete the dividing line between left and right should be drawn, and whether the parties in the center can be said to belong to either group. TFD (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC) "I would rather see the article explain how the term "right-wing" is used rather than attempt to define it." A laughable defence. Some people think that conservatives are wife beaters. I think the article should include their opinion. "Various unrelated ideologies have become part of the right" It seems that "Right" means anything you want it to mean. (See above). "The Rockingham Whigs (Burke's faction) joined with the Tories to form the Conservative Party and the rest of the aristocracy (the Liberal Unionists) joined later." I appreciate that "right-wing" means anybody to the Right of you, but try reading what I wrote and come back when you understand it. "Fascists were seated on the far right of legislatures (and still are). Do you know anything at all about Fascism? I mean anything? "Nowhere does the article say that the right equals fascism. It says that fascist governments are and have been described as Right-Wing, which is indisputably true." It is also indisputably true that scholars describe Fascists as being on the Left. Just see how long Rick Norwood would let that claim stand on the "Left-Wing" page however! "they are not called right-wing because they support free markets, rather the observation is that the Right now supports free markets" Have you read ANY Edmund Burke? "the radical right now usually adopts free market polices in addition to xenophobia, nationalism, etc." By the "radical right" I take it you mean Libertarians i.e. people who seek to decrease the power of the State. The "xenophobia" and "nationalism" you mention is at least a much a feature of the Left as the Right. Of course you already know this, or at least if you do not know it you are unfit to contribute to this article. "The liberals (free market and reform) sit in the center (yellow)" "Modern" Liberals are not the same as "Classical" Liberals. The latter are now generally seen as on the "radical Right" (See above). Modern Liberalism on the other hand is generally viewed as being on the soft Left. "In regard to the seating plan, the only source of confusion is whete the dividing line between left and right should be drawn" Well you certainly seem to be confused. Left and Right are not geometrical or arithmetical concepts in this context. I really think that you two are unfit to contribute to this article. You combine lack of knowledge with laughable bigotry, and yet set yourself up as gatekeepers of what is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.0.39 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Personal attacks are not reasoned arguments. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I notice that you have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point! Also, your observations are incorrect. WP uses reliable sources - if you have any that you think could contribute to the article, please include them. TFD (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I notice that you have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point! Hint - Nationalism (for example as in Fascism and National Socialism and Pan-Arabism) is historically much more closely linked to the Left than the Right (Your failure to understand this explains why you think that Bonapartism was on the Right). If you think that being on the Right politically is reducible to Nationalism you are simply ignorant. As René Rémond explained, bonapartism is one of the three strands of the French Right. The left-right divide in late 19th century France was over republicanism, and with the death of the bonapartist pretender, the distinction between them and the rest of the Right disappeared. Here is a source that the bonapartists voted with the legitimists and orleanists. As you can see from the seating arrangement of the EU parliament, nationalists form a large contingent on the far right. But again, WP relies on sources, and you have failed to provide any. TFD (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC) ‘Bonapartism’ and ‘Fascism’ in Europe Lesson 101 In the Nineteenth century the term ‘dictator’ was applied to military leaders of national revolutions. Simon Bolivar in South America for example proclaimed himself dictator in 1813, and in 1860 Giuseppe Garibaldi assumed the power of dictator in Italy. The biggest influence on the contemporary interpretation of the term were the regimes founded in Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte (1799-1814) and his grandson Luigi Bonaparte, who became Napoleon III (1851-70). Their dictatorships originated in coup d’etats, which sought to legitimize themselves on the grounds of an appeal to the principles of the French Revolution. The term ‘Bonapartism’ was applied to dictatorships imposed by a coup d’etat, that saw themselves as incarnations of the democratic national will. Moving onto the Twentieth Century, Mussolini (the original Fascist) did not oppose socialism. "Whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood...You think you can turn me out, but you will find I shall come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change. They are bred into my very bones!" He was forced out of the Socialist Party because he wanted Italy to enter the First World War, and his party disagreed. He argued that Nationalism advances the cause of a Socialist revolution. In other words he rejected the Internationalism of the Bolsheviks in favour of a Nationalist intepretation (like Stalin did later) of Socialism. He spent his last days implementing the constitution written by Nicola Bombacci, a friend of Lenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.0.39 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC) If cannot find sources that come to the same conclusions that you do, this conversation is pointless. Incidentally, your writing is very similar to Yorkshirian. Did you ever edit under that account? TFD (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I really think that you should not be editing this entry. Wikipedia should not be an exploration of your ignorance and bigotry on this topic. As for "Yorkshirian" I cannot help you I am afraid. I know nothing about them. I presume it is somebody who has also pointed out that your knowledge in this area is extremely limited. You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia, which is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.2.213 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC) You continue to offer bare assertions, rudely. If you want to be taken seriously, provide evidence and assume good faith. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I notice that you have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.2.213 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC) There was a point? Anyway, we don't do arguments. We are here to write an encyclopaedia based on reliable reference material, not argue our own opinions. If you want to believe that you have been vindicated simply because we don't waste our time arguing with you then that is your choice but perhaps you would be good enough to do it somewhere else. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I notice that you (also) have failed to address a single argument, which rather proves my point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.2.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Various IP addresses have conducted soapboxing on the talk page and edit-warring on the article, mostly to remove fascism and nationalism from inclusion in the article. They appear to be used by banned User:Yorkshirian. Compare the IPs' arguments in the archived discussion thread above with Yorkshirian's comments in the archives.[1] Also the IPs' edits with Yorkshirian's edits to the article.[2][3] According to the protection log, this article was semi-protected three times in 2008 for edit-warring by IP socks and ChampagneSocialist who were making the same edits. TFD (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 18:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have put in a request at WP:OP. TFD (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hide unhelpful discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To quote myself "I really think that you should not be editing this entry. Wikipedia should not be an exploration of your ignorance [for example try reading some scholarly research on the subject of Fascism] and bigotry [how entirely characteristic of you to try to get people banned for exposing your ignorance]. As for "Yorkshirian" [or ChampagneSocialist] I cannot help you I am afraid. I know nothing about them. I presume...