Talk:Fascism/Archive 18

Fascism is not a general term
Fascism is not actually a general term. It refers to a specific movement in Italy in the interwar period. Because of this, the terms Fascism and Fascist are proper nouns, and are always capitalized. I'm not sure how else to deal with a long article that has a completely wrong scope. Generalcp702 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. The term Fascism, or sometimes Italian fascism or Italian Fascism, refers to a specific movement. However, the term fascism is also a general term for highly authoritarian, corporatist, nationalist and anti-left governments or groups, and their beliefs. The distinction is blurred alightly, fascism (the term if not the ideology) is derived from Fascism, and Fascism is certainly a type of fascism. The issue is confusing even to scholars of the subject. However, this article deals with the general term referring to what is generally seen as a far-right ideology; the article on capital-F Fascism is located at Italian fascism. -  Swi tch t 09:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for telling me that. Generalcp702 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
This was added, I think by Joe Carson after the comparing fascism to socialism discussion. It seems a little strong, especially considering the minority viewpoint involved. Shall we remove it?Felix-felix 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Article has a left-wing bias. For example, there is a whole section on anti-communism and nothing on anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism. Until that bias is removed POV tag should remain. -- Vision Thing -- 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anticonservatism
As I already said, according to Roger Griffin, who is recognized as a major mainstream scholar of fascism even by Cberlet, scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism but many scholars agree that all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis. So either anticonservatism must be there or none of the other elements should be listed. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not dare use my name to claim that what you are doing, Vision Thing, is anything other than pushing a marginal right-wing POV--one that has been debated and defeated here repeatedly. It is an outrageous misrepresentation of my views. It is an outrageous misrepresentation of the general agreement among diverse scholars. It is a prime example of the Big Lie...ironic under the circumstances--Cberlet 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that view that anticonservatism is one of the main elements of fascism is "a marginal right-wing POV"? If you are not, I don't see any point in your derogatory comment. -- Vision Thing -- 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For you to invoke my name to promote a view that you know I disagree with was dishonest. Is that more clear? Please do not misrepresent my views again.--Cberlet 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I invoked your name to promote a fact that Roger Griffin is a major mainstream scholar of fascism. Since, to best of my knowledge, you agree that he is, I don't see anything dishonest about what I said. Anyway, do you have anything to say on the actual issue? -- Vision Thing -- 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Your views on this subject, Vision Thing, are marginal right-wing POV. You have repeatedly tried to force your marginal POV onto this and other pages. This has repeatedly been rejected by a majority of editors. It is tiresome. It is also annoying that you have a passive/agressive manner through which you pretend that these matters have not been discussed repeatedly. This is not constructive or collaborative editing. Please consider setting up a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Cberlet 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My views are not the issue here, issue are views of Roger Griffin and many scholars who say that anticonservatism is a major element of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anticonservatism? This is nonsense!Felix-felix 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

<-Vision Thing, I reverted that term because I also thought it was nonsense. It's certainly true that fascism goes far beyond conservatism, but it's also the case that fascism has a good deal in common with conservatism, especially in regard to things like morality, patriotism, etc. By what criteria can it possibly be considered oppositional? Can you please cite and quote for us the actual passages from serious scholars which you contend bear out this argument? Cgingold 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Griffin means that fascism is a radical methodology, not a conservative methodology, and that it opposes the reforms of conservative political pluralists. This is an issue of semantics--a word being stretched to make a political argument that is not supported by most scholars of fascism. The fascists opposed the conservatives in Germany and Italy, but "anti-conservatism" does not fit in with the other core elements in the list properly placed in the lede.--Cberlet 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Payne's definition from Fascism: Comparison and Definition:

A. The Fascist Negations: (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)''
 * Antiliberalism
 * Anticommunism
 * Anticonservatism

B. Ideology and Goals:
 * Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
 * Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
 * The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
 * Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

C. Style and Organization:
 * Emphasis on esthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
 * Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
 * Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
 * Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society
 * Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
 * Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective.

According to Roger Griffin in The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology: ''The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism.

The same thought is repeated in his article Fascism for encyclopedia Encarta: '' Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis.'' In this article it can also be seen on what he thinks when he talks about anticonservatism.

