Talk:Far-right politics/Archive 9

The Nazis
And again have I seen someone calling the Nazis "far-right". How long will it take for people to realize that it was a movement led by the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party? Nazism is a leftist movement, along the lines of communism — it can be easily seen from the 3rd Reich's economical policy, which was a form of state capitalism, thus central planning, and thus leftist. The rightwingness implied by nationalism doesn't really matter here, because social/(inter)national/other views are always secondary to the economic ones. Zeiimer (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That "someone" is pretty much the entire academic consensus. Sure, the Nazis had "socialist" in their name (and some fools actually took that at face value) but their ideology of National Socialism (Nazism) was not a form of socialism at all but a variant of fascism, which is far-right. People from the left and the right have broadly agreed on this since 1945, possibly longer. Only recently has this fringe obsession with recasting Nazism as being on the left become vocal. I think this started as a pleading by some on the right to disassociate themselves from the Nazis but it was entirely unnecessary. So long as people on the right are engaged in politics and not murder then they have no reason to fear being tarred with the brush of Nazism, just as nobody on the left need fear being tarred with the brush of Stalinism so long as they are engaged in politics and not murder. In the hands of some on the fringe right the rhetoric has shifted from asserting that Nazism was of the left to asserting that the left is of Nazism. That is just cynical abuse of one's opponents and does not need to be taken seriously. Your mistake is to judge the Nazis on their economic policy as if that matters more than the invasions, the racism and the murders. The Nazi Party article already mentions that the Nazis did take some ideas from the left. We are not trying to cover that up but, equally, we can't let that be spun up into something it isn't. Economics is important but it doesn't trump racist mass murder when evaluating a person or an organisation. You might as well judge politicians by the quality of their moustaches if it leads to a conclusion you find tactically advantageous. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources say they are right wing. TFD (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that much of the confusion of this comes from American politics, who are used to defining left and right somewhat differently due to a lack of 'traditional' right-wing views outside of the religious right (no monarchists, basically.) In 1940s Europe, the distinction between "right" and "left" had mostly to do with an ideology's relationship to the French Revolution (which had little to do with economic policy either way); as it says in Right-wing politics, the division comes down to whether an ideology embraces egalitarianism and equality or whether it believes that social stratification is natural and inevitable.  Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism are sometimes (although not always) categorized as right-wing, especially in the US, because that implicitly supports the idea of social stratification, while both mainstream socialists (even ones who support working through the free-market system) are left-wing because they seek to make people more equal.  The Nazis are defined as right-wing because they were bitterly opposed to to the revolutionary ideals of egalitarianism and equality; they supported centralized control over the core of the economy, but they also supported private property rights and the profit motive, and opposed the idea that the state should try to make people equal. --Aquillion (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying they were left-wing would be utterly denying their motives. The part that was somewhat more left leaning was purged during the Night of Long Knives. Their greatest enemy were by far communists (they accused all Jews of being "judeo-bolsheviks"). Anyhow, a name says little. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for example, isn't exactly "democratic". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nature of support
I'm currently working on various articles relating to the nature of support for the far-right. Lots of academic literature out there. Are far-right voters socially isolated as social breakdown thesis would suggest? Competing for scarce jobs/housing with immigrants as the ethnic competition thesis states? Rejecting the post-material agenda of modern progressive parties? Ideally all these articles will branch off one big article dealing with demand/supply side theories in the end.

I still think there needs to be a massive article dealing with various definitional issues. Far-right (terminology). Much of this talk page seems to concerned with such issues. It doesn't help that the nature of the far-right has changed over time. For instance Pim Fortuyn adopting social liberal values (being gay himself) in opposition to what he viewed to be a "backwards" Islamic culture Ulcerspar12 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If one searches Google books or scholar for "far right", the results are almost entirely neo-fascists. It is only used for Pim Fortuyn in newspaper headlines.  When the same term has different meanings, then disambiguation should be used.  It is not enlightening that we combine sources about groups like Pym Fortuyn and neo-fascists and present them as if they were writing about the same thing. We do not for example combine sources about Paris, France and Paris, Texas for an article about Paris.  TFD (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You make a fair point. Rydgren argues in this book  against including Pim Fortuyn in the extreme-right family given a) he wasn’t radically nationalist b) wasn’t against the EU c)  he didn’t support traditional authoritarian values d) supported the integration of immigrants so long as they adopted Dutch cultural norms.  I was thinking of his view  that Dutch anti-discrimination laws should be repealed and strong anti-islam statements when making the comparison. Something that would arguably quality as "far-right" under the Carter definition. Not that everyone accepts that one.The point I was trying to make was that for some the “right” label is just as much a bone of contention. For instance the French FN has adopted anti-globalisation sentiment more in keeping with left wing parties. The whole nature of the ideologies of these parties has changed significantly over time something that has made defitional questions all the more difficult. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rydren says Pim Fortuyn is not "extreme right-wing populist", while Carter provides a definition for "right-wing extremism." Right-wing populist, extreme right/right wing extremism and far right are three distinct concepts although different writers do not always adhere to the same terminology.  The first is a group of parties that emerged in the 1980s, the second is any group to the right of traditional liberal/conservative parties and the third is as far to the right as a group can be, generally neo-fascist.   TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The results for the far right are not almost exclusively neo-fascists at all. In her typology of extreme right parties, Elisabeth Carter (2005) identifies only two of the five types as either neo-fascist or neo-nazi. The others were variants of populism. The problem is that scholars do not agree upon a definition of the extreme right (Something Mudde made very clear). For instance, K.R. Luther maintains that the FPO is not an extreme right party, while other sources certainly do. A 'debates in the extreme right' page would be very interesting, however, it would also be exceedingly long. GM1  (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, Right-wing populist, extreme right/right wing extremism and far right are three distinct concepts although different writers do not always adhere to the same terminology. To Carter the second is any group to the right of traditional liberal/conservative parties and the third is as far to the right as a group can be.  (see p. 23)  So fascists and neo-fascists are far right, but there are non-far right groups in the extreme right, such as right-wing populists.  Compare with furniture:  all chairs are furniture but not all furniture are chairs.  TFD (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "However, in later writings he revisited his earlier assessment and argued in favour of a definition based upon three features: authoritarianism, populism and nativism" Cas Mudde, here, is referring exclusively to radical right populist parties, not the Extreme Right.Chip.berlet (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