[they are people who have also]..pointed out that your knowledge in this area is extremely limited. You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia" Some further reading (picked almost at random) for you http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.13.69 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) John J. Ray's article was published in David Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine. His views are considered fringe and have not been published in mainstream academic sources. It always surprises me that people with the obvious intelligence that Ray and Horowitz have, could defend such outlandish theories with no real evidence. TFD (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Your bigotry and intolerance are almost amusing "The Four Deuces". You are unable to refute John Ray's points (because you know next to nothing about the topic) but you feel that your ignorance (I doubt that that you have even read his article) should not prevent you from delivering your verdict that his "theories" are "outlandish". Here is another scholarly article. http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm I realise that actually having to read something by somebody who knows what they are talking about is a big ask, especially if they are going to point out things that you would rather not know, but it is the least we can expect from somebody who has taken it upon himself to be the censor on Wikipedia of any discussion of the links between Socialism and Fascism. (88.110.13.69 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)) This is not a debating society. Articles are supposed to be based on mainstream sources not articles by fringe writers such as David Ramsay Steele. You are perfectly entitled to your views, as are we all, but articles must be based on mainstream sources, even if they are wrong. TFD (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "This is not a debating society" That's right, it is called a "Discussion Page". It is where people (like me) help explain (to people like you) that you do not know enough about, for example, the history of Fascism, to contribute (or delete) information about it in a Wikipedia entry on "Right Wing Politics". Or, it is where people like you, correct me, on my lack of knowledge of the topic in question. Only you haven't, because you can't; because you do not know much about it. The best you can come up with is "This is not a debating society". I suspect you have not even read the two articles in question, because it would risk exposing your ignorance of the subject. It is no less evident that your knowledge of the history of Nationalism is very small as well - or indeed the other issues about which (in the previous section that you have decided to hide) I suggested there are problems in the Wikipedia entry. As I say "You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.13.69 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I read the articles. I am interested in extremist points of view. However, the views that go into articles must be mainstream, and you have not provided any. TFD (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, by denying the connection between Fascism and the Left you are the one who is not in the "mainstream", as the article that is already on Wikipedia about Fascism makes clear. If you knew about the subject you would already know that, but you don't, all you have is your determination to impose your ignorance and bigotry on everybody else. As I say "You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.12.237 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC) We do not use Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles. I am not denying anything, merely stating that we must follow the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (edit clash) You (88.110.12.237) misrepresent the article on Fascism. It acknowledges that Fascism borrowed some elements from the left but is generally attributed to the far right for other reasons, which is the basic and unavoidable fact that you are disputing, without any evidence (not that another Wikipedia article can be used to reference this one). If your strident, repeated assertions trumped reliable references you would so own this article but life is tough. Instead of plaudits for your imagined insights you get TFD politely reminding you how referencing works and where the academic consensus really lies and me politely reminding you to remain civil. At some point you may realise that you are wasting everybody's time, including your own. If you wish to advance your own political viewpoints there are very many places on the internet where you can do this. Wikipedia isn't one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) The Four Deuces. I pointed out that your knowledge of this area (it is the point, out of the various errors I picked up in the current article, upon which you chose to focus) is extremely limited, and that your contributions are little more than ignorant bigotry. You replied that Fascism is a Right-Wing phenomena, and claimed that I was somebody else, and I should be banned (putting the discussion in Hide). I then drew your attention to an article that clearly sets out the evidence which links the Left and Fascism. I choose it because it is written in simple language that you could understand. It does not appear that you have read it. Instead you decided that the author of the article is "outlandish". I then drew your attention to a more difficult article, setting out some of the more detailed history. You replied that the claim that Fascism is closely associated with the Left (in the way detailed in the article) is not mainstream. I pointed out that if you knew anything about the topic you would realise that the association between Fascism and the Left is almost a truism in scholarly discussions of the topic. As evidence that it is "mainstream" I drew your attention to the article in Wikipedia. You replied that Wikipedia articles do not count, and that you are "not denying anything" just insisting on "neutrality". Maybe you ought to review your responses, and if you still think that you are "not denying anything" and only being "neutral" I suggest that you seriously consider not contributing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.12.237 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC) If you are unable to provide reliable sources supporting your opinions, then this conversation can serve no purpose. Please see above, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Right-wing politics". TFD (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC) As the "liberal, secular, European leftist" journalist Oliver Kamm (the CAPITALS which reference sources are mine) points out http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/08/fascism_and_the.html "There is a substantial academic literature - associated principally with the Israeli historian ZE'EV STERNHELL, the late French historian (and ex-communist) FRANCOIS FURET, and the very unreliable German historian ERNST NOLTE - on how far Marxism (especially in its Leninist variant) and fascism share ideological origins. In his great work THE PASSING OF AN ILLUSION Furet goes furthest in identifying the important influence of Lenin on Mussolini and Hitler. That debate is a subject for a separate post, but I note here merely the unacademic and entirely commonsensical view of the perennial US Socialist Party candidate for President, NORMAN THOMAS, in 1948, that Marxism of the Leninist variety was "Red fascism"...There are numerous cases of Leninist and pre-Leninist organisations and theorists extending support to fascism, and in some cases biological racism and anti-semitism....This tendency dates at least to LUDWIG WOLTMANN, a theorist of the German Social Democratic Party and author in 1890 of what was then regarded (not least by Lenin in his own exposition of Marx) as an outstanding treatment of Marxist theory, Der historische Materialismus. Woltmann then increasingly concentrated on Marx's references in Das Kapital to the constraints on labour productivity - which was, according to Marx, "fettered by physical conditions ... all referable to the constitution of man himself (race, etc.)". Marx, argued Woltmann, had acknowledged the role of racial characteristics in the development of society, but had stopped short of pursuing this insight. By the time of his death in 1907, Woltmann had succumbed altogether to the notion of race as the agent of social change. (I owe this historical example to A.JAMES GREGOR in his study of Marxism and fascism in the 20th century, THE FACES OF JANUS)...Several years before Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, German communists anticipated that relationship by co-operating with the Nazis in the Prussian referendum of 1931 and the transport strike of 1932. Even communists who opposed the Comintern's refusal to support a popular front with the Social Democrats against Nazism later found that fascism was their natural political home: JACQUES DORIOT broke with the French Communists on this very issue before founding an explicitly fascist and antisemitic party, the Parti Populaire Francais. Japanese Marxism, both in the Communist Party and outside it, transformed itself wholesale between 1929 and 1933 into an ideology of economic nationalism, military aggrandisement and racial purity. These were not ideologically heterodox acts: they were conscious and faithful applications of Bolshevik strategy. As RICHARD PIPES notes in the final volume of his trilogy on Tsarist and revolutionary Russia, RUSSIA UNDER THE BOLSHEVIK REGIME, 1919-1924: 'At their June 1923 Plenum, Radek and Zinoviev insisted that to break out of their isolation, the German Communists had to link up with the nationalistically minded elements. This was to be justified on the grounds that the nationalist ideology of "oppressed" nations, of which Germany was one, bore a revolutionary character. "In Germany," Radek said on this occasion, "the heavy stress on the nation is a revolutionary act."...Perhaps the most fundamental affinity among the three totalitarian movements [that came to power between 1917 and 1933] lay in the realm of psychology: Communism, Fascism and National Socialism exacerbated and exploited popular resentments - class, racial and ethnic - to win mass support and to reinforce the claim that they, not the democratically elected governments, expressed the true will of the people. All three appealed to the emotion of hate.' ( 88.110.12.237 (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ) I understand all that. But the views of Furet and Nolte (and Courtois) are fringe, Sternhell has received limited support for his theories and the views of political activists are not reliable sources. Even then, Sternhell was writing about the origins of fascist ideology. He described the ideology as "neither left nor right", and acknowledges that fascism is generally considered to be right-wing. There are also theories that Communism and socialism are right-wing,[4] TFD (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Furet was one of the leading French historians of the late 19th century--probably the most influential one in political history. So who says he's fringe? Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Because of his influence in history and historiography, Francois Furet was granted some of the field's most prestigious awards, among them: * Tocqueville Award, 1990 * The European Award for Social Sciences, 1996 * The Hannah Arendt Award for Political Thought, 1996 * An honorary diploma (Honoris Causa) from Harvard University Zeev Sternhell (Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) is widely regarded as one of the world's leading experts on Fascism. In 1991, the French government awarded him the title of "Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres" for his outstanding contribution to French culture. In 2008, he was awarded the Israel Prize, for Political Science A. James Gregor is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1974 he wrote The Fascist persuasion in radical politics. Since then he had published major works on the subject, including "Mussolini's Intellectuals", "The Search for Neofascism", and "Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism". It was largely as a consequence of this work that he was made a Guggenheim Fellow and, subsequently, a Knight of the Order of Merit by the Italian Government. Richard Pipes is a Foreign Member of the Polish Academy of Learning (PAU), Commander's Cross of Merit of the Republic of Poland, Doctor Honoris Causa from the University of Silesia, Szczecin University, and the University of Warsaw. Walter Channing Cabot Fellow of Harvard University, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Guggenheim Fellow (twice), Fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, recipient of the George Louis Beer Prize of the American Historical Association. He received one of the 2007 National Humanities Medals. In 2010, he received the medal "Bene Merito" by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.12.237 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Rjensen, the IP is talking about Francois Furet, a twentieth century writer, and he is also talking about Zeev Sternhell, A. James Gregor, and Richard Pipes. TFD (talk) yes that Furet was one of the leading historians in the world. Gregor at Berkeley and Pipes at Harvard are likewise very highly regarded scholars. No RS calls them "fringe"! Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC) The IP has been arguing that fascism should not be listed in the lead because he believes it is left-wing, which he attributes to these historians. Whether or not they actually called it left-wing, their views on fascism are "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". TFD (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I don't have access to the works of the authors mentioned or, tbh, the inclination to read them from cover to cover but I do note that our augmentative friend has already misrepresented the content of one source that we all have easy access to, our own article on Fascism, in support of his arguments. It may well be that these historians do not support his claims at all, so lets not get jump on them for something they may not even have done. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Also, a clear distinction must be made between socialism and the Left, because there is also socialism on the Right, e.g., State Socialism, Tory socialism, Red Toryism, etc. TFD (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Four Deuces, I notice that you refer to "The Lost Literature of Socialism" by George Watson (1998). Have you read the book? Did you notice that in Chapter Seven Watson points out that it is clear "beyond any reasonable doubt" that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that Hitler explicitly asserted that "the whole of National Socialism is based on Marxism". Hitler, according to Watson, did not claim that he was a Marxist, he argued "that National Socialism was based on Marx". His argument was that socialism could be national as well as international, and that a single State, run by a single Party, could control and direct an economy without the State having to nationalise all property. Hitler, it should perhaps be pointed out, also declared "How as a socialist can you not be an anti-Semite?" Five days before he invaded the Soviet Union Goebbels wrote in his diary that "Jewish Bolshevism" would be uprooted in Russia and replaced with "real socialism". In Chapter Eight Watson talks about Friedrich Engels advocating, on the grounds of a socialist theory of progress, systematic racial genocide, which Watson claims is a "doctrine unique to socialism". Engels writings on this topic (even though Engels advocated German racial superiority) were explicitly commended by Stalin. Watson mentions the extent of the collaboration between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, prior to Hitler's invasion, in particular their shared enthusiasm for the practice of exterminating whole categories of people through forced labour and systematic execution. Killing people by the use of exhaust fumes in trucks, and then concrete chambers, was first tried out in Siberia. Watson points out that "Marx and Engels would have been puzzled by any attempt to deny that they were dedicated to conquest and extermination". In 1902 for example H.G.Wells concluded his "Anticipations" with a programme of socialist genocide. George Bernard Shaw in 1933 derided the principle of the sanctity of human life as "an absurdity to any good socialist". He called for extermination to be put "on a scientific basis" later suggesting that we "ought to appeal to the chemist to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly." In California Jack London, at the turn of the Twentieth Century, had arrived at similar conclusions (combining socialism with a belief in white racial supremacy). Anyway, for a summary of the extensive literature which closely links Soviet Communism and Italian Fascism and German National Socialism I recommend "Totalitarianism and Political Religions" Volume III Edited by Hans Maier (2003). If after reading that book you carry on repeating as undisputed fact the (Stalinist) claim (lie) that Fascism was the (right-wing) opposite to (left-wing) Bolshevism, and that scholars who question this are not in the "mainstream", then I suggest that you rule yourself out from making any further deletions/contributions to political entries on Wikipedia. The opposite of Bolshevism and Fascism is the sort of (Right-Wing) political conservatism advocated by people such as Edmund Burke, who opposed the (Left-Wing) French Revolution. Instead Burke supported the 1688 Glorious Revolution, which (in his interpretation) defended (spontaneously evolving) tradition rather than (imposed) political radicalism, religious toleration rather than militant atheism, open free markets/trade rather than highly taxed/regulated closed economies, and a strong Civil Society and limited State, rather than State worship and centralized direction of society by all powerful politicians and bureaucrats. This revolution (which it was claimed was a return to an English tradition of liberty) also greatly influenced the political views of the American Founding Fathers in their "American Revolution" - it is no accident that Burke for example was sympathetic to those rebels who argued that the American War of Independence was about a fight for (what they took to be) their traditional liberties. (88.110.8.60 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)) None of your sources say that fascism was not part of the Right. Socialism is a red herring. Watson saw socialism as a form of conservatism (as did Herbert Spencer, Hayek and Rothbard), so if we followed your reasoning, we would have to add socialism and Communism as part of the Right. TFD (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "None of your sources say that fascism was not part of the Right". This of course is untrue, as you know full well. You have previously acknowledged that there are people (sources quoted) who say that Fascism should be listed as on the political Left not the Right, but you declare that they are "outlandish". After accepting that they (sources listed) include widely respected scholars, you claim that they are not "mainstream". You then declare that the close links between Fascism and Socialism proves nothing, because Socialism can be conservative. Now you may seek, if that is you want, to argue that Marx and Engels, and Lenin and Stalin (indeed anybody else you do not like) are "Right-Wing", but such a claim excludes you (by some distance) from the scholarly "mainstream". As I say you a "textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia". (88.110.8.60 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)) No I do not wish to argue anything. But you have provided no sources that fascism is left-wing, only long arguments based on publications that not only do not support your conclusions but do not represent a mainstream view of fascism. TFD (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "I do not wish to argue anything." Four Deuces, I am getting the impression you are delusional. "You have provided no sources that fascism is left-wing." Four Deuces, I am very clearly getting the impression you are delusional. "arguments based on publications that...do not support your conclusions" Four Deuces, you are delusional "do not represent a mainstream view of fascism". As defined by somebody who is delusional? As I say you are a "textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia". No doubt your next action will be to delete or hide this discussion. Just a wild guess (88.110.8.60 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)). You have been warned before about indulging in personal remarks.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascism

Fascism is considered to be part of the rignt. If anyone wishes to challenge this, they should provide sources that provide a different viewpoint. TFD (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. In the book Fascism: theory and practice by Dave Renton, the author argues there is a new consensus emerging about fascism as an ideology. In his book he cites Roger Eatwell, whose arguments are based on the work of three historians - Zeev Sternhell, Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin, who states that fascism is "an ideology that strives to forge rebirth on a holistic-national radical Third-Way". According to Sternhell, fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s as an intellectual movement that absorbed and synthesised socialism and nationalism and created a new ideology of "a socialism without the proletariat". Sternhell contends that left-right distinctions are meaningless as fascism emerged from the left while claiming to be anti-left. He writes"It is commonly described as a right-wing phenonemon, but it has no more in common with conservatism than with communism. Fascism is 'ni droite ni gauche', neither right nor left." Griffin argues that fascism is anti-liberal, anti-conservative, charismatic, anti-rational, socialist, totalitarian, racist and eclectic. Dave Renton goes on to state that while there are some differences between these historians in regard to the details of defining fascism, there is common ground in that it is a synthesis of nationalism and socialism. --Martin (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As your quote says, "[fascism] is commonly described as a right-wing phenonemon". Note too they are talking about fascist ideology and movements before the March on Rome and the Night of the Long Knives. Fascism in power was right-wing - no one disputes that and no one calls the fascist collaborators in Eastern Europe "left-wing" - today they are staunch anti-Communists. TFD (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hide unhelpful discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Four Deuce, you seem to work on the assumption that sentences can mean anything you want them to mean. You clearly have missed your vocation as a drone in the Ministry of Truth. Anybody with normal reading skills will read the quoted text (drawing on the work of various left-wing scholars - although clearly not left-wing enough for you) as saying that it is an error to describe Fascism as "right-wing". So it seems that you have gone from saying that it is false to deny that Fascism is a right-wing phenomena, to some scholars, but no serious scholars, say it is false to claim that Fascism is a right-wing phenomena, to some serious scholars say that it is false to say that Fascism is a right-wing phenomena, to many serious scholars claim that Fascism is not right wing phenomena, but they are wrong, to, even if scholars in this area (which is to say people unlike you) assert that it is false to identify Fascism as a right-wing phenomena, it "commonly described" as such, and therefore ought to be described as such in Wikipedia. But it is "commonly thought" that educated Europeans in the Middle Ages thought that the Earth is flat, but actually most educated Europeans at that time thought that the Earth was spherical - See "Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians" by J.B. Russell. The claim that educated Europeans thought it was flat was a lie made up for the purpose of ........ anyway I digress. Even you, Four Deuces, are fully aware that your claim that "no one disputes that Fascism in power was right-wing" is false, so why do you say it? As for your claim that to be anti-Communist is to be ipso facto on the political Right, that is PRECISELY the lie that Stalin (and his propagandists) wanted you to believe. Why, if you know the history, are you so keen to repeat this falsehood? Why in other words are you contributing to Wikipedia? (88.110.3.165 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)). You continue to offer insults in place of reasoned discourse. There is a difference between scientific fact and word usage. The earth is either round or flat, and educated people either think it is round or think it is flat. But that has nothing to do with words. There is no "right" meaning of a word. A word is an arbitrary symbol that has no meaning until use gives it one. Dictionaries record the meanings word-symbols are assigned. To agrue, as you seem to be doing, that the dictionary is wrong is meaningless. The common understanding of "right-wing" was authoritarian, including fascism, until relatively recently. Now, the meaning of words does change -- but changes must be resisted or people will lose the ability to communicate or to understand the past. You, and others, seem to be trying to change the meaning of "right-wing". I won't speculate on the reason people want to change the meaning of an old word instead of using one of the perfectly good words that are available. But even if this attempt to change the meaning of the phrase is successful, this article must still report the old meaning, otherwise it will be difficult for readers to understand books written before the change. Also, it is important for well-informed people to know what is going on when people quote writers who used a word in the old sense, while pretending that those writers were using the word in the new sense. As Abraham Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC) "There is no "right" meaning of a word...the meaning of words does change, but changes must be resisted" Your first claim is a position in the philosophy of language called Nominalism. To put it mildly, it is controversial. I would say that it is false i.e. it is not the case that words (such as Fascist) mean anything you want them to mean. It seems, according to your quote, that Abraham Lincoln agrees with me. You also agree with him on this point. You therefore contradict yourself. If you combine your second claim with your first claim, you arrive at a view not disimilar to those Marxists who claim that it is the "ruling class" which determines meanings. In the Soviet Union, for example, politicians decided that the word "Fascist" meant "Right-Wing". There is a novel by George Orwell called 1984 which is an illustration of a society in which politicians decide the meaning of words. "You, and others, seem to be trying to change the meaning of right-wing." Is Fascism a Right-Wing phenomena is the question. I do think that the article (some of which I wrote myself some time ago) is a very poor effort at capturing what it is to be Right-Wing. I think that the most illuminating recent discussion of what it is to be "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing" is by an American called Thomas Sowell. What it means to be politically conservative has also been ably discussed by the British philosopher Roger Scruton. I would re-write the entry myself, but I am not going to waste my time writing Wikipedia entries that have to satisfy the "Bush is Hitler" progressives, who are far too wrapped up in their own bigotries to be interested in what is true and what is false. (88.110.14.30 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)). You are wrong about what "nominalism" means in philosophy. "Nominalism" is the view that ideas have no existence outside of the human understanding of them. It is contrasted with "realism" which is the view that ideas have a real existence apart from human understanding. Plato was a realist in this now archaic sense of the word. It would help with the discussion if you did not set up straw men in order to knock them down. I never expressed the Humpty Dumpty view that words mean anything you want them to mean. What I said was that words mean what dictionaries say they mean. Not the same thing at all. Nobody "decided" that Fascist meant right-wing. Nobody has ever claimed that Fascist meant right-wing. Another straw man. No progressive that I know claims that Bush is Hitler. I've certainly never seen that in Wikipedia. So your Bush is Hitler progressive is another straw man. Finally, most of the people who take the time to edit Wikipedia care passionately about what is and is not true. So you conclude your string of straw-man arguments with another flurry of name calling. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) You would have to show that Sowell and Scruton consider fascism to be left-wing and that their views have gained acceptance. So far you presented no sources. TFD (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) While Zeev Sternhell acknowledges fascism "is commonly described as a right-wing phenonemon" he goes on to write: "but it has no more in common with conservatism than with communism. Fascism is 'ni droite ni gauche', neither right nor left", while Griffin also argues that fascism is anti-conservative. Does the common view override the scholarly view? --Martin (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood, in the context of this discussion "Realism" versus "Nominalism" is a debate about whether words have meanings that denote realities (whose properties give words their meaning) or whether words have meanings that are grounded in nothing more than agreed ways of talking. It is not me but you who said there is no "right" meaning to a word. The meaning of words do change, but that is not the same thing as asserting that there is no right meaning. A Realist for example would assert that the meaning of the word "atom" has changed because our understanding of physics has increased. I am suggesting that understanding what is Fascist (and whether or not it is accurate to describe it as Right-Wing) is not going to be solved by an appeal to linguistics. The question "Is Fascism a Right-Wing phenomena" is only going to be (fruitfully) addressed by having some knowledge of the issue. Four Deuces, I mentioned Sowell and Scruton only because they have illuminating discussions about what it is to be a libertarian and/or political conservative. For the record Sowell in books such as "The Vision of the Annointed (1992) and "A Conflict of Visions" (2002) wants to defend a way of understanding politics that dispenses with the "Right Wing" - "Left-Wing" dichotomy altogether, and Scruton in his "Political Dictionary" (1996) claims that Fascism is more of an expletive than a useful political term, because it is nothing more than an amalagam of wholly disparate conceptions and political influences. (88.110.14.30 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)). Martintg, here is how Sternhell's contribution to his study of fascism is interpreted, "The final consequence of this analysis is that the extreme right in that political-ideological space where fascism is the key reference". (Shadows over Europe)[5] In any case conservatism and extreme Right are two separate political families, and one could argue that Anglo-Scandinavian conservatives are not right-wing. TFD (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC) IP, Sowell makes a valid point that the terms "right" and "left" are asymmetrical, because only the Left is defined. The Right is only defined by its opposition to the Left, and ranges from libertarians to statists and from monarchists to fascists.