Talk:Syncretic politics

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

Minaret of Freedom Institute and syncretism[edit]

Is the Minaret of Freedom Institute a syncretic organization combining Islamism and libertarianism? --GCarty 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so but it may not be large enough to merit a mention here. Oftentimes these "institutes" are one guy and a mailbox. I'd advise further research before adding it to the page. Mjk2357 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat POV/controversial on judging the likelihood of association between leninism and fascism[edit]

I think that the following passage is somewhat debatable:

the National Bolshevik Party of Russia, formed from the unlikely union of Leninist and Fascist aesthetics.

The french historian Pierre Chaunu said that nazism (easily regarded as fascism) and communism were "heterozygous twins", I believe that Alain Besançon may also share a similar opinion. Adolf Eichmann said that they were "quasi-siblings", and there is quite an amount of mentions of people on the nazi party in favor of socialism (their, german national, but socialism nevertheless), many can be found here in wikipedia. I'll just remove the "unlikely" then. Extremophile 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not syncretic[edit]

It's understandable that observers used to the left-right distinction in American politics might think that libertarianism (in the American sense) is "a blend of left and right", but it isn't so. Libertarians, for the most part, oppose the state. When the state is extending itself into people's private sexual choices or dictating what substances they can consume, this opposition is considered "left-wing", whereas when libertarians oppose state overreaching in people's economic choices, this is thought to be "right-wing". But this is not picking and choosing; it's the traditional center-left and center-right coalitions that have fundamentally incompatible elements within them.

I am not sure how to fix the article. For the moment I have removed libertarianism from the examples, but I'm afraid the others (which I don't know so much about) might easily be challenged as well. The whole thing reads much too much like an essay written by an American centrist who believes in the two-party system. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Le libertarianisme: de gauche ou de droite ? Libertarianism is difficult to classify as being right or left as it is about keeping both economic and personal freedom and could be considered as "centrist" although it is very distinct from traditional centrist parties.
Otherwise, yes this page needs to be rethought as its narrative seems somewhat awkward. --JamesPoulson (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism[edit]

How is Libertarian Socialism syncretic? Agtrheeeinsm (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think because it tries to fuse socialism, that in every actual realization has been statist, with libertarianism/anarchism, which is against the state in theory and indeed tries to minimize the state in practice. --Miacek (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And this is an excellent example, frankly, of what's wrong with the whole concept behind this article. I might personally agree with your analysis, but clearly those who call themselves libertarian socialists will not agree with it. I'm not convinced there's any way to make the article NPOV. I'm considering putting it up for deletion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't do it. I found the article interesting when I first read it more than a year ago, and find it useful now as well. Of course, people who adhere to libertarian socialism don't consider their philosophy 'syncretic', but very natural and coherent. But then again, so do National bolsheviks and national anarchists... --Miacek (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But socialism is only an economic ideology. It usually ended up as totalitarian in practice, but socialism in theory is really only economic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtrheeeinsm (talkcontribs) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

socialism has not been statist in every realisation. some countries are democratic, and therefor don't easily overturn completely into a new system. that is why only totalitarian authoritarian countries have been able to completely switch to a regulated economy, although the centrlistic way it was regulated is at least as far removed from socialism as is capitalism. the only exception is countries with an absolute majority vote in favour of communism, that thereby accepted assimilation into the Soviet empire, such as Eastern Germany.
other countries remained democratic. but that does mean they lacked any transition to socialism. just that they lacked transition to totalism. such countries abound in Europe, all of which are much more democratically responsive to the will of it's citizens as ultra-capitalist America.
furthermore, socialism since marx has developed over two branches, one libertarian, the other following marxist line of dictatorship of the proletariat. libertarianism as well, used to unambiguously mean libertarian socialism, with capitalist libertarianism only developing much later out of traditionalism in America. therefor there is clearly nothing syncretic about libertarian socialism, unless you want to get so analytical to suggest it mixes individualism with collectivism; in which case all forms of politics except that of ancient Sparta would be syncretic.· Lygophile has spoken 14:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In short: there is not a single instance in the world history, where a country with socialist means of production (to use Marxian terminology) would've been even remotely close to democraticy or liberalism in the Western sense. Sweden e.g. is a liberal democracy and has been a capitalist country all the 20th century, regardless of the welfare policies that some have called socialistic. Theorists (esp. of course doctrinaire freemarketeers Hayek, Friedman, Mises) have argued socialism is inherently non-liberal and statist, for how else can there be a planned economy, a system of fixed prices and wages, market relations be forbidden etc. The whole history of mankind shows, that socialism is in desperate need of a strong state control. --Miacek (t) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, both of you make some good points, but Wikipedia is not the forum for them. I think what this exchange demonstrates (well, at least exemplifies) is that inclusion in this article can never be NPOV. I believe the article should be deleted. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Controversies exist in all political topics i've encountered here in wiki ;-)--Miacek (t) 10:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course, but this article is sort of inherently POV. I don't think it's possible to make it neutral. I'm going to nominate it at AfD when I have a little time to follow it. --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
welfare policies are programs that use a collective wallet that is applied by judgement. this is socialism even in your own words. it is called a mixed economy; a measure of socialism within a capitalist economy. a non-centralist planned economy with fixed wages is achived through democratised economy, something advocated by all modern socialists, and most early socialists - just not by the traditionally authoritarian and corrupt russia. labour unions are an element of this, a small measure of planned economy with fixed wages by agreement.
i will not have wikipedia give false information because you are not aware of what socialism means while being completely pent on pushing your propogandised POV. I know it's been demonised and the hatred of it is popularised in this one quirky country, but why is it so difficult for americans to even understand what is just a natural part of europe?· Lygophile has spoken 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i will not have wikipedia give false information because you are not aware of what socialism means while being completely pent on pushing your propogandised POV

