Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 20

Positions and types
As many editors have noted, the Right can hold different positions. Partly that is because different circumstances will dictate different approaches and partly because the Right, especially historically, is composed of different ideologies. I would suggest then moving the positions under the different types. So for example, traditional class orders were essential for reactionary conservatism but not for neoliberalism. BTW I could not access all the Cambridge history source on the categorization of the Right, but it appears that they are describing Eatwell and O'Sullivan's categories, which appears to be the one most often used. Unfortunately there is no agreement on terminology. TFD (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, and as has been noted in quotes often removed from the article for no good reason, there is no definition of "right" which applies over all places and all times.  As a result, I demur on your attempt to fit the facts into your model in a Procrustean manner. Collect (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not following your reasoning. The sources may say that "there is no definition of "right" which applies over all places and all times", but they also say the Right can in general be seen as describing five separate groups that each originated at different times and countries.  Rather than, to use your classical analogy, fitting them all into one category, we follow what reliable sources say and treat them as individual categories, acknowledging of course that there are overlaps.  TFD (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "they"? Seems like your categorisation is based on "they" being basically a single source .  Using that source to arbitrarily categorise the "right" into the system that the single source uses is UNDUE from the start.  We use the weight of each source wihin the universe of applicable sources - and one out of hundreds is not enough to give 100% of the WEIGHT in the article to that single source.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are 6 sources used for the categorization explained in the article: The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, Contemporary Political Ideologies, Modern Political Ideologies, The Extreme Right in France, 1789 to the Present, Berlet's "When Alienation turns Right", and Western Democracies and the new Extreme Right Challenge. All these sources say that the model developed by Eatwell and Sullivan's The Nature of the Right is generally accepted.  TFD (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing a book by Eatwell (Western Democracies) as indicating that Eatwell's categorisation is generally accepted is a bit of chutzpah! "The Cambridge History" does not support your claim. "Contemporary Political Ideologies" does not even mention Eatwell's name.   "Modern Political Ideologies" does cite Eatwell in the bibliogtraphy (1 entry out of 18 pages of listings of less than .2% of the listings)), but does not mention him by name in the text.  And so on.  Just giving a list of books which do not support your claim does not impress me.  Please at least try to find a source other than Eatwell himself for the categorisation you wish to impose here! Collect (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought, pp. 617, 152: "I have focused here on the meaning of the left on the assumption that the history of the right can be seen in part as reactive: that it is 'most helpfully conceived as a variety of responses to the left' (Eatwell and O'Sullivan 1989, p. 63) More precisely, we can, consistently with the interpretation proposed, identify a series of lefts and corresponding rights over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."  "The first three may be termed the reactionary, the radical and the moderate schools respectively.  In the case of a fourth school, the New Right group of thinkers which became influential in the late 1960s, the organic them is often only vestigial, whilst a fifth presents a postmodern and wholly 'post-organic' form of conservatism."  (I.e., uses the same 5 categories.)
 * Contemporary Political Ideologies was edited by Eatwell and Wright. The chapter used as a source was written by Eatwell.  Of course it mentions his name.
 * Modern Political Ideologies appears to use the same categories (pp. 62 ff.), but calls them "conservatives".
 * I have provided three other sources, only one of which was written by Eatwell. As one of the foremost experts on the Right, Eatwell is well-qualified to explain which views are most commonly held by experts.  His writings in academic publications should be assumed to be factually accurate unless you have conflicting evidence.

TFD (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect: In your quote, "some argue that the emergence of new political issues such as feminism, ecologism and animal rights, which simply do not fit in to the conventional spectrum, and the development of ’third way’ politics have rendered the ideas of left and right largely redundant" I've replaced the use of * to indicate a reference with a Wikilink. I think this change in the quote is acceptable. I would like you to check two things about your quote. Does it really not have an Oxford comma after ecologism? Does in really say "in to" rather than "into"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect's phrasing is how it appears in both Questia and Google books, although that does not mean how it appears in the original. However I question why we would use a high school study guide which is a tertiary source that has no footnotes.  TFD (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What the quote says is undoubtedly true, but I think TFD is correct, Collect, that you should find a better source for the idea that the left/right axis is increasingly irrelevant. That shouldn't be hard. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given cites in the past from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. onward in the past. Many, many times. The problem now is that claims which are not supported by the sorces given are being asserted.  That is a different matter -- when a source does not use Eatwell's categorisation and it is being used to support a claim that his categories are generally used, that is a misuse of WP:RS and WP:V.  Can you see that, Paul?   Did you see Heywood's statement? Collect (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing written by Schlesinger contradicts Eatwell and Sullivan's categorization. In fact Schlesinger also distinguishes between fascism and the non-fascist Right. Vital Center  Anyway I do not see why you disagree with my suggestion.  Instead of assuming that the Right is a meaningful concept, we outline how the description has been applied to different groups.  That fits in perfectly with your view that the term itself is meaningless.  TFD (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

MacMillan is, in fact, an academic publisher
Despite having its works disparaged, it has been found RS in the past and would be again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why you want to include high school lesson notes that cite no sources as a source for this article? TFD (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Key Concepts in Politics is a study guide. A similar quote from, for example, Haywood's Political Ideologies would be better. I'll see if I can find one. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a text with several hundred pages - I think it meets WP:RS, and I rather think Heywood also meets the Wikipedia requirements .  It is not  "high school lesson notes" for sure, and such disparagement ill-serves this talk page. Collect (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC) . Collect (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See the back cover. It is part of the Palgrave Study Guides, written by the course director for politics at a secondary school, who is an secondary school chief examiner in government and politics.  There is nothing disparaging about that, prominent scholars such as Howard Zinn and George Williams Brown have written high school textbooks.  TFD (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The real problem is with the content. It comes from a section that describes extending the left-right continuum into the horseshoe model and various two-dimensional models. At the very end, it tosses out a weasely, "Finally, some argue that...". Yes, some do, but is it relevant to this article? One way to tell is to see if it passes the sniff test; is it blatantly false?
