While it is currently a minority view, there conservatives (e.g. Jonah Goldberg [see "Liberal Fascism]) and libertarians (e.g. Ludwig von Mises [see an excerpt from "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War," The Origins of Nazism, https://mises.org/library/origins-nazism]) who argue that the "far-right" are expressions of left-wing principles. A section should be devoted to at least acknowledging the existence of this long-running controversy of how to regard movements such as National Socialism and Fascism, at least dating back to WWII (see von Mises, above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 ( talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is much more accurate to place anarchism at the far-right and socialism (statism) at the far-left (roughly) since fascism contains many hallmarks of leftist economics and state power usually eschewed by the right. I see fascism as being in the authoritarian centre as it combines radical ideas from both left and right ranging from social issues to economics. It is also worth remembering the political compass was created well before fascist ideas were established or known. The original paradigm consisted of liberal republicans v conservative monarchists, with fascists taking ideas from both camps many decades later. Also, users above are socialists so they have a clear confirmation bias like most Wikipedians. Harry-Oscar 1812 ( talk) 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The counter-revolutionary and the liberal camps began to transcend the borders of Europe during the first globalization (1870–1914), and a number of the ideas that currently constitute the foundation of far-right ideology—nationalism, populism, or antisemitism—were defended at that time by parts of the revolutionary left, a confusion observable in the writings of Sorel, Michels, Woltmann, or Proudhon. The word "extremist" to designate a category of the political spectrum appeared in the French public debate following the Bolshevik revolution of 1917: "far right" was used at that time to describe the strongest opponents of the "far left"—those who supported the events occurring in Russia. A number of thinkers on the far-right nonetheless claimed an influence from an imprecisely defined idea of socialism, based on a military comradeship that rejected class analysis—sometimes called "socialist revisionism": Charles Maurras, Benito Mussolini, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, or Ernst Niekisch. They eventually split along nationalist lines from the original communist movement, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels contradicting nationalist theories with the idea that "the working men [had] no country". The main reason for that ideological confusion can be found in the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 which, according to Swiss historian Philippe Burrin, had completely redesigned the political landscape in Europe by diffusing the idea of an anti-individualistic concept of "national unity" rising above the right and left division. As the concept of the masses was introduced into the political debate through industrialisation and the universal suffrage, a new right-wing founded on national and social ideas began to emerge, what Zeev Sternhell called the "revolutionary right", and a foreshadowing of fascism. The rift between the left and nationalists was furthermore accentuated by the emergence of anti-militarist and anti-patriotic movements in anarchism and syndicalism, which shared even less similarities with the far-right. The latter began to develop a "nationalist mysticism" entirely different from that on the left, and antisemitism turned into a credo of the far-right, marking a break from traditional "anti-Judaism" in favor of a racial and scientific notion. Various leagues began to form across Europe like the Pan-German League or the Ligue des Patriotes, with the common goal of a uniting the masses beyond social divisions.Azerty82 ( talk) 06:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Another important aspect of Freeden’s approach is his claim that all ideologies contain a core of concepts, which enable a clear identification of the doctrine. Each ideology is seen to decontest these core concepts in its own idiosyncratic way, providing a set of stable meanings for its votaries. The same core themes can, of course, be ‘reassembled’ in a wholly dissimilar order, and decontested in different ways, within the core of another ideology (...) Freeden, in fact, compares political ideologies, at one point, to modular units of furniture, which can be (re)assembled in different ways or shapes. Outside of these core concepts are a range of more peripheral and adjacent concepts, which are discussed within ideologies, but are not necessarily crucial to their continuance.– Andrew Vincent Azerty82 ( talk) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
...even more redoutable difficulty stems from the ambiguous relationship between doctrine and action in fascism...It is a time-honored convention to take for granted that fascism is an “ism” like the others and so treat it as essentially a body of thought...There was no “Fascist Manifesto,” no founding fascist thinker. Although one can deduce from fascist language implicit Social Darwinist assumptions about human nature, the need for community and authority in human society, and the destiny of nations in history, fascism does not base its claims to validity on their truth...Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travelers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of the blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community. Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism. Authentic fascism is not for export.
