Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Removal of uncited entries in list

I have removed uncited entries from the list of far-right parties and movements per WP:BLP. Calling a group of people "far-right" is potentially derogatory, and must be supported by a reliable source; none of these entries are. Argyriou (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • yawn* so the far left is the far right now?? then why do they fight each other so much - sectarianism? i can provide evidence that says that many many authors think fascism and communism are entirely different phenomenon. until i hear a complaint i'll edit the article.. 79.67.248.49 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perón Far Right????

Juan Domingo Peron's government was definitely not a far right movement since its main support came from lower clasess who where expected to be included in the political life ("desclasados") and not form the little bourgueis (pequeña burguesía) afraid of a communist dictatorship (wich was far from happening in Argentina) or a social descense, the real class support tha far rights movements have. Political scientisits such as Lacleu (sees Peron's as a populist and inclusive government), Murmis and Portantiero (Articulate Peronism, socialism, nationalism and Gramsci's thought) and even the antiperonist sociologist Gino Germani agree in that point. Only USA authors dare to call Peron a fascist, nazi, far right or dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.28.225 (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Whole range of right-wing politics" = far right? How?

I saw this definition listed to describe the far right:

"The whole range of right-wing politics, from the borders of conservatism out to the far reaches of the extreme right."

This doesn't make much sense to me. It says the whole range of the right is far right. Well if that's the case what about the moderate right? Or the tradtional right? How can someone be far right and moderate right at the same time?

Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfraatz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the prior lead sentence explains that the term is used in different ways by different authors.--Cberlet (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro Problems

The term far right has been used by scholars in at least three somewhat conflicting ways:[2] 

  1. Reform-oriented right-wing movements or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are sometimes called the dissident right, activist right, or right-wing populism. They are positioned between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. These participants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of reform rather than revolution.
  2. Neo-fascists and neo-Nazis are usually labeled extreme right or ultra right. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist. Neo-Nazi and Neo-fascist literally means "new Nazi" and "new fascist", implying that they are from the period following World War II.

It says 3, but then only mentions two. I assume someone removed the third. Either it should be reinstated, or it should be changed to say 2. Tiger Khan (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I re-added the third one. That definition is not as good as the other two, but it is referenced, and the section does point out that the three definitions are contradictory and not universally accepted.Spylab (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Klansmen?

How did members of the Ku Klux Klan come to be "generally includ[ed]" in the far right?

Look at the Ku Klux Klan Wikipedia entry, which is currently "semi-protected," and whose neutrality is not currently disputed as is the "Far right" article. Regard every mention of the Democrat party in context, then view every mention of the Republican party in context. If Wikipedia views the Democratic pary as left of center and the Republican party as right of center (and as a living encyclopedia it certainly should reflect the current, longstanding, and overwhelming consensus on the matter), then shouldn't an organization that "In effect ... was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party," that "aimed ... to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure," and that "made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact" be classified somewhere to the left of "far right"?

Nicholsonadam (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the 1920s, it's pretty hard to apply left-right terms to the major U.S. parties at all. At least into the late 1960s, the two major parties were both 2-wing parties, but starting in 1968, and increasingly more so over the subsequent decades, the Republican Party almost entirely lost its left wing, and the Democrats lost most of their right wing. Similarly, but for somewhat different reasons, prior to the civil rights era, it's a bit hard to apply left-right terms to the Klan. Although of course the Klan was always anti-Black, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish, during much of the first half of the 20th century these weren't necessarily the central facts about it, at least in many places. Starting in the Civil Rights era, though, defense of segregation became the absolute central fact of the Klan, and that aligned them very firmly with the right.
So, if we are talking 1910, it's slippery to call either the Democrats or the Klan either left or right. By the mid-1950s, it's pretty safe to call the Klan "right" (and 10 years later it's very safe). By the late 1960s, it is reasonable to call the Democrats a center-left party and the Republicans a center-right party, and that has steadily becomes a more accurate picture over time. - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro problems, redux

I really think the intro is a bit of a mess. The first two paragraphs are fine; then we get a standalone paragraph saying "It can be used as a pejorative word", which it seems to me belongs in the second paragraph rather than on its own. Then we get into a list of ways the term, and the list strikes me as rather odd:

  1. "Reform-oriented right-wing movements, such as classical liberalism or libertarianism", not ideologies I'd usually expect to hear called "far right", and with a vague citation. Now, there are reform-oriented right-wing movements that I'd expect to hear called "far right", but these aren't the ones. I don't have too much to say about this one, though, other than that it could use a much better citation.
  2. Then, very oddly we say "Some claim that far-right movements include national socialism and fascism." This is well beyond "some claim". This is the view held by the vast majority of scholars, and "claim" is generally a word Wikipedia avoids, because it tends to invalidate the opinion in question. Then we say "However, they self-identified as centrist and socialist movements promoting a third way." They did at times call themselves socialist (but always condemned "leftism" - they tried to take the word "socialist", but they always meant it rather differently than it means on the left). I can't think of a quotation from any major Nazi or Italian Fascist figure claiming to be centrist. I don't have access to the Morgan book cited for this, but I suspect it does not bear out the statement for which it is cited. Could someone possibly quote the passage they say bears this out? As for "Others argue that they are far-left," yes, you can find a few people who say that. Not many, and mostly people on the right who don't want to be associated at all with fascists. The way this is worded gives this more credence than the mainstream view. Undue weight?
  3. Then even more oddly without citation we say "The whole range of right-wing politics." Who calls the whole range of right-wing politics "far right"?

- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of the problems above were recently added without any explanation, so I reverted to the most recent version. I agree that #3 doesn't really make sense, but it is supposedly backed up by references, although the exact reference is not presented.Spylab (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed BJP from the list of far-right organizations. Unless credible sources back it up, it should be nowhere near the far-right spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CasperDude (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The "vast majority of scholars" are obviously wrong in this case, Jmabel. We've come to the point where we're constraining ourselves to a paradigm based on what's politically fashionable in contemporary, western countries rather than using our sense of reason. The problem citizens had living under the reign of Stalin or Hitler is that those dictators and their establishment failed to recognize the natural rights of the individual and the sovereignty of their neighbors. Logically then, the spectrum should be defined as one side being tyranny, the other being liberty. One side would be absolute control over the individual, the other no control over the individual. Furthermore, the "Far-right = Nazi and Far-left = communist" spectrum is a fallacy on its face since both also interfered with the free-market beyond anything seen prior to the 20th century, so neither are traditionally conservative from an economic point of view either.

From both an economic and a humanitarian standpoint, both justified depriving people of their right to life, freedom, and property (the philosophical foundation set forth by John Locke and adapted by Jefferson) in order to benefit the state and/or the elite. If you subscribe to the nazi-to-communist spectrum you're basically asserting that "On the left side of the spectrum is tyranny, and on the right side is also tyranny". The idea that "No tyranny" falls in between tyranny and tyranny makes absolutely no sense. If you say that classical liberalism fits outside of that spectrum, then it's obviously not a complete spectrum.

You imply that people on the right don't want to be associated with fascists because of the atrocities of the Nazis. Certainly, you're correct, but you leave out the most important fact that they are simply two different ideologies. Classical liberal, constitutionalist, libertarian, and paleoconservative thinkers see fascism, progressivism, leftism, socialism, neoconservatism and communism as varying degrees of unwanted intrusion by government. Again, how can these classical liberal and libertarian thinkers be centrist when they are ideologically opposite to both fascism and communism? How can fascism and communism be opposite ideologies when they both believe in the benefits of central planning and a police state? If they are not opposite, then again, it's either an incomplete spectrum, or your spectrum has some kind of crazy loop in it.

Debate is being framed in this paradigm out of social ignorance of history and exploitation by fear-mongering oligopolies of western political parties; Using my own country of the United States as an example, popular sentiment of a political issue focuses on fear or empathy rather than whether that particular law will unfairly benefit or deprive people of life, freedom, or property. The Nazi/Racists vs Communist/Socialist debate is a hallmark of this. Preventing new "nazi-like" regimes is an argument even used by conservatives to justify the war in Iraq and for taking action against Iran or North Korea.

You're correct that's there's not many people saying this, but that doesn't mean that it's false simply because it's not popular (In fact, classical liberalism used to be the foundation of American politics, hard to believe it's considered outside the mainstream now, but I digress). Why perpetuate a spectrum that isn't logical? Wikipedia has the benefit of large scale, aggregate research of truth substantiated by facts and reason. I hope its users take advantage of it to debate and understand concepts behind terms like "far-right" or "far-left" in order to build a quality repository of information rather than simply index the consensus of superficial conceptions and outright misconceptions tainted by partisans. 76.214.19.88 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense

How can libertarians and fascists both be "Far right" I think there is a lot of ignorant confusion on here regarding this subject. There is no logical coherence to what defines far right, in many instances parties in the far right also fit the definition of far left that are in here on Wikipedia. Were the Soviets not nationalists? Did the Nazis not advocate wealth redistribution?

This entire page, and far left, need to be deleted as they are nothing more than ignorant populist views.

Of course it makes no sense, and neither does the entire project of simplistic categorization. It is for people too intellectually lazy to confront the real complexity of the world and grapple with it continually. It is for the structuralizing philosophy that brings us statism, racism, world wars, party politics, etc. Gilles Deleuze also disagrees with "the exclusion of the eccentric and the divergent, in the name of a superior finality, an essential reality, or even a meaning of history" (Logic of Sense 260) --142.179.78.8 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The examples from Norway were inaccurate

The references at the two examples from Norway Demokratene and Progress Party (Norway) were just links the parties' wikipedia articles, so I removed them. I also removed Progress Party (Norway) from the list, because it's not "far" right party. They are the most right-leaning of the mainstream parties in Norway, but all major political parties in Norway are just different shades of social democrats. Comparing the Progress Party (Norway) with nazis and nationalists is ridiculous.

I also support the notion of entirely removing the list.