 * The quote goes on to say that "feminism, ecologism and animal rights" are outside this spectrum, yet anyone vaguely familiar with American party politics knows that the right is strongly opposed to all three. It then brings up the "third way", which links to an article with a photo of Bill Clinton. Based on even a casual glance, the entire passage seems to be of little value. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were an advanced level textbook, then we could find the sources for his claims and see whether scholars agreed with you. Note that the existence of these parties, even if they are outside the political spectrum, does not mean that there are no right-wing parties.  TFD (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, even at face value, it doesn't dispute anything, just claims there are other things. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, Collect restored this passage. There does not appear to be any support for this. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reasons are that first it is relevant to the topic of the article and second that the source meets WP:RS. That you fail to support material in an article is not in itself sufficient reason for removal of relevant RS-sourced material.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RS also says we should use the most reliable sources where available, and use mostly secondary sources. Neutrality says that we should reflect what most sources say.  TFD (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And WP:CONSENSUS says that we all have to work together to decide what belongs in the article. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to note my careful collaboration with Rick here.  Also that a discussion at WP:RS/N found that the opinion of a notable author clearly meets the requirements of RS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The objection is not that the author is not notable, but that a book is a better reference than a study guide. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A "study guide" of three hundred pages is a substantial textbook, cited by 167 othere per googlescholar, and a bunch easily found on Questia. Notable author as well.  No rational basis to decline usage.  Collect (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Unless anyone has a problem with the representation of the RS or the relevance to this article, what more is there to say? The source is perfectly acceptable. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While being rs is a necessary requirement for inclusion, there is no requirement to add everything found in every source. We should use the best secondary sources and reflect what they say.  Can you please explain why we should be using high school textbooks?  TFD (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a notable opinion by a notable author published by a major publisher. Are you asserting that the position is "fringe" at all?   And again the book is used at the college level or do you truly find the Palgrave improint to be "high school" level when it deals tih college courses?  Really?  Really????  Collect (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, secondary schools are often called "colleges", and the graduation diploma is referred to as "A-levels". Also, as you are aware, there is a preference for using secondary sources over tertiary sources.  TFD (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement in question is a truism, and it would be easier to find a better source than to debate this source. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Populism
I restored the section on Populism, but because it was unreferenced removed parts of it and added references for the other parts. I also added a brief paragraph on European populism. More work need to be done. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring deleted referenced material
I've put items 11, 12, and 13 above back into the article. I'm not sure what to do about the unreferenced mention of Libertarianism, so I shortened it but left it in. It may be best to move all comments on the Libertarian Right to a separate section. The section on "family values" was unreferenced. I added a reference, but it only applies to the US. It may be that this paragraph doesn't really belong.