The fifth and final difficulty with defining fascism is caused by overuse: the word “fascist” has become the most banal of epithets. Everyone is someone’s fascist. Consider Rush Limbaugh’s “feminazis.” A couple of summers ago, I heard a young German call Western-sponsored birth control programs in the Third World “fascist”, forgetting that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists were, for once, agreed in encouraging large families—except, of course, among those considered either eugenically or racially inferior. Those people were condemned to sterilization, if not worse.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How come the far left and far right wiki pages are so different? There are just as many negative things to say about the far left as the far right but we want this to be an unbiased article that anyone can read. I wonder if this is part of a bigger problem with wikipedia where all of the admins are inherently left wing which influences the content of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.105.109 ( talk) 04:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
From the cited source for the disputed sentence ("Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and Right"). I'm including anything that seems interesting (I came across some stuff unrelated to the current dispute):
Meanwhile, the far right in America saw spies and communists influencing government and entertainment. Thus, despite bipartisan anticommunism in the United States, it was the right that mainly fought the great ideological battle against the communists.
The term far right is usually used to describe persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views. Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, although subscribers to left-wing views sometimes use the term very liberally to describe any group on the right of the political spectrum whom they disagree with.
As a youth, Matthews became concerned with the threat of communism to the United States, especially in 1964 when conservative icon Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for the presidency on the Republican Party ticket. Matthews fell under the influence of the John Birch Society, founded in 1958. The society was named for U.S. Captain John Birch, who was shot by the Chinese communists while on a mission in Suchow, China, in August 1945. American far-right conservatives consider Birch to be the first casualty of the new Cold War.
For reference, the question is whether this can be used to cite the fact that far-right politics includes ... and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of... anti-communism
. I think it's sufficient for that; it is not saying that all anti-communism is far-right, no more than it is saying that eg. all transphobia is far-right. But if necessary it should not be difficult to find additional sources regarding the key role anti-communism played in much of the far-right during the 20th century. --
Aquillion (
talk)
09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Within the American and the general Anglo-Saxon environment, the most common term is radical right (e.g. Ramet 1999; Griffin 2000; Norris 2005). But here it has a much broader and different meaning than in the German environment. It is influenced by the older tradition of American nativism (anti-immigration sentiment), populism, and hostility to central government combined with ultra-nationalism, anti-communism, Christian Fundamentalism, and militaristic orientation (Mudde 2000a: 12-13).[4]:
The author of The Communist Horizonnotes the rise of far-right anti-communism in many parts of the world and interprets it as a politics of fear, which utilizes the disaffection and anger generated by capitalismand
. Partisans of far right-wing organizations, in turn, use anti-communism to challenge every political current which is not embedded in a clearly exposed nationalist and racist agenda. For them, both the USSR and the European Union, leftist liberals, ecologists, and supranational corporations –all of these may be called “communist” for the sake oftheir expediency.It certainly notes that anti-communism is not exclusive to the far right; but in the 20th and 21st century, it is one of its fundamental organizing principles in a uniquely important way worth discussing in depth (eg. the second paper notes that the co-option of anti-communism by other parties in Eastern Europe has taken the wind out of the far-right's sails, because, as noted in that quote, anti-communism is central to the far-right's drive and appeal.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The best working definition of the contemporary far right may be the four-element combination of nationalism, xenophobia, law and order, and welfare chauvinism proposed for the Western European environment by Cas Mudde. There is no fifth element of “anti-communism” mentioned, so Aquillion’s claim that it is "a fundamental organising principle" is WP:UNDUE. As stated in this source:
communism is also an uncomfortable relative for the Left. At best a troublesome legacy of the past – at worst, a foe actively fought against. Clearly since anti-communism existed on both the left and right, it cannot be seen as a defining characteristic regardless of how strongly that view may be held. Given that the far-right was perfectly happy to align themselves with communists further demonstrates anti-communism isn’t a defining characteristic of the far-right, just a disposable expediency. — Nug ( talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
More sealioning. If Nug took the time to read the sources in the article this discussion would not be had. The article contains many cites to that discuss anti-communism within far-right movement. The Nonaggression pact ended with Stalin destroying the Nazi regime and Hitler commiting suicide as Stalin’s army surrounded the last remnants of Hitlers inner circle. This argument is nonsense and is about as credible as the “but the Nazis were socialists” crap. Bacondrum ( talk) 22:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's just trolling, not worth following it into a tangent. TFD ( talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I see a lot of time and effort is being wasted here by WP:SEALIONING editors (and there's also the issue of excess citations that results from this disruptive behaviour). How do we best deal with regular sealioning by multiple editors? Request a WP:BLUELOCK? Bacondrum ( talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
While I was searching for cites for the above, I came across a lot of other stuff in there that isn't currently covered in the article regarding the role of far-right politics in modern America; I thought it was worth a separate section to discuss whether and, if so, how we should cover this:
Such was the case in the 1994 election when “angry white men,” who were apparently furious at advantages given to women and minorities, wrested control of Congress from the Democratic Party. The 1994 election led to the Republican Party’s Contract with America, which established a far-right agenda for the next two years.