Unplugging 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Smear Word

Is this not just a name calling term. i.e. is it not just a term used when you want to call someone a facist but can't prove it. Then you call them far-right to do the guilt by association thing. Stephen W. Houghton 70.150.94.194 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

citing sources

to voluntaryslave,

you need to cite sources, otherwise editors are going to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjcoombes (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, Mjcoombes, you're the one who is removing sourced material. If you think the sources either don't support the claims in the article, or are somehow inappropriate sources, then do explain here, but it's inappropriate to remove them, and the claims they source, from the article, without explanation.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave: Could you please explain the edits that you have made. Also, I notice that they were not sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - the edit I made simply reverted Mjcoombes removal of sourced information.VoluntarySlave (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the sequence of edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Partido Acción Nacional

Placing the Mexican Partido Acción Nacional on a list with 'alleged far right parties' is ridicilous. The ruling PAN is in Mexico a centrist, conservative Christian-Democratic party, but by no means qualifies as a far right movement. I removed it from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.179.122 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of alleged far right organizations

I have removed the following parties from the list: Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt), Felicity Party (Turkey), American Independent Party, Independent American Party, Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Partido Acción Nacional (Mexico), Union of the Democratic Centre (Argentina), Democratic Party (Mendoza) (Argentina), One Nation (Australia). These parties are not "far right" although they may be radical right or radical Islamic parties. I have not examined the list of Asian groups. Although there are far right groups within the former Ottoman Empire, I do not think that the term is applicable to groups in other parts of Asia, although there may be exceptions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the Iraq and Syrian Baath Parties. They were not right-wing in their founding principles and were not generally considered far right, although it could be argued that Saddam Hussein was far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Baathist socialist party has nothing to do with the far right. However the One Nation Party of Australia are happened to be a right-wing ultra-nationalist party that are anti-asian, anti-aboriginal and anti-immigrant. Why removed it from the list.--71.249.247.144 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

The sources for including the Muslim Brotherhood are writings by controversial revisionist historians whose ideas are not accepted by mainstream historians. In order to include this group it should be sourced to a mainstream historian of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that the source provided is not aacepted by mainstream historian or scholar before deleting it. Thank you--yin and yang 03:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
No need to. The articles were not published in academic sources. While these books are sources for their authors' opinions, they do not represent mainstream thinking. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's base on your own personal opinion until you can prove it with consensus--yin and yang 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
The problem with revisionist historians like John Loftus is that they do not publish their findings in mainstream sources so little is written about them. But if you look at mainstream sources, like The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[1] there is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Most mainstream historian or writer will tell you that the early european far right movement does have connection with islamist movement. Wikipedia will not published Nazism in the Middle East if such thing are base on revisionist historian. Thats just base on your personal opinion. Those are just four sources I provide. And there are more sources to prove that early european far right and the nazi does have influenced on islamist in the middle east such as muslim brotherhood. And you should know Al-banna support the nazi to overthrow pro-british government in egypt.--yin and yang 11:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You should learn to tell the difference between serious history and conspiracy theories. In any case I have posted the sources to RSN and will set up an RfC if necessary. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not buy conspiracy theory my friend, especially the one that denied holocaust and September 11 inside job. I'm surprise that you would think that the connection between islamist and nazi were conspiracy theory.I'm waiting for the answer from WP:RSN.--yin and yang 11:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
John Loftus has also published revisionist views of 911. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
John Loftus may have published several controversial books and articles but is he wrong about everything? He may wrong about September 11 2001 but here we're discussing the connection between Muslim Brotherhood and european fascist movement and Muslim Brotherhood movement that was influenced by the nazi before WWII, WWII and After WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The influenced on islamic group in the middle east (including Muslim Brotherhood) by nazi before, during and after WWII was a known fact and it was written by many historians. Have you read the topic Nazism in the Middle East? And the connection between, Sayid Qutb, Al-Banna, Haj-Amin Al-HUsseini, Abdel Nasser and Hitler was a conspiracy theory rather than the truth? And there's no SS Waffen in the Nazi? Can you please prove it? I would like to know?--yin and yang 13:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Nazis may have influenced and worked with the Brotherhood (Loftus exaggerates the level of cooperation) but that does not mean they shared the same belief system. Their common interest was opposition to the UK and later opposition to Israel. And even if they did have the same ideology, it still remains a minority view which should not be presented as a fact in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please prove it was a minority view?--yin and yang 13:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
See: The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[2] No mention of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Off topic: Somebody mentioned Nazism in the Middle East. This is still a terrible article despite some efforts to improve it, and I would encourage anybody who has some knowledge of the subject to help improve it further. See its talk page for details. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats just one book. I can find more books of 20th century european fascist relating to the Muslim brotherhood and Islamic group in the middle east.And it also base on your personal opinion until you can find consensus that it was a minority view.--yin and yang 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
Also noted, even though "Islamist" and "Nazism" exist as different form of fascism, there are Muslim Fascist that was inspired by Hitler and Nazism. Show me the statistic that those views are held by minority within intellectual community from a "reliable source".--yin and yang 14:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
If you do not think that Routledge is reliable, can you provide any mainstream source that lists these groups as right-wing? BTW it is up to you to show that your opinions are widely accepted. You may for example find a source that says the moon is made of green cheese, and I may not be able to "show [you] the statistic that those views are held by minority within intellectual community from a "reliable source"". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not say that the Routledge is not a reliable source. I said it is topic about far right that did not include Islamist or Islamic Fundamentalist in it. How is that my personal opinion when far right include religious extremist and there are authors that used the word Islamic Right-wing? I'm not sure what political position can political Islam be if the right-wing category doesn't fit them? It can't be far left, left-wing fascist, liberals or centrist because Islamic extremist as well as European fascist are oppose to liberalism, socialism, marxism and communism. Also, Islamist or Islamic extremist considered Liberal and leftist ideology to be secular and atheist which contradict their belief.--the way of the force 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
The political spectrum (left, right, center) represents class positions and is therefore not applicable to all parties, particularly those that represent ethnic, regional or religious divisions. The term "far right" is used because the French far-right was seen as the successors of the ultra-royalists, the original right-wing, even though they may no longer fit the criteria for inclusion in the right-wing. Some writers consider them to be outside the political spectrum, to have grown out of the Left or to be part of the political centre. Regardless of whether these various Islamic parties meet the criteria for far right, they are not generally considered to be far right. If you want to mention that some writers consider them to be far right, that is fine so long as it is not presented as a mainstream view. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic religious extremists