This brings us to the point where entire sections were deleted wholesale: Nationalism, Populism, Religion, and Anti-communism, plus two paragraphs from Economics. The Relgion section has been restored. Tomorrow I'll take a look at the others, but I pause here for comments.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some unsupported claims in the religion section were reduced - and using entire papers as a soutrce when I can't find the "religious" part to be dominant in the entire source is "not on". F'rinstance I read the entire  resented as a "source" -- might you tell me where it makes claims sufficient for citing in this article?  Mooney's work  is essentially about "traditionalists" to a great degree, and almost entirely about religious opposition to stem-cell research and sex ed, and a tiny bit about "evolution."  Fully referenced by other sources - Moony adds nothing here - and since it also does not mention "global warming" the bit about "global warming" falls into a non-supported as a specific claim category.  Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I approve your removal of "global warming" and your removal of reference 5 above. It is those influenced by big oil, not the religious right, who "doubt" global warming.  Those on the religious right who preach against global warming are just swallowing the baby with the bath water, to coin a phrase. On the other hand, it is the religious right that opposes stem cell research, and we need a reference for those dogmas other than creationism that the religious right wants the public sector to support, so I restored the Mooney reference.  Everything else in your recent edits is an improvement, especially removing the unnecessary adjective "religious" from the word "dogma". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than being an excess cite , Mooney also seems to include "traditionalists" and others in his work - which makes some of his claims muddier than I would like for a section devoted to "religion" here. His work is far more about a political party than it is specifically about "religious right" to be sure.  Perhaps you could clarify it a bit?  And add in specific pages, of course. Collect (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no page references for The Saffron Wave and I cannot find where it says that Hindu nationalism is "considered a part of the right-wing", just the comment, "I argue that Hindu nationalism represents a “conservative revolution....” (p. 4) I think too that the section makes the argument that there is a connection between Maistre conservatives supporting the established church and today's Christian Right.  In fact before the 20th century most people were nominally religious and dissenters were associated with liberalism, not the Right.  We need a source that connects the two.  TFD (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Be warned about the POV-risk of the religion section. The actual or seemingly implied association of unequivocal association of religion with right-wing politics will be viewed as POV since there are left-wing religious people, such as many religious socialists, and there have been right-wing atheists like Ayn Rand. Furthermore, merely mentioning that right-wing politics has been supported by religious figures, fails to explain why those figures support it. The original right in France had Catholic clerical supporters precisely because of the original left in France advocating secularism and elimination of state religion to eliminate hierarchical privileges given to the Catholic Church at the time. The French religious right responded to the French left's promotion of secularism out of egalitarianism as denying the hierarchical divine authority of God and replacing it with irreligious egalitarianism. That is the basis of it - and I would actually place the religion section within a section on the right's advocacy of hierarchy on the basis of natural law and tradition.--R-41 (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The liberal view, which emphasizes the individual, is that individuals have a direct relationship with God that is not mediated by an established church or may deny that God exists. Hence Ayn Rand, the Christian Right and the rest of the "New Right" are clearly within the liberal tradition, not the authoritarian conservative tradition.  To say that religion was a common element to both is to turn their differences into a similarity.  TFD (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

R-41: Please note what this section says. It says that the phrase "right-wing" is used to describe people who want to legislate religion. It is so used, and references are given. There is a big difference between people who are religious, and people who want religion to be determined by law. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources do not say that it is exclusive to the Right to legislate religion. TFD (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the phrase right-wing is used to describe people who want to legislate religion. Consider Safire's, "God, guns, gays", the French Right's support of requiring Frenchmen to be Roman Catholic, the use of right-wing to describe people who oppose abortion on religious grounds, who object to evolution on religious grounds, who want to display the ten commandments in courts. The Moslem Brotherhood is described as right-wing. It is one way the phrase is used. Can you give an example where people on the Left want to legislate religion? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Early liberals, Calvinists in England, America, Switzerland and Holland, while removing the power of the church, and allowing religious tolerance (by the standards of the day), brought in religious laws. John Locke argued against allowing Catholics and atheists from holding office.  The Glorious Revolution guaranteed the right to bear arms for Prostestants only, Catholics were barred from public office, and from succession to the throne.  Robespierre set up a state religion.  The 19th century Liberal Party (UK) was the driving force behind forcing sabbatarianism and temperance, based on religious principles.  Parties of all stripes supported school prayer, laws based on scripture (blasphemy, sexual behavior and obscenity, public holidays), oaths sworn on the Bible and state support of religious schools until the 1960s and beyond.  TFD (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But none of these people have ever been described as being "on the left". The standard of their day was that all good people were good Christians. Religious (and racial and national and social and economic and sexual) bigotry was the accepted norm. With a few exceptions even the most liberal people had to be careful not to deviate too far from that norm, for fear of being marginalized. Even Voltaire refused to ever say out loud that he wasn't a Christian. What is left and right depends on where the center is. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If all people in the political realm supported legislating religion, then what is the relevance of comparing the modern religious right with the historic reactionary right? The groups I mentioned were on the left side in their time, in England the main opposition to royalists, tories, and conservatives.  The early Labour Party followed liberal policies.  Do you have any sources that compare the religious right with the historic reactionary right?  TFD (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good question. I think it has to do with the relative positions. In pre-revolutionary America, for example, everybody may have supported putting people in the stocks for failing to attend Church, but there were some who wanted to allow Roman Catholics property owners to vote in local elections and some who wanted to hang witches, so there were differences in the extent to which people wanted their personal religion enforced by the power of the law. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I've restored some of the deleted, referenced material to the section on Economics, and have tried to make sense of it. Since the references referred to different historical periods the text should mention when the Right held these various beliefs. There are two more quotes that were deleted from the Economics section. I think the one about the difference between equality of oportunity and equality of outcome is already covered in the current version of the article. The one about the Asian model of capitalism is interesting, but has no reference. I don't plan to put it back into the article unless someone supplies a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Associating the legislation of religion with the political right is very fallacious as TFD has demonstrated. Furthermore, as I have said nationalism is not exclusively right-wing. In fact nationalism originally emerged as a major political movement on the left during the French Revolutionary period. There have been many anti-nationalist right-wingers, including elements of the Catholic religious right that advocate the promotion of a global Catholic identity. In the late 19th century, right-wing movements began to adopt nationalism, but there have remained left-wing nationalists.--R-41 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not unimagineable that if members of today's Christian Right had lived during the witch-hunts they would have joined in. However the witch-hunters had just joined in the Glorious revolution and overthrown the royal governor.  If we were to apply the terms left and right to them, they could not be the right.  TFD (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

