UberCryxic (talk | contribs) |
Immoral moralist (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 331: | Line 331: | ||
==What exactly are we arguing about NOW?== |
==What exactly are we arguing about NOW?== |
||
The opening is sober and restrained, presenting the dominant views on the subject rather coherently and intelligently. We all realize one obvious thing: this article will never satisfy everyone. At the very least, all reasonable parties should agree that the current version is sustainable and was achieved in a very consensus-driven atmosphere. We have now included some of the criticisms made from those who do not regard fascism as far right, and that's about the best we can do ''under these sociological circumstances''. I put forward a 'motion', if you will, to call this fight off temporarily and remove the neutrality tag.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] ([[User talk:UberCryxic|talk]]) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
The opening is sober and restrained, presenting the dominant views on the subject rather coherently and intelligently. We all realize one obvious thing: this article will never satisfy everyone. At the very least, all reasonable parties should agree that the current version is sustainable and was achieved in a very consensus-driven atmosphere. We have now included some of the criticisms made from those who do not regard fascism as far right, and that's about the best we can do ''under these sociological circumstances''. I put forward a 'motion', if you will, to call this fight off temporarily and remove the neutrality tag.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] ([[User talk:UberCryxic|talk]]) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I'm the one that put the POV tag there. My complaint was that a significant view was being left out, the view that fascism is viewed by a good number of historians to be neither left nor right, i.e. a mixture of left and right, or centrist. The NPOV policy says that in order to be NPOV, all significant views need to be mentioned. When the lead only said that fascism is usually considered far-right, which is probably correct, then it in order to be NPOV it also had to note all significant conflicting views. The statement's there now, at the time of writing, is "However, some historians regard fascism to be a mixture of left and right, or neither left nor right." So, unless it is a significant view that Fascism is left-wing, then the lead is much more NPOV. I don't know if the view that it is left wing is a significant view. However, to be fully NPOV I think it should probably be corrected to say a "good number" of historians, which is what the source says. "Some" could mean it may be a fringe view, which it is not. [[User:Immoral moralist|Immoral moralist]] ([[User talk:Immoral moralist|talk]]) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:38, 3 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fascism is on the Left
It is a common misconception that Fascism is "right" of center. If one views the political/economic structure as Total Government control on the Left and No Government Control on the Right, clearly Fascism should be on the Left. The problem is that many people confuse the "militant" aspects as being "right", but that is a belief that was created from the anti-military Left common in today's society then with political history.
Therefore, I would remove the sentence stating that is a "far right" concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2010
- Unfortunately these article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's the way this place is written. Beyond that, three more specific points, worth stating/restating since this one seems to keep coming up again and again, either in discussion or in drive-by edits -
- IP, you surely noticed that your second sentence starts with an "If ..", before you came to your conclusion. Quite a big one, as it happens
- As noted, this has been discussed at length in the past, and in quite tedious detail (all in the archives)
- The issue isn't framed in the article text in quite the simplistic way being described. The text does not say Fascism "is" far right. What it actually says, at various points, with emphasis added, is as follows - "usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum" ... "normally described as extreme right" ... but also "used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum"
- I don't see the problem with most of that. --Nickhh (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is it a requirement that an "article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong"? RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's the way this place is written. Beyond that, three more specific points, worth stating/restating since this one seems to keep coming up again and again, either in discussion or in drive-by edits -
- Fact is, this 'No Government Control / Government Control Left/Right' thing is something you've made up in your head to distance yourself from the hard fact that Right-wing politics has an extremist viewpoint which is just as distateful as the Left's. That's right - right wingers have to own Fascism the same way the Left has to deal with Communism. In any case, No Government Control would be Anarchism, which is a hard-left viewpoint. Not surprising you've got both extremes on the Left, which is the standard viewpoint of most right-wingers anyway. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is about improving the article - not to diss anyone for their beliefs. The fact is, there is significant debate about how to apply the "left-right" system, and this debate goes back to 1948 and Arthur Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" if I recall correctly. Collect (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think the IP is arguing the Cleon Skousen view that the French Revolution was a right-wing revolution against the left-wing Bourbon dynasty. Both sides were under a misconception as to which side they were really on. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the IP (who clearly likes the Nolan system), but to another (who apparently thinks "something you'v made up in your head" is a valid comment on this page) - but phrased it not as a response lest it be misunderstood. The issue of any arbitrary system is that it will surely get misused (a la Murphy's Law). Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Nolan chart puts libertarianism, fascism and communism as centrist, The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the IP (who clearly likes the Nolan system), but to another (who apparently thinks "something you'v made up in your head" is a valid comment on this page) - but phrased it not as a response lest it be misunderstood. The issue of any arbitrary system is that it will surely get misused (a la Murphy's Law). Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would not reply to an Ad Hom, but this for the person that said "I made this up in my head." That is completely false. It is a well known belief, and here is a youTube example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfYaNKKM8
It is silly to put the Communists on the Left and the Fascists on the Right. They are not polar opposites. Both are systems where government has lots of control over individuals. Please do not that personal or idealogical, as that is not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we not put them both on the right? Communism after all had statist aspects. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, it appears the IP is referring to the theories of Cleon Skousen, not the Nolan chart, as is clear by his citing of a you tube video prepared by the John Birch Society. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't we put them both on the left? Fascism has quite a few progressive traits. The thing is, Statism belongs in the center. That's probably the reason we get the idea that Fascism and Communism are very much alike, when, if you study them more closely, you'll see that they both hire thugs to beat the crap out of you, but they do it for almost completely different reasons. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed both would be more accurately put on the left. It would seem that Fascism is seen as a movement of the right not because of the ideologies it espouses, but rather because historically Communists have called Fascists "Right Wing" because of their opposition to Communism. Communism and Fascism apparently have a lot in common - populist (traditionally left wing) movements seeking to implement a strong statist government (also traditionally left wing), requiring the individual to give up freedoms, abdicating these to the state for a common good (again, an attribute of the left that goes hand in hand with populism and statism). Both apparently decried traditional institutions, such as marriage and religion, preferring individuals to seek the benefits of these institutions in the State. Both go to some length to legislate morality (or rather, morality in the State), and legislating aspects of peoples lives (as opposed to liberty in the individual to manage their own lives). Both co-opt business and national economies under government control. The Communists consider Fascists "Right Wing", it appears, primarily because of a difference in how they approach their populism - Communism relies heavily upon the notion of class warfare to rally the masses, whereas Fascism relies upon the State (ex: Mussolini) and/or other common focal point (ex: Hitler relied heavily upon race) to rally the people as a people, and not a class. There are, of course, variations on these themes. Be that as it may, because of their commonalities, it would appear that calling both Fascism and Communism aspects of the 'left' would be far more accurate than calling either one an aspect of the 'right'. Of course, feel free to correct me where I've missed something/gotten something horribly wrong. RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well, and the voluminous talk page correspondence. We can all repeat ourselves over and over again, it's fun you know. --Nickhh (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since this is an unsettled issue, it would appear that removing the "... on the far right ...", and not attributing Fascism as a facet of either the political Left or Right would be appropriate. As a WP newbie, I appreciate your patience. As an aside, other than this discussion page, is there another place in WP that's been having this discussion? RPuzo (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely. And accept that what we are trying to do on this WP page is to record what mainstream views are in respect of an admittedly simplistic - but prevalent - classification, not each argue our own corner about how X "ought" to be classified, or what is the "true nature" of Y, and how it actually has "much in common" with Z, or how we should use a different classification altogether, like this thing I once saw online suggested we should. Seriously, this is one of the easiest points about this topic, and if we can't get this one cleared up once and for all, we may as well all give up and go home. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. And may I add that theories that would require us to say that Louis XVI was to the "left" of the Gironde (or that the present-day government of Spain is to the right of Franco) are not mainstream. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the theory presented by the IP says that monarchism is left-wing while anarchism is right-wing. It is in the youtube video mentioned.[1] The reason for the common misconception is that we have been mislead. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." Given that the terms "left" and right originated to describe positions during the French Revolution, it is quite a remarkable stretch to say that the terms should be redefined even in that context. But I'm done beating this particular horse. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. And may I add that theories that would require us to say that Louis XVI was to the "left" of the Gironde (or that the present-day government of Spain is to the right of Franco) are not mainstream. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fascism has much more in common with the far-right than with the left. As Jmabel mentioned, the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" emerged from the French Revolution. The left-wing supports greater egalitarianism often claiming that the move towards egalitarianism is a progressive step. The left often uses idealism to promote this. the right-wing either supports or tolerates established social hierarchy. The right often uses realism and tradition to justify this, claiming that complete equality cannot be achieved in the real world. The monarchy, church and aristocrats in France were right-wing because they objected to the left-wing's intention to impose egalitarianism upon France. Now some examples. For instance, right-wing economics rejects the idea that equality is possible or desirable in the economy, and claims that hierarchy in the economy is either inevitable or desirable and that equality is an artificial imposition. Left-wing economics claims that equality is a goal to be achieved and that it is hierarchy is artificial that imposes inequality. A right-wing racialist believes that there are superior and inferior races in a hierarchy and rejects the idea of equality. A left-wing humanist believes that races do not exist and that differences between groups of humans is not a result of superiority or inferiority but imbalance of resources that causes inequality. Fascism is much more in favour of the hierarchical politics of the right than it is with the egalitarian politics of the left. It certainly borrows ideas from the left, such as calls for collectivism and social solidarity along nationalist lines, but presents them in a right-wing manner (i.e. the idea that a nation must strive to be superior to other nations and assert its dominance). In the U.S., the authoritarian vs. libertarian scale is commonly confused with the left-wing vs. right-wing scale. There have been many big governments on the political right, that's what absolutist governments were. The political left has often resorted to larger governments because they seek to put through their agenda of egalitarianism throughout different aspects of a society (i.e. class, gender, and ethnicity).--R-41 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- No personal opinions count -- we must, perforce, use what others have written. A short position. Clearly some have stated forcefully in articles that there are connections between fascism, as a political philosophy. and the left, and a practical connection historically between fascist parties and right-wing support (as well as a surprising amount of left wing support). After that, this page shoiuld be used for determining which sources properly get used. Collect (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand those who find the constant repetition of the inane "left wing fascism" arguments frustrating and feel compelled to try to explain the mainstream consensus to the people who come here with eccentric views. Were this a general discussion forum I would be making very similar points myself. Nonetheless, I agree that this is counterproductive on a Wikipedia article talk page. The more we argue the more it gives the impression that there really is a debate to be had as to whether Fascism was left wing and, even worse, the more this page gets turned into a general discussion forum and distracted from working on improving the article. Besides, we are never going to talk any sense into people who are on a mission to redefine the English language for political ends or their dupes.