A number of George W. Bush’s critics have maintained that the initiative for his brand of conservative unilateralism can be traced to Vice President Dick Cheney who has advocated the policy since the early 1990s and to far-right members of Congress who won their seats during the “Conservative Revolution” of 1994.
When Bush was forced to eat his words, many conservatives turned against him. He never found a comfortable fit with his far-right supporters. As a result of inconsistent policy decisions, Bush pleased neither wing of the Republican Party.(Note: This is from a separate section and is about George H. W. Bush, not his son, referenced in the one above.)
After fighting off a primary challenge from the far right wing of his party by television commentator Pat Buchanan, Bush had to face Clinton and an independent candidate, Texas billionaire Ross Perot
See also the above regarding the John Birch Society, which the article doesn't currently cover and which (on a quick search) a lot of other sources seem to consider a key part of the American far-right in the 20th century. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The caption under Benito Mussolini reads..."a far-right ideology". I believe it should read: "a far-left ideology". KKrab ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this article should use one of either "far right" or "far-right", instead of both. I found using Ctrl+F that "far-right" is currently used 114 times in this article, while "far right" with no hyphen is used 57 times. I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are on which one to use, but I note that the Oxford Dictionary of English does not use a hyphen: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/far_right 80.6.233.101 ( talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change all 57 instances of "far right" to add a hyphen to become "far-right". This would make the article consistent, considering the title uses a hyphen, and "far-right" is already used twice as much (114 times). See here for discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Far-right_politics#Grammatical_issue_with_the_hyphen:_%22far_right%22_or_%22far-right%22? 80.6.233.101 ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. In that section, the other editor who participated suggested removing all hyphens, so please establish a consensus for this. Thanks.
Seagull123
Φ
17:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:
Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This thread will be connected to this revert: [5] My question is - Why is the White supremacist movement lobbied as an integral part of the far-right politics? White supremacy cannot be connected with an overall and general concept of the far-right (which this article is about), as it can only be associated with far-right movements in some certain countries, most notably in the USA, Western European countries and possibly also Russia. And if you claim that this so-called White nationalism is an integral part of far-right politics worldwide, then what will you say about far-right movements among Nigerians or the Hutu Power in Rwanda??? Suppcuzz ( talk) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion this is an Eurocentric view of the Western culture, very narrow, and from the encyclopedic point of view should not be included, while being far-right means to exalt your nation/ethnicity/race over all other people, who you generally despise in some way. Therefore, if somebody is Black and far-right he/she for sure is not a White supremacist. To me seeing White supremacism highlighted in this article is nonsense. Suppcuzz ( talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand that White supremacy sometimes goes along with far-right worldview in some European countries or in countries where Whites live and consider their culture superior (USA, Canada, Australia, RSA etc.) and I understand that it must be mentioned in the article. However, don't forget there is to also Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. and there can also be people with a far-right point of view. Therefore, I do not understand why the concept of White supremacy is positioned as one of the central and the most important aspects of being far-right. The aim of this discussion is show that far-right politics is not reserved for Whites. Take Uyoku dantai - the Japanese ultra-conservative far-right movement. Are they White supremacists or at least - do they support White supremacy in any way? Is the Black far-right group Hutu Power from Rwanda connected with White supremacy? Well, placing White supremacy as a major part of far-right politics suggests so. Suppcuzz ( talk) 17:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Polonophobia positioned in the central, highlighted place in the article Discrimination itself? No it's not. I clearly said, that White supremacism should be mentioned in the article Far-right politics, it just should not be highlighted, as anyone can be far-right, regardless of race. Suppcuzz ( talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As I explained above, far right ideology is predominantly a European phenomenon and has little if any relevance to the politics of most non-European nations. Also, I don't know why you categorize Latin Americans as non-white. While a substantial amount of the population is of aboriginal or African ancestry, a substantial portion is of European ancestry, which formed the largest support for the far right. Furthermore, as also pointed out, white supremacy is not presented as a defining characteristic of the far right, but as a frequent element. Ultramontane Catholicism is also a frequent element, but only in Catholic countries. TFD ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"that has fuelled the right-wing phenomena referred to by that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention to the racism and white majoritarianism that energizes it."