R-41: You are entirely correct that nationalism was of the Left at the time of the French Revolution. Today, extreme nationalists are called right-wing. TFD: Does it make any sense to apply left and right to the Glorious revolution? I don't know. I'd have to find a source. Which is the important point: the material on ways in which right-wing is used to describe the religious right and the nationalist right is sourced. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do not think most writers would use the terms "left" and "right" when discussing English politics before the terms came into use, it is possible to view the spectrum of 1600s in those terms. The two parties that would become liberals and conservatives, the Whigs and Tories, already existed.  Lee Ward writes, "In 1680 there was a very wide variety of opinions on the British political spectrum ranging from divine right monarchists on the right to radical republicans on the left.  Through the course of the century following the Glorious Revolution, however, Britain experienced a process of ideological convergence...."   (The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America, p. 16)  The point is though that it is ahistorical to see the Christian Right as a throwback to European authoritarian conservatism.  TFD (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The next deleted section is Nationalism. As R-41 points out, nationalism was originally a liberal thing, but now a jingoist is usually called right-wing, especially in Europe, and especially if they are anti-immigration. I don't remember what the Nationalism section looks like. I'll see how well-referenced it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, we are using sources about different varieties of the Right and forming a conclusion that nationalism is a right-wing characteristic. It appears to be a characteristic of modern groups that are to the right of mainstream conservatism.  However there are also civic nationalist movements in Scotland, Wales, Quebec, etc. that are not right-wing.  TFD (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be coming from a place where words have a meaning independent of how people use those words. I have some sympathy with that. I want "literally" and "figuratively" to have different meanings, even though most people use them interchangably. On the other hand, the modern use of "right-wing" to mean "jingoist" is so common that we can't deny it exists. What, if anything, it has to do with other uses of "right-wing" is an open question. It is true that, in most countries at most times, jingoists support the old upper class over against immigrants, and so they support a class structure. But they also support, and are supported by, lower class workers who share the race and religion of the old upper class. And it doesn't matter if it is white dockworkers fighting Irish Catholics in the US or Indonesian Muslems fighting against Chinese small businssmen in Indonesia. Where Quebec fits into the picture is puzzling. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Typing in "nationalism+definition" on Google books, the first hit I found, a book called Nationalism, provides a "working definition" on page 9, "An ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential "nation"". The problem is that we have two meanings of the Right today.  One is to refer to groups such as the Tea Party or nationalists in Europe, and the other is to refer to mainstream conservative, Christian Democratic and conservative liberal parties in general.  Would one describe Angela Merkel or David Cameron as nationalists?  The traditional English Conservative view was imperialism, which could be jingoistic, not nationalism.  Quebec is governed by a party that claims to be social democratic and desires to protect French Canadian culture through independence.  One author described their position as "left-wing nationalism", because they believe that support for state-owned industry, unions and the welfare state will insulate them from Anglo-Saxon dominance.  TFD (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * An inapt dichotomy as "jingoism" is defined as "extreme nationalism." PQ seeks to nationalize what it sees as domination by Anglophone-owned companies - which is in a very strong sense "racist" more than "nationalist" especially since at one point it advocated strong Quebec ties with France.   And Putin is a strong "nationalist" to be sure.   I also suggest you note that "extreme nationalism" is not necessarily "racist" in any way at all ... see Paraguayan War etc. and their aftermaths with foreign relations with its neighbors.  The horrid fact is that "extreme nationalism" is found all over the "linear political spectrum"  indeed. Collect (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that all conservatives are nationalist, only that many authors use the term "right-wing" to describe some extreme nationalists. It would be nice to find a source that explained why these nationalists, and not others, are called right-wing. Racism seems to be a common characteristic. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see what is particularly racist about wanting to have strong ties with France. When the PQ was formed, people who spoke French as a first language, even if fluent in English, faced job descrimination even when competing with unilingual English-speakers.  If anything they saw themselves as victims of racism.  Of course there is also a right-wing nationalist tradition in Quebec which has been partly incorporated into the PQ.  Also, while a jingoist could be an extreme nationalist, that is not necessarily the case.  The object of jingoism can also be a multi-national state or empire.  So a jingoist in Quebec could be someone who supported British Imperialism while opposing Quebec nationalism.  Rick, I do not think that these parties are called right-wing because they are nationalist, just that nationalism has become a typical feature of extreme right parties.  However the form of nationalism differs from that of other ideologies.  TFD (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My response was to your comment "Would one describe Angela Merkel or David Cameron as nationalists?" I wasn't saying anything at all about Quebec. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood said: "Nobody is saying that all conservatives are nationalist, only that many authors use the term "right-wing" to describe some extreme nationalists." First of all the section literally says that a component of right-wing politics as a whole is "nationalism". Naming subsections "religion" or "nationalism" in the section on "components" implies that they themselves are necessary parts of the system not just merely variants of it. There have been many extreme nationalists on the political left - in Ireland, radical branches of the IRA; Fatah in the Palestinian Arab-populated territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, for many years was very militant and radical until it gradually moderated; the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; the FLN in the Algerian War was left-wing and militant - including committing atrocities against French and European civilians, like Fatah it has since moderated; ETA in the Basque country; and historically in my country of Canada, the FLQ in Quebec that bombed the Montreal Stock Exchange, and kidnapped and killed Quebec's Minister of Labour.--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The heading, of which Nationalism is a subhead, is Positions. In other words, the subheads are positions to which the term right-wing is often applied. The heading is not Components, nor is it Necessary Parts of the System, just Positions.