What I find troubling is that Cberlet, since Fascism is one of his areas of study, must have known for this view and its acceptance in the mainstream circles. Even one writer from his Political Research Associates in the article What is Fascism? admits: Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism. But instead of saying this clear Cberlet goes from page to page ranting about my "right-wing POV". -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the main problems is that there are different meanings to the word conservativism. It could mean "staying the same" or right wing politics (which most people will assume when they see the word in a political article such as this. Those writers above don't seem to imply that fascism is against right wing politics, but that fascism is more reactionary, militant and right wing than mainstream conservative parties. Spylab 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put, and I think that this point isn't lost on anyone who's contributing to this thread. Fascism is a radical right wing ideology. The suppossed anticonservative element applies to the former rather than the latter part.Felix-felix 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spylab, I wish to know how did you interpret "genuinely revolutionary" as more reactionary?
 * Fact is they are talking about anti-conservatism, and if we want to avoid original research we should leave our interpretations aside. -- Vision Thing -- 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the sake of not taking quotes out of context, could you provide further information regarding Griffin's analysis? I'm interested to know what "the last analysis" is, and why he explicitly clarifies that it is only in that context. ~  Swi tch t 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my post you have links to on-line Griffin's texts. -- Vision Thing -- 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the anti-conservatism of fascism, I think in such contexts what is meant by "conservatism" is the traditional 19th/early 20th century variety - associated with the monarchy, the established church, and the traditional aristocracy; opposed to representative institutions and popular sovereignty; respectful of traditional values and, especially, of traditional authority. Fascists often mocked traditional conservative parties as tools of the old aristocracy, while they (or so they claimed) represented the true national impulses of the real people. Traditional conservatism, like 19th century liberalism, but to an even greater extent, was highly elitist, while fascism has always been largely based on crude populism. On the other hand, it's also true that some quasi-fascist movements have certainly been more friendly to traditional conservative types than, say, the Nazis were. The Action Française is a good example - it attached traditional monarchism to various ideas that were much closer to those of traditional fascism. The same can be said of, say, Franco's regime in Spain, or the clerical dictatorships of Salazar in Portugal and Dollfuss/Schuschnigg in Austria. But these aren't generally considered to be truly fascist movements or regimes, but rather hybrids, who took up some aspects of fascism, but also incorporated strong helpings of traditional conservatism. The DNVP under the leadership of Alfred Hugenberg can be seen in a similar light - and they were pilloried as tools of the old Prussian aristocracy by the Nazis. So, anyway, fascism is in some ways anti-conservative, but only in a few very specific senses. While the anti-liberalism of fascism is clear and intuitive enough, the anti-conservatism is a lot more complicated, and can be misleading if laid out without any explanation. john k 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Many scholars see anti-conservatism as a major element of fascism, because of its attempt to create a new society in form of a single organic national community."? -- Vision Thing -- 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is a right wing ideology
Should this not be mentioned in the introduction? (A bit more relevant than the spurious comparisons to socialism or definition stretching anti-conservatism.) Whaddya reckon?Felix-felix 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fascism as a right-wing ideology depends on your definition of that term. The definition of conservatism and right-wing has a greater variance than socialism.  Anyone who has studied fascism and socialism can easily see the similarities between the economic systems.  However, when both Barry Goldwater and George Bush are lumped in as right-wing conservatives, the term loses any significance.  Militaristic would more accurately describe that overlap.


 * It would be appropriate to include the fact that Fascism is considered by some to be a right-wing ideology and by some to be a left-wing ideology. However, it is disingenuous to state outright that it is a ____-wing ideology.
 * (JoeCarson 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC))