This and the small paragraph that it forms the majority of reek of a lack of a NPOV, especially "that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention". I have no clue on how to fix this, but it conveys a liberal or leftist point of view, being avowedly against this term of populism. Yes populism is used as a term to market the ideas to the wider people without immediately turning them away, however it doesn't "Sanitize", and "neatly evades", while convenient, is not encyclopedic. 216.107.203.130 ( talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of the body of the article, especially the section "Modern Debates", makes a reasonable attempt at a neutral point of view. But the intro does not reflect this and needs to be fixed. It is extremely difficult to use the terms "far-right" and "far-left" in a neutral way, because no political parties describe themselves as "far-right" or "far-left". These terms are mainly or exclusively used to describe parties that the writer or speaker does not like, and at worst, are merely terms of abuse. The intro should make this clear, but instead, by attaching the label "far-right" to a ragbag of opinions, falls into that trap. Longitude2 ( talk) 08:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let me edit please 2405:204:8502:BBBB:0:0:2222:38AD ( talk) 12:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
on the column about greece Georgios papandreou was not murdered. He died during house arrest due to medical issues 212.205.112.177 ( talk) 10:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The description in the lead "and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" probably apply to some extent to one or more states in the Middle East, but no such countries are listed. Is there a reason for this omission? JezGrove ( talk) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all - not a bad article but too much focus on Europe and the United States. There is Rwanda and Japan and a few other non-European descent countries but it's very few. I can't edit this article but I have a few suggestions on inclusion:
Turkey:
Israel:
India:
General:
Just off the top of my head. Hope this is an interesting idea. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.44.73.34 (
talk)
18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I deleted far-right section of Jobbik because it is center-right party these days, so doesn't exactly fit the page...it was still quite a chunk of text so if there are any opposing opinions I'd like to hear them. Thank you. RKT7789 ( talk) 13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is by definition. To call them far right takes wikipedia credibility to the trash 2603:8001:6900:1C00:487:48A2:B1F7:E15E ( talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I know the link to far-left politics is in the See Also section, but it seems like, in the interest of fairness and being comprehensive, something should be included in the opening section indicating that political violence and terrorism is not unique to the far-right, that it’s also a characteristic of the far-left, and include a link to the far-left politics page at that location in the article. Yelenabelova83 ( talk) 05:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please change this sentence "it has also been used to refer to these to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"
to "it has also been used to refer to those to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"
Why does this article link the far-right with theocracy? Whether an individual adheres to Theocracy has nothing to do with where s/he stands on the left-wing/ right-wing political continuum. YTKJ ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Christian reconstructionism advocates theocracy. It has certainly been described that way by Kevin Phillips (who did not btw claim the U.S. was a theocracy), although I think the advocates generally call it theonomy.
There is a dispute over whether the type of regime people like Reconstructionists advocate is a theocracy. See "The Question of Theocracy" for a discussion about the meaning of the term.
Reconstructionists argue that America should be governed according to God's laws. No one argues that that in itself makes them theocrats, since all Western nations have done that. The Canadian Lord's Day Act Canada 1970 for example made it an offense for stores to open on Sundays. American states have laws against abortion. U.S. coins say "In God We Trust." The issue is whether an extreme application of religious laws make a state a theocracy.
The source I provide says that theocracy means rule by priests, which I believe is the standard definition. Ergo, someone who rejects the authority of a priesthood is not a theocrat. An argument of course can be made that in rejecting the priesthood, Calvin merely replaced it with himself. My position is that we should not use terms unless their meaning is unambiguous.
For the record, I don't think that Reconstructionists advocate replacing the U.S. government with a priesthood.