turkish right extremism - grey wolves
there are also a turkish rights extremist gruop, the grey wolves ...

along the turkish rightism, there is the russian black-yellow-white rightism

both are anti left and a part of the right side of europe ... turkey and russia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.170.95 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Far-right politics in the United States
This article doesn't have any information about far-right politics in the United States. Wikipedia had a separate article about this topic, but it was deleted in 2010. Would it be appropriate to include a summary of this topic anywhere in Wikipedia? Jarble (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article does not have an sections about individual countries, so the U.S. does not belong here. There is nothing worse than an article about a global topic that devotes half its space to the U.S.  The U.S. article was deleted because it was an unsourced stub.  There is nothing preventing a new article, but it needs to be properly sourced and adhere to policy.  TFD (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the deletion discussion, there were other problems with that article. It was more of an unsourced list than an article, and grouped together a rather diverse list of people and organizations. There were also arguments that we did not have an article on far-left politics in the United States to serve as a counter-balance. We still don't actually, though this strain of politics is covered under American Left. If Jarble wants to recreate the article, he/she should probably start from scratch and provide new sources to establish the notability of the subject. Dimadick (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of symmetry between the terms "far right" and "far left," which is evident from using academic search engines.  The first refers to a clearly defined group of ideologies and groups that go by various names and often have no historical connection with one another.  (For example, the American Nazi Party and the KKK.)  By comparison there is no definition of what is far left.  The American Left ranged from Shachtmanites who supported Nixon and Reagan to the Weather Underground.  There is no reason to arbitarily draw a line where the far left begins and spin it off into another article.  There are certainly no reliable sources that handle it that way.
 * BTW there is also an article about the Radical Right, which is mostly about the U.S. and of which the far right is a subset.
 * TFD (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

POV of this article
This article seems to describe the more extreme far-right ideologies such as fascism and national socialism. In addition, the WP:LEAD section elaborates too much about the more extreme ideologies, mentioning genocide, etc. This is very different from the "Far-left" article on Wikipedia whose lead section is a simple definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

There is a significant difference between people described as "far-right" like Norbert Hofer or National Front in France and Benito Mussolini, which is what this article is characterizing.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem. This article is about the far right and this is what the far right is. Where is the ambiguity here? Where are the "less extreme" but still far right ideologies you want to talk about? I suspect that anything you might think fits that description would be more like ordinary right wing politics, which has its own article, than like the usual description of far right politics.


 * I am going to remove your POV tag as I don't think you have articulated a valid reason for it. That doesn't mean that we can't continue to discuss it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people see "far-right" used in the news to describe more right than centre-right groups such as National Front or Norbert Hofer, which are certainly right-wing populist or nationalist but not fascist or genocidal, and they come to this article and immediately get a much more extreme impression. Some distinction should be made, and at least the genocidal stuff should not be in the lead. The "Far-left" article has a far more balanced intro section which does not go into detail of atrocities commited by specific far-left groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems like false balance to me. National Front (UK) is a neo-facist whites-only political party. Trying to tone-down the definition of far-right to make them seem more reasonable would be absurd, and fundamentally misrepresent Wikipedia's core principles. Hofer is described by Wikipedia as a right-wing populist, and both his party and Front national are described as "Right-wing to Far-right" which seems entirely reasonable. Wikipedia should represent the topic according to sources, and we shouldn't second-guess what unnamed news sources might sometimes call someone. If you would like to propose changes to far-left politics, the place to do that is talk:far-left politics, not here. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016
Hello, I would like to add the following bibliographic item:

Halikiopoulou, D. and Vlandas, T. (2016) Risks, costs and labour markets: explaining cross-national patterns of far right party success in European Parliament elections. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54 (3). pp. 636-655. ISSN 1468-5965 doi: 10.1111/jcms.12310