- In future we must try to be more disciplined. People who come here with unreferenced opinions should be politely but firmly and succinctly referred to the appropriate policies, principally WP:V and WP:FRINGE. If they come back with suggested references then we discuss those. If anybody wants to engage further with the eccentrics then the user's talk page is the best place for any discussion that is aimed at educating the user, rather than improving the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, amount of state control has nothing to do with left-right distinction. What really matters is that right-winger would say "people are not equal" and left-winger would say "people are equal". Both free market, aristocratic monarchy and a fascist state are the means to secure people's inequality while socialist state or anarchist communes are the means dedicated to secure equality.--MathFacts (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually free markets were originally promoted and are sometimes still promoted as a means of achieving greater equality. Workers in England could buy cheap imported food from America while American farmers could import cheap farm equipment from England. This was opposed by the English landed aristocracy and American manufacturers. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This is all easily resolved with sources. If it can be sourced that fascism is on the left is a significant view then NPOV requires that that view be mentioned, as long as it's not said that it's the usual view if the sources don't say it's the usual view. Likewise for fascism being a mix of left and right or neither left and right. Immoral moralist (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Already done. Please read previous discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not already done. The source says a "good number of historians" say it's a mixture of left and right or neither left not right. That means that the view is significant. It has to be mentioned in order to be NPOV. Please review that NPOV policy. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead says "is usually considered to be on the far right" (my emphasis) and the "Position in the political spectrum" describes the various views of this. Incidentally being a mixture of left and right does not mean that it is not far right. Left-wing ideology has affected all other modern ideologies and fascism is no exception. That does not mean that there are no right-wing ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's logically impossible for it to be on the far right and to be neither left nor right, or a mix of right and left. Saying it is on the far right precludes it from being neither left or right. Read this article. It talks about the view that it is neither left or right, or that it's part left part right, in the article. So naturally the introduction needs to reflect that. If editors didn't consider the view significant it wouldn't be in the article. It's POV to only present the one view, if other views are significant. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead says "is usually considered to be on the far right" (my emphasis) and the "Position in the political spectrum" describes the various views of this. Incidentally being a mixture of left and right does not mean that it is not far right. Left-wing ideology has affected all other modern ideologies and fascism is no exception. That does not mean that there are no right-wing ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not already done. The source says a "good number of historians" say it's a mixture of left and right or neither left not right. That means that the view is significant. It has to be mentioned in order to be NPOV. Please review that NPOV policy. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IM. Although the information you are seeking to include may be verifiable, I think your edit gives it undue weight. NPOV does not require that every viewpoint that is verifiable should be included in the first paragraph of the article, and there is a whole section covering this issue in the article body. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that not every verifiable view should be included. But some views are more significant than others, significant enough that they need to be represented to keep the introduction from being POV. I think this is such a view. Many sources talk about this view. It's definitely not a fringe view. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- They copied some of their rhetoric and organization from the Left, but their policies were taken from the Right. Essentially that is what the New Right in the US did. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Anti-laissez-faire capitalism is hardly right wing. And it wasn't only rhetoric. They instituted central economic planning and strong government control over business. Nationalizations as well, as by 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state owned enterprises other than the Soviet Union. They also dramatic expanded social welfare programs. The anti-capitalism was not just talk. It's easy to see why it would be a common view that it is not a far right doctrine. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It think a good guide to weight here would be to look at other tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and dictionaries. I think it will be hard to find any that give this particular side issue a great deal of prominence. Where they refer to position on the political spectrum, it seems to me to be the case that they will just describe fascism as right-wing and leave it there. We're not obliged to replicate any other reference work, of course, but if none can be found that does what you are proposing to do in the first paragraph, then I think a good argument is needed as to why we should be any different. --FormerIP (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead of course is meant to be a brief but accurate summary of the article. As noted previously by myself and others, I fail to see the problem with "usually described as far/extreme right" as a concise summary of what is in the main body of the article, and of what is found from either a cursory or a more detailed review of all relevant sources, from the media to dictionaries to more weighty academic analysis. In 95% of these, you will normally find the words "extreme right" within two feet of the word "fascist". The detail about dissenting minority views, about the way fascist movements sometimes borrowed elements of radical left-wing ideas/tactics and discussion of the obvious over-simplification involved in relying on a linear spectrum can be left, as they currently are, for the relevant sub-section. The recent changes were at least one step better than the endless vandalism of simply swapping right for left and the lengthy original research being posted on this talk page about how fascism is actually the same as socialism, but they are unnecessary and are making a simple issue far more complicated than it needs to be for the lead section. Is there any way we can call a moratorium on this issue, and focus on the rest of the article for once? --Nickhh (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your solution runs afoul of how WP works. The problem really is that there are two distince topice -- fascism as found in the 1930s, and fascism as ideology, which end up being rather distinct issues. And it is not OR to cite sources which do, indeed, equate fascism as ideology with aspects of socialism. Further, it is not up to us to discuss fascism on the talk page - the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, fascism qua fascism <g>. Collect (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my request for a moratorium was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but in fact of course Wikipedia largely works in whatever way its contributors make it work - which in many cases is precisely the problem with it. However, an agreement to pause and move on seems to entirely within the scope of such a system. And I agree, we should be discussing the article, with reference to reliable sources - exactly as I said we should. Preferably other bits of it for once though. Many of the contributions on the talk page are very much random original research, without any reference to sources at all, or at least any serious sources, which ultimately have very little to do with how the page should be written up.--Nickhh (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your solution runs afoul of how WP works. The problem really is that there are two distince topice -- fascism as found in the 1930s, and fascism as ideology, which end up being rather distinct issues. And it is not OR to cite sources which do, indeed, equate fascism as ideology with aspects of socialism. Further, it is not up to us to discuss fascism on the talk page - the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, fascism qua fascism <g>. Collect (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lead of course is meant to be a brief but accurate summary of the article. As noted previously by myself and others, I fail to see the problem with "usually described as far/extreme right" as a concise summary of what is in the main body of the article, and of what is found from either a cursory or a more detailed review of all relevant sources, from the media to dictionaries to more weighty academic analysis. In 95% of these, you will normally find the words "extreme right" within two feet of the word "fascist". The detail about dissenting minority views, about the way fascist movements sometimes borrowed elements of radical left-wing ideas/tactics and discussion of the obvious over-simplification involved in relying on a linear spectrum can be left, as they currently are, for the relevant sub-section. The recent changes were at least one step better than the endless vandalism of simply swapping right for left and the lengthy original research being posted on this talk page about how fascism is actually the same as socialism, but they are unnecessary and are making a simple issue far more complicated than it needs to be for the lead section. Is there any way we can call a moratorium on this issue, and focus on the rest of the article for once? --Nickhh (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It think a good guide to weight here would be to look at other tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and dictionaries. I think it will be hard to find any that give this particular side issue a great deal of prominence. Where they refer to position on the political spectrum, it seems to me to be the case that they will just describe fascism as right-wing and leave it there. We're not obliged to replicate any other reference work, of course, but if none can be found that does what you are proposing to do in the first paragraph, then I think a good argument is needed as to why we should be any different. --FormerIP (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Anti-laissez-faire capitalism is hardly right wing. And it wasn't only rhetoric. They instituted central economic planning and strong government control over business. Nationalizations as well, as by 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state owned enterprises other than the Soviet Union. They also dramatic expanded social welfare programs. The anti-capitalism was not just talk. It's easy to see why it would be a common view that it is not a far right doctrine. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi IM. Although the information you are seeking to include may be verifiable, I think your edit gives it undue weight. NPOV does not require that every viewpoint that is verifiable should be included in the first paragraph of the article, and there is a whole section covering this issue in the article body. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with only saying "usually considered to be on the far right," is that it leaves the impression that the view that it is neither left or nor right, or centrist, is too insignificant to point out. The view that Fascism is far LEFT may be fringe, I'm not sure, but the view that it is centrist or neither left nor right, is not fringe as the source says a "good number" hold that view. Many sources are available for this. So saying only that it's "usually considered to be on the far right" is POV pushing. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Now you my claim that the article is NPOV since the view is mentioned later in the article, but the lead by itself needs to be NPOV as well. The lead is not exempt from the NPOV rule. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The adverb "usually" implies that other positions exist, which in fact are explained in the article. The lead is no place to go into extensive detail about the various minority points of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that is what it implies, but my point again is that if it only says that, then it also implies that differing views are not significant enough to be mentioned. Since the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view, the lead is POV pushing. Nobody is advocating "going into extensive detail." Immoral moralist (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The statement that "the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view" is incorrect. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- My source disagrees with you. The source I gave said that "a good number" of historians says that fascism is. If a good number say that, then it's significant. If only a few held that view, then it would not be significant enough to mention. In addition, the editors of this article think it's a significant view as evidenced by the face that view is discussed in the body. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your source does not say a good number place fascism in the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It says a good number consider it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's what I put in the lead. I was just using shorthand here in Talk by saying "the center." And that a good number hold this view can also easily be verified using search engines. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, not the place to list the numerous alternative theories. Incidentally fascist economic and welfare policies were a continuation of conservative ones. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it is the place to list alternative views if they're significant. Otherwise the lead is POV, by definition. For the lead to be NPOV, either the significant alternative views be listed along with the "far right wing" view, or the "far right wing" view needs to be taken out of the lead. Immoral moralist (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- IM, can you find any other tertiary source that gives a degree of prominence to any alternative "political spectrum" view which would be comparable to putting it in the first paragraph on Wikipedia. As Nickhh points out, it is common for encyclopaedias etc to just describe fascism as "far right" and explore the topic no further. I am not proposing we should do that. But the cite you have provided is from p 147 of a reference work entirely devoted to the topic of fascism. If they don't see fit to mention it until that point, why should we put it in the first paragraph? --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Book publishers don't. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to NPOV: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held view". What we have here is a disagreement over whether and to what degree the material you wish to insert represents a minority view. If it is a view that is significant enough to include in the first paragraph here, how is it that other tertiary sources seem to not mention it all all? They don't abide by NPOV, true, but they will each have their own version of it. Is it plausible that NPOV is a radical enough policy to turn things that are barely mentioned in other tertiary sources into things that demand top billing on Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to give a detailed description, just a simple note that good number of historians regard it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's it! Just the note of the fact. There's not a shortage of space. And it wouldn't be taking away the statement that fascism is "usually" considered far right. That would stay there. To answer your question, the reason why you would find tertiary sources that don't mention it at all is, again because not all sources are NPOV. But the lead here on Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were trying to give a detailed description. You do seem to be trying to give a very high degree of prominence to a POV that other tertiary sources give very little prominence to or do not mention at all. My question is how can such a radical difference from other tertitary sources be justified. Not all sources are NPOV, true. But it is also hard to see how taking a view radically different from all other tertiary sources can possibly be NPOV. There is, indeed, no shortage of space here. Some of that space is lower down in the article, which is where this viewpoint properly belongs, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because practically all other sources other than Wikipedia are POV. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is extremely rare, if not completely unique among tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not trying to emulate other tertiary sources. It's something very different, where if a view is mentioned then by law all significant differing views are required to be noted as well lest it's POV pushing. That the information is later in the article is good, but that still leaves the introduction POV. The introduction has to be NPOV regardless what's in the rest of the article. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- But you need to explain how it is NPOV to give such high prominence to a POV that is not normally considered significant. We don't emulate other tertiary sources, but going at complete odds to them ought to ring alarm bells. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're the one claiming the view is not significant. I'm claiming the view is significant. I have a source saying a "good number" of historians hold the view. To me, that's saying it's significant. In addition, all you have to do is use a search engine to see that the claim is true. And I don't know how you are backing up your claim that nothing the view is "complete odds" to other sources. On page 79 'The Fascism Reader' by Kallis they note "others have seen fascism as 'neither left not right', as a doctrine of the 'revolutionary center'" In the introduction to the Fascism article in the Routledge Encylcopedia of Philosophy is says "Fascist ideology it is sometimes portrayed as merely a mantle for political movements in seach of power, but in reality is set forth a new vision of society, drawing on both left and right-wing ideas." So obviously they're not saying fascism is far right. Immoral moralist (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- But you need to explain how it is NPOV to give such high prominence to a POV that is not normally considered significant. We don't emulate other tertiary sources, but going at complete odds to them ought to ring alarm bells. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because practically all other sources other than Wikipedia are POV. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is extremely rare, if not completely unique among tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not trying to emulate other tertiary sources. It's something very different, where if a view is mentioned then by law all significant differing views are required to be noted as well lest it's POV pushing. That the information is later in the article is good, but that still leaves the introduction POV. The introduction has to be NPOV regardless what's in the rest of the article. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were trying to give a detailed description. You do seem to be trying to give a very high degree of prominence to a POV that other tertiary sources give very little prominence to or do not mention at all. My question is how can such a radical difference from other tertitary sources be justified. Not all sources are NPOV, true. But it is also hard to see how taking a view radically different from all other tertiary sources can possibly be NPOV. There is, indeed, no shortage of space here. Some of that space is lower down in the article, which is where this viewpoint properly belongs, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to give a detailed description, just a simple note that good number of historians regard it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's it! Just the note of the fact. There's not a shortage of space. And it wouldn't be taking away the statement that fascism is "usually" considered far right. That would stay there. To answer your question, the reason why you would find tertiary sources that don't mention it at all is, again because not all sources are NPOV. But the lead here on Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to NPOV: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held view". What we have here is a disagreement over whether and to what degree the material you wish to insert represents a minority view. If it is a view that is significant enough to include in the first paragraph here, how is it that other tertiary sources seem to not mention it all all? They don't abide by NPOV, true, but they will each have their own version of it. Is it plausible that NPOV is a radical enough policy to turn things that are barely mentioned in other tertiary sources into things that demand top billing on Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Book publishers don't. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- IM, can you find any other tertiary source that gives a degree of prominence to any alternative "political spectrum" view which would be comparable to putting it in the first paragraph on Wikipedia. As Nickhh points out, it is common for encyclopaedias etc to just describe fascism as "far right" and explore the topic no further. I am not proposing we should do that. But the cite you have provided is from p 147 of a reference work entirely devoted to the topic of fascism. If they don't see fit to mention it until that point, why should we put it in the first paragraph? --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it is the place to list alternative views if they're significant. Otherwise the lead is POV, by definition. For the lead to be NPOV, either the significant alternative views be listed along with the "far right wing" view, or the "far right wing" view needs to be taken out of the lead. Immoral moralist (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, not the place to list the numerous alternative theories. Incidentally fascist economic and welfare policies were a continuation of conservative ones. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It says a good number consider it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's what I put in the lead. I was just using shorthand here in Talk by saying "the center." And that a good number hold this view can also easily be verified using search engines. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your source does not say a good number place fascism in the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- My source disagrees with you. The source I gave said that "a good number" of historians says that fascism is. If a good number say that, then it's significant. If only a few held that view, then it would not be significant enough to mention. In addition, the editors of this article think it's a significant view as evidenced by the face that view is discussed in the body. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The statement that "the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view" is incorrect. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that is what it implies, but my point again is that if it only says that, then it also implies that differing views are not significant enough to be mentioned. Since the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view, the lead is POV pushing. Nobody is advocating "going into extensive detail." Immoral moralist (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) IM, why do you wish to give prominence to one of the minority views and ignore the others? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- History News Network has relevant information on this topic now. http://www.hnn.us/
- Michael Ledeen Responds to Liberal Fascism By Michael Ledeen
- Introduction By David Neiwert
- The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism By Robert Paxton
- An Academic Book — Not! By Roger Griffin
- Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions By Matthew Feldman
- The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book By Chip Berlet
- Definitions and Double Standards By Jonah Goldberg
- To say some of these "historians" are objective after reading some of their articles above is laughable. Others above, do declare the left/right doesn't or shouldn't apply to fascism. Theosis4u (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Minority views should be given prominence based upon their significance. Some minority views may be insignificant, therefore need not be mentioned for NPOV. The view that Fascism is in the center, or to say neither left or nor right, or left and right mixed, is a significant view. So in order for the lead to be NPOV it needs to be mentioned. By the way, there is no such thing as an "objective" historian. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- What historians say that fascism is in the center? If someone is called a centrist, does that mean they might be fascist? If they are called far right is their any question that they are close to fascism? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Third_Way_(centrism) for a reference as as fascism as being "centrist". I'm not sure if that's the same point that IM was making though. Yes, there's a question about the "far right" being close to fascism! Where would you place Classical_liberalism or something like Anarcho-capitalism ? Theosis4u (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That article does not discuss fascism at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It most certainly does, it says:
- "Past invocations of a political 'third way', in this sense, or a 'middle way', have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Technocracy (bureaucratic), Keynesian economics, Italian fascism under Benito Mussolini [3], Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4]""
- Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are confusing centrism with "third way", which your source does not do.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It most certainly does, it says:
- Look above. I gave sources. If someone is a centrist in economics, then it doesn't necessarily mean they're fascists, but just that they're on the same general area of the left-right spectrum as fascists. Fascists didn't want state communism or laissez-faire, but something in between. In other words they didn't want complete government control over business and neither did they want to leave businesses and the market totally free of control by the state. This is why it's a common and significant view that fascism isn't "far right," as being right wing in economics often means support of laissez-faire. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- What historians say that fascism is in the center? If someone is called a centrist, does that mean they might be fascist? If they are called far right is their any question that they are close to fascism? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Minority views should be given prominence based upon their significance. Some minority views may be insignificant, therefore need not be mentioned for NPOV. The view that Fascism is in the center, or to say neither left or nor right, or left and right mixed, is a significant view. So in order for the lead to be NPOV it needs to be mentioned. By the way, there is no such thing as an "objective" historian. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So it would seem that there's no agreement either here or in the main stream as to what Fascism is. It would appear that because reasonable people will disagree on this, the attribution of Fascism as being an attribute of the 'right' (far right, near right, whatever) should be removed. RPuzo (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, fascism IS right-wing