The result was delete list of alleged far-right organizations. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and other religious extremist groups be included in the list of alleged far right organizations. The other organizations listed are primarily neo-fascist, neo-nazi and racial supremicist organizations. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although revisionist historians have drawn historical and ideological connections between fascism and Islamic extremists (hence "Islamofascism"), this view is not mainstream and these historians normally do not refer to them as "far right". Mainstream sources like The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[3] do not include them. Nor do law enforcement agencies or the popular media. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  • No, don't include: in common usage the right/left distinction generally distinguishes between socially conservative and socially liberal factions: the 'right' contains people who want to preserve or defend the historical social status quo, while the 'left' pushes for changes that address inequities between the rich and poor strata of society, or that benefit the under privileged. 'Far right' and 'far left' terms were coined for people who who were radically (even violently) in favor or their respective side (far left including anarchists, revolutionary socialists, extreme liberals, etc.; far right including militant conservatives, national socialists, pro-government militias, etc.). both isms correlate with religiosity and economic outlook in many cases (rightists tend to be pro-mainstream-religion and defensive of property structures, while leftists tend to be anti-mainstream-religion favor redistributive strategies), but the correlates are not definitional. religious extremists may be leftist or rightist - for instance, there were fairly large movements of Christian socialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and japanese corporate structures are usually a kind of corporate socialism (rightist economics with a deep sensitivity to employee welfare). Radical Muslim organizations are deeply religious, but their motivations vary from conservative efforts to restore a pre-1940's political status quo to liberal intentions to aid beleaguered and oppressed fellow muslims, so they can't really be called 'right wing' in any blanket sense. radical islam is a religious movement primarilly, so it doesn't really fit the criteria of the right/left distinction. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hezbollah and the the Muslim Brotherhood are more to the left on the economic issues. (unfortunately Ludwigs2 you and I cannot debate each other with the new template on this issue because we have the same POV :D ) Sole Soul (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • And Mainstream source does not considered Jewish fundamentalist nor Hindu Extremist to be far right either. So why should Hindu Nationalist and Jewish extremist be included? And someone here said Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are left on economic issue: So does the Nazi and Italian Fascist. Both Islamist, European Fascist, orthodox religious extremist(christian , Hindu, pagan and Jewish) and ultra-nationalist right-wing are oppose to liberalism, socialism, marxism/communism. Why should Islamic Extremist be excluded when it shared the same principles as other right-wing extremist? Also, Islamic extremist were influenced by European far right of the early 20th century. Please refer to (Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World, Yale University Press, 2009. by Jeffrey Herf and The Enemy of my Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right University Press of Kansas, expected in March 2006. By George Michael). --the way of the force 11:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
      • as a point of information (nothing more) some forms of 'Jewish' extremism have nothing much to do with Judaism - they are aggressive pro-israel nationalist movements, and so properly considered right wing. Note that it is Israeli groups that advocate expansionism and anti-palestinian legislation that are considered right wing, while extremely religious jews such as Hasidic Jews are not labeled right wing. If you can specify particular islamic fundamentalist groups that are primarily concerned with social/nationalist/economic issues rather than religious issues, those particular groups might be effectively labeled as right wing. the term does not apply generally, however. --Ludwigs2 14:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I doubt that the Islamic extremists were directly influenced by the Nazis, The left movements in the Arab world are more likely to be influenced by them. The Islamists and the leftists in the arab world have a common goal of opposing the governments. In Lebanon most of the pro-government, anti-HB parties are right wing parties weather Christian (like the Kataeb Party and the Lebanese Forces) or Sunni Muslims. Sole Soul (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No don't include:
    • Wikipedia should use word as they are normally understood and far rights normally does not include these types of movements, that rather belong to the category "muslim fundamentalists" or others. It seems to me that it would be confusing to qualify it this way. And clearly the purpose of an encyclopedia is to clarify, not to confuse.