2A02:C7D:5033:1200:35F7:C13:29A9:8892 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: What are these supposed to be backing up? st170e talk 22:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nazism and facism184.6.117.233 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that nazism and facism are used as examples of far-right wing politics. That's actually not true, as both nazism and facism consist of government control for the purposes of redistribution. The idea of government redistribution is a corner stone of modern liberalism and socialism. While far right is built on crony capitalism and coercion, Hitler was a socialist and hated capitalism. So long story short, the sentence that says far-right opposes egalitarianism, liberalism, and socialism is correct. But the following paragraph stating that nazism and facism are traits of far-right politics is a contradiction, as the principals of both were actually built on egalitarianism, liberalism, and socialism (whether they were successful or not is another story. ;-)) This is a simple error and has a simple fix, links to nazism and facisism should be deleted from this page and put instead on the page regarding far-left politics, if it isn't there already, I haven't checked yet. Thank you! I would've made the correction myself but the page is protected to prevent vandalism. 184.6.117.233 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and no reliable sources say that fascism was left-wing. Some people of course believe it was, but those beliefs are fringe, comparable to political conspiracy theories.  TFD (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Really, Nazism and fascism don't belong here or on the far left page. They blend elements of both sides. Nazism, for example, wanted more federal government power, they disarmed the populace, was anti-capitalist, and allowed private industry only for public advantage. He also was against immigration, multiculturalism, and populism. If they were to go anywhere, it would be to place them on a syncretic politics page. If you'd like sources, you can look at Nazism's wikipedia page where they cite this information and Fascism's wikipedia page where they cite this information. Additionally, you can look here or here.


 * Honestly, the best compromise would be to remove it from both or include it in both. It's not a matter of fringe beliefs or false balance. It's a matter of trying to represent the facts as best as can be represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.92.50 (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't want a "compromise" that makes us half wrong. We have the long term historical consensus in published history books written by actual historians from actual accredited universities around the world, and we have some stuff that fringe people on fringe TV and fringe internet locations say (maybe because it "just feels right" to them, maybe because they don't correctly understand the words they are using and are misapplying them, or maybe just because they have been heard something untrue from a source that they trust and have accepted it uncritically). We are not obliged to offer these things parity of esteem or compromise between them. Both the articles on Fascism and Nazism describe how those two things adopted some elements from the far left that they felt suited them. That is as far as the sources go. That is as far as the truth goes. If I steal a clown's shoes that does not make me a clown any more than, say, the Nazis taking the name "socialism" makes them left wing, or even half-left wing.
 * In your case what I see is you taking some very contemporary American measures of what is right and left (which are very much twisted from their stable dictionary definitions or from what would be understood in other countries where politics is less concentrated on the right) and misapplying them to something other than contemporary America. The fact that you use use the word "federal" in contexts where there was no federation shows that you are trying to fit everything into the contemporary American context. Of course, if those are the only ways in which you hear people using the terms "right" and "left" around you then it is understandable that you would do this but it is still incorrect.
 * I understand that many right wing people shudder when they read that Nazism and Fascism were right wing. I understand that they would prefer it if only goodness and apple pie was described as right wing and all the theft and murder was on the other side. Unfortunately, that just ain't true. The right had Hitler just as the left had Stalin. No sane patriot or political partisan (from any side) can deny that some of his compatriots/comrades are/were terrible people and that his side did at least a few really bad things in the past because all nations and large groupings have. We all just have to suck it up and try to learn from past mistakes. I'm British and I am not going to make in idiot of myself by trying to defend, say, The Crusades or The Opium Wars, just because my compatriots were involved in them. These were terrible things done by terrible people.
 * The key point is that people on the mainstream right need to understand that just because the far right was/is right wing that does not mean that we think they are Hitler, or even half-Hitler. It is not a dig at them. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of words
When socialists who merely want borders are demonized as "far right," it's really hard to take this label seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.1.119 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This label, and others like, are a complete farce. Right vs Left are constructions which are relate-able only in the most strained forms of discussion with artifice boundaries. Relation and actual information given is non-existent, having subjective value ONLY. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What is "Far-Right Politics?
This whole article has a serious problem starting with the title. It appears to be based on what the Left claims that "Far-Right" Politics is rather than what it actually is. Now obviously, the material covered in this article is real; it exists. And, it needs to be covered. There are political movements like those referred to as "National Front". However, they are not an extension in the same direction of Right-Wing politics. They are something different no matter what those on the Left choose to call them -- perhaps as an insult or in an attempt to discredit them.

This is a bit difficult to sort out because there are some things about "National Front" movements that are Right-Wing (either Conservative or Classical Liberal). However, and this is what is important to understand, there are also things which are most definitely not Right-Wing. Nationalism and Patriotism are Right-Wing. However, an autocratic government is NOT. You need to understand the difference and understand why Fascism is not really Right-Wing despite what Leftists say.