[6] But isn't that what the article already says? TFD (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Sigh. Let me explain what I thought was obvious. If I invent a word, "qwertyuiop", there is no right meaning to assign to that word. I can, therefore, define it any way I want. I can define "qwertyuiop" as meaning, "That tired feeling that comes on about three in the afternoon." Then, for the purposes of my writing, that's what the word means. If it catches on, it may eventually find its way into the dictionary, at which time it becomes a common usage. This is what happened with "right-wing". Somebody invented it. It made its way into the dictionary. It means what the dictionary says it means. Now, certain people have decided to change that meaning. They have had some success. Therefore this article should report both the old meaning and the changes over time. The article should not, however, suppress the old meaning in favor of the new. On the question of whether the right/left distinction is useful, many people in addition to the ones 88 lists question its usefulness. The article mentions that fact. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) You say "Therefore this article should report both the old meaning and the changes over time", I agree. Yet User:The Four Deuces removed the view of Sternhell, a significant scholar, on the relevance of the left-right categorisation of fascism as a minority viewpoint. To my mind that removal seems to be contrary to WP:NPOV. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC) The meaning has not changed over time - both the fascist parties and the conservative and conservative liberal parties they governed with (the "Right") have disappeared and been replaced on the Right. Notably the neo-Fascist MSI supported Burlesconi, the Spanish fascists are the right in Spain, the ex-fascist "Social Democratic Party" is the Right in Portugal. Anyway, you keep mentioning writers but you need to show where they have supported your POV and show that their views are accepted. Most of your discussion is synthesis, viz., there were socialist influences on the Fascists, ergo they were left-wing. The sources do not draw that connection. Bismarck and Disraeli also had socialist influences, but that does not make them left-wingers. TFD (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood, qwertyuiop is not a word. How words become meaningful is precisely what is at issue. It is not as straightforward as you seem to think. If however we focus on what we agree upon, rather than what we disagree about, I think you are correct to say that the Wikipedia article should pick up on the fact that some have sought to apply the label "Right Wing" to "Fascism". That this claim is a bit of propaganda (a useful lie) made up in order to disguise the fact that Stalinism and Fascism are ideologically and historically very closely related to each other (and that it is more accurate to describe them as rivals than opposites) is not in itself a reason for excluding this fact from the article. What is at issue is refusing to prominently acknowledge the fact that many mainstream (I would say most) scholars who have published on this topic (as the quote cited by Martin confirms) reject this assertion. I have other objections this entry, but this is what Four Deuces has decided to focus upon. I am suggesting that he is not only unfamiliar with the literature in this area, he ignores any scholarship (that is drawn to his attention) which does not reflect his view. If he were to pick up any scholarly book on this subject written in the last 30 years, the chances are very high that the author will draw attention to the similarities between, for example Bolshevism and National Socialism, rather than their differences. Wikipedia, I suggest, should not be a vehicle for Four Deuce's ignorance and bigotry, notwithstanding his keenness to delete anything from encyclopaedia with which he disagrees. (85.211.71.108 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)). When I was young, no one would be so offensive as to apply the term right-wing to anyone who was not a fascist. It may be Orwellian to insist that words maintain their original meanings rather than change to reflect polemicists' views, but we follow Wikipedia policy. TFD (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Are your sure you typed that right, or did you mean it the other way round? Fascists are right wing but not everybody who is right wing is a Fascist. This misunderstanding is one of the main reasons why regularly we get confused and angry people objecting the the classification of Fascism as right wing without anything to support them other than their own grim determination that they are right. It isn't anything logical. They simply recognise themselves as right wing and then object when they see Fascism labelled as right wing as they perceive that as implying that they are Fascist themselves, which it quite clearly does not. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The widespread use of the term "right-wing" to describe conservatives is fairly recent. It seems to have come into widespread use in the U.K. with Thatcher. TFD (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC) "When I was young, no one would be so offensive as to apply the term right-wing to anyone who was not a fascist." In other words when you were young you designated all those who you identified as Right-Wing as Fascists. Evidently you feel that this revelation will quash any accusation that you are a Leftist bigot unfit to edit this or any other Wikipedia article. "It may be Orwellian to insist that words maintain their original meanings" I think you will find it was your conversion of the claim by Sternhell that, although Fascism is commonly claimed to be Right-Wing this claim is FALSE, into, Sternhell points out that it is commonly claimed that Fascism is Right-Wing and therefore this claim is TRUE, that qualified you for that epithet. "but we follow Wikipedia policy" I take it that this is not a royal "we"? Those who see themselves as annointed by the Marxist logic of history to be legislators for correct thinking? (85.211.71.108 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)). Is 85 the same person as 88? I don't suppose it matters. In any case, it is untrue that some people "try" to apply the word right-wing to Fascism to discredit the Right. Historically, from the beginning, Mussolini and the Fascists were called Right-wing, because in the 1930s and 1940s "Right-wing" meant authoritarian. Modern conservatives, in an effort to hide the authoritarian roots of conservatism, try to deny that Right-wing ever meant authoritarian. The faults you ascribe to TFD are in reality the faults of your own arguments, as illustrated by your name calling. People who disagree with you are not "Marxists". I suspect that I was growing up at about the same time as TFD. I was born in 1942 and, before the mid-1950s and the rise of Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley, I never heard any American say anything bad about liberalism or anything good about the right-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC) If a significant scholar (or any source that qualifies as reliable source, for that matter) says that classification of Fascism as right-wing is inaccurate, then this has a place in the article, regardless whether this point of view is widespread. There are always ways to express that this is a minority view. OTOH, the conspiracy theories of deliberate ways to influence public discourse by assigning new meanings to words (by both sides) are interesting but, in my view, too controversial and confusing to be discussed in the article. As presented above, a lot of it is WP:OR - BorisG (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC) The term "right-wing" is a loan word. It has clear utility in Europe where there are multiple parties and independents in legislatures seating themselves along their own perceptions of ideological variation and forming coalitions on the left or the right side of the legislature. How and why these terms entered popular usage in the United States and later other English-speaking countries would make a good addition to the article if sources could be found. I sympathize with Hayek, Ayn Rand and John Redwood who argued against the new terminology. TFD (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood, if you taught mathematics the way you contribute to Wikipedia articles you would be fired. Show me a text where Mussolini described himself as Right-Wing! Like many on the Left he was critical of (and sought to ammend) various claims by Marx and Lenin, but he saw himself as on the Left. You assert that "modern conservatives" try to hide the authoritarian roots of conservatismn. Like Four Deuces you are simply revealing your political prejudices. Those on the "authoritarian" Right are very happy to be described as authoritarian, just as those on the "liberarian" Right are very happy to be described as advocates of capitalism. Their authoritarianism is precisely derived from their conservatism. I suppose that in the USA Republicans are quite used to being described as "Fascists" but that does not change the historical fact that the roots of Fascism are on the Left. Anybody with any historical knowledge can see the roots of Fascism in the Left. The Fascists were pro-French Revolution and anti-conservative. If you knew anything about it you would know that Napoleon was a supporter of the French Revolution. Nationalism and the Left are not opposites. The Fascists were anti-conservative. The Fascists were anti-capitalist. I never implied you are a Marxist, I just implied that you are a bigot who knows nothing about the political history of Europe. I implied that it is Four Deuces who is the extreme Leftist. He seems to have absolutely no interest in truth. I am sure he would be be thrilled to be identified as somebody who is seeking to subvert the impartiality of Wikipedia. I have no idea if he is a Marxist, but his techniques are straight out of the totalitarian handbook. Now that you have both lost the argument I notice you it is you not me that is seeking to draw attention away from the scholarship. "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century". (Mussolini, 1932, quoted in Adams, Ian; Dyson, R.W. 2003. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Routledge. Pp 178.[7]) TFD (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC) While I admire your willingness to try to educate here, it is becoming clear that this guy simply isn't listening and that all efforts are futile. I feel that this discussion has derailed this page from its real purpose, which is discussing how to improve the article. I think it is time to wrap this up. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century". (Mussolini, 1932, quoted in Adams, Ian; Dyson, R.W. 2003. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Routledge. Pp 178.[7]) TFD (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It is amusing isn't it that truckloads of quotes can be provided showing that Mussolini identified himself as a man of the Left, and yet a single quote from a secondary source which seems to imply that he saw Fascism as on the Right (Right of what?) is supposed to be decisive. I would be very interested to know the original source of that quote. Given that he saw himself as on the Left, although a critic of Marx and Lenin, this naturally leads to the conclusion that if it is not actually made up, the quote, if it is to be understood, has to be placed in context. To attack from the Right does not mean that you are politically Right-Wing. Lenin for example attacked those who advocated Left-Wing Communism as suffering from an "infantile disorder", but that does not mean that Lenin is politically "Right-Wing". What is the original source?