    • Right and left are words linked to positions in the democratic space of western countries (it comes initially from the position on the right or on the left of the speaker in a parliament). As extremes, these far right and far left movements are in general outside the democratic space, but they are still linked to the democratic debate in general terms: far right movements are movements that are supposed to think like the parliamentary right but to the extreme, and far left are movements that are supposed to think like the center left, but in an extreme way. To take an example from the far left, this is because the center parliamentary left is in general in favour of more state interventionist policies and a little bit against capitalism that we may qualify the communists or trotskysts as "extreme left" (yes they still exist in Europe!). Another example: this is because the european parliamentary right tended to be at that time more nationalistic than the others that the nazis could be qualified of "extreme right". Of course all this is more complex. Are islamist movements closer ideologically to the right or to the left of the democratic spectrum of islamic countries I don't know. I guess that this is anyway difficult to know because the democratic life of islamic countries is actually rather poor.Voui (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I might agree with you Ludwigs2. What about Hamas and Sudanese National Congress should they be included as far right movement since they are islamic fundamentalist movement imbue with Nationalism? To Sole Soul ; Islamist such as Sayid Qutb, Al-Banna and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni were influence by the nazi but not from the origin. These islamist were also considered arab nationalist at that time. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni also recruited Muslim volunteers for the German armed forces operating in the Balkans including Bosnian and Croate Muslim, and there was some influenced involve. --the way of the force 11:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Al-Husayni is the only case that I know of a relation, weather there is an influence or he saw a mutual interest with Hitler, should be supported by sources. Sole Soul (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
      • You can read about Nazi propaganda for the arab world by Jeffrey Herf and The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini by Chuck Morse.--the way of the force 14:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs)
        • Thank you for the reading suggestions for me, but for the article you need to be more specific. Also Chuck Morse's book is not a reliable source in this subject. Sole Soul (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I would be inclined to exclude Hamas - they lack the jingoistic qualities typical of right wing extremists. I don't know enough about the Sudanese National Congress to judge, though typically right wing groups are allergic to power-sharing arrangements or other types of political compromise. and generally speaking, Thundera, references to Hitler are irrelevant. The Nazi party may be an archetypal right wing group (in the modern sense of the phrase, at least), but A»B does not mean B»A, ever. That's just poor logic. If you'd like to continue making specious, rhetorical 'fascist'-type arguments, please do it elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 17:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment via rfc to be honest I can't really see the benefit of having a list of far-right organisations. This is meant to be an article about the term, its origins, vagueness and debate about its appropriateness. Giving a list seems quite subjective. Either way, organisations should only be described as being far-right if there are credible, mainstream and reliable sources confirming it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree as it would avoid disputes like this one and the vandalism noted in the section below. However, it seems a lot of editors are determined to keep the lists. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed Blue-Haired Lawyer.If you go to the far left section, there's no list of allege far left group. I guess the best way to prevent vandalism and subjective argument is not to have the list at all. Far right should generally be listed as Nazi, Neo-Nazi, racial Supremacist, religious supremacist and other ultra-nationalist organization. And Ludwigs not all Far right party are allergic to power sharing and those argument are not base on poor logic but the ambiguity of each group listed as far right and I'm not interested in personal argument.--the way of the force 11:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say 'all', I said they tended that way (which is definitional of right wing groups), and that I really don't know enough to judge in this case. and sorry, I am death on reductio ad Hitlerem arguments. If you're not discussing WWII, there's almost never a call to mention Hitler or the Nazi party.
I concur that removing the list would be the best solution to the problem. is four editors enough to justify taking that action? --Ludwigs2 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that is adequate and will remove the list. Since this resolves the dispute that led to the RfC, I will close that as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You agenda was to remove the list all along! Essentially you say: Only whites can be far-right. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.133.11 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whose agenda was that? I just came to this page for an RfC, and I called it like I saw it. and no, non-whites can be far right as well (think Pinochet and Idi Amin). I wanted the list removed because the list was invariably going to be a troll magnet, as people trying to diss one political leader/group or another struggle to include them on the list. the article will be better and stabler without it. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
89.195.133.11, can you provide any reason why there should be a list of far right organizations? Incidentally, I do not have an agenda, but found the arguments persuasive. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lakas Kampi CMD Removed