Tyrerj (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If by left-wing, you mean what normally appears in text-books and mainstream news reports, then unfortunately your proposal is in conflict with policies of reliable sources and weight. If you want to read articles saying that Nazis are left-wing, global warming is a hoax and the universe was created 6,000 years ago, either get the policies changed or persuade mainstream media and academics that they are wrong.  TFD (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Tradition
I've added the words "real or imagined" after the word "tradition" in the intro, as quite a lot of the "traditions" held to by the far right are not actually historically authentic traditions, but recently invented pseudo-historic harkings-back to an imagined golden age. -- The Anome (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @The Anome Then you should add a citation to that effect. Drawing the very subjective distinction between a real vs "imagined" tradition is not something a wikipedia user can assert by himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to reference it but it is far from being a subjective or controversial point. The Nazis went in for this stuff big time holding the most ludicrous faux traditional events as spectacles. If you check out the Ahnenerbe article you will get an idea of the mental landscape of false history and made up "traditions" they inhabited. Of course, not all far right groups did this with as much manic zeal but it is a definite theme in the far right. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Most observed traditions are not historically accurate anyway, but an imagined past. TFD (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

sfn
would there be any objections to converting the citations on this page to sfn? Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The first line of this article needs modifying
The first line of this article says "Far-right politics are right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right." This sentence needs a serious re-write. It comes across as gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.231.116 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Several aspects of this article require reconsideration and rewrite. The article simultaneously claims that "Far-right" means anti-elitist, and at the same time that it seeks to promote the social hierarchy. This is an overt contradiction in assertion. One cannot simultaneously support and oppose the elite of society.

Further, the article equates "far right" with Nazi-ism, which rightly is in a category all its own.

Further still, the citation is factually inaccurate - by name and definition, Nazi-ism began as a leftist movement, a 'socialist workers' party,' hence it's full name; the National Socialist German Workers' Party (correctly cited in the article, but not explained). Writers would do well to understand the history of a thing beyond linked Wiki's and the prejudicial attribution implicit in some, before equating it to a modern phenomenon. For example, very little of the tactics of the Nazi SA have not been used by the current-day "ANTIFA" organization - though the latter claims to be against everything that Nazi's represented. The only things missing with regard to the latter are the armbands, and even then, only in some cases. Like the early Nazi's, Antifa (now) claims to support national socialism (for now).

Following the links backward, the DAS party's founder was focused on workers' issues as related the Treaty of Versailles, and how poorly the average German was fated as a result. This is in no way apologist for where Hitler and Goebbels and others took the renamed, re-founded NASDP later, but is instructive with regard to modern comparisons. and others of Kershaw's research and writing.9eme (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * while there are problems with this page, your suggestions do not follow what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017
Within the Nature of Support subsection, consider adding the psychological expertise of Wilhelm Reich, which will lend weight to his publication and establish his academic credentials:

″Early academic studies adopted psychoanalytical explanations for the far-right's support. For example, the 1933 publication The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich, an M.D. who reconciled psychoanalysis with Marxism and also coined the phrase ′sexual revolution′, argued the theory that fascists came to power in Germany as a result of sexual repression.″