It's absolutely absurd that this conversation is still happening. Fascism is an extreme right-wing political philosophy and the evidence for that statement is overwhelming, from Mussolini claiming he wanted to undo the democratic world that emerged from the French Revolution in 1789 to Hitler claiming that he wanted to destroy the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity. The dominant historical interpretation should prevail, and that asserts the right-wing nature of fascist politics. The current version is fine.UberCryxic (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mussolini claimed that Fascism was a third way, meaning neither left nor right. Many historians also consider it to be a third way, i.e. centrist, or neither left nor right, or mix of left and right. This is a very significant view. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, the "third way" concept in this context does not usually refer to being between left and right (eg on issues such as equality, nationalism, traditionalism, hierarchy etc), it usually refers to an economic system that is neither capitalist nor communist, as noted here. This point was addressed in previous talk page discussions. --Nickhh (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- When you talk about the Fascist "third way," you're talking about the Third Position, not the more generic Third Way (centrism). The Third Position was decidedly coined and established as a political orientation by right-wing nationalists and became a propaganda tool against communism, and has since been intertwined with Fascism. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that even experienced editors like IM find these distinctions confusing is good reason to leave the lead as it is and explain the various alternative views in the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lede should reflect the entirety of the section, not its most simplistic sentence. And the primary problem is that the ideology does not really fit onto a left-right spectrum, as Schlesinger noted in 1948. Collect (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or, as Schlesinger actually noted, "fascism to the right, communism to the left". This was also pointed out in the endless previous discussions. Look, yes the spectrum is simplistic, and yes there is some dispute - some serious and academic, some not serious and polemical - as to where to place fascism on it. But none of us can escape from the fact that the left-right axis is the overwhelmingly common shorthand applied to political groups and ideologies in the media, day-to-day political discourse, other encyclopedias and more serious academic works. And fascism and Nazism etc are usually placed on the far right of it in most of those same sources. The lead is meant to be a succinct summary of what, in this case, is a very long article - so let's just summarise the issue as most sources do, and do it simply and efficiently. It used, I think to say something along the lines of "fascism is a far right political ideology ..". The current "usually described as .." is already a shift and a compromise, and probably better anyway in my view. Anyway, I'm taking this page of my watchlist as I'm just repeating myself for the most part, as are we all. There are other parts of the page that need work. --Nickhh (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or as Schlesinger actually wrote:
The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. In certain basic respects-a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom-fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. This dilemma drove Prof. DeWitt C. Poole to an inspired suggestion. Right and Left, he said, should be conceived, not in terms of a line, but in terms of a circle, with the extremes of Right and Left-fascism and communism-meeting at the bottom. You can then look at the circle in two ways: with respect to property, fascism and the moderate Right are side by side against communism and the moderate Left; with respect to liberty, the moderate Right and moderate Left are side by side against fascism and communism.
- Or as Schlesinger actually wrote:
- Or, as Schlesinger actually noted, "fascism to the right, communism to the left". This was also pointed out in the endless previous discussions. Look, yes the spectrum is simplistic, and yes there is some dispute - some serious and academic, some not serious and polemical - as to where to place fascism on it. But none of us can escape from the fact that the left-right axis is the overwhelmingly common shorthand applied to political groups and ideologies in the media, day-to-day political discourse, other encyclopedias and more serious academic works. And fascism and Nazism etc are usually placed on the far right of it in most of those same sources. The lead is meant to be a succinct summary of what, in this case, is a very long article - so let's just summarise the issue as most sources do, and do it simply and efficiently. It used, I think to say something along the lines of "fascism is a far right political ideology ..". The current "usually described as .." is already a shift and a compromise, and probably better anyway in my view. Anyway, I'm taking this page of my watchlist as I'm just repeating myself for the most part, as are we all. There are other parts of the page that need work. --Nickhh (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The lede should reflect the entirety of the section, not its most simplistic sentence. And the primary problem is that the ideology does not really fit onto a left-right spectrum, as Schlesinger noted in 1948. Collect (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that even experienced editors like IM find these distinctions confusing is good reason to leave the lead as it is and explain the various alternative views in the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- When you talk about the Fascist "third way," you're talking about the Third Position, not the more generic Third Way (centrism). The Third Position was decidedly coined and established as a political orientation by right-wing nationalists and became a propaganda tool against communism, and has since been intertwined with Fascism. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, the "third way" concept in this context does not usually refer to being between left and right (eg on issues such as equality, nationalism, traditionalism, hierarchy etc), it usually refers to an economic system that is neither capitalist nor communist, as noted here. This point was addressed in previous talk page discussions. --Nickhh (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If we will understand further that the non-Communist Left and the non-Fascist Right share a common faith in free political society-a faith that the differences between them over economic issues can be best worked out by discussion and debate under law-we might even stop talking of Left and Right as if nothing lay in between.
- Which seems pretty clear, indeed. Note Schlesinger's strong endorsement of Poole. Collect (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, 100% clear - he describes, on several occasions, fascism as being of the (extreme) right. Albeit he then agreed that there is a significant difference between moderate and extreme right, and equally that the the axis could be reconsidered as a circle, to illustrate the elements extremes of both left and right - as commonly understood - both shared. I suppose I should stop looking at the page, as well as taking it off my watchlist .... --Nickhh (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which seems pretty clear, indeed. Note Schlesinger's strong endorsement of Poole. Collect (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
To IM: No one should care the slightest iota where Mussolini would place himself on the ideological spectrum. I consider it laughable that you would even bring this up. We should care about his statements and his actions, and it's obvious when you look at both that he wanted to destroy the modern world as established by the French Revolution. Fascism was an anti-Enlightenment movement. In other words, it was stringently reactionary, and it seems unfathomable that it would be considered anything but right-wing extremism at its worst. I again cannot emphasize enough the theme of how fascists wanted to undo the liberal democratic world started by the French Revolution. Their rhetoric at the time was filled with vitriol about 1789 and how it was a calamitous tragedy in human history. But you know what, the consensus among historians is what it is, and I'm glad that factor (and only that factor) is determinative on the information that should go in the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Fascism was an extreme right-wing ideology. Third position does not mean between. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- First, sorry I'm posting this here but there's about five pages discussing this topic and most people seem to be following all of them. I decided to post it here since it's the most heated thread. This, IMO, is the root of the problem. In the Far_right article it states:
- "Generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both."
- The left-right measurement can't be both at the same without producing confusion. With the articles wikipedia has on this "left-right measurement" would simply state things as being left-right [economic] or left-right [authoritarianism] it might settle down the debate. Any reasonable person would understand that libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism has no similarity at all with fascism but they would be right next to it if one is talking about left-right [economic and authoritarianism]. I don't think this approach left-right [economic] or left-right [authoritarianism] would be or encourage original research. The "sources", by inference would be showing if they are speaking on economic or authoritarianism. I would propose something like this for an economic left-right distinction:
- Left Ranges [Left to Center-Left]
- Center Ranges [Left-Center to Right-Center] :
- Right Ranges [Center-Left to Right]
- Couple things to note. I'm sure I exposed some of my own biases above, so I'm open to others criticizing some of the placements. The only "exception" needed above is the "anarchist" qualifier. They would be at each extreme based upon their economic theory. Anarcho-capitalist to the right and Anarcho-socialism to the left. I also have an inferences that the economic model also has a correlation of the size of the State to implement the economic policies.
- 1. The size requirement of the State, with none-capitalism [right] and complete-socialism [left]. Anarcho-socialism usually holds the State is needed to redistribute private property prior to being able to dismantling the State - before it can become anarcho-socialism.
- 2. A view of "private property" being completely sovereign [right] to the absence of it [left].
- Of course their could be other measurements of the left-right distinction. It would be nice to first tackle the Left-right_politics page where subsections would deal with those and then we could reference that page in other topics that demand it, like this one on fascism. Sorry so long. Theosis4u (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look, this is very interesting and perhaps could be placed on some discussion forum about how we should classify various political ideas and concepts, or about how the concept of a right wing can be "confusing" if it includes both libertarianism strains (laissez-faire capitalism) and authoritarian strains (fascism), but this is missing a far more fundamental point - this is all going down the road of original research. The question here is much more simple - what are things called, and how are they currently described in serious, mainstream sources in the real world? Out there, both Ronald Reagan and Mussolini are usually viewed, and commonly referred to, as being on the right, just as Bakunin, Marx and Tony Blair (just about) are usually viewed as being of the left. That's just the way that it is, whatever the flaws and problems with what is inevitably a subjective and imperfect classification. We're not here to rewrite all that. --Nickhh (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This categorization does not represent mainstream thinking on the issue. Of all the groups you listed ironically only the fascists would have been considered right-wing in Europe in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Theosis, I thank you for the valiant attempt to provide some clarity to this discussion, but your categorization is fundamentally flawed. I generally despise the sham distinction between "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" because it has no basis on historical fact. It's a right-wing invention of the late twentieth century. The terms "left" and "right" can only be properly understood in the context of the French Revolution because....that's when and where they were born. To that end, a leftist is (very broadly) someone who seeks to fundamentally change the basic social structures of human civilization. Over the last two and a half centuries, that would include liberals (both classical and modern, but only modern after 20th century), feminists, communists, socialists, and anarchists, among others. A rightist, or right-winger, would be someone who seeks to preserve the basic structures of society, or at least someone who refuses ideological change, to echo Chateaubriand. Another essentially equivalent definition of a right-winger is anyone who fundamentally opposes the values of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, democracy, etc). In fact, that was the most famous distinction between a liberal and a conservative for over a century after 1789 (liberals generally liked the Revolution, conservatives did not). Over the last two and a half centuries, right-wing groups would include conservatives, monarchists, racists, and fascists, among others.