 * There is no clear consensus on fascism being right-wing ideology. It is often considered a Third way between right and left, and some call it left-wing. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is very clear consensus on the right wing nature of fascism-I've got to say that these debates denying the essential nature of fascism are pretty surreal.Felix-felix 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, for the most part, he's right - corporatism, to some people, seems at odds with right-wing laissez-faire ideology, and so fascism is sometimes thought of as neither left- nor right-wing. However, fascism is generally seen as far-right, and I don't see a reason not to include it. ~  Swi tch t 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but surreal is an understatement! Only if you focus exclusively on the economic aspects (i.e. the similarities with corporatist socialism) and completely ignore all of the other dimensions of Fascism, can you possible pretend that there is "doubt" or "uncertainty" about it being very much a right-wing ideology. Good grief. Are we living in parallel universes? Cgingold 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, shall we pop it in the introduction then? And remove the NPOV tag whilst we're at it?Felix-felix 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, while most major scholars see a relationship between fascism and right-wing ideologies and groups, there is no clear consensus among scholars on how to decribe that relationship in a short definition. This page has seen many debates over this issue, and perhaps we all need to go back and revisit the discussion pages before opening up what has in the past turned into a revert war. I have no problem calling fascism right wing in my outside writing, but here on Wikipedia what matters is an accurate and NPOV portrayal of the majority reputable scholarship and significant minority scholarship.--Cberlet 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Cberlet is right. There are people on the far right who do focus only on the economic aspects and claim that fascism is not right-wing. As it says in the far right article:
 * Fascism is generally, but not universally, classified as a far-right ideology. Libertarian scholars such as F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises are noteworthy dissenters from that view; Hayek even considered it far left (see Fascism and ideology). However, even strong Miseans like Murray Rothbard put fascism on the right.
 * I think something to that effect is entirely appropriate. It is seen by almost everyone as far right; however, some (but not all) free-market capitalists claim that it is not, and some actually claim it is leftist. ~  Swi tch t 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if we put question of clear consensus aside, I don't see what is gained by labeling some movement as a right or left wing since those terms are not precise. What use there is in labeling both Libertarian socialism and Stalinism as left wing? -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SwitChar, issue is not that simple. There are people who are not free-market capitalists and who are reluctant to just label fascism as a "right wing". -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I should clarify: It's only free-market capitalists (as far as I know) who call fascism left-wing, but there are people at various locations on the political spectrum, both "left" and "right", who are not comfortable with calling it simply "right-wing". I doubt you'll find a reliable source from anyone other than a free-market capitalist though. ~  Swi tch t 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of anyone but fairly committed right wingers describe fascism as left wing, and it is commonly recognised by the majority of people as an extreme right wing ideology. Free market ideology is relatively new, rightist command economies preceeded it, and fascism is one example.Felix-felix 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there are plenty of reliable sources for claim that fascism combined elements of both left and right. -- Vision Thing -- 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's a different mater to saying that fascism isn't right wing, of even that it's left wing, isn't it?Felix-felix 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is the same thing as saying that fascism isn't right wing, because a movement that combines elements from both left and right is neither left nor right, but a new creation – commonly called a "Third way". -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