Whether the various movements R-41 lists are of the Left or of the Right would be a question answered by studying references. I suspect that those with primarily religious motivation have been called right-wing and those with communist affiliations have been called left-wing, though communism as a movement has always opposed nationalism, claiming that the workers of the world have common interests and that communism is an international movement opposed by the nation states. The point is that people in fact use right-wing to describe some nationalists, especailly modern Europen nationalists. You could argue that they should stop, but we can't make them stop, and until they do stop, Wikipedia has to report what the references say does in fact occur. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To use an American analogy, organizations defending the rights of African Americans are not necessarily left or right wing, but organizations defending the rights of white people would be seen as right-wing. TFD (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick Norwood, scholars have also reported many major examples of left-wing nationalists, both moderate (i.e. Republican Left of Catalonia, Scottish National Party, Parti Quebecois) and extreme/radical ones (Provisional IRA, ETA, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) on many occasions, and alike what you said, these scholars continue to discuss left-wing nationalists and until they stop reporting it, Wikipedia should recognize that nationalism has been detected in several sections of the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources, R-41. Where are your sources? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems, p. 40, "Broadly speaking, nationalism has usually been associated with the right. It has been supportive of traditional social values, and has often appealed to the interests of the bourgeoisie rather than the working class. Some ethnic and regional parties are really parties of the far right; the Flemish Bloc is an example of this, and I have included it with the right-wing extremist parties rather than with the regional and ethnic parties. Nevertheless, there are a number of regional and ethnic parties today--the Parti Quebecois in Canada, the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, and some of the Spanish parties--which have a distinctly centrist or centre-left orientation.... the parties in this category [nationalist parties] that were included..are a rather heterogeneous group." TFD (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD's reference points to what I've talking about and specifically notes non-right-wing nationalists like the Parti Quebecois, Scottish nationalists, and examples in Spain. And nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson in pages 1 to 3 of the introduction of his very influential book Imagined Communities (1983) describes that nationalism has become an implicit part of prominent Marxist regimes in practice. They are not by common definition, right-wing. Anderson on pages 195 to 199 goes on to describe that nationalism first arose in the "New World" with the American Revolution and later spread into the "Old World". Regardless of what American conservative revisionists may say on the American Revolution, it was not a right-wing conservative event by those days standards of who was right-wing then. And Anderson noting nationalism as having origins in two radical populist republican revolutions in 1776 and 1789, do not meet up with standard right-wing politics of those times, conservative elitist monarchists of that time. Scholar on fascism, Stanley Payne notes on page 36 of A History of Fascism, 1914–1945, that "Though historians of nationalism disagree on many things, there is general agreement that modern radical nationalism first achieved full expression during the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution.".--R-41 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The article says that. "In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology." It also says, correctly, that today extreme nationalist are often called right-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are prominent left-wing extreme nationalists. As for sources that describe individual radical left-wing nationalist examples I noted, here is one for the Irish examples in the book Ideology and Politics in Britain Today on page 162 describes the Provisional IRA as a militant Marxist-Leninist inspired nationalist movement that was responsible for terrorist attacks; and it notes another prominent Irish nationalist militant group even further to the left than the Provisional IRA, it is the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) also Marxist-inspired and also known for having committed terrorist attacks. Now for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), in The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict edited by Spencer C. Tucker and Priscilla Mary Roberts, the PFLP is a a major left-wing nationalist militant group that promotes Palestinian Arab independence, that is associated with the Arab Nationalist Movement, the PFLP has participated in multiple terrorist attacks, including bombings and highjackings of airliners. As for ETA, the book Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts on pages 24 to 25 describes ETA as an overall extreme-left movement that seeks revolutionary national liberation of the Basque people from Spain, and emulates the revolutions in Cuba, Algeria, and Vietnam; and ETA has committed multiple terrorist attacks. All of these are prominent examples of extreme nationalists that are left-wing.--R-41 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it your claim that people do not often describe extreme nationalists as right-wing? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my claim that there have been many prominent left-wing extreme nationalist movements that have been recognized by scholars. You asked for sources, now you have got them. Plus why do you only mention "extreme nationalists" when the article itself is currently saying that "nationalists" are right-wing - the claim is fallacious and POV-pushing. As I said before, nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson in pages 1 to 3 of the introduction of his very influential book Imagined Communities (1983) says that nationalism has become an implicit part of prominent Marxist regimes in practice. There have been and still are many nationalists today who would abhor being associated with the political right.--R-41 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But the article does not say that ""nationalists" are right-wing". It reports what others have said about "right-wing nationalists". You have cited evidence that there are also left-wing nationalists (though you have not provided any quotations calling those nationalists left-wing). Be that as it may, it is beside the point, because the article does not say that nationalism is exclusively right-wing. It cites references to books that use the phrase right-wing to describe some nationalists. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that nationalism is an orthogonal value to the political spectrum, thus placing "nationalism" as a "right wing characteristic" is barely more valid that a person pointing out "right wing blonds" and adding "blondness" to the article. I believe we discussed this previously about "religion" as well and other "orthogonal" issues.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick Norwood, if you want the article to acknowledge that there are right-wing nationalists, that is one thing and one I would accept. But to have a section on the themes of right-wing politics that simply says "nationalism", is another thing. Your arguments here are implicitly indicating that you are associating contemporary nationalism for the most part with the political right. I have shown you that nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson in his influential book Imagined Communities (1983), demonstrates that nationalism has been an implicit part of many Marxist regimes. You said that extreme nationalists are right-wing, the sources I have provided are clear enough in showing multiple prominent radical nationalist movements associated with Marxist-Leninist inspiration, and Marxism-Leninism is viewed as left-wing by mainstream scholars.--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we accept what most writers claim, that the Right is best defined as the opposition to the Left, then it does not make sense to look for core policies. All the policies of the original Right have been abandoned or become irrelevant.  All the policies that distinguish the modern Right were originally associated with liberalism, hence the term "neoliberalism".  TFD (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is hyperbole, there still are anti-liberal rightests - especially clerical/theocractic rightests who denounce secularism and non-religious society, and far-right people who oppose neoliberalism. It was the decline of financial power of noble aristocrats and the rise of financial power of bourgeois businesspeople in their place in capitalist economies that shifted former proponents of aristocracy to capitalism. Divurging positions occur in right-wing movements on culturally-specific issues, i.e. support of Catholic traditions amongst conservatives in the Republic of Ireland versus support of Protestant traditions amongst conservatives in Northern Ireland. The basic right-wing value recorded by sources in the intro, is the acceptance or support of social hierarchy, standing in opposition to the left-wing value of support of social equality. This dichotomy still stands today.--R-41 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no right-wing theocrats today. Your theory of "social hierarchy" necessarily leads to the conclusion that John Locke was right-wing.  Yes there are anti-neoliberal rightists, but notice I was referring to the "modern Right", aka neoliberalism.  But even the non-neoliberal right today incorporates doctrine originally associated with liberalism.  The exceptions, such as Harper tacking "royal" back onto the names of institutions and putting back up pictures of the Queen are "irrelevant" in the sense that socialists are more strongly supportive of the monarchy than conservatives.  (PS - no need to provide an internal link to "hyperbole".  I think most readers here would understand what the term means and if they do not, you should have used a more readily comprehensible term.)  TFD (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, you have been the one who has been arguing about the fact that left/right politics didn't exist before the French Revolution, so your mentioning of John Locke is completely irrelevant to left-right spectrum by your own acknowledgements, since Locke lived and died long before the French Revolution. What Locke did inspire was the Enlightenment that did later influence the left, but there were multiple absolute monarchs who adhered to the Enlightenment and supported enlightened absolutism, including Louis XVI of France who was overthrown in the French Revolution. Whatever term you want to use, there are religious right figures today across the world. It is not "my theory" of social hierarchy, look at the sources in the intro. A bunch of right-wing users debated this issue before, and they were unable to find any other coherent meaning of what right-wing politics means.--R-41 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never "argu[ed] about the fact that left/right politics didn't exist before the French Revolution". We are not here to argue anyway, merely to ensure that articles reflect sources.  The mainstream view was that Locke's writing represented an early expression ot liberalism in opposition to the Restoration's conservatism and therefore was more left-wing than the supporters of the hapless James II.  Of course, as well-explained in Gauchet's article " La droite et la gauche", the terms left and right as descriptions of ideology only emerged in the 20th century.  No one called Bismarck and Marx right-wing or left-wing during their lifetimes, but that does not mean that we cannot use the terms in describing 19th century German politics.  Anyway, you have not replied to my posting merely presented an argument ad hominem.  Indeed there are religious right figures today, and they are in the Calvinist-Puritan tradition, i.e., the opponents of the divine right of kings, the established church, the mediation of the church between individual and his Creator, opposition to capitalism, etc.  They are not calling for ecclesiasticl courts run by the Vatican or for Obama to appoint bishops.  TFD (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Farrakhan left or right wing? He has definitely called for religious rule in the US (although he does not follow Sharia).  I do not think he is in the Calvinist tradition, however. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, there have been critical reviews of John Locke that view him not as a great symbol of today's cosmopolitan liberalism, but as a major influence who was also an anti-Catholic who used political language to justify a Protestant overthrowing the Catholic king and usurping the English throne. In Locke's work Letter on Toleration (1689), Locke declared that a "Papist" (Catholic) could not be granted religious toleration because they held their allegiance with a foreign power. Locke's promotion of denying religious toleration to Catholics would not be accepted in most mainstream liberal movements today, it would be regarded as xenophobia and a direct violation of the liberal democratic principle of freedom of religion.