Also consider adding Wilhelm Reich's political conflicts of interest with the far-right as he was published in Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, the far-left German Communist Party journal and in its Russian equivalent Pod Znameniem Marxisma. https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1972/reich2.htm 97.125.243.119 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wilhelm Reich is already mentioned in that section, and it is not clear what you specifically want added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017
please do not associate the right with nazism we are not nazis nor wish to push a nazi agenda. Mr. Gibbs (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying that everybody on the right is a Nazi, just that the Nazis were on the far right, which is what all the major history books say. Check out the references we use. They are rock solid. You can present alternative references if you like but I'm sure that there are very few serious historians to say that the Nazis were anything but on the right.
 * Please remember that this is the "far-right" article. This is not about ordinary conservative people. This is about extremists. Nobody here is having a dig at you or your friends. If you read this article and think "This isn't about me" then that's great because it isn't meant to be.
 * Stalin was on the far left but that doesn't make everybody on the left a Stalinist. Rev Jim Jones was a Christian but that doesn't mean that your local priest is trying to poison people. It is the same here. Think of it this way: Nazism is one way in which the right can go horribly wrong. It doesn’t mean that everybody on the right goes that way. After all, Churchill and de Gaulle were both of the right too... --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Stalin was on the far left but that doesn't make everybody on the left a Stalinist. Rev Jim Jones was a Christian but that doesn't mean that your local priest is trying to poison people. It is the same here. Think of it this way: Nazism is one way in which the right can go horribly wrong. It doesn’t mean that everybody on the right goes that way. After all, Churchill and de Gaulle were both of the right too... --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017
Please remove the 4th paragraph completely. Nazism, fascism, xenophobic, and racist views are not views held by the right side of the political spectrum. Nazism and Fascism are far left political movements and have been historically. Xenophobic and racist views have, historically, been held by the left. 100.15.206.223 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done, completely contrary to historical consensus in reliable sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add a little detail here as it may make our anonymous friend feel a little better. Nazism and Fascism are ascribed to the far right by almost all academic sources. Xenophobia and racism are not exclusive to the far right. They can pop up anywhere but pretty much the entire far right has Xenophobia and racism so we can't decline to mention it without censoring history. They are a very major component of far right ideologies. Now, reading that might sting a bit, but it really shouldn't. If you are a normal right wing person then this isn't meant to be saying anything about you! The far right being racist, xeonophobic and fascistic doesn't mean that all normal right wing people are a little bit racist, xeonophobic or fascistic. The far right is not the normal right hyped up a bit. The far right is an extremest ideology of the right which does not need to taint anybody who is not a part of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of FAQs to point to from another talkpage that might help to address this issue as well.   Acroterion   (talk)   18:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Far-right vs conservatism
I've been noticing a lot of IP edits on PC articles changing "far-right" to "conservative" without explanation. As an editor who is unsure of why this is the case, I'd like feedback from other editors on the matter: should far-right politics be considered an extension of conservatism? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I came here from the RfC notice, so if you are just asking the question, an RfC is not needed – however, an RfC can be useful in order to determine a consensus about which term to use. I think that if this page is about the far-right, then that is the term to use. Far-right is sort of like "far"-conservatism, so they are certainly related, but my guess is that the IPs are POV-pushing to replace a term that sometimes has negative connotations with something that sounds milder. On the whole, those edits should be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that "far-right" is not equivalent to "conservative", and the latter term should not be eased into the discussion.Parkwells (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is too complicated of a question to handle via an RFC (and I feel leaping straight to an RFC is premature.) Most of the time, it's accurate to call far-right groups conservative, and in some cases it might be appropriate to switch from one to the other or to use both; but the two terms have subtly different meanings and can't be used completely interchangeably.  Beyond that, it sounds like you're asking for an RFC that affects multiple articles - I don't think you can do that with something on this page.  I suggest closing this RFC, which is overly-broad and unlikely to produce helpful results, and focusing on individual cases where the terms have come up.  It's particularly difficult to evaluate whether those editors were correct (or at least defensible) in swapping far-right for "conservative" when you haven't linked to any specific examples; certainly a blanket ban against swapping the terms (which is the only solution I can see this RFC aiming for?) is not desirable, since either the terms are similar (meaning they can be swapped freely for style reasons) or they're not (in which case it is sometimes necessary to swap from one to the other because the wrong one was used.)  Basically, what outcome would you want out of this RFC? --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe fine. The changes in those other articles may be appropriate, it depends where they are. Generally, I'd say "far" right is somewhere beyond the "conservative" when used to describe an area of political spectrum, and that "conservative" can also mean a specific philosophy. Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an overlap between the two and sometimes one term is preferable to the other. Legitimists for example were both far right and conservative, and using the term conservative helps distinguish them from fascists.  OTOH, the term conservative is overused and applied to fascists, Christian Democrats and right-wing liberals.  TFD (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis on that article's talk page. There is no categorical rule that all people/groups who are far-right are also necessarily conservative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Summoned by bot. Agree with Dr. Fleischman - it must be taken on a case-by-case basis. There is certainly overlap between "conservative" and "far-right" but generally speaking, "far-right" is more extreme than "conservative" just as "far-left" is more extreme than "liberal". Meatsgains (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How is the Far-Right in support of Laissez-Faire capitalism?
Far-right means complete control of the state. Both economically, and socially. Laissez-Faire is the ideology of capitalistic freedom or liberalism. You are not taxed and the government does not intervene. Nazis, Fascists or other "far-right groups" certainly do not support the lack of regulation. They are the ones, who argue against globalization and the multi national companies. Therefore, I do not understand why it is written, that a combination of "laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right." I think this should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.28.156 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It varies. The Pinochet dictatorship is a good example of one which was far-right but the economics was one of laissez-faire capitalism. Of course, it was a free market that you could only participate in if you had not already been shot by his goons, so you can call that hypocrisy if you like. Nazi Germany was also fairly free market at the outset, for participants who met their ludicrous arbitrary ethnic and political standards at least. Those apolitical businessmen who joined the Nazi Party, were careful not to step on any Nazi toes, and gave generous donations to Nazi causes went about their business mostly unmolested, in a haze of fake normality, even as the state around them became the most intolerable that the world has ever seen. So it isn't as clear cut as it might seem at first glance. Laissez-faire capitalism can exist, with a degree of hypocrisy, in Far Right states and certainly in Far Right verbiage.
 * So should we change the description? I don't know. It appears in a section introducing the idea of Right-wing populism and a lot of Right-wing populists do spout a line on Laissez-faire capitalism these days, whether they truly mean it or not, and whether the other things that they say blatantly contradict it or not.
 * I'm thinking that maybe it would be acceptable to prune "Laissez-faire capitalism" back to just "Capitalism". What does everybody else think? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it should be kept. The Tea Party, UKIP and various other parties are extremely pro-free market.  Note the article says they are sometimes described as far right.  That's when far right is used to mean to the right of the older parties of the right (liberals, conservatives, Christian democrats).  But not when far right is defined as being as far right as possible, i.e., fascism.  I have long complained that this article confuses the two.  TFD (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It does seem pretty Anglocentric to label right wing populism as laissez faire: the Tea Party and UKIP favour tax cuts (but also generally protectionism) but many other parties or factions traditionally labelled as right wing populist have positioned themselves to the left of their countries' mainstream conservative parties on [some] economic issues. Laissez faire as an economic philosophy originated as a movement to reduce barriers to trade, whilst nearly all right wing populist parties/factions are protectionist. I'd be inclined to follow DanielRigal's pruning suggestion of trimming it back to "capitalist" which is more universally accurate. What do the actual sources say? Dtellett (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to Ware's book, but can quote Hans-Georg Betz, who was one of the first writers to identify the topic: right-wing populist parties "tend to combine a classic liberal position on the individual and the economy with the sociopolitical agenda of the extreme and intellectual new right." (pp. 413-414)  This article says that rw populism "often combines laissez-faire capitalism" etc."  Note often does not mean always.  While the economic message has dominated the parties in the Anglosphere, it has also dominated many European parties:  the  Progress Party (Denmark) the Alternative for Germany, Law and Justice (Poland), the Swiss People's Party, the Vlaams Belang (Belgium), and others.  And the first rw populist, Pierre Poujade began his movement as a tax revolt.  Anyway just saying capitalism isn't saying anything.  The old line parties support capitalism too.  TFD (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report
You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10362/shouldnt-anarchism-be-far-right-since-right-wing-politics-opposes-big-governm