TFD ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Israel has many far-right groups and parties. Can anyone help by creating a subsection for her, please.-- 46.60.66.204 ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
While it is currently a minority view, there conservatives (e.g. Jonah Goldberg [see "Liberal Fascism]) and libertarians (e.g. Ludwig von Mises [see an excerpt from "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War," The Origins of Nazism, https://mises.org/library/origins-nazism]) who argue that the "far-right" are expressions of left-wing principles. A section should be devoted to at least acknowledging the existence of this long-running controversy of how to regard movements such as National Socialism and Fascism, at least dating back to WWII (see von Mises, above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 ( talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is much more accurate to place anarchism at the far-right and socialism (statism) at the far-left (roughly) since fascism contains many hallmarks of leftist economics and state power usually eschewed by the right. I see fascism as being in the authoritarian centre as it combines radical ideas from both left and right ranging from social issues to economics. It is also worth remembering the political compass was created well before fascist ideas were established or known. The original paradigm consisted of liberal republicans v conservative monarchists, with fascists taking ideas from both camps many decades later. Also, users above are socialists so they have a clear confirmation bias like most Wikipedians. Harry-Oscar 1812 ( talk) 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The counter-revolutionary and the liberal camps began to transcend the borders of Europe during the first globalization (1870–1914), and a number of the ideas that currently constitute the foundation of far-right ideology—nationalism, populism, or antisemitism—were defended at that time by parts of the revolutionary left, a confusion observable in the writings of Sorel, Michels, Woltmann, or Proudhon. The word "extremist" to designate a category of the political spectrum appeared in the French public debate following the Bolshevik revolution of 1917: "far right" was used at that time to describe the strongest opponents of the "far left"—those who supported the events occurring in Russia. A number of thinkers on the far-right nonetheless claimed an influence from an imprecisely defined idea of socialism, based on a military comradeship that rejected class analysis—sometimes called "socialist revisionism": Charles Maurras, Benito Mussolini, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, or Ernst Niekisch. They eventually split along nationalist lines from the original communist movement, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels contradicting nationalist theories with the idea that "the working men [had] no country". The main reason for that ideological confusion can be found in the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 which, according to Swiss historian Philippe Burrin, had completely redesigned the political landscape in Europe by diffusing the idea of an anti-individualistic concept of "national unity" rising above the right and left division. As the concept of the masses was introduced into the political debate through industrialisation and the universal suffrage, a new right-wing founded on national and social ideas began to emerge, what Zeev Sternhell called the "revolutionary right", and a foreshadowing of fascism. The rift between the left and nationalists was furthermore accentuated by the emergence of anti-militarist and anti-patriotic movements in anarchism and syndicalism, which shared even less similarities with the far-right. The latter began to develop a "nationalist mysticism" entirely different from that on the left, and antisemitism turned into a credo of the far-right, marking a break from traditional "anti-Judaism" in favor of a racial and scientific notion. Various leagues began to form across Europe like the Pan-German League or the Ligue des Patriotes, with the common goal of a uniting the masses beyond social divisions.Azerty82 ( talk) 06:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Another important aspect of Freeden’s approach is his claim that all ideologies contain a core of concepts, which enable a clear identification of the doctrine. Each ideology is seen to decontest these core concepts in its own idiosyncratic way, providing a set of stable meanings for its votaries. The same core themes can, of course, be ‘reassembled’ in a wholly dissimilar order, and decontested in different ways, within the core of another ideology (...) Freeden, in fact, compares political ideologies, at one point, to modular units of furniture, which can be (re)assembled in different ways or shapes. Outside of these core concepts are a range of more peripheral and adjacent concepts, which are discussed within ideologies, but are not necessarily crucial to their continuance.– Andrew Vincent Azerty82 ( talk) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
...even more redoutable difficulty stems from the ambiguous relationship between doctrine and action in fascism...It is a time-honored convention to take for granted that fascism is an “ism” like the others and so treat it as essentially a body of thought...There was no “Fascist Manifesto,” no founding fascist thinker. Although one can deduce from fascist language implicit Social Darwinist assumptions about human nature, the need for community and authority in human society, and the destiny of nations in history, fascism does not base its claims to validity on their truth...Fascists despise thought and reason, abandon intellectual positions casually, and cast aside many intellectual fellow-travelers. They subordinate thought and reason not to faith, as did the traditional Right, but to the promptings of the blood and the historic destiny of the group. Their only moral yardstick is the prowess of the race, of the nation, of the community. They claim legitimacy by no universal standard except a Darwinian triumph of the strongest community. Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism. Authentic fascism is not for export.