I have now found the original.

The quote is from "The Doctrine of Fascism" ("La dottrina del fascismo") an essay written by Giovanni Gentile, although credit is given to Benito Mussolini. It was first published in the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1932, as the first section of a lengthy entry on "Fascismo" (Fascism). The entire entry spans pages 847-884 of the Enciclopedia Italiana.

The First Section: "Fascismo - Movimento politico italiano creato da Benito Mussolini: Idee Fondamentali".

The Second Section: "Dottrina Politica e sociale."

The "Mussolini" entry starts on page 847 and ends on 851, with the credit line "Benito Mussolini." All subsequent translations of "The Doctrine of Fascism" are from this work.

A key concept in the essay is that Fascism rejects all earlier models:

"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. If the 19th century was the century of the individual, we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

It is not without some relevance that Mussolini not only did not write it, but he recalled and sought to destroy all available copies of "The Doctrine of Fascism" in April 1940 after he had second thoughts about various phrases in it. (O'Sullivan, 1983) However copies in Italian and English have survived, and are available in many libraries around the world. Note the claim that Fascism is about a big State.

The above quoted statement goes on to say

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."

What is being claimed in other words is that in Fascism, an authoritarian State is a goal in itself, whereas Marxism holds out the promise (however illusory) that at the end of history, the State will wither away, and true human freedom will prevail. So in this article Fascism is being defined as to the "Right" of Marxism. This is not at all the same thing as saying that Fascism is "Right-Wing". The most you can say is that "authoritarianism" is being associated with the Right.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.199 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 December 2010

Missing the point

Rick Norwood mentions his personal experience of the meaning of "right-wing" growing up in mid-fifties America. TFD mentions his personal experience growing up in Thatcherite Britain. This personal anecdotal experience is all very interesting but it isn't very encyclopaedic. Zeev Sternhell, a significant scholar on fascism, states that while fascism is commonly described as right-wing (as evidenced by Rick's and TFD's personal anecdotal evidence), in his scholarly opinion it is neither left or right. Sternhell's opinion may or may not be a minority view point, but there is no justification of the removal of such scholarly opinions as TFD has done here, that is contrary to WP:NPOV since that opinion was properly attributed to Sternhell. --Martin (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT: How accepted is the statement, "fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s"? There are actually better sources that many of the other ideologies are not in fact right-wing. Incidentally this article is about right-wing politics, not fascism. You should be using sources about the subject rather than Google-mining. Incidentally you are reading Sternhell selectively. He considers French frascism to be a fourth strand of the French Right, whereas the French hold it to be part of legitimism. TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Due weight was given by the fact that this opinion was properly attributed. As for you claim of "google mining" that is somewhat uncivil. --Martin (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What is at issue is not that "Four Deuces" or Rick Norwood think that Fascism is Right-Wing, it is their determination to "purge" from the article any reference to the fact that many mainstream scholars (particularly in the last few decades) have repeatedly pointed out that it is false (not to say misleading) to describe Fascism as "Right-Wing".

(88.110.4.199 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)).

Explanation of the detailed nature of Fascism and various views of its classification belong in the article about Fascism, not here. Provided there is a mainstream consensus that Fascism is right wing then it is correct for it to be included in this article. You have not demonstrated that there has been a shift in mainstream consensus. You have merely asserted it vigorously and repeatedly, with long and rambling arguments that rely on your own original synthesis. That is unhelpful and actually rather disruptive. This is why your arguments do not get anywhere and why your rambling, and the rebuttals it elicits, eventually get rolled up in order to clear some space here. Incidentally, that space is being cleared for the benefit of anybody who has any constructive suggestions for the article, not for you to ramble further into. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But to the extent that this article does mention fascism, it is legitimate to mention that some significant scholars do not agree with that classification. As it reads now the text implies unanimous consensus which is some what misleading, as is TFD's edit comment claiming Sternhell's view point was presented as "mainstream". --Martin (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't change the introduction. Nobody wants to read a confusing introduction full of equivocations and minority views. That said, I see no problem with these and other notable minority views being included in the body of the article so long as:

1. they are not given undue weight or presented in a non-neutral way that actually advocates them
2. they are not used as an opening gambit for the introduction of non-notable (i.e. fringe) minority views
3. the article does not become a fork of content that belongs in the Fascism article.

Fascism is not mentioned in the article as much as I would expect, so there is definitely room for a little expansion here. We don't want to get too deep into what Fascism is, but we can cover scholarly views of whether it should be included in the "right wing" or not.

This is exactly the sort of nuanced change we could discuss more easily if we didn't have our argumentative friend rambling his opinions all over the place. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the emerging consensus between Martin and Daniel (minus personal attack). Conversely, if fascism is not mentioned in the article much, it should also not be in the lead, as the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. Aa to civility, let me propose that we do not respond to comments that are incivil. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to remove some of the material rather than add more about fascism.

We already have articles about the various ideologies that have formed part of the right and about the political spectrum. Ironically most of the political groups now referred to as "right-wing" did not develop out the historic right and their ideologies were generally described as centrist, e.g., Anglo-Scandinavian conservatism, Christian Democracy, conservative liberalism, while only authoritarian ideologies were called right-wing. TFD (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD this is interesting but new to me. Do you have any evidence to support this? My recollection is that parties like Tories in the UK and Chritian Democrats in FRG were always called right-wing. Fascists and the like were considered Far Right. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The CDU was originally called the Centre Party (seated between the Conservatives and the Liberals) and are members of the Centrist Democrat International and the International Democrat Union, an association of "political parties of the centre and centre right".[8] This source distinuishes the "Center" from the Right.

Read John Redwood's criticism of the term "right"[9]. Here Norm Sterling attacks an opponent for his "right-wing agenda".

TFD (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The political "Right" (which in its conservative form describes those who oppose the utopian radicalism of the "Left") is not an ideology. It is generally Leftists who talk about the Right as an "ideology". An ideology (in its non-Marxist sense) is a systematic political doctrine which seeks to deliver a universal theory of man and society. Edmund Burke rejected this conception on the grounds that conservatism is anti-theoretical, and focuses instead upon the inherited, local, and imperfect, but practical.

If you think that most of the 'political groups now referred to as "Right-Wing" did not develop out the historic Right' and that their "ideologies" are centrist, this is not "ironical", it just shows that the Wikipedia entry should more accurately reflect the fact that "Right-Wing" has widely come to mean "free market classical liberalism" quite as much as it means "conservative opponent of radical change".

This is largely because the British "Right" since Burke has been increasingly associated with those who have sought to "conserve" the "traditional English liberties" defended in the 1688 "Revolution", and so in the English speaking world political conservatism has included those who have sought to defend the legal arrangements associated with economic liberalism. See for example the beliefs and policies of Pitt the Younger.

In contemporary England the term "Right-Wing" is just as often (indeed generally far more often) associated with those who support free markets and a limited State than it is associated with those who believe in upholding the rights and duties of a traditional (feudal) social order. In the United States "Right Wing" is even more closely associated with those who advocate the liberties associated with free market classical liberalism.

The word "authoritarian" is at least as much associated with the Left as it is with the Right. Seeking to define the Right as authoritarian is therefore misleading as well as inaccurate. There is an authoritarian conservative Right and a libertarian free market Right, just as there is an authoritarian Statist Left, and anti-authoritarian anarchist Left. Any adequate Wikipedia entry about "Right-Wing Politics" should reflect this fact.

(85.211.84.131 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)).