This whole article is wrong, FAR right is less government less and less till anarchy... FAR left is more and more like FACISM!!! get it right! 67.135.214.6 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a frequently asked, and frequently answered, question. Please read the FAQ at the top of this page for the standard (and correct) answer. Note: The FAQ talks about the Nazi Party but the answer is valid for all far-right organisations. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

definition of right vs left may be off
Historians are divided on how to classify the right and left, this is one definition when we need to talk about the many definitions and allow people to decide for themselves. Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left because left referred to states with more government control and the right referred to less state control...so businesses had freedom. Any state could be nationalist or fascist or egalitarian or matriarchal or patriarchal etc. While some people have created matrices that have two variables fascism and level of state control or government involvement it leaves out so many other variable like level of nationalism etc. We can't put them all onto a grid, so people are still arguing to keep right and left with the original meaning of more or less government involvement. Each one of these different definitions needs to be included and discussed and the intro paragraph needs to talk about how there's different definitions not just be a generalized and biased statement favoring one over the other. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a political platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.141.63 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As a foot note: Far right is usually considered Anarchism (no, or anti-government), which is the opposite of authoritarianism (total government, statist). Due to the authoritarian nature of the Nazi Party and its socialist foundations; Hitler took over a Marxist party {as a spy for his government}, to found the Nazi [National Socialist] Party and used the colors of the socialist party of Germany at the time (Red) to display his political beliefs, it is clear how the confusion of, if it was right or left came about. Some speculate that at the time after the war, because of Democratic pre war support of the Nazi party, the Democrat's wanted to separate themselves from such a notorious regime and deemed that Nationalism made it right wing, though Nationalism seems to be a trait of both left and right (IE Russia, China, South Korea, USA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEMGavin (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You have made more less the same point on three different talk pages. You are incorrect on all three. To say "Traditionally Nazis for instance were classified as being on the left" is simply not true. The mainstream academic consensus since 1945 has put the Nazis on the far right. Even historians who are right wing themselves have tended to agree with this. It is only in recent years, and only really in the USA, that there has been a concerted attempt at revisionism to promote this rather fringe view for what are clearly tactical political reasons. We are not going to ignore this view completely, as it does have one or two respectable adherents who pre-date the current wave of cynical revisionism, but it can not expect parity of esteem with, never mind to override, 70 years of mainstream international scholarship. Also please read the FAQ. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone consider who is doing the classification of the term far right? Political foes? Those with some other religious or racial axe to grind? To appeal to a magazine such as Macleans without examining their ties to political ideologies is a grave injustice. To call Ezra Levant far right or alt right which has Nazi, Neo-Nazi or white supremacist connotations is a completely disingenuous fabrication. He is Jewish for heaven sake. Who ever heard of a Jewish Nazi? He has also made it abundantly clear that he believes in equality and despite what some might believe he has Muslim friends who share his concern about radical Islam. Does that make them Islamophobic? He has had to endure a lengthy smear campaign largely by political foes who had shovelled hundreds of millions of dollars to a sympathetic, rather pathetic press who are not doing due diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sick Of Spin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ranting doesn't help. The problem is that it isn't us you need to convince. If you want to try to overturn the long-term global academic consensus (on any subject, not just this one) then Wikipedia is 100% the wrong place to start. Convince the world first and then we will document the new consensus (whether or not we agree with it personally). Until then we will continue to document the existing one (whether or not we agree with it personally).
 * On a more specific note, I'm not sure where you got the idea of a "Jewish Nazi" from. It certainly isn't in the article. In fact, the article doesn't even mention Ezra Levant at all so I'm not sure why you are even talking about him here. Maybe you are angry because you think that the article is saying things that it isn't? If so, that isn't good for anybody's blood pressure. Maybe dial that back a bit? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard right
How about a separate Hard-right page? There is, after all, a Hard left page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garageland66 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hard right redirects here, so there is a page that covered that subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

there's a word WP could maybe do without...
…and that would be ultraconservative.