The fifth and final difficulty with defining fascism is caused by overuse: the word “fascist” has become the most banal of epithets. Everyone is someone’s fascist. Consider Rush Limbaugh’s “feminazis.” A couple of summers ago, I heard a young German call Western-sponsored birth control programs in the Third World “fascist”, forgetting that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists were, for once, agreed in encouraging large families—except, of course, among those considered either eugenically or racially inferior. Those people were condemned to sterilization, if not worse.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How come the far left and far right wiki pages are so different? There are just as many negative things to say about the far left as the far right but we want this to be an unbiased article that anyone can read. I wonder if this is part of a bigger problem with wikipedia where all of the admins are inherently left wing which influences the content of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.105.109 ( talk) 04:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
From the cited source for the disputed sentence ("Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and Right"). I'm including anything that seems interesting (I came across some stuff unrelated to the current dispute):
Meanwhile, the far right in America saw spies and communists influencing government and entertainment. Thus, despite bipartisan anticommunism in the United States, it was the right that mainly fought the great ideological battle against the communists.
The term far right is usually used to describe persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views. Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, although subscribers to left-wing views sometimes use the term very liberally to describe any group on the right of the political spectrum whom they disagree with.
As a youth, Matthews became concerned with the threat of communism to the United States, especially in 1964 when conservative icon Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for the presidency on the Republican Party ticket. Matthews fell under the influence of the John Birch Society, founded in 1958. The society was named for U.S. Captain John Birch, who was shot by the Chinese communists while on a mission in Suchow, China, in August 1945. American far-right conservatives consider Birch to be the first casualty of the new Cold War.
For reference, the question is whether this can be used to cite the fact that far-right politics includes ... and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of... anti-communism
. I think it's sufficient for that; it is not saying that all anti-communism is far-right, no more than it is saying that eg. all transphobia is far-right. But if necessary it should not be difficult to find additional sources regarding the key role anti-communism played in much of the far-right during the 20th century. --
Aquillion (
talk)
09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Within the American and the general Anglo-Saxon environment, the most common term is radical right (e.g. Ramet 1999; Griffin 2000; Norris 2005). But here it has a much broader and different meaning than in the German environment. It is influenced by the older tradition of American nativism (anti-immigration sentiment), populism, and hostility to central government combined with ultra-nationalism, anti-communism, Christian Fundamentalism, and militaristic orientation (Mudde 2000a: 12-13).[4]:
The author of The Communist Horizonnotes the rise of far-right anti-communism in many parts of the world and interprets it as a politics of fear, which utilizes the disaffection and anger generated by capitalismand
. Partisans of far right-wing organizations, in turn, use anti-communism to challenge every political current which is not embedded in a clearly exposed nationalist and racist agenda. For them, both the USSR and the European Union, leftist liberals, ecologists, and supranational corporations –all of these may be called “communist” for the sake oftheir expediency.It certainly notes that anti-communism is not exclusive to the far right; but in the 20th and 21st century, it is one of its fundamental organizing principles in a uniquely important way worth discussing in depth (eg. the second paper notes that the co-option of anti-communism by other parties in Eastern Europe has taken the wind out of the far-right's sails, because, as noted in that quote, anti-communism is central to the far-right's drive and appeal.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The best working definition of the contemporary far right may be the four-element combination of nationalism, xenophobia, law and order, and welfare chauvinism proposed for the Western European environment by Cas Mudde. There is no fifth element of “anti-communism” mentioned, so Aquillion’s claim that it is "a fundamental organising principle" is WP:UNDUE. As stated in this source:
communism is also an uncomfortable relative for the Left. At best a troublesome legacy of the past – at worst, a foe actively fought against. Clearly since anti-communism existed on both the left and right, it cannot be seen as a defining characteristic regardless of how strongly that view may be held. Given that the far-right was perfectly happy to align themselves with communists further demonstrates anti-communism isn’t a defining characteristic of the far-right, just a disposable expediency. — Nug ( talk) 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
More sealioning. If Nug took the time to read the sources in the article this discussion would not be had. The article contains many cites to that discuss anti-communism within far-right movement. The Nonaggression pact ended with Stalin destroying the Nazi regime and Hitler commiting suicide as Stalin’s army surrounded the last remnants of Hitlers inner circle. This argument is nonsense and is about as credible as the “but the Nazis were socialists” crap. Bacondrum ( talk) 22:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's just trolling, not worth following it into a tangent. TFD ( talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I see a lot of time and effort is being wasted here by WP:SEALIONING editors (and there's also the issue of excess citations that results from this disruptive behaviour). How do we best deal with regular sealioning by multiple editors? Request a WP:BLUELOCK? Bacondrum ( talk) 22:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
While I was searching for cites for the above, I came across a lot of other stuff in there that isn't currently covered in the article regarding the role of far-right politics in modern America; I thought it was worth a separate section to discuss whether and, if so, how we should cover this:
Such was the case in the 1994 election when “angry white men,” who were apparently furious at advantages given to women and minorities, wrested control of Congress from the Democratic Party. The 1994 election led to the Republican Party’s Contract with America, which established a far-right agenda for the next two years.