I tend to agree with our numerical contributer. And here lies a problem. The word 'right' is mostly used by the left in pejorative sense. Consequently it is not surprising that the article is written from the left-wing point of view. It is actually hard to find credible neutral sources for such an article, because serious and neutral scholars tend to avoid such vague and loaded terms. Thus I am pessimistic at the prospect of making it a good and NPOV article. I will be happy to be proven wrong. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also used as a term of abuse by conservatives. TFD (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think BorisG makes a good point about whether we should even mention fascism in the lead of this article at all. We already have an article Far-right politics that mentions Fascism, so having it here too is somewhat confusing. Note that even left leaning political parties have right-wing factions. --Martin (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also used as a term of abuse by conservatives. What? Can you expand a bit on your very concise comment? - BorisG (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided a link to an example above: "Norm Sterling of Carleton-Mississippi Mills says the party is struggling with an insurrection of rural libertarians with a “very narrow and right-wing agenda....”[10] This is what John Major said, "I think if the right wing were to win their battle with David Cameron then the Conservative party will lose".[11] TFD (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that it probably has something to do with the fact that John Major sees himself as on the Left (or the political centre) of the British Conservative Party. Not as Left as Edward Heath but not as Right as Margaret Thatcher. Simples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.78.147 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What "serious and neutral scholars"? Most academic books I read on the subject of political history in Europe frequently talk about movements that were "right" or "left" (like those by Stanley Payne or Richards Evans or Andrew Knapp). Sorry if historical accuracy isn't NPOV enough for you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pipes & Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

An editor has changed the lead to state, among other things, that the association of fascism with the Right is disputed, using books by Richard Pipes and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as sources. In fact the views of neither author is notable, and neither denies that fascism is associated with the Right. Here is a link to pp. 217-225 of Pipes's book quoted as a source. Von Kuehnelt is so far outside the mainstream that I would not normally comment, but he said that people in the 1930s mistakenly saw Nazism (not fascism) as far right, not that they did not make the association. TFD (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"An editor has [slightly] changed the lead" TRUE! (See Earlier Discussion on this TalkPage)

(noting that some scholars dispute the claim that Fascism is Right-Wing) TRUE! (See Earlier Discussion on this TalkPage)

That editor cites "books (amongst others) by Richard Pipes and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as sources. TRUE!

But neither author is notable. FALSE. (oh dear)

Neither author argues that it is false to associate Fascism with the political Right on the grounds that Fascism is more closely associated with the political Left. FALSE! (oh dear)

"Von Kuehnelt is so far outside the mainstream that I would not normally comment"

Well you have three true claims and two false claims so far, but go for it!

"he said that people in the 1930's mistakenly saw Nazism (not fascism) as far right, not that they did not make the association."

OK

POINT ONE - It is not being asserted that nobody claimed that Nazism was Right-Wing. Where did you get that claim from? That claim is FALSE. It is being claimed that although the Nazi Party was frequently described as being politically Right-Wing, some (both at the time and amongst scholars who write about the issue today) challenge that description.

POINT TWO - You note that because Pipes and Kuehnelt-Leddihn argue that National Socialism is wrongly described as Right-Wing (given that it would be more accurate to describe it as Left-Wing) this does not mean they were talking about Fascism, which presumably is being defined by you as something that took place in Italy not Germany. Unfortunately for you both Pipes and Kuehnelt-Leddihn do describe Mussolini as on the Left.

"the deep and lasting connection between national and international leftist ideologies - socialism-communism and fascism" Leftism Revisited p.145

"the ideology of the founder of the Fascist Party was rooted in revolutionary socialism, equally antagonistic to liberalism and conservatism" Property & Freedom p.219.

(85.211.80.103 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

Edmund Burke is generally thought of as the founder of modern political conservatism. The free market economist Adam Smith famously remarked that Burke was "the only man I ever knew who thinks on economic subjects exactly as I do, without any previous communications having passed between us".

In contemporary usage the description Right-Wing is much more commonly associated with belief in a small State and free markets than it is associated with support for a monarch and/or aristocrats and/or a State religion. The Iranian Revolution for example is rarely described as Right-Wing, the Right-Wing in the United States rarely supports the idea of a monarchy, and in the United Kingdom few on the political Right believe that the country ought to be ruled only/mainly by those with inherited titles.

(88.110.3.48 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).

Describing Mussolini as on the left would seem to place those authors in the category of fringe theories. You need to be aware of WP:WEIGHT, you have to look at the field as a whole not just an author who you agree with. You might also want to read up on some of Adam Smith's work on ethics, he is not an advocate of the free market as it is interpreted by the right in modern times. The article also needs to reflect usage over time --Snowded ^TALK 12:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit War?

Hide unhelpful discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I notice that whenever I make an attempt to improve the article it is reverted on the grounds that it has not been discussed on the Talkpage first. It is always revered by those who either identify themselves (or who are identified by their editing record as) on the "Left" politically. Any attempt to replace my text is then described as an "edit war". Unfortunately (for them) it has been discussed on the Talkpage. Each objection to the change in question (i.e. Is it true or false that many scholars reject the claim that Fascism is Right-Wing? & Is it true or false that in the Anglosphere Right-Wing is more associated with advocates of a small State and free markets than it is associated with defenders of the Ancien regime? has been factually addressed. Nevertheless each attempt to improve the accuracy of the text is rejected on the grounds that any change I make "must be agreed" on the Talkpage first. The definition of agreement it seems is whatever those on the Left (democratic or otherwise) who have been reverting the text would like to read in an article about the Right-Wing on Wikipedia, regardless of the factual accuracy of the claims. That is not an "edit war" it is an attempt to subvert Wikipedia (and therefore undermine it) for political ends. (88.110.3.48 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)). It hasn't been discussed on the talk page. You have stated your position which is something very different. Now allow other editors time to comment or pay attention to their existing comments. Its pretty clear from the above threads that you do not have agreement to the change and several editors have been involved. Editing under two different IPs does not help either you might want to consider registering a name --Snowded TALK 12:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC) This is a discussion that has been taking place on the talk page for some weeks! Each objection has been replied to (and undermined) with evidence. The next logical step is therefore to adjust the article. Maybe you are right that I ought to register an edit name. My computer regularly changes my public IP number. It is not clear to me however that it is worth factually correcting "political" Wikipedia articles if errors or ommissions turn out not be be accidental, but are a consequence of a sustained policy of disinformation by certain editors. It is up to senior editors to make sure that political articles are not hijacked by particular political viewpoints. Maybe only senior editors ought to edit such articles (I suppose there are similar problems with pages on religion) but all I can do in the meantime is to try to make it more accurate. (88.110.3.48 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)). No, you think you have replied to them but other editors have not agreed to those changes. You think you have undermined other people's arguments. I don't think you have even answered them. You are therefore wrong to impose your point of view until you have agreement. There is no such thing as a senior editor in Wikipedia, all are equal. You should also stop making accusations against other editors. I strongly suggest you self-revert your last edit. If I didn't have to get out to a meeting I would make a 3rr report with a request for you to be blocked for a period until you learn not to edit war. A self-revert on your part would show your willingness to engage with other editors rather than simply assert your own opinion. You would be best creating a name. With one IP from Leeds and the other from Nottingham it makes things look a little odd. --Snowded TALK 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Try reading them again. (88.110.3.48 (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)). An article should not be used to argue politics. Take it to a blog. This article is not about how the phrase "Right-wing" should have been used, but how the phrase in fact is and was used. The best source for word usage is the Oxford English Dictionary, not a political tract.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing populists