The term appears ~200 times in Wikipedia — plus at least another 150 as ultra-conservative — yet is nowhere defined, and seems to be entirely as pejorative as it is nebulous. Is it further Rightward than "far-right"? How about "extreme right"? Where does that leave "hard right"?

For that matter, at what point does "far right" butt up to "reactionary"?

Really, I am no friend of Rightists, but this sort of slipshod writing does nothing to clarify discussion or understanding. Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The term should be understood by the context in which it is used. Since ultra means extremely, ultraconservative means extremely conservative.  TFD (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no problem is using "ultraconservative" or "ultraliberal", as long as those designations are sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Ultra" does not mean "extremely", it means "beyond" - therefore, "beyond conservative" - meaning, so far to the right that it can no longer be adequately described by the term "conservative". 82.176.221.176 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is literally true, but not idiomatically true, or else all those "ultra-deluxe" apartments for sale or hotel rooms to rent would be so far beyond "deluxe" that they were no longer deluxe, which ain't the case. Idiomatically, "ultra" means "extremely". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick internet search reveals that the term "ultra-conservative" was apparently first recorded in 1828 (source: Etymonline), and a search in Google Books reveals that it was in common use by the 1850s. At the time, no such abominable marketing-speak as "ultra-deluxe" was in use, therefore, any considerations relating to the meaning of "ultra" in such a context is not relevant to the meaning of "ultra-conservative". When the term "ultra-conservative" was coined and when it came into general use, it was understood to mean "beyond conservative", so that's how it should be interpreted etymologically. Modern idiomatic usage of the term "ultra" is just not relevant - or would you argue that we apply this logic in like cases and should, for example, stop using the term "literally" in its correct meaning because so many people use it when they mean "figuratively"? I would suggest you search Google Books for "ultra-conservative" and set a filter to give you only 19th century results, I am sure you will agree that the term is consistently used to indicate what the writer considers politics that is beyond what could be called conservative. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that what people actually mean when they use a word is not relevant? I think Humpty-Dumpty would disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read carefully, you'll find that, actually, YOU are saying that. You want to use a contemporary marketing-related use of a word, which you claim is more idiomatically correct without providing a single source to back up that assertion, to retroactively reinterpret the meaning of a word coined well over a century before that usage supposedly became common. Should we also use your logic and say that the term "The Gay '90s" meant that the 1890s were a time of overt homosexuality because the term "gay" now idiomatically means homosexual rather than joyful? The political term "ultra-conservative" was coined to mean "beyond conservative", reinterpreting it to mean "very conservative" because the meaning of "ultra" as a separate adjective may have shifted is unencyclopaedic and incorrect. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us who these people were who were literally beyond conservative? TFD (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good historical examples would include the political supporters of French king Charles X, who sought to undo all changes in France since the Revolution and a good deal of the changes made in the 18th century, much of political Catholicism in the 19th century, the Dutch statesman Groen van Prinsterer and his followers, many of the hardline monarchist politicians in the German Second Empire, notably Kaiser Wilhelm II himself, arguably Prince Metternich and definitely the rightmost section of Russian politics under the Tsar. Note that there is a considerable overlap with the term "reactionary" when that term is used in a technical sense and not as a slur. As the wikipedia-article on the term "reactionary" states, not all reactionaries are right wing. By all means, take the advise I offered earlier and look for the use of the term ultra-conservative as used in the 19th century on Google books. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of these people were referred to as conservatives. Indeed, Maistre and Chateaubriand are considered the pioneers of conservatism and they held these views. Of course they would be considered reactionary conservatives as opposed to liberal conservatives. TFD (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
In the lead section I would propose "anti-communist" be removed as this suggests that being "anti-communist" is a far-right position when it is a non extremist position in just as much as "anti-nazi" wouldn't be considered a far left position. JamesWoods87 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That is meant to summarise all their views, not just the extreme ones. Maybe it does give that impression as most of the other views listed are pretty extreme. I would not suggest removing it as it is a very major part of their schtick. In fact, the far-right has continued to bang on about communism, long after communism has ceased to be a live issue for most people. If this does need a tweak, and I'm neutral on that, then I think it should be something other than removing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Anti-communism in fact refers to an extreme antipathy toward communism, rather than just opposition to the ideology or the states it controls. Compare with anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism. We would not say they are defining characteristics of Protestantism, although they exist in some extreme Protestant sects. Anti-liberalism, another defining aspect of the far right, similarly is not used to describe moderate conservatives and socialists. TFD (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong and please educate me as I'm a new contributor, wouldn't the default position be extreme antipathy towards communism just as much as nazism? Therefore using "anti-communist" as a definition for far-right would mean that anyone who is not a communist is in fact far-right? --JamesWoods87 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. There is more antipathy towards nazism. There are communist views published in academic writing but few if any in support of Hitler. Communist parties in Western Europe have greater respectablity than Nazi parties. Syriza for example, which is a coaltion including communist groups, is considered far less menacing than Golden Dawn, which has Nazi roots. Nazis are typically considered hate groups, while communist groups are not. Also, the term anti-fascist (abbreviated as antifa) is generally only applied to the more vocal opponents of fascism. TFD (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: should we remove "anti-communism" in some or instances in the article?