A number of George W. Bush’s critics have maintained that the initiative for his brand of conservative unilateralism can be traced to Vice President Dick Cheney who has advocated the policy since the early 1990s and to far-right members of Congress who won their seats during the “Conservative Revolution” of 1994.
When Bush was forced to eat his words, many conservatives turned against him. He never found a comfortable fit with his far-right supporters. As a result of inconsistent policy decisions, Bush pleased neither wing of the Republican Party.(Note: This is from a separate section and is about George H. W. Bush, not his son, referenced in the one above.)
After fighting off a primary challenge from the far right wing of his party by television commentator Pat Buchanan, Bush had to face Clinton and an independent candidate, Texas billionaire Ross Perot
See also the above regarding the John Birch Society, which the article doesn't currently cover and which (on a quick search) a lot of other sources seem to consider a key part of the American far-right in the 20th century. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The caption under Benito Mussolini reads..."a far-right ideology". I believe it should read: "a far-left ideology". KKrab ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this article should use one of either "far right" or "far-right", instead of both. I found using Ctrl+F that "far-right" is currently used 114 times in this article, while "far right" with no hyphen is used 57 times. I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are on which one to use, but I note that the Oxford Dictionary of English does not use a hyphen: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/far_right 80.6.233.101 ( talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change all 57 instances of "far right" to add a hyphen to become "far-right". This would make the article consistent, considering the title uses a hyphen, and "far-right" is already used twice as much (114 times). See here for discussion: /info/en/?search=Talk:Far-right_politics#Grammatical_issue_with_the_hyphen:_%22far_right%22_or_%22far-right%22? 80.6.233.101 ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. In that section, the other editor who participated suggested removing all hyphens, so please establish a consensus for this. Thanks.
Seagull123
Φ
17:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:
Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, This thread will be connected to this revert: [5] My question is - Why is the White supremacist movement lobbied as an integral part of the far-right politics? White supremacy cannot be connected with an overall and general concept of the far-right (which this article is about), as it can only be associated with far-right movements in some certain countries, most notably in the USA, Western European countries and possibly also Russia. And if you claim that this so-called White nationalism is an integral part of far-right politics worldwide, then what will you say about far-right movements among Nigerians or the Hutu Power in Rwanda??? Suppcuzz ( talk) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion this is an Eurocentric view of the Western culture, very narrow, and from the encyclopedic point of view should not be included, while being far-right means to exalt your nation/ethnicity/race over all other people, who you generally despise in some way. Therefore, if somebody is Black and far-right he/she for sure is not a White supremacist. To me seeing White supremacism highlighted in this article is nonsense. Suppcuzz ( talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand that White supremacy sometimes goes along with far-right worldview in some European countries or in countries where Whites live and consider their culture superior (USA, Canada, Australia, RSA etc.) and I understand that it must be mentioned in the article. However, don't forget there is to also Africa, Latin America, Asia etc. and there can also be people with a far-right point of view. Therefore, I do not understand why the concept of White supremacy is positioned as one of the central and the most important aspects of being far-right. The aim of this discussion is show that far-right politics is not reserved for Whites. Take Uyoku dantai - the Japanese ultra-conservative far-right movement. Are they White supremacists or at least - do they support White supremacy in any way? Is the Black far-right group Hutu Power from Rwanda connected with White supremacy? Well, placing White supremacy as a major part of far-right politics suggests so. Suppcuzz ( talk) 17:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Polonophobia positioned in the central, highlighted place in the article Discrimination itself? No it's not. I clearly said, that White supremacism should be mentioned in the article Far-right politics, it just should not be highlighted, as anyone can be far-right, regardless of race. Suppcuzz ( talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As I explained above, far right ideology is predominantly a European phenomenon and has little if any relevance to the politics of most non-European nations. Also, I don't know why you categorize Latin Americans as non-white. While a substantial amount of the population is of aboriginal or African ancestry, a substantial portion is of European ancestry, which formed the largest support for the far right. Furthermore, as also pointed out, white supremacy is not presented as a defining characteristic of the far right, but as a frequent element. Ultramontane Catholicism is also a frequent element, but only in Catholic countries. TFD ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"that has fuelled the right-wing phenomena referred to by that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention to the racism and white majoritarianism that energizes it."