Lakas-Kampi-CMD is not known as far right but center-right. Whoever included Lakas_Kampi-CMD please included with reliable source if you thought this organization is alleged far right group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Since an IP continues to revert the changes other editors have agreed to and continues to make personal attacks both on the talk page and the edit summaries, i have requested semi-protection of the page.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

well, if it happens again, a wp:3rr violation might be more effective. since it's just one editor I don't think semi-protecting the page is actually necessary.--Ludwigs2 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Since it is not a static IP, 3RR does not work. Semi-protection merely prevents IPs and new users from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
An administrator has turned down the request for now. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Left / Right

There is a big gap on WP in the true history of the terms "left" and "right" as they relate to political parties. See my post at talk:National Assembly of France for additional information. 7390r0g (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus; no list on alleged far right groups

We reached the consesnsus that there should be no list of the allege far right organizations. 89.195.133.11 unless you can provide us any reason why we should restore the list please do not undo this section until there's an agreement.--the way of the force 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the place where such a consensus has been reached? I don't see it on this talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Sole Soul for pointing me toward this collapsed discussion. I stand corrected. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way and just for the record: I have nothing to do with 89.195.133.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so do be a little careful with the attribution. Favonian (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of far right

This article needs a clearer definition of far right. The term has at different times referred to legitimists, proto-fascists, fascists and neo-fascists. The term has never referred to classical liberalism or an other type of liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Extreme_Right links back to Far_Right and as long as it does, we might consider this source that it would also require to address the issue of classical liberaliasm, liberalism, etc... pages 249, 255-6, 258-9, 260, 261 are good specific ones, but the whole of the article called "Right and Left" by Marcel_Gauchet in Realms of Memory: Symbols By Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman is worth a read. Theosis4u (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What specifically is it about liberalism that belongs in this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Copying again what I've already shared on the other talk page:
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
These are all references that show there is a point of view on the left-right issue that is making it a separation based upon "capital and labor", "bourgeois fears", socialist/communist vs. all others, the capitalist class, proletarian revolution. As the extreme and far right are "right" and those statements are inclusions of the whole of the right, it should be referenced rather than dismissed outright. If "dismissed", it should be explained why in the article. Theosis4u (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What does this have to do with classical liberalism being far right? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I concluded with the above with, "As the extreme and far right are "right" and those statements are inclusions of the whole of the right, it should be referenced rather than dismissed outright. If "dismissed", it should be explained why in the article." The statements quoted are to show, there's more as well in the article if you want them, that the right-left division did end up encompassing the two variant economic models - socialism/communism and capitalism. Remember two points here, the socialist/communist advocated the left being exclusive to their economic agenda and all else was to be casted and framed as "the right". Second, the fascist initially argued that they weren't left nor right. We know they lost this struggle to self-identify themselves later in the article. What isn't explained precisely is why? We know they commonality they had with the right was rejecting the socialist/communist economics, class warfare, and the belief that the "nationalism" was important rather than the global socialist struggle. Were fascist moved to "extreme/far" as a reaction of the "right" when the socialist/communist placed them in their camp? I don't think the article actually referenced when or if fascism was declared "extreme or far right" in the process, just that it was pushed right. Did the right have a reaction of not wanting to be identified with the fascist but couldn't argue them back to the center or left? Again, the article states that this right-left game was largely ignored by the "right" but sometimes would react to it when moves were in play by the left. also, they would at times use it to attack the "left" but hardly ever to identify themselves. Theosis4u (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic vs. Social

I feel it's highly important to make a distinction between economic and social far left. A lot of people have mentioned that this does not fall into the "common parlance", but the common person is uneducated about politics, and believes people like Stalin to be "extreme left" (while he was extreme left economically, he was extreme right socially).

I made an edit, but it was reverted. I think this is, by far, the most important thing to understand is that the one dimensional political spectrum is flawed, and the two dimensional Nolan Chart is far superior in every way, explaining everything clearly, and without bias. ReignMan (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the Nolan chart, the term "far right" has a specific meaning and has been used to refer to legitimists, proto-fascists, fascists and neo-fascists. It may be that the "far right" is incorrectly named, but it is the name used. Notice the category for Far-right politics which confirms this.[5] Also notice that I began a discussion on this topic before you posted. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the premise was also done to balance the contents against Far_left#Ideologies_of_the_far-left. I just saw some examples today that apply the concept of far/extreme/radical right to bodies based upon economic theory [at least partially]
Labor union money linked to anti-Tea Party Web site - "This movement is a fad,” the Web site reads, whose “ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical right-wing form of state’s rights.”"
CNBC's Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party This shows clearly that for some, the US modern tea party situation is based upon economics.
The Daily Caller interview with CNBC’s Rick Santelli, ‘father’ of the tea party movement
Theosis4u (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The Tea Party movement is not based on economics any more than any political group is. In any case it is not "far right" so why are we discussing it. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Prove both your assertions then TFD's; I grow tired of you pushing others into a defensive positions [""no enemy on the left" ;-) ] without you actually being given the burden of proof. Time from you to get up from your armchair. Your not American, are you? [I recall you using that play once before on someone] Theosis4u (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The burden of proof rests on those who wish to include information. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought this issue is on the talk page because people removed information. Theosis4u (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic vs. Social

I feel it's highly important to make a distinction between economic and social far left. A lot of people have mentioned that this does not fall into the "common parlance", but the common person is uneducated about politics, and believes people like Stalin to be "extreme left" (while he was extreme left economically, he was extreme right socially).