Should we remove the ideology of "anti-communism" in some (or all) instances of the article? made an edit request for that edit to be made, I responded to the edit request, made the edit, but was reverted by as "no consensus for this edit". L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. Why would we want to remove correct and significant facts from the article? Wikipedia is not censored. Why are we even being invited to discuss this? I don't get it. Unless there is an actual rationale for removal then there is nothing to discuss and I suggest we just give up on this pointless RFC. If there is a rationale then please add it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No It is an essential part of most far right ideologies. Some editors seem to think that the term means just opposition to communism, but it actually refers to extreme opposition and even to ideologies they perceive as equivalent to communism such as socialism, liberalism and moderate conservatism. TFD (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No Anti-communist rhetoric, persecution, and extermination of communists (and socialists) are an essential part of fascist ideologies. At least since the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti in 1924. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia's own entry for "anti-communism" states "Anti-communism has been an element of movements holding many different political positions, including nationalist, social democratic, liberal, conservative, fascist, capitalist, anarchist and even socialist viewpoints. " which means that the label of "far-right" cannot be applied to someone just because they are "anti-communism", in no way can socialist viewpoints be considered "far-right"" JamesWoods87 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But literally nobody is trying to do that! We are saying that the far-right is anti-communist (which is uncontroversially true), not that anti-communists are far-right (which is only sometimes, but not generally, true). There is a long history of conservatives, liberals and democratic socialists all being anti-communist (although not to the point of murdering them as the far-right often have) and nobody is calling them far-right. I still don't even begin to understand the basis of this discussion. I think there may be some bayoneting of a straw man going on but I struggle to identify an even semi-coherent straw man here. It may well be that the perceived problem is solely due to a failure to parse the existing article content correctly. If there is anything we can add to make it more clear then we should do that. What we are not going to do is remove facts just because some people have misunderstood them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No - In addition to what's already been said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. The article should not be abused to help anti-communists or the far-right with their optics. Some far-right groups have recently revived the older habit of emphasizing their "anti-communism" while downplaying other terms. This may be euphemistic, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. From that, "anti-communist" has become more closely associated with violence, racism, and similar (,, etc.). This is not Wikipedia's problem to solve, and if the far-right is anti-communist, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No: the edit request that precipitated this seems to be WP:OR that we should not entertain. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I think JamesWoods87 is very confused. Saying that anti-communism is often a feature of far-right political movements is absolutely not the same as saying that the far right is the only place on the political spectrum that one finds anti-communists or that all anti-communists hold far-right views. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes While some far-right people are rightly categorized as 'anti-communist' it would be more appropriate to state that a faction of the right is anti-communist. However the wording, like most of this article is broad and bias.  It should more appropriately state that there are many factions in the far-right that consider themselves to be anti-communist (as a defining feature) while there are some far-right communists (national collectivist).  I think the issue lies with imprecise language and 'anti-communist' should be changed to 'anti-global communist' (or anti-international communist).  One sacrifice of individual to the nation, the other sacrifice of the individual to the world. D3bug l0gic (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll be the sacrificial idiot who responds to this one... Who on the far-right is not anti-communist? Just one or two examples would be very interesting. You mention "some far-right communists". I don't think anybody ever saw one of those. Please can you explain exactly who or what you mean, because I am pretty sure that I am not the only person scratching their head here? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there is always Strasserism, the anti-capitalst strand of Nazism. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's well-cited and the objections to it seem to be based on vague gut-feelings about what the far right is rather than what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Being anti-communist doesn't make you far right but the article doesn't say it is. It's mentioned twice in the article. I don't see the need to chop it up. Perhaps more can actually be added to discuss the topic to give some context to the far-right relationship to anti-communism.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Those on the far-right are anti-communist, however this is not a characterising factor or feature of the far-right. Those on the right-wing, centre-right, centre, centre-left and most on the left-wing are also opposed to communism, which mainly sits on the far-left. An umpteen amount of ideologies could be added that the far-right oppose such as liberalism, social liberalism, social democracy, feminism etc. Opposing any one or all of these (or being in favour of anti-communism) does not make a person or organisation far-right. The focus should be more on what the far-right is, as opposed to what it is against. A brief list can be included in the main body of the article, but I don't think its useful to include this list as characterisation for what the far-right is as a summary in the introuction. Even if it is to be included, anti-communism should not make up part of the list because of its broad scope outside of the far-right. This isn't the Cold War, the world isn't polarised around communism vs anti-communism anymore. Helper201 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018
So you can edit left wing not not right wing? Wow 92.20.67.227 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Protection of each page is determined based on that page's history. If you think the page should be unprotected, please contact the administrator who originally protected the page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)