SwitChar says above that "corporatism, to some people, seems at odds with right-wing laissez-faire ideology." It is worth noting that traditionally, there has never been any particular association of laissez faire with the political right. Traditional conservatives in the 19th century thought laissez-faire was immoral and symptomatic of godless liberalism. It was generally liberals, who were, at worst, in the center of the political spectrum in the 19th century, if not the left, who opened up markets, ended monopolies, and that kind of thing. The right used to be about respecting traditional political authority, not any particular kind of economic views at all. We mustn't confuse the present-day center right with the right wing more broadly. It is exactly out of such confusion that the odd idea that fascism is left wing arises. john k 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This was essentially I was getting at, above. Except you put it better than me.Felix-felix 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the reason why I think that right-left qualifiers should be avoided, specially in the intro. They don't clarify anything, they just create mix-up without additional explanations. -- Vision Thing -- 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. That fascism has, since its inception, been considered a movement of the far right should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article.  The key words, though, are "been considered."  There's no such thing as a "real" left or right.  These are merely labels that have been attached to various political movements.  In general, I think that style and self-perception, much more than actual details of policies, have always defined "left" and "right".  To try to turn them into essentialist categories, to say that Stalin wasn't a "real" leftist or that Hitler wasn't a "real" right winger, is to misunderstand their very nature.  That being said, the perception of whether a political movement is on the left or the right is nonetheless very important, and ought to be mentioned.  john k 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned, in section Definitions. -- Vision Thing -- 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And perhaps it should be mentioned in the intro?Felix-felix 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the term "far right" was designed so as to refer by definition to fascism and other extreme nationalistic movements. I have never heard anyone use "far right" to refer to anything other than extreme nationalism. "Right-wing" may be a vague and contested term, but "far right" is not. -- Nikodemos 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Far right" is also "right wing", and if one disputes that fascism was "right wing" it also disputes that it was "far right". -- Vision Thing -- 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course fascism is 'far right'. It is also right wing, as is obvious to all but a few rightist ideologues who seem to be found exclusively on this page. But you are correct, the term 'far right' is used in no other context.Felix-felix 09:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I still really think the intro should mention that fascism is commonly seen as far right, that is contested, a couple of free-market capitalists claim it is left-wing, some people think it is a third way, all this "left" and "right" business concerning fascism is still controversial. Is there really a problem with that? ~  Swi tch t 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The perception that fascism is a movement of the "far right" is the only thing about fascism and the political spectrum that is worth mentioning in the introduction. The rest of it is quibbling by a minority, and doesn't belong in the intro.  We shouldn't say that fascism is a political movement of the far right, because such a statement doesn't really mean anything and is unnecessarily combative.  But that it has, since its inception, been perceived to be such is important, and belongs in the intro.  Beyond that, debating where fascism "really" lies on the left-right political spectrum seems largely worthless to me, because there's no single "real" meaning to what "left" and "right" mean in politics.  IMO, perception is all that matters in this issue, and in this case the perception has clearly always been that fascism is a movement of the right.  Even those writers who assert the opposite have to explicitly make their arguments in a context where it is generally understood that fascism is on the right, and to acknowledge that. john k 16:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. In my mind, the only points worth making is that in some cases (not Spain, I don't think) Fascists at times competed with Socialist parties for supporters, and Fascism has generally competed against or attacked socialists and communists and anarchists.  I think this is accurate, but my point is it is specific and doesn't require semantic discussions about anachronistic terms like left and right. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of cited mainstream information
I'd like to note that Jkelly is deleting cited information from maintream sources. The information is that "collectivism" is a part of fascism, in the intro. Collectivism, in political philosophy, refers to philosophy that places that goals of a state or race above the individual. Not only do scholars of political philosophy note that collectivism is a part of fascism, but so do the fascists themselves, such as Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. Deleting this cited information is disruptive and should be stopped.Anarcho-capitalism 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read through the talkpage archives. Jkelly 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop being disruptive and do not delete cited information. What you're doing is vandalistic.Anarcho-capitalism 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the introduction should contain only the uncontroversial aspects of fascism (for example, no one disputes the fact that fascism is nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian). Collectivism certainly is a feature that has been assigned to fascism by some authors, but it is controversial. It should be discussed in the body of the article, but preferably not listed in the intro. -- Nikodemos 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not controversial. Fascism is well accepted as political collectivism. Who would dispute that? If the individual is seen as existing to serve the state (as in Italian Fascism) or race (as in Nazism), that's collectivism. When Mussolini himself says it's collectivism, what is there to dispute?Anarcho-capitalism 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The dispute is simple: All fascist movements had a charismatic leader - an individual - who held absolute power and who gave orders that everyone else was expected to obey without question. To what extent can we speak of collectivism in a movement so focused on individual leadership? -- Nikodemos 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The orders that fascist leaders gives are to put the nation, state, society, or race above the interests of the self ..to sacrifice self-interest for the collective. Fascism is the ultimate in collectivism. But there's not point you and I debating this. What matters are the citations. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't see anything controversial about it. In it's "Collectivism" article: "Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy..."Anarcho-capitalism
 * The orders of fascist leaders were anything those leaders wanted them to be. But regardless, I agree that sources are needed to make any solid argument. I will not remove the mention of collectivism unless I run across a source denying it or otherwise proving that it is controversial. -- Nikodemos 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And you sem to be describing statism rather than collectivism, which is a rather broader church.Felix-felix 09:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberalism and Rightism