I'm removing the sentence which lists people considered right-wing populists as it adds nothing. The section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question gives examples of right-wing populists in several countries, and the people listed are those right-wing populists most commonly in the news in their respective countries. I do not understand your objection. You say examples add nothing, but examples are commonly used to make clear otherwise abstract concepts. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the objection either. Examples are provided in many articles, and these are sourced. TFD (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't give examples but you can't just list some random populists and think you're describing what right-wing populism is. As I said the section should describe what right-wing populism is and what right-wing populists believe. It should not simply list some. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. If you think the description insufficient, I'll work on that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is against our BLP policy to label living people in this sweeping manner. Wikipedia is better than that: it describes facts without labeling people and lets readers decide. WP is much more nuanced in its descriptions of people. Just look at the article on Silvio Berlusconi. Nowhere it says that he is a populist (or not a populist). The fact that a newspaper article (or a book) identifies these people as right-wing populists does not make them so. At most you can say that such and such author suggests that Berlusconi is a right-wing populist. And why are we giving modern examples but not older examples? Do wer have examples of other types of right wing people? And how can you have in one line a long serving and elected national leader and a talk show host? It is bizarre. There is a difference between an opinion piece and an encyclopedia. - BorisG (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment about US -centric nature of this was an mixup. - BorisG (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right wing populists can be either politicians or pundits or both. If you want to add a few historical examples, please do so. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Burlesconi could be described as a right-wing populist. The source refers to his "cunning conservative populism", but it seems to be a reference to his style, not ideology.[12] BTW since right-wing populism is a fairly recent phenomenon in Europe the historical examples do not go back far but could include Poujadism. TFD (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lablelling people is against Wikipedia BLP policies. - BorisG (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Describing people's political ideology is not. TFD (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is populism an ideology? - BorisG (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism is an ideology. TFD (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection, as I said, is not random, but consists of major examples. They are not "major". They are simply popular writers and commentators who are not historically important. How about mentioning people who've actually made an impact on right-wing/conservative populism like the Southern Agrarians. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The southern agrarians were not right-wing populists. Beck on other hand has received considerable coverage as a leading proponent of right-wing populism, especially with his work in popularizing the books of Cleon Skousen. TFD (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Populism is not an ideology, it is an appeal to the common people, usually anti-intellectual in nature. Mao Zedong practiced left-wing populism. William Jennings Bryan practiced right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. However, right wing populism has been identified as an ideology - see all the references in this Google book search. Also called radical right, extreme right, etc. In the U.S. they call themselves conservatives, but in the rest of the world, where the term "conservative" has a clear meaning, they use different terms. TFD (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When some editors (and the sources they quote) say that the tea-party, which favors small government, financial prudence and low taxes, and Neo-Nazis (which favor big authoritarian government), share the same ideology, they cannot be taken seriously. They are entitled to their views, but trying to say they are mainstream is a POV, and a fringe one at that. I don't have time to take on this one, but it is sad that some areas of Wikipedia are becoming a mirror image of Conservapedia. - BorisG (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has provided sources that the Tea Party and the Nazis were/are right-wing populists? What makes you think that people who wrote about the subject - Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Seymour Martin Lipset, Sara Diamond, Pippa Norris, Chip Berlet, Klaus von Beyme and many others - are all fringe? Even if you dislike the expression "right-wing populism", you still need to find a term to describe right-wing parties such as UKIP. TFD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This paper, which is about UKIP, argues that the extreme right and right-wing populism are two separate families, mentioning among other things that right-wing extremism supports a "strong state" (p. 8). It still accepts the term right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know (yet) whether I dislike the term, but the article you mentioned, right wing populism, does include both groups. I assume that it is based on some sources. Yet these movements have almost nothing in common, and certainly not a common ideology. - BorisG (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used. TFD (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

These arguments embody a classical logical fallacy, which takes the form, "Joe is a vegetarian. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore Joe is a Nazi." Or its contrapositive, "Joe is not a Nazi, therefore Joe is not a vegetarian." The Tea Party is a right-wing populist movement, but does not necessarily have anything in common with other right-wing populist movements except its right-wing populism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD I take exception to the phrase The party you support. I am not sure which party I am meant be supportive of, but this isn't the place to discuss my or your political sympathies. I am pointing out that a number of parties you are trying to postray as sharing a common ideology have very little in common. I have not expressed support for either of them, so please refrain in the future from discussing my political sympathies. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@RN: Maybe you have a point. But: if two parties have almost nothing in common and hence presumably don't share common ideology then even if they do share one attrtibute (right-wing populism), this attribute is not an ideology. Another point is that trying to find a common attribute between radically different movements and write them alongside one another is tendentious. I will try to see if they appear together in reliable sources. If not, they should not be in the same list. - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside I would ask if you would classify Billy Hughes as a right-wing populist? A worker and prominent union leader turned Prime Minister, he achieved huge popular support due to his most vocal promotion and defense of the White Australia Policy and opposition to racial equality (demanded by Japan at Paris Peace Talks). Yet he was also the most vocal opponent of the British policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany against cross-party support for this policy in Australia. ----

By "the party you support", I am referring to your user page, where you write, "I broadly support a small Liberal Democratic Party", "[13] which was "started and run by ordinary citizens", which would appear to be a right-wing populist party. It is however fairly small, and there is much more literature on One Nation.

Hughes belonged to a socialist party and then a liberal party. See for example this chart that groups Australian parties according to political familes. Outside the U.S., right-wing populism did not emerge until much later.

You may dislike the categorizations that are accepted by the academic community, but it is not up to us to question their reasoning. Surely you would object to someone who claimed that both diamonds and talc cannot both be metamorphic rocks, because they are total opposites. I suggest you read the sources for right-wing populism and accept that we must accurately reflect them.

TFD (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism goes back to, at least, Gaius Marius, Roman consul in the first century BC. I'm sure I could find earlier examples if I tried. So the idea that right-wing populism "emerged" in modern times ignores common themes in history and in human nature. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt one can find foreshadowing of modern ideologies in the classical period, but it is ahistorical. It would be more usual to see the two parties of Rome as liberals and conservatives, although it would be a loose comparison. As S.D. Clark explained, only in the U.S. did the weak political and social control structure allow these movements to develop. [14] That has only changed recently. TFD (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I still insist that your reference to my support of a political party is totally inappropriate, especially since this party was not discussed in my comments or in any of the articles under discussion here. You really do not need to go to my user page to answer the questions raised here. Please refrain from this tactic in the future. BTW diamond and talc are minerals, not rocks. Diamond occurs in igneous rocks, not in metamorphic rocks. Talc occurs in metamorphic rocks. They have indeed nothing in common (except that they are end members on the hardness scale). Bad example. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at the sources when I have time. I still believe singling out certain persons as right-wing populists is a BLP violation and I will raise it at RFC when i have time. - BorisG (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is an Ad hominem argument. Also please see this. - BorisG (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you remember, I wrote, "The party you support belongs to a group - it has similarities with parties elsewhere. You may not like the name, but it is the one most commonly used." (The party I referred to was the one you state supporting on your user page.) In what sense is that ad hominem? Why do you post your allegiance on your user page and then complain when other editors mention it? TFD (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the parties we discussed (The Tea Party and the Neo-Nazis)? - BorisG (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We were not discussing neo-nazis and the Tea Party, you were. And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. I would have thought with your knowledge that you would see a similarity between them and the French National Front, the German Republicans, the Dutch Centre Democrats,the Belgian Front national, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Danish Progress Party, the Norwegian Progress Party, and the Swedish New Democracy, the UK Independence Party, the former Reform Party of Canada, Australia's One Nation, and New Zealand First. TFD (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And the Liberal Democrats are an example of a right-wing populist party. Are they? Any sources? - BorisG (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you that some of the parties you mention have a lot in common (I know some but never heard of others). I know them as far right. The common policies are strong central government, strong nationalism, opposition to immigration. National Front and One Nation are fairly typical examples. Parties that advocate small government and individual freedoms do not belong here. I am surprised that you have included UK Independence Party but not British National Party. I thought it would be a more clear-cut example. - BorisG (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to reject what mainstream scholarship says about these parties you are free to do so. I do not see how continuing this conversation can be helpful because we are supposed to reflect what sources say rather than form our own opinions. TFD (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to reject any mainstream opinions. I question what opinions are mainstream, and also how these opinions are presented. But I agree with you that this discussion is not going anywhere. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The concepts are explained in the articles right-wing populism and the radical right, both of which are sourced. You can also read about the subject in Google books by typing in "Right-wing populism".[15] TFD (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)