I don't give two figs on how your 'libertarian socialism' is going to be achieved. It's all ideological bullshit, just like Marx's assumption that the state will die off after socialism's victory. The so-called libertarian socialism is a tiny-tiny group of individuals, there has never been any libertarian socialism on the earth, just like there has been no flat earth, contrary to what some ideologists think ;-) --Miacek (t) 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
if just the fact that it hasn't existed before means we shouldn't ever start having it, we would not have democracy right now, would we? also, there has been minor instances of anarchism. also your post was completely irrelevant. this is not about the viability of libertarian socialism, but wether or not it is a syncretic politic· Lygophile has spoken 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to find some scholarly sources for the article, when I have some more time. Let's wait, I think. --Miacek (t) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We need more scholarly sources here. Also, people need to realize that calling something syncretic is not a critisism. (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition seems incomplete, Examples do not seem to support definition[edit]

I found this entry confusing. The description of syncretic politics indicates that it is characterized by the synthesis of beliefs from both ends of the left-right spectrum, which makes sense as far as it goes. But some more examples of syncretic political systems (or ideologies?) would be very useful. Right now the only examples given are listed under syncretic fascism, and are also defined only in opposition to left-right politics, as ideologies whose proponents criticize the left and right equally. As a result, it is unclear whether any political system that critiques both left and right (like libertarianism) is syncretic. It is also unclear whether syncretic politics usually or always refer to fascist systems, as is suggested by the fact that these are the only examples given.

It would be great if someone could extend the definition and provide a variety of examples. It would also help to present the examples in terms of how they positively exemplify syncretic politics. In other words, something like: (X) is a syncretic political system because it combines (Y) elements of left ideology along with (Z) elements of right ideology, but does not qualify as centrist because of (A). Such an explanation would be much more helpful than: (X) is syncretic because it criticizes the left as well as the right.

I am not knowledgeable about syncretic politics and did not find this article particularly helpful. I hope that my feedback will be useful to someone who can strengthen the article. (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) WAN

Nazi Party[edit]

An IP changed Nazi Party to National Socialist German Workers Party. I suggest using the most common term, Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea as the mention of "workers" would be a way to induce readers into assuming that it's marxist according to rhetoric currently being piped out. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


You mean the guy that joked that his "right hand didn't know what [his] far-right hand was doing"?

This whole concept (and hence the article, through no fault of its own) seems to be an attempt from modern rightists to distance themselves from the excesses of their forebears -- with a few strained token "left" examples thrown in, as if to give te exception that proves the rule.

But putting that aside -- Reagan? Really? (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"You and I are increasingly told we must choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down - up to...individual freedom consistent with law and order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism..." Ronald Reagan, speech in 1964.--R-41 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This just points up again the fundamental problem with the whole article, which I think is irreparably POV, and (if not deleted) should at least be identified as a POV rather than presented as a standard category of political thought. There is nothing in Reagan's comments that suggest any syncretism, in the sense of taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there. Rather, he is talking about a consistent political position that doesn't happen to line up with "left" and "right". To describe that as "syncretic" is to assume that "left" and "right" themselves are logically consistent, which I think it's pretty obvious they are not. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Definition on Wikipedia: Syncretic politics or spectral-syncretic is any of a number of types of politics outside of the conventional left-right political spectrum.. Reagan: "I would like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right."--R-41 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
But that's exactly the problem — the definition is bullshit. Going outside of left or right does not make you "syncretic", which is a term for religions created by putting together bits and pieces of existing religions. What Reagan is talking about (distinct from what he did in practice, of course, at least sometimes) has nothing to do with putting together bits and pieces of left and right, but instead with applying a fundamental principle and letting the left/right labels fall where they may. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is inherently POV and OR. Syncretic politics merely means taking stuff from competing ideologies. Well every political groups does that - or they disappear. So we begin by saying that fascism was called syncretic, because none of their ideas were original. Then we say, you know who else was syncretic? Ronald Reagan! Can anyone point to a single book or article specifically about syncretic politics as opposed for example to different papers saying fascism was syncretic or Reagan was syncretic? TFD (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There, I've deleted all material that did not make a direct reference to syncretic politics or was refering to "syncretic" in a religious sense as in one of the books, it is now only showing its use by some scholars like Roger Griffin and others describe fascism. All the sources in the article now directly mention syncretic politics, all else has been removed. I suggest that the reduced article be merged into the article Third Position, that is what what this article is essentially about now.--R-41 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a scholar in this area, but looking over the Third Position article, it seems like it would make sense. (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Should someone perhaps reformulate the definition of syncretic politics in this article, because it is wrong. By the most accepted rules of defining, you include only the genus and the differentia in the definition. The fascism part does not belong in the definition of syncretic politics, and should only be mentioned later in text. Having it put like this gives a negative connotation to syncretism - which is untrue - and also breaks Wikipedia's rules of neutrality. It should be made clear that syncretic politics can be both negative and positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No such thing as syncretic politics or the "Third way"[edit]

There are only two options open to humanity: to follow imperialism into the abyss of barbarism and environmental catastrophe or to overthrow imperialism, break the bonds that are currently holding back progress, and establish communism. There is no third way forward and no way to turn back the clock.

The Third Way? Nonsense. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of The Third Road or Social Democracy which is seen as opportunism and reformism by Marxists-Leinists progressives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:55F8:1585:AE33:395F (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So, this is a quote from some communist source? If so, it represents their view and their view only.
You yourself are using the word "seen as" which is indicative of interpretation. People supporting an ideology do interpret the world and history according to how their glasses are tinted.
There are people out there with a political position advocating compromises between the right and left which want nothing to do with marxism.
People that claim otherwise are just imposing their dualistic views on others. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)