It's probably important to note in this article that when Mussolini was saying he was on the "Right" and at the same time saying he was against "liberalism" that back then classical liberalism was considered to be on the left. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense, because I think a lot of people today see laissez-faire as being on the right. That wasn't always the case. "Liberalism" is by definition of the Left. It's just that those that considered themselves on the left were for laissez-faire, wherease those today that consider themselves on the left or "liberal" in the U.S. are interventionists.Anarcho-capitalism 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are trying to interpret European political terms from an American perspective, which is why it does not seem to make much sense to you. When Mussolini said he was on the Right, he was talking about the long tradition of European conservatism, the conservatism of "king, fatherland, family". Present-day Europeans do not see laissez-faire as being on the right, they see nationalism as being on the right. Which is exactly how Mussolini saw it. And "liberalism" is not necessarily associated with outright laissez-faire, but all those who call themselves liberals are generally less interventionist than those who call themselves anything else. If Americans choose to use political terms differently from the rest of the world, that is their problem. -- Nikodemos 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore my comment about U.S. usage. It's not really relevant to my point. In worldwide terminology, liberalism was considered to be on the left back then. Mussolini was against the left. He was against classical liberalism. To be on the Right was to be a conservative and opposed to liberalism (what we call today "classical" liberalism). "Classical liberalism" (the laissez-faire philosophy) was simply called "liberalism" back then and, of course, was considered to be on the Left.Anarcho-capitalism 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberalism was not considered to be on the left in the 1920s. That just isn't true.  It was in the center.  And no, "classical liberalism", as defined today, is most certainly not identical to "liberalism" in the 1920s, although there are certainly similarities.  But a liberal party like the German People's Party was most certainly never considered to be on the left in Weimar Germany, for instance.  It was clearly a party of the center-right, as, for instance, its support for Hindenburg for president in 1925 pretty clearly shows (the party's monarchism in its early years doesn't help, either).  john k 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it's just not true at all that laissez faire was considered to be the left in, of all times, the 1920s. This might be considered to have been true in the mid-19th century.  But, er, socialism?  Communism? Those were big in the 1920s, and being opposed to them was big in fascist rhetoric. john k 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was in the process of being redefined during that time, sure. The liberalism he was talking about was laissez-faire liberalism of Adam Smith and such. Laissez-faire philosophy (classical liberalism) used to be considered Left in the 19th century. By the time Mussolini was talking about being on the Right and against liberalism, at the very least we know that he did not considere laissez-faire liberalism to be on the right. You could be correct that he considered it to be in the center at that time, but I doubt it. I don't know for sure without sources. I'll look around.Anarcho-capitalism 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed here. Mussolini was on the right, but that does not prevent him from being opposed to other groups on the right.  Fascism has, in general, often been at odds with traditional conservatism, for instance.  On the other side of the spectrum, various left wing groups have frequently detested one another, while still tacitly understanding (if not publicly admitting) that their opponents are also on the left.  I agree that liberalism was not exactly on the right in the 1920s, but it was certainly not on the left either.  Opposition to liberalism in this case mostly meant not so much liberalism's economic agenda (which fascist regimes intermittently pursued, quietly) but the political meaning of liberalism - representative government, freedom of speech, that kind of stuff.  Usually this was accompanied by rhetoric about liberalism's economic policies (stolen from Marxists, usually), but in practice fascist economic policy wasn't all that different from that pursued by the liberals of the day (note that Hitler's first main economic advisor was Hjalmar Schacht, an old liberal). And by no standard was liberalism  on the left in this period.  Socialists and Communists were the left.  Some of the more left-wing liberals might be considered to be on the left, but only barely, and not really very much. john k 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO it is best to avoid this talk about left and right, if cannot be properly explained. Quotes of course cannot be changed. Left and right and centre are changing all the time between different times and different countries. "Liberalism" is not by definition on the left - in the 19th century it always was in the centre (at least in Europe) between Conversativism and Radical Democracy and Early Socialism. Str1977 (smile back) 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Except I'd amend to say "continental Europe." john k 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, classical liberalism was considered to be the Left and I just found a source. According to Jeff Riggenbach in an article called "The Mighty Flynn" in Liberty Magazine, speaking of liberalism in the U.S.: liberals were accepted members of the Left before 1933. Yet, without changing any of their fundamental views, all of them, over the next decade, came to be thought of as exemplars of the political Right."Anarcho-capitalism 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about continental Europe, not the United States. john k 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The original Left were laissez-faire liberals. In the French ssembly in the late 18th century, the conservatives sat on the Right and the laissez-faire liberals sat on the Left. "But the worst thing about the rise of the socialist movement was that it was able to outflank the classical liberals "on the Left": that is, as the party of hope, of radicalism, of revolution in the Western World. For, just as the defenders of the ancien régime took their place on the right side of the hall during the French Revolution, so the liberals and radicals sat on the left; from then on until the rise of socialism, the libertarian classical liberals were "the Left," even the "extreme Left," on the ideological spectrum. As late as 1848, such militant laissez-faire French liberals as Frédéric Bastiat sat on the left in the national assembly. The classical liberals had begun as the radical, revolutionary party in the West, as the party of hope and of change on behalf of liberty, peace, and progress. To allow themselves to be outflanked, to allow the socialists to pose as the "party of the Left," was a bad strategic error, allowing the liberals to be put falsely into a confused middle-of-the-road position with socialism and conservatism as the polar opposites." Anarcho-capitalism 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To describe Jacobins as "laissez faire liberals" is accurate, but misleading. There's a lot more to the radical presocialist left than liberal economics - which were not even a defining feature, as there were always proto-socialist types to be found in the ranks of the left.  Calling early 19th century radicals "laissez faire liberals" is to elevate economic views to an importance they did not have at the time.  It was the political views of these radicals - pro-universal suffrage, republican, and so forth, that made them radical, not their economic views, which they more or less shared with a variety of more conservative liberals. François Guizot was as much a classical liberal as anyone, and he can hardly be considered to be on the left.  john k 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bastiat was a laissez-faire liberal economist on the Left.Anarcho-capitalism 21:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the early 19th century, for example, free market doctrines were the province of radical liberals on the left while conservatives espoused – as some of them still do – agricultural protection and a large economic role for the state." Samuel Brittan Financial Times 14/07/06 Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The early 19th century, not the early 20th century. john k 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)