This and the small paragraph that it forms the majority of reek of a lack of a NPOV, especially "that sanitizing word "populism", a term that neatly evades attention". I have no clue on how to fix this, but it conveys a liberal or leftist point of view, being avowedly against this term of populism. Yes populism is used as a term to market the ideas to the wider people without immediately turning them away, however it doesn't "Sanitize", and "neatly evades", while convenient, is not encyclopedic. 216.107.203.130 ( talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Most of the body of the article, especially the section "Modern Debates", makes a reasonable attempt at a neutral point of view. But the intro does not reflect this and needs to be fixed. It is extremely difficult to use the terms "far-right" and "far-left" in a neutral way, because no political parties describe themselves as "far-right" or "far-left". These terms are mainly or exclusively used to describe parties that the writer or speaker does not like, and at worst, are merely terms of abuse. The intro should make this clear, but instead, by attaching the label "far-right" to a ragbag of opinions, falls into that trap. Longitude2 ( talk) 08:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let me edit please 2405:204:8502:BBBB:0:0:2222:38AD ( talk) 12:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Far-right politics has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
on the column about greece Georgios papandreou was not murdered. He died during house arrest due to medical issues 212.205.112.177 ( talk) 10:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The description in the lead "and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" probably apply to some extent to one or more states in the Middle East, but no such countries are listed. Is there a reason for this omission? JezGrove ( talk) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all - not a bad article but too much focus on Europe and the United States. There is Rwanda and Japan and a few other non-European descent countries but it's very few. I can't edit this article but I have a few suggestions on inclusion:
Turkey:
Israel:
India:
General:
Just off the top of my head. Hope this is an interesting idea. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.44.73.34 (
talk)
18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I deleted far-right section of Jobbik because it is center-right party these days, so doesn't exactly fit the page...it was still quite a chunk of text so if there are any opposing opinions I'd like to hear them. Thank you. RKT7789 ( talk) 13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is by definition. To call them far right takes wikipedia credibility to the trash 2603:8001:6900:1C00:487:48A2:B1F7:E15E ( talk) 21:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I know the link to far-left politics is in the See Also section, but it seems like, in the interest of fairness and being comprehensive, something should be included in the opening section indicating that political violence and terrorism is not unique to the far-right, that it’s also a characteristic of the far-left, and include a link to the far-left politics page at that location in the article. Yelenabelova83 ( talk) 05:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please change this sentence "it has also been used to refer to these to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"
to "it has also been used to refer to those to the right of mainstream right-wing politics.[9]"
Why does this article link the far-right with theocracy? Whether an individual adheres to Theocracy has nothing to do with where s/he stands on the left-wing/ right-wing political continuum. YTKJ ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Christian reconstructionism advocates theocracy. It has certainly been described that way by Kevin Phillips (who did not btw claim the U.S. was a theocracy), although I think the advocates generally call it theonomy.
There is a dispute over whether the type of regime people like Reconstructionists advocate is a theocracy. See "The Question of Theocracy" for a discussion about the meaning of the term.
Reconstructionists argue that America should be governed according to God's laws. No one argues that that in itself makes them theocrats, since all Western nations have done that. The Canadian Lord's Day Act Canada 1970 for example made it an offense for stores to open on Sundays. American states have laws against abortion. U.S. coins say "In God We Trust." The issue is whether an extreme application of religious laws make a state a theocracy.
The source I provide says that theocracy means rule by priests, which I believe is the standard definition. Ergo, someone who rejects the authority of a priesthood is not a theocrat. An argument of course can be made that in rejecting the priesthood, Calvin merely replaced it with himself. My position is that we should not use terms unless their meaning is unambiguous.
For the record, I don't think that Reconstructionists advocate replacing the U.S. government with a priesthood.
TFD ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Israel has many far-right groups and parties. Can anyone help by creating a subsection for her, please.-- 46.60.66.204 ( talk) 19:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)