--R-41 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, I do not know how Farrakhan would be classified. But I imagine his utopia would look more like Purtian New England than medieval Spain.  His church has a lot more in common with other American religious sects than it does with Catholicism.  R-41, do you have any sources that Locke was not a liberal?  Certainly some of what Locke believed would be considered reactionary today, for example support of slavery, but the reasonable conclusion is modern anti-Catholicism has its roots in liberalism, certainly not in the conservatism of James II.  TFD (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Bigotry is not restricted to any particular part of the "political spectrum" vide the polls showing that 25% of Democrats in the US would never vote for a Mormon for president., twenty-five per cent of Democrats polled will not vote for a Mormon for president. etc. Seems that maybe "bigotry" is also quite orthogonal to the topic of this article. Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You assume that the only reason not to vote for a Morman is bigotry. If 25% of the people would not vote for a Scientologist, would that be bigotry? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- pretty much by definition refusal to vote for a person because of his religion is bigotry.  In fact, I fail to see how it can be anything other than bigotry.  So yes - if a person says "I can never vote for a Scientologist" - that is, indeed, bigotry.  If a person said "I can never vote for a black" would you try to justify it as anything other than bigotry?  If a person said "I can never vote for a person who is German" would you defind that as not bigotry?  Any refusal to look at the individual, but instead using an attribute of the individual to judge tem, is prejudice and bigotry. In my opinion, of course.   Collins says a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race  and I suggest that this is quite self-evidently the case.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Collins' definition is overly broad. I would substitute "opinions" for "ideas". For example, as a mathematician, I am intolerant of the idea that 2 + 2 = 5 (and I wouldn't vote for someone who thought that 2 + 2 = 5.) Does that make me a bigot? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that liberals from Locke to today defend discrimination using liberal principles, hence to them it is not bias or bigotry. Religious discrimination by traditional conservatism took a different form however, all heresy was suppressed.  Liberals have always accepted that more than one religion may be permitted, because freedom of religion is a core principle.  BTW Collect's example might be misleading.  First, the fact that the Republican candidate is Mormon probably influenced the replies.  And the poll did not specify liberal or conservative, but Democrat and Republican.  Most of the anti-Mormon sentiment came from African Americans and people with low education.  TFD (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um -- the poll question has been asked over a very long time, and appears not to be related to a specific candidate. Further the question was not about a specific candidate but about any Mormon which is absolutely an indicator of bigotry.  As for your bigoted statement that it must be "African-Americans and people with low education" who make up so large a part of the Democratic Party - that is risible.   the percentages have been fairly constant for 45 years now.  I think Mitt Romney was not a candidate back in 1967.  Further that the question was asked If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a Mormon,  would you vote for that person? Eliminating your excuses for the bigotry involved.  I trust you find Gallup's own words sufficient here. Collect (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source says, "Reluctance to vote for a Mormon for president today is related to both education and partisanship. The percentage saying "no" to a Mormon candidate rises from 6% among those with postgraduate education to 23% among those with a high school education or less." If you think Gallup is bigoted then don't quote them.  Gallup also says that most African American protestants do not consider Mormons to be Christians.  BTW the poll was done after the two parties' candidates were known.  TFD (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD please stop putting words in my mouth, I did not say that Locke was not a liberal. What I did say is that he does not meet the ideal of liberalism as exists today, his anti-Catholicism would not be accepted by today's liberals. And no, not everyone sees liberalism as a great achievement of the left, Marxists, other socialists and leftists for instance regard it as allowing the continuation of class hierarchy through bourgeois capitalist domination over the proletariat. An yes, certainly there has been xenophobia in liberal ideas in the past - especially since liberalism has been invoked to justify imperialism and conquest of societies. Claims of the need for "freedom", "liberty", and "end of barbarism" were used by William McKinley to justify US imperialism in Latin America and in the Pacific, claiming that by technically "liberating" places like Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico from the Spanish Empire during the Spanish-American War, and literally placing them under either de jure or de facto protectorate status for long periods of time or direct annexation, they "freed" the people. The racist term "The White Man's Burden" was created by Rudyard Kipling in a supportive gesture to the US in the Spanish-American War, claiming that whites had a moral "duty" to "civilize" "savage" peoples. Theodore Roosevelt continued a policy of imperialism in Latin America, and Latin American analysts contend that this imperialism has continued into the present. In my country of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada when in power implemented extremely racist policies, including the residential schools to impose forced assimilation on aboriginals, as well as racist immigration laws such as the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 that banned anyone of Chinese descent from immigrating into Canada. Left-wing critics of neoliberal advocacy of globalization claim that it contains a patronizing imperialist attitude to soceities identified as "developing", lower in the status in comparison with the "developed" countries, such as the IMF led by developed countries demanding that the developing ones adhere to neoliberal policies in order to receive foreign aid.--R-41 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the US, Earl Warren was a leading voice for the "internment" of American citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, and forfeiture of their property. Religious and ethnic bigoty is found all over the place.   