Basic model of human civilization since French Revolution: leftists try and change the world, rightists try and stop them. Fascism was an attempt to stop and reverse the rising tide of liberal democracy, which is closely connected to developments during the French Revolution.UberCryxic (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ultimately I'm with Nick. Our personal ideological affinities and disagreements aside, we have to examine if there is a consensus among reliable sources. I believe that we have such a consensus on this topic, and that consensus is accurately reflected in the present version of the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, if we follow Theosis4u's model, then we would have exclude the German and Italian conservatives (e.g., German Conservative Party) from the Right. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. What we are left with is that everyone cites someone. It is not for us to "knopw" what answers are - a;; we do is say what the cites actually say. Period. Article Talk pages are not debating societies. Collect (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond to all the replies above as they all left ignored my premise, which was - taken from above:
- This, IMO, is the root of the problem. In the Far_right article it states:
- "Generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both."
Those that mention that left-right is about the French context also failed to address the above because that statement is also later justified in the Left-right_politics#19th_century_and_later article. This refusal to clearly mark a distinction of left-right when speaking of economic or social weighting and the difference of use prior to the context of Left-right_politics#19th_century_and_later and descriptions listed in Far_right only seems to serve one purpose. To promote the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" of rightest economic theories with what is commonly called rightest social [authoritarian] ideologies like Fascism. Why? Who knows; maybe some people felt the right side needed mass murders in history as well to go with the socialist economic side. Also, again sourcing what is also in wikipedia articles, this distinction isn't original research. It is simply trying to make clear and consistent of uses of left-right when used historically - the French Revolution to 19th century and then prior to the 19th century use when capitalism theories get moved "right" rather than being "left". Also, again, the distinction of when used economically versus socially (authoritarianism). The Far_right article says they can be referred to as "both". This is the the times when it is confusing. Where classical liberalism, capitalism, libertarianism, and so forth are some how associated with fascism on a scale of left-right. There is no logical reason for this, ever. A straight line scale is a measurement of one thing, it can't be a measurement of two things at the same time unless those two things are causations or have a very high degree of correlations. The social right attributes DO NOT have any such association with rightest economic models. What does racism, religious belief, nationalism, of the many others "social" attributes have to do with economic models as causations? All economic theories when implement in governmental policies can reflect these "social" attributes. Theosis4u (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right now I fear that we are about to head into personal and ideological confrontations that won't really help improve the article, but I've never been one to shy away from helping a confused soul. First of all, forget what other articles say. Stick to this one and argue on merit alone, not on popularity. Second, your historical assumptions are incorrect, even if we do adopt your ideological divisions. The Nazi regime instituted a corporate plutocracy and unleashed street thugs intent on ransacking the offices of labor unions and left-wing parties. Despite the delusions inherent in the party's name, which Hitler himself did not like, there was little socialism in their policies, no matter how you understand that term (socially or economically or politically or all of them). If you want to see full-blown dictatorial communism, look at the Soviet Union, where Stalin pretty much wiped out the private sector. Hitler did the opposite, using the private sector as a means to further solidify his dictatorship. Third, a distinction between social policies and economic policies is absolutely silly, and classical liberals recognized as much way back in the 19th century. A world with more social liberty is a world with more economic liberty. A good example now is same-sex marriage. The right-wing conservative bible-thumping Christian fascists that oppose these kinds of social innovations while simultaneously harping about getting government out of our lives refuse to notice the glaring contradictions in their positions. Same-sex marriage would add billions of dollars to the economy and keep government 'out of our lives' so to speak. But the reason why the conservative right opposes it is because they don't want government to get involved in changing a fundamental component of society (in this case, marriage). In other words, their ultimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage is to prevent the world from changing. Likewise, their ultimate reason for opposing the stimulus package last year here in the United States was also to prevent the world from changing, not because those nutjobs actually understand anything about economics. They didn't like the stimulus because it was changing too many aspects of the American economy and of the health care system. Again, the right opposes ideological change. Fourth, the left-right spectrum still follows, more or less, the divisions laid down during the French Revolution, and one way to easily glean that fact is to see that the left worldwide is by far more supportive of the ideals of the Revolution than the right (although exceptions exist, obviously, in many countries...like France itself, for one, where both the right and the left support revolutionary ideals). As I've just shown, the distinctions you have in your head are mere fantasies.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- All four of your points are refuted by this wiki page as well as the others mentioned so far. The fact you ignore the data on the pages while you try to engage me on the topic doesn't give me much hope in your ability to be objective. You are, IMO, doing exactly what I mentioned above -- attempting to use guilt by association for all things right that you personal reject on ideological grounds. This is also mentioned in the articles, when they refer to the use of the right/fascism terms as pejorative. So, I'm not biting. Your welcome to debate the issue in the style you have above on my talk page if you like. I would enjoy discussing your notion about economic models and their relationship to civil/social rights. [FYI - I lean anarcho-capitalist. IMO, the government shouldn't be involved in our sex lives or personal relationships nor should the relationships have any governmental regulations, benefits, or costs.] Theosis4u (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you are claiming to refute me by refusing to refute anything (in other words, ignoring my arguments), I can only thank you for your concession in this debate. I very much enjoyed this experience, but I have no wish to overload your talk page with silly arguments.UberCryxic (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, I am a radical social liberal who emphasizes positive liberty, and economically I follow the tradition of Keynes (obviously). Nice to meet you.UberCryxic (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm a paying member to mises.org, fee.org, cato.org and reason mag. :) I wasn't given concession, I was sparing this talk page of cut-n-pastes from data that already exists in the various wiki pages. You'll also note I've already made the claim that others were ignoring the premise I made based upon those wiki pages. I interrupted that lack of response as ignoring the contradictions in how left-right is being applied when one over generalizes and doesn't state specifically a form of measurement [economic, social, size of government, etc.] that it causes undue confusion. A confusion I believe that is intentional on the part of some. This behavior in regards to fascism is outlined in one of the sources referenced in the article. You will also later notice on page 4 that he's making the left-right distinction on social lines. I've avoided trying to outline a left-right measurement on 'social' issues because I'm not sure if the way it has been used makes sense in a way I find agreeable. It seems to leave out those that view social issues liberally but that they should be based upon the absence of government involvement rather than by government involvement. Which cuts out allot of ideologies that hold social liberal positions but do so at the absence of government. Nice to meet you to by the way. Theosis4u (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:OtherStuff, I'm telling you to ignore other articles when discussing this one....largely based on principle, but also based on the fact that this article has a ton of scholarly sources that it allows us to keep the debate 'local,' so to speak. Did you ever bother to consider that those other articles were fundamentally flawed, and not this one? Based on the overwhelming number of reputable sources in this article, fascism should be classified as an ideology of the right. Based on historical developments since the French Revolution, it should be classified on the right. Based on global popular perceptions, it should be classified on the right. I could go on and on. There is every good reason to classify fascism as right-wing, and no good reason not to.UberCryxic (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, since you are a Mises follower you may wish to understand how the political spectrum was described by Hayek. See: "Why I am not a conservative".[3] Free market theories are centrist, not right-wing. However writers like Lipset began to describe groups like the John Birch Society as right-wing, despite their libertarianism, because of their obvious similarity to fascists. Ironically these groups took the label "right-wing" and then tried to redefine it. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- TFD's, thanks for the link. It was an appropriate time to reread that by Hayek [last year I actually tried to design my own political visual aid by using a triangle where it's position would change]. But again, as Hayek's article demonstrates, we must remember that any mention of a single line [left-right] is a measurement of one primary attribute to give it context. Hayek is using a measurement of an ideologies willingness to use force to either "progress" [left] or to "conserve" [right] and then describes the middle as progressive/conservative BUT WITHOUT the force of government. If we were to place numbers upon our line we might use +50 - 0 - -50 and describe it Left-Right measurement of ideologies willingness to use force to either Promote Progress or maintain Conservatism and the absence of force in the center. In this case, it would probably work. Since the absence of force allows people to do as they choose - they can freely, at a personal level, push progress or maintain conservatism. My discussions above was speaking about an economic measurement in regards to left-right and we have examples in the various wiki pages that describe this use as capitalism on the right with socialism on the left. This measurement seems more like a 100 - 50 - 0 weighted line. With governmental involvement in free-markets on the far right, control economy on the left [note my anarcho-socialism exception] and mixed economies in the middle. I'm not trying to argue these points from ideological grounds but rather trying to argue that we can give greater clarity in how left-right is being used by sources by stating what it is measuring and if the line is something like 100 > 0 or +50-0--50 . I think this information can be shown either directly or inferred from the source and its trends in the use avoid "original research". I don't understand that is very debatable though. Regards. Theosis4u (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm a paying member to mises.org, fee.org, cato.org and reason mag. :) I wasn't given concession, I was sparing this talk page of cut-n-pastes from data that already exists in the various wiki pages. You'll also note I've already made the claim that others were ignoring the premise I made based upon those wiki pages. I interrupted that lack of response as ignoring the contradictions in how left-right is being applied when one over generalizes and doesn't state specifically a form of measurement [economic, social, size of government, etc.] that it causes undue confusion. A confusion I believe that is intentional on the part of some. This behavior in regards to fascism is outlined in one of the sources referenced in the article. You will also later notice on page 4 that he's making the left-right distinction on social lines. I've avoided trying to outline a left-right measurement on 'social' issues because I'm not sure if the way it has been used makes sense in a way I find agreeable. It seems to leave out those that view social issues liberally but that they should be based upon the absence of government involvement rather than by government involvement. Which cuts out allot of ideologies that hold social liberal positions but do so at the absence of government. Nice to meet you to by the way. Theosis4u (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- All four of your points are refuted by this wiki page as well as the others mentioned so far. The fact you ignore the data on the pages while you try to engage me on the topic doesn't give me much hope in your ability to be objective. You are, IMO, doing exactly what I mentioned above -- attempting to use guilt by association for all things right that you personal reject on ideological grounds. This is also mentioned in the articles, when they refer to the use of the right/fascism terms as pejorative. So, I'm not biting. Your welcome to debate the issue in the style you have above on my talk page if you like. I would enjoy discussing your notion about economic models and their relationship to civil/social rights. [FYI - I lean anarcho-capitalist. IMO, the government shouldn't be involved in our sex lives or personal relationships nor should the relationships have any governmental regulations, benefits, or costs.] Theosis4u (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right now I fear that we are about to head into personal and ideological confrontations that won't really help improve the article, but I've never been one to shy away from helping a confused soul. First of all, forget what other articles say. Stick to this one and argue on merit alone, not on popularity. Second, your historical assumptions are incorrect, even if we do adopt your ideological divisions. The Nazi regime instituted a corporate plutocracy and unleashed street thugs intent on ransacking the offices of labor unions and left-wing parties. Despite the delusions inherent in the party's name, which Hitler himself did not like, there was little socialism in their policies, no matter how you understand that term (socially or economically or politically or all of them). If you want to see full-blown dictatorial communism, look at the Soviet Union, where Stalin pretty much wiped out the private sector. Hitler did the opposite, using the private sector as a means to further solidify his dictatorship. Third, a distinction between social policies and economic policies is absolutely silly, and classical liberals recognized as much way back in the 19th century. A world with more social liberty is a world with more economic liberty. A good example now is same-sex marriage. The right-wing conservative bible-thumping Christian fascists that oppose these kinds of social innovations while simultaneously harping about getting government out of our lives refuse to notice the glaring contradictions in their positions. Same-sex marriage would add billions of dollars to the economy and keep government 'out of our lives' so to speak. But the reason why the conservative right opposes it is because they don't want government to get involved in changing a fundamental component of society (in this case, marriage). In other words, their ultimate reason to oppose same-sex marriage is to prevent the world from changing. Likewise, their ultimate reason for opposing the stimulus package last year here in the United States was also to prevent the world from changing, not because those nutjobs actually understand anything about economics. They didn't like the stimulus because it was changing too many aspects of the American economy and of the health care system. Again, the right opposes ideological change. Fourth, the left-right spectrum still follows, more or less, the divisions laid down during the French Revolution, and one way to easily glean that fact is to see that the left worldwide is by far more supportive of the ideals of the Revolution than the right (although exceptions exist, obviously, in many countries...like France itself, for one, where both the right and the left support revolutionary ideals). As I've just shown, the distinctions you have in your head are mere fantasies.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Left-wing promotes egalitarian society, right-wing promotes or accepts hierarchical society.
To resolve this issue of the question of fascism being left-wing or right-wing, I am providing two sources for a definition of right-wing: Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron Left and right: the significance of a political distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997 and T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press, Ltd, 2003. page 30. Both sources are on Google Books. Both books describe the left vs. right distinction as being one on the issue of egalitarianism versus social hierarchy. The left has supported the notion that social hierarchy is the result of inequality - a lack of balance of resources - the left believes that equality is possible to achieve and must be achieved to attain social justice. The right rejects egalitarianism in varying degrees, claiming that achieving equality is impossible and that social hierarchy is natural or normal in society. The moderate right supports social hierarchy (especially in capital) but accepts that some means to allow equality of opportunity prevents the hierarchy from being tyrannical such as by emphasizing meritocracy and that deserving poor have the right to seek welfare assistance, while undeserving poor do not. The extreme right completely supports social hierarchy, it rejects the concept of equality completely and believes that superior people have the right to rule over inferior people. Fascism in this sense appears to be extreme right - the basis of fascism was that a minority elite led by a strong leader would control society because they were superior in knowledge and skill to the masses, and that the masses needed paternal leadership. Fascism consistently spoke of superiority and inferiority in society - this a right-wing trait, such as on the issue of the need for strong nations and races to be superior to other nations and races to survive in a world defined by conflict. Now one may ask what evidence there is to show that fascism opposed egalitarianism, well here it is:
- "In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress." Doctrine of Fascism, [4]
- "Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage." Doctrine of Fascism, [5].
--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Mussolini was officially egalitarian". What?! I just provided you two quotations from the horse's mouth that completely invalidate that claim! It directly says that Fascism called egalitarianism an "absurd conventional lie" The Soviet Union was highly corrupt resulting in hierarchy, but unlike fascism, it never officially endorsed hierarchy. Now here is the final proof that fascism was right-wing, fascism declared itself to be right-wing:
- "Granted that the 20th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 19th 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 (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." Doctrine of Fascism.
Now there should be no confusion as to fascism's position on the political spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Try citing the rest of the "Doctrine" <g>. "Collectivism" is explicitly "egalitarian." See where the problem lies? And the Soviet hierarchy was not there because of corruption, but corruption did flourish under it. And besides, it is not up to us to "know" things - it is up to us to responsibly cite what others have written, and the fact is that there is a lot of dispute about what the fascist ideology actually is, and most definitely where that ideology lies on any spectrum of any sort. WP:Josh Billings Collect (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, the article says "Fascism... is a political ideology... which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. (My emphasis.) Obviously political parties in power often deviate from their declared ideology. Wherever fascist ideology is placed in the political spectrum there is no dispute that fascism in power was right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Collectivism is not explicitly egalitarian, Josh - see Collectivism#Typology. --FormerIP (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, the article says "Fascism... is a political ideology... which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. (My emphasis.) Obviously political parties in power often deviate from their declared ideology. Wherever fascist ideology is placed in the political spectrum there is no dispute that fascism in power was right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Again -- can you define the ideology? Collect (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, what's the purpose of asking that question? You know by now that there are numerous areas of acadmic disagreement in forming a definition. It seems to me that the only thing answering such a question would achieve is the prospect of a long, tedious debate. The answer is already covered in the article, as best as editors have been able to manage.--FormerIP (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Without a definition, how can anyone make any blanket statements about the ideology being anywhere on any specific "spectrum"? All we can do is use what RSs say - and it is clear that there are a lot of disparate opinions out there. Debating in the talk section does not help - we can only use what others write. Collect (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- To the users Collect and FormerIP, I stress again that the Doctrine of Fascism declared fascism to be right-wing. As in the following that I will present again: "Granted that the 20th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 19th 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 (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." Doctrine of Fascism. Thus the fact that fascism officially identified itself as a right-wing ideology combined with multiple scholarly works supporting this, and definitions of right-wing showing that fascism's positions would fall in line all make it clear. I am putting this quote of the Doctrine of Fascism into the article. Issues that do remain contendable is how far is fascism right-wing, and the issue of evidence of left-wing influences in fascism. But beyond these points, the left-wing versus right-wing discussion is now resolved as there is an official document declaring fascism to be right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have to take into account changes in meaning over time. "Right" and "left" meant different things back then, than they do today. Back then, liberalism (the philosophy of free markets and individual rights) was the left. Liberalism was a challenge to conservatism, which was on the right, and which was not a free market doctrine. Then later, in the United States, the meaning of liberalism changed to mean those who are aligned with the New Deal type policies. But the new "liberalism" was still considered to be on the left. The term liberalism changed and with it the meaning of "left" changed. Immoral moralist (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- To the users Collect and FormerIP, I stress again that the Doctrine of Fascism declared fascism to be right-wing. As in the following that I will present again: "Granted that the 20th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 19th 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 (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." Doctrine of Fascism. Thus the fact that fascism officially identified itself as a right-wing ideology combined with multiple scholarly works supporting this, and definitions of right-wing showing that fascism's positions would fall in line all make it clear. I am putting this quote of the Doctrine of Fascism into the article. Issues that do remain contendable is how far is fascism right-wing, and the issue of evidence of left-wing influences in fascism. But beyond these points, the left-wing versus right-wing discussion is now resolved as there is an official document declaring fascism to be right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Read the rest of what Mussolini wrote. He used parallel grammatical construction to declare Fascism to be collectivist. Sorry 'bout that. The summation is that Fascism is "pragmatic" which seems to belie any claim that it is specifically anywhere at all. Collect (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've re-arranged the additions for style ("...as well as...as well as..." was not a great formulation) and to place the Doctrine of Fascism in some sort of context for the reader. Also, the mistake should not be made of thinking of the Doctrine as being quite in parallel to the Communist Manifesto (for example). It is not seen by most academics (or fascists, I think) as offering a defintive outline of the ideology - thus its status is less important than the views of modern scholars. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- It does not use the term "ideology" and the reasoning is primarily that Mussolini above all calls Fascism "pragmatic" and states that it takes a little bit from everywhere. Mussolini also appears to have roundly ignored most of his own precepts once in power. Collect (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, what is being measured by this line of left-right? Is it trying to measure a single value or multiple ones? If multiple, are they causations or highly correlated? If multiple values and they aren't correlated, what can we expect of it then? Is it a line or is it like the horse shoe description? If sources don't state it specifically, one is left with two options as a reader - use inference or discard it as a meaningless category since it fails to measure anything accurately. Theosis4u (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...or just say what the sources say and worry about it as much as the sources appear to.
- Just a note, given a recent edit asserting collectivism to be left wing - try "Right wing collectivism" in Google books, and you will find quite a good range of sources. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Currently reading "Right and Left" by Marcel_Gauchet in Realms of Memory: Symbols By Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman. IMO - it tears down any notion that left-right has been used consistently in historical manner. That it was used in two basic ways, parliamentary rules and than as a political positioning for power [sometimes for propaganda] outside of the parliament body. I'll leave it at that for now; still reading it. Theosis4u (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is one interpretation, another one, which I find very convincing is in Left and right: the significance of a political distinction by Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron that I mentioned earlier, that can be found on Google Books at page. 37 that says "equality, which is a traditional element in the ideology of the left, is considered levelling down by someone on the right. Inequality, which for someone on the laft is a statement of fact without ideological connotations, becomes hierarchical order for someone on the right." T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies by T. Alexander Smith and Raymond Tatalovich on Google Books as well on page 30 also states the egalitarian vs. hierarchical dimension of the left-wing vs. right-wing spectrum, saying that sociologists' view is that "'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality of political participation' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." (I did not add the Italics emphasis, it is in the text). Also another book Peace and prosperity in an age of incivility by William Eric Davis that can be found on Google Books, on page 25 mentions the distinction between left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism as the left-wing being egalitarian and the right-wing being hierarchical as said here: "Radical egalitarianism is a left-wing brand of collectivism and distinct from the hierarchical (right-wing) form of collectivism. One should immediately see that the two cultures, hierarchist and egalitarian, are competing over contradictory values. More of one means less of the other".--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, try reading the actual article. The terms left and right originally referred to individual deputies and later came to refer to the political parties supporting them. It is not tearing down anything. In Germany for example Nazi deputies were seated on the far right of the chamber because they had a far right ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- TFD's , what the heck are you talking about? To say, "try reading article" after I took two hours combing through it and making notes along the way I see nothing in my statement above that is false. My statement is true and was about the fact that left-right wasn't static through history in the French example. This is very clear in the article. It also very clear, that's there allot of evidence in the same article that disagrees with assertions made by you in various talking pages and in the articles themselves. Why no correction on those? Theosis4u (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "inconsistency" you mention is misleading. Originally the terms right and left referred to the parliamentary caucus and later referred to their associated parties. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to understand your insistence without ascribing some motive on your part when you keep making this a black and white issue when the article in question shows it is not on various points. So, I'll leave it to others to read the full article for themselves and be the judge. Right And Left by Marcel Gauchet Theosis4u (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "inconsistency" you mention is misleading. Originally the terms right and left referred to the parliamentary caucus and later referred to their associated parties. It is irrelevant to the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- TFD's , what the heck are you talking about? To say, "try reading article" after I took two hours combing through it and making notes along the way I see nothing in my statement above that is false. My statement is true and was about the fact that left-right wasn't static through history in the French example. This is very clear in the article. It also very clear, that's there allot of evidence in the same article that disagrees with assertions made by you in various talking pages and in the articles themselves. Why no correction on those? Theosis4u (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, try reading the actual article. The terms left and right originally referred to individual deputies and later came to refer to the political parties supporting them. It is not tearing down anything. In Germany for example Nazi deputies were seated on the far right of the chamber because they had a far right ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is one interpretation, another one, which I find very convincing is in Left and right: the significance of a political distinction by Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron that I mentioned earlier, that can be found on Google Books at page. 37 that says "equality, which is a traditional element in the ideology of the left, is considered levelling down by someone on the right. Inequality, which for someone on the laft is a statement of fact without ideological connotations, becomes hierarchical order for someone on the right." T. Alexander Smith, Raymond Tatalovich. Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies by T. Alexander Smith and Raymond Tatalovich on Google Books as well on page 30 also states the egalitarian vs. hierarchical dimension of the left-wing vs. right-wing spectrum, saying that sociologists' view is that "'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality of political participation' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." (I did not add the Italics emphasis, it is in the text). Also another book Peace and prosperity in an age of incivility by William Eric Davis that can be found on Google Books, on page 25 mentions the distinction between left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism as the left-wing being egalitarian and the right-wing being hierarchical as said here: "Radical egalitarianism is a left-wing brand of collectivism and distinct from the hierarchical (right-wing) form of collectivism. One should immediately see that the two cultures, hierarchist and egalitarian, are competing over contradictory values. More of one means less of the other".--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1RR restriction is still in effect on this article
Editors who have recently joined the discussion should please take a look at Talk:Fascism/Archive 30#stop the reverting madness - ONE_REVERT_per_editor_effective_immediately. It seems that we will spend the rest of the century debating exactly where Fascism should be placed on the political spectrum, left or right. Is it too much to hope for something new? Maybe the editors should impose a rule that the lead of the article may not be changed without an explicit consensus here on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with the opening paragraph in the lead
I notice that the opening paragraph has undergone some revisions. I don't think it's perfect, but I, for one, am willing to live with it. It gets the main point across: fascism is generally regarded as a right-wing ideology. On the other hand, it also mentions some notable voices who disagree with that view. Given how polemical this subject can be, I say we leave it here and call it a day.UberCryxic (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way thank you to R-41 for that brilliant addition from Mussolini. It basically confirms what most of us already knew (that fascism is right-wing and considered itself so), but it's always nice to have the criminals confessing to their crimes!UberCryxic (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
collectivism does not produce truth, it espouses mindset
Language is so powerful that political strategies employ it. When you desire to attack an ideology, choose something clearly emotionally detested by your target audience, and associate the ideology with it. Push this association again and again; declare it, repeat it, broadcast it, until you are blue in the face, and eventually you will make an impact. (Amazing the culmination of the evolution of debate: brainlessness.)
This is exactly what has happened with the term fascism. In a fascist state, government maintains control. Greater centralized control is not a characteristic of freedom.
Many whose world views are damaged by this fact will utilize whatever tactics they can to segment, complicate, or distort, in attempt to obscure or distract. Blah blah blah. "Oh there is economic and social structure, these controls are different. Oh, such and such were fascist and also shared this other characteristic of these other people who were on the right. You all who disagree are stupid and we are intellectuals." And so on, and so on. These are the distractions; none of it is relevant.
The truth is almost always very simple, and that is certainly the case here. The political spectrum exists along the axis of government control. To the right there is less. To the left there is more. In a fascist state, the government maintains control. Therefore, fascism appears toward the left, along with the rest of the government-controlled political systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.226.110 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- As you show no respect to the efforts of Wikipedia users which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy, have contempt for rational discussion, and are using this as a soapbox to shout out anger-filled passion, I do not think you are in any position to criticize the users on this encyclopedia, who in spite of their differences, are willing to discuss and resolve them, which you are unwilling to.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- R-41 , I'm not sure if they were talking about those involved in the discussion personally. I think they were ranting about how they interpret the topic in general and how people use it insincerely. But yes, doesn't seem to really promote a rational discussion on this page though. Theosis4u (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The anonymous user seems to be assuming that other users are promoting collectivism. That is not the intention at all, nor is it the intention to denounce collectivism or the right-wing. The fact remains that a source by Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, declares in the Doctrine of Fascism that fascism is right-wing. That multiple scholarly sources back up this statement by Mussolini consolidates it. The question of how far fascism was to the right is another issue, as Mussolini acknowledged influence by the left-wing into fascism.--R-41 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Clarifying intro: info from the Doctrine of Fascism acknowledges that fascism is ultimately right-wing but it also acknowledges that it has left-wing and other influences
The Doctrine of Fascism is a good source for a summary of fascism and the fact that it is an official document of the National Fascist Party of Italy makes it a valuable source to determine the left vs. right perspective. It declares that fascism is ultimately right-wing, but also states that it is sympathetic to the concerns underlying the rise of left-wing movements, but disagrees with the egalitarianism present in the political left. I am going to reorganize the intro with adding a summary of this information.--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen many people comment about rejecting primary sources for wikipedia use when people attempt to use Hilter's writings about Nazism being socialism and so forth. Wonder why they are absent on this example of primary source use? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources . You state he disagrees with egalitarianism but how much did he agree with Laissez-faire_capitalism ? Was that consider "right" in his specific usage? Was he referring to the right-left based upon "social" positions, nationalism, or other forms of commonality with the "right" that weren't present in the "left"? Theosis4u (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, you have to stop reading fringe sources that say laissez-faire is inherently right-wing. Laissez-faire was developed by liberals who occupied the centre (or even left) of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where did I say it is inherently anything? That has been my own premise - left-right - isn't inherently anything and is useless until it is given context in history, locality, and the specific manner the describer is using it. Your welcome to push your agenda on others, but it's not welcome by me. I've read enough of your talk page comments and seen your edits to see your process. Cherry pick with someone else. Theosis4u (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, you said, "You state he disagrees with egalitarianism but how much did he agree with Laissez-faire_capitalism ?" Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the right, support for laissez-faire is not. Laissez-faire opponents of fascism did not support laissez-faire because they though it would lead to greater inequality. It's a red herring. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the LEFT pushing the ideology to the right.
- p. 256 "Revolution itself became "red" for its proponents, while "reds" were the very embodiment of bourgeois fears."
- p. 260 "There is a phrase from the 1890's that can be credited with a definite role in helping the new system to establish itself: "no enemy on the left". This was the slogan of young reformers from the Radical group who group who joined forces in 1894-95 to push for an alliance with the Socialist.
- p. 261 "After the Congress of Amsterdam condemned the policy of class collaboration in 1904, the Socialists, rebaptized the Section Francaise de Internationale Ouvriere (S.F.I.O.), adopted a new line, rejecting any alliance "with any portion whatsoever of the capitalist class."
- p. 267 "On the extreme left it was attacked in the name of the proletarian revolution and on the extreme right in the name of national restoration."
- p. 267 ""The Communists, who had originally attacked it from the left on the grounds of rigorous class analysis, helped to consecrate it by joining the Popular Front. Meanwhile, pro-fascist ideologues and movements insisted on their symmetric proscription, "neither right nor left", which only helped to consolidate the position of the two terms as definitive markers." [] "In fact, what happened with the Communists was the same thing that happened with the Socialists before 1914: protest led to integration. The vehement insistence on separation ultimately reinforced the need for unity."
- p. 267 "...the P.C.F. ran a Bloc Ouvrier et Paysan, whose propaganda focused on denouncing the false political alternative being offered to the voters, an alternative that masked the only real division, that between capital and labor. "Right-wing capitalists and left-wing capitalists are the same.""
- And then p.270 shows the Communist tactics on the left-right issue in play
- Of course, since you read the "Right and Left" article yourself, you know there's much more I could use as evidence on how the left-right issue is much more complex than your willingly to accept. Like for instance, that in most cases [at least specific to the French situation in the article] it is the Left that uses this left-right division for their own means and forcibly push it upon the "right" - who often times either reject it outright [like fascism did with the "neither left or right"] or are reactionary to its use. You'll also notice your conception that "Laissez-faire was developed by liberals who occupied the centre (or even left) of the political spectrum." is outright false or is specific only to a certain time period in the development of the left-right usage in France. Theosis4u (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis, you may have to rewind a step, since I for one am having difficulty in working out what your point is. What, specifically, do you see as being wrong with the article and why? --FormerIP (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have so much a problem of what is listed on this page and the other associated left-right topical pages but rather the absence of what isn't described. It seems all complexity is erased that doesn't conform to certain editors ideological positions on wanting to keep the left-right issues into simple generic usage that continues confusion. In short, we are seeing the same thing as the references from the article; it's from being played out here on wikipedia - using left-right as an ideological tool. "no enemy on the left" Theosis4u (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Things like this don't help either to think we have objectively on this situation. Talk:Liberal_Fascism#HNN_Authors_Should_Be_Identified_As_Being_Liberal_Reviews Theosis4u (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I find it hard to follow too. Is it your position that the 1830 revolution was fought by right-wing laissez-faire liberals against the left-wing ultraroyalist legitimists? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense. That statement either requires me to be the fool for asserting that or for me to declare your the fool in thinking I did. Like I said, I've analyzed your play here. And you had the gull to mention red herrings? Theosis4u (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that your argument is that conservatism is left-wing and liberalism is right-wing, therefore fascism was left-wing. My criticism of that argument is that the underlying assumptions are false. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, at this point I really do have to doubt my assumptions about you TFD's. Which were you were very intelligent, very well read, knew topics very well, but did tend to push certain point of view on topics and were very ...hmm.. talented about getting what you wanted. Maybe I'm just throwing off your game, who knows. At this point, with what you wrote above I can only assume your attempt is to antagonize me so you can pull some authoritarian trick with the wikpedia rules. Theosis4u (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that your argument is that conservatism is left-wing and liberalism is right-wing, therefore fascism was left-wing. My criticism of that argument is that the underlying assumptions are false. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense. That statement either requires me to be the fool for asserting that or for me to declare your the fool in thinking I did. Like I said, I've analyzed your play here. And you had the gull to mention red herrings? Theosis4u (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis, you may have to rewind a step, since I for one am having difficulty in working out what your point is. What, specifically, do you see as being wrong with the article and why? --FormerIP (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the LEFT pushing the ideology to the right.
- Theosis4u, you said, "You state he disagrees with egalitarianism but how much did he agree with Laissez-faire_capitalism ?" Opposition to egalitarianism is a defining characteristic of the right, support for laissez-faire is not. Laissez-faire opponents of fascism did not support laissez-faire because they though it would lead to greater inequality. It's a red herring. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where did I say it is inherently anything? That has been my own premise - left-right - isn't inherently anything and is useless until it is given context in history, locality, and the specific manner the describer is using it. Your welcome to push your agenda on others, but it's not welcome by me. I've read enough of your talk page comments and seen your edits to see your process. Cherry pick with someone else. Theosis4u (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis4u, you have to stop reading fringe sources that say laissez-faire is inherently right-wing. Laissez-faire was developed by liberals who occupied the centre (or even left) of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis, I'm sure it hasn't been intentional on your part, but I can well understand how TFD may be genuinely confused about what you are trying to get across. Like I say, I am also finding it difficult. Is your main point that "left-right" has its origins as a terminology employed by the left? If so, that may be interesting, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it impacts on the article very much. Am I right in thinking that you don't actually have a problem with the article per se, just with comments made on the talkpage by TFD and/or other editors? --FormerIP (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with Gauchet's article is that it clearly identifies fascism as right-wing: "Right and left epitomize the era in which French politics thought of itself as universal politics precisely because of the clarity of the alternatives for which it provided the theater: 1815, a choice, yet again, between Ancien Regime and Revolution; 1900, a choice between faith and enlightenment, between human rights and the nation; 1935, a confrontation between fascism and socialism" (p. 297-298).[6] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again, cherry picking and ignoring the other points he made that showed the complexity of the situation. He first mentions the struggle of fascist to not be identified with the left or the right. He also mentions, for one reason, their placement coming from the socialist/communist political positioning on the situation with fascisms defeat after WWII. Like I said, it isn't a black/white situation. I can also appreciate that complexity at the same time embracing your generalization and the articles that fascism became to be know as on the "right". Theosis4u (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- FormerIP, not sure if you read my comments above this current thread. I believe my initial intent is described there. I'm simply recommending that we embrace the complexity of the left-right usage that is out in the field so to speak rather than ignore or minimize it. This does not mean we remove the common generalities - for instance, that fascism is normally referred to as right wing. I think reasonable people know that this is true, the problem is understanding when it isn't referred to as right-wing [or some other example, I outlined an economic situation above]. Theosis4u (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a bit too general-sounding to do anything about it, I think. Do you have an example of where it is a problem in the article at present? --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you on that in awhile; I'm watching how my current suggestions and the references in the various wikipedia pages that support my premise are now being purged from those pages in edit wars with various parties. Note, I don't do edits - talk pages are big enough headache for me. Theosis4u (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a bit too general-sounding to do anything about it, I think. Do you have an example of where it is a problem in the article at present? --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Theosis, I'm sure it hasn't been intentional on your part, but I can well understand how TFD may be genuinely confused about what you are trying to get across. Like I say, I am also finding it difficult. Is your main point that "left-right" has its origins as a terminology employed by the left? If so, that may be interesting, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it impacts on the article very much. Am I right in thinking that you don't actually have a problem with the article per se, just with comments made on the talkpage by TFD and/or other editors? --FormerIP (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are we arguing about NOW?
The opening is sober and restrained, presenting the dominant views on the subject rather coherently and intelligently. We all realize one obvious thing: this article will never satisfy everyone. At the very least, all reasonable parties should agree that the current version is sustainable and was achieved in a very consensus-driven atmosphere. We have now included some of the criticisms made from those who do not regard fascism as far right, and that's about the best we can do under these sociological circumstances. I put forward a 'motion', if you will, to call this fight off temporarily and remove the neutrality tag.UberCryxic (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the one that put the POV tag there. My complaint was that a significant view was being left out, the view that fascism is viewed by a good number of historians to be neither left nor right, i.e. a mixture of left and right, or centrist. The NPOV policy says that in order to be NPOV, all significant views need to be mentioned. When the lead only said that fascism is usually considered far-right, which is probably correct, then it in order to be NPOV it also had to note all significant conflicting views. The statement's there now, at the time of writing, is "However, some historians regard fascism to be a mixture of left and right, or neither left nor right." So, unless it is a significant view that Fascism is left-wing, then the lead is much more NPOV. I don't know if the view that it is left wing is a significant view. However, to be fully NPOV I think it should probably be corrected to say a "good number" of historians, which is what the source says. "Some" could mean it may be a fringe view, which it is not. Immoral moralist (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)