I made an edit, but it was reverted. I think this is, by far, the most important thing to understand is that the one dimensional political spectrum is flawed, and the two dimensional Nolan Chart is far superior in every way, explaining everything clearly, and without bias. ReignMan (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on its views the US Republican Party is far right in comparison to the rest of the world

Many leading members of the Republican Party take positions that are considered to be on the radical right or far right. If you look at where the Republicans running for President fall on the political compass they are actually more conservative than say the British National Party. Take a look for yourself: UK elections political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright and US Primaries: http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007 Wikipediatoperfection 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me explain a little about Wikipedia to you: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. Statements must be supported by reliable sources, not the fevered imaginations of leftist wankers. If you can find a reliable source which says "The Republican Party is a far-right political party", then by all means, add the party back to the list, with the reference. Note that publications by Marxists.org, Socialist International, Moveon.org, or other, similar left-wing sites which call anyone who opposes their agenda "far-right" are not reliable sources.
You could have saved yourself the above tongue-lashing if you'd bothered to do something else which mature, experienced wikipedians understand, and checked the talk page. This issue has been discussed half to death already, and the consensus is that you're wrong. Argyriou (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Read Political Compass' Professional feedback page: http://www.politicalcompass.org/profeedback and Media Coverage page: http://politicalcompass.org/inthenews If you want a newspaper source, here you go: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNG9TE4DO91.DTL However, I think political compass is a much better source. I cannot think of a major conservative party in Europe which is to the right of the Republican Party. I cannot think of a European leader who is to the right of Bush. Do you know of one? In contrast, the Democratic Party is to the right of of every major left wing party in Europe. The political compass is a reflection of where parties are in the overall scheme of things, rather than a reflection of how they are viewed in the United States (say in a newspaper).
P.S. We all have our biases. Comparing MoveOn.org to Marxism shows your own. Independent of what you or I personally think, the Republican Party has positions which put it to the right of the major right wing parties in Europe. Wikipediatoperfection 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that the Republican Party of the U.S. is more "right-wing" than any of the denatured conservative parties of Europe, but there's a difference between being the far end of the conservative mainstream and being "far right". If you'd read the article, you'd realize that it's not generally about parties which can command popular majorities, but about fringe parties. "Far" is a relative term, and has somewhat different meanings in different political environments - the political party which has been able to obtain a popular majority six times in the past 50 years, while its main competitor has only done so twice, is not a fringe or protest party in the way that "far right" implies.
Meanwhile, you haven't gotten the point of my earlier reply. You have not shown a reliable source which calls the Republican Party "far-right". One headline by an unknown headline writer (no, Mark Sandalow did not write that headline, and nowhere in the op-article does he actually call the Republicans "far-right") in a very liberal newspaper does not make a reliable source, nor does a quote by a professional fundraiser for the Democrats. Argyriou (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I just offered you a reliable source, the political compass. And I think they have a fairly apt rebuttal to your "Republicans are US mainstream" on their FAQ page: http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq21
"Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.
Changing the measures changes the history, that is insane. It is much better to say, that current politics is just a small fraction of what was thought to be far-left some hundred years ago. Whoever controls the past controls the future - George Orwell: 1984. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa ? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.
Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific."
In other words, a political party's position on the political spectrum is not dictated by the norms of that society, but through a comparison to both history and other countries. Such a comparison should be made on the basis of a party's positions on various economic and social issues in comparison to other parties or political figures throughout history. On this basis several of the leading Republican candidates for President fall to the right of other parties which are considered the far right on this page. Keep in mind that the radical right (term of choice in US) and the far left are pejorative terms and are thus only used by a party's opponents. Democrats see the Republican Party as controlled by the radical right. Republicans see the Democratic Party as controlled by the far left. The difference is that in a comparison to other parties in the advanced industrial world and throughout the history of the advanced industrial world, the current Republican Party is highly authoritarian/neo-liberalist, whereas the Democratic Party is relatively towards the center.
If you do not like the political compass as a source (I would say it is the closest you can get to an unbiased source) check out http://www.theocracywatch.org/ which is "a public information project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University." Cornell is in the Ivy League by the way. This site throughly documents the theocratic nature of the Republican Party. I think we can reach a consensus that advocating a right wing theocracy falls under the category of far right? Wikipediatoperfection 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As an alum of Princeton ("Which is in the Ivy League, by the way"), let me tell you that not everything I say is factual. ;) Truth be told, TheocracyWatch lists former Sen. Majority Leader Frist, former House Majority Leader DeLay, and even Karl Rove (who many claim is an agnostic [6] [7] [8]) as theocrats. It's hardly a neutral POV. Sadistik 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
An organization with a name like "Theocracy Watch" is generally not going to be a reliable source, as its interests are best served by exaggerating the extent to which politicians it opposes are "theocrats", just as any leftist organization will try to tar its opponents with the brush of extremism. But Wikipediatoperfection doesn't understand any of this, and thinks that his juvenlie leftism is the whole of the truth and the standard by which neutrality should be measured. Argyriou (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"Many leading members of the Republican Party take positions that are considered to be on the radical right or far right. If you look at where the Republicans running for President fall on the political compass they are actually more conservative than say the British National Party"; no - even according Political Compass, Republicans are more right-winger in economic issues, but BNP seems to be more authoritarian in social issues.--81.84.198.220 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, in the US, even the term "Conservative" has taken a strange turn into neo-conservative, which is quite different. Real (US) Conservatives do not believe in drastically increasing spending AND decreasing taxes at the same time. We (yes, we) are also not necessarily in favor of military threats against everything that moves as much as a very strong military that generally stays at home except in matters of direct threat to national security. To refer to President Bush as "conservative", or to try to link him to real Conservatives by calling him or his party by that title shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between real Conservatives, and this strange new(ish) beast, the neo-con.