Collect (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as a social democrat I will admit that there have been social democrats who have been intolerant, such as the nationalist and social democratic Parti Quebecois in Quebec within my country of Canada, is obsessed with presenting French Quebecois as victims of English Canada, all the while as they demand assimilation of people into Francophone culture, and PQ leaders have said highly intolerant things, such as Parizeau ranting immediately after the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty that the pro-independence vote lost due to "money and the ethnic vote" and going on in the speech to contrast them with "us" - as referring to assimilated Francophone Quebecois as "true" Quebecois, and promising these "true" Quebecois that "we will have our revenge". And the poster-child for liberalism in Canada, former-Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau when in office along with his colleague, then Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien proposed the extremely controversial "1969 White Paper" that called for complete assimilation of aboriginals as Canadians with no autonomous status as granted by existing treaties, and ending all land claims disputes, it raised uproar by aboriginal peoples who regarded it as colonialism. Then there are Marxist-Leninist regimes have promoted xenophobia towards those they identified as "reactionary" or "anti-social" - Stalin persecuted the Chechens as a whole on the grounds that their culture was "counterrevolutionary" to communism and due to the stereotype that the Chechens' culture was run by "bandit" criminals. Marxist-Leninists don't identify such people as "inferior" like the far-right does but identify them as associated with as political opposition to Marxism-Leninism or having a culture incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. And since we've mentioned the Soviet Union and its ideologically-motivated xenophobia, let's turn the issue on its head and address the fact that classical liberal Thomas Jefferson declared that the United States should not accept immigrants from countries led by an absolute monarchy, Jefferson's comments were aimed at Russians who lived under absolutist rule of the Tsar and whom wanted to immigrate into the New World, Jefferson claimed that such immigrants would bring over the cultural baggage of the absolutism, that was antithetical with US political culture. No ideology is innocent of intolerance, but ideologies on the far-right that accept hierarchy without question are typically openly chauvinist and supremacist in their intolerance.--R-41 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, we are going in circles. You claim that there is a core description of the right, while I have said there is not.  Most of the ideas that today are considered right-wing have their origins in liberalism.  That is not unreasonable, as someone who believes what was considered radical two hundred years ago may now be considered reactionary, and the circumstances that gave rise to conservatism centuries ago no longer exist.  Even if society is hierarchical, the modern right at least accepts equal opportunity and equality before the law for all citizens.  Certainly that is what 18th century revolutionaries mostly believed.  To equate that with hereditary aristocracy is just an opinion.  TFD (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"You claim that there is a core description of the right, while I have said there is not." TFD, perhaps rather than accusing me of promoting an unsubstantiated opinion by responding with your opinion, you should look at the first three sources in the introduction that are written by scholars that say that right-wing politics is about acceptance or support of social hierarchy. Sources later on in the intro confirm this as well and describe this in more detail.--R-41 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, the sources do not say that. An introduction to sociology says, "What may be termed the truly conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradtion....  It is, however, now less often expressed; and the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal- conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one."  It is not claiming anything about the Right, merely describing two types, only one of which supports hierarchy.  There is no page reference to Bobbio, but he merely states that the Left is more supportive of equality than the Right.  His example is that Tony Blair reduced the number of hereditary peers sitting in the Lords.  Even though in every other way he supported the same neoliberal policies of inequality, this one action showed that he was more egalitarian that the Right.  TFD (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The second type that Goldthrope defines supports hierarchy as well, you have quoted it, it says "that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one."--R-41 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is original research. You are combining descriptions of two different groups within the Right and combining them into one.  How do you explain that the "liberal conservative" view is not considered right-wing in 1789?  How do you explain that social democrats in North America are considered left, while in Venezuela (and Burma, Zimbabwe and Cuba) they are part of the Right?  And is really part of social democratic ideology, or even communism, that every person in society will receive the same compensation regardless of the nature of their employment?  TFD (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. As I said, Goldthrope states that liberal-conservatives believe "that unequal rewards are right and desirable". And look at page 51 of Norberto Bobbio's Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, he analyzes Elisabetta Galeotti's perspective that identified "'hierarchy' for the right" and "'equality' for the left". There are several other sources in the intro that review this. Also in the intro is Cultures at war: moral conflicts in western democracies. by T. Alexander Smith and Raymond Tatalovich that on page 30 states "That viewpoint is held by contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy." As described below, terms like "social hierarchy" and "social equality" are terms loaded with interpretations and expectations - for instance on the left how does one evaluate what equality is supposed to be and how is it to be achieved and what are its limitations? I wouldn't agree that hardened criminals should have equal rights of freedom of mobility. It is very easy to criticize, but what do you have as an alternative definition of the left-right spectrum