Republicans are definitely far right. Democrats are just right wing, but both parties are highly authoritarian. Even Britain is considered a right wing country and Americans call them socialist, and these are ordinary American university graduates. That shows how far to the right America is in general. According to the political compass, the BNP is considered left wing, and I don't contest that they probably have some socialist policies. Many people confuse right wing free market with racism, and nationalism. Even though they generally go hand in hand, this is not always the case. One thing is for sure, if you believe there is a problem with communism, and invading a country to force them to open up to the free market, then you are definitely a right wing extremist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.14.213 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Neutrality disputed"

Why the neutrality of this entry is disputed?

I think the original reason of the "neutrality is disputed" warning was the discussion about fascism, but I think that these discussion was already settled (basically saying "fascism is usually considered far-right, but some voices disagree").--194.65.151.249 10:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If, in the next week, nobody disagree, I will remove the POV tag.
And, if no source is provided for Mises and Hayek labelling fascism as far-left or left-wing (I am asking for a citation saying "fascism is left-wing", not for a citation saying "fascism is collectivist" or "fascism is socialist"), I propose to change
"Fascism is generally, but not universally, classified as a far-right ideology. However, right-wing libertarian scholars such as F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises are noteworthy dissenters from that view. Both have labeled it far left, based on a view of the political spectrum that equates left with support for increased government power and "right" with opposition to the same"
to
"Fascism is generally, but not universally, classified as a far-right ideology. However, some right-wing libertarian scholars are noteworthy dissenters from that view, labeling it far left, based on a view of the political spectrum that equates left with support for increased government power and "right" with opposition to the same" --85.139.177.57 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard? Libertarian cranks are over-represented on this article. Why should his opinion be worth mentioning? Hurray for knol! --67.58.254.68 (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Left-Right scale is that it has changed overtime. If one looks back at the historical meanings of "Conservatives", "Liberals" and "Socialists" and the Left-Right scale one could spot the problems lying therein. As we all know the ideas of modern democracy as we know it comes from classical-liberal and enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Rosseau and Montesquieu with their ideas about parliamentarism and Lockes' ideas about economical freedom which opposed the totalitarian monarchies that existed. We also know that originally the ones supporting these enlightenment and liberal ideas sat on on the left in the French parliament while the conservative royalists sat on the right; Hence the name left-right politics. So originally the conservatives who opposed changing the current system were totalitarian conservatives and right-wing while the classical liberals who supported more individual freedom were leftists. But today we don't just have conservatives and liberals but also socialist on the political field who people quite clearly think of as leftists regardless of if you are a leftwinger or rightwinger and the old conservative royalists are virtually inexistent and "conservatives" are today promoting a classical liberal system (with touches of religion) which today is viewed to be "Right" and not "Left" as it was at the time of the French revolution and the name "Liberals" has, as I've noticed, been referred to people around the center-left-right depending on which country you talk about.

So this discussion is more about whether people believe that the National Socialist tried to implement an old-conservative system (radical right) or a Marxist style Socialist state (radical left).

This article is not about the political spectrum. The term "far right" is used to describe certain political groups and ideologies. Whether these groups are really "far right" is unimportant. TFD (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Far-right in ecomonic issues?

I think it is good to mention that being far-right in economic issues doesn't equal fascism. Since when does free market means fascism? Far right in economic issues means free market which is the complete opposite of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.161.75 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "free market" far-right. Slavery, feudalism and mercantilism would be far-right. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This whole article is a bunch of ignorant, arbitrary, partisan bullshit. The above comment is proof of that. By this guy's definition, anything that's negative except communism is far-right. 66.215.216.61 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, conservativism is holding the current, so it could be both right and left, deppending on what it is conserving. Dealing with what is negative is far more problematic - current world is fully mercantilist and most of it resembles fascism, but most people seem to understand it as positive - they are voting for it. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.197.59 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Far-right doesn't mean "very conservative" (just like far-left doesn't mean "very liberal"), it means the extreme right-wing, e.g. Nazism, while far-left means the extreme left-wing, i.e. communism and the Soviet Union. And the free market is not extreme, it's pretty centrist, really. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Very conservative means aiming at preservation of current state of things - simple linguistic analysis tell you. The same is with Nazism, or national socialism, this word explains itself as leftist ideology. Only communist labeled it right and others cheerfully agreed as it disabled the smallstate opinion altogether. 88.100.197.59 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Nazi Party was seated on the far right of the Reichstag because other parties believed that is where they belonged in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far-right_politics/Archive_2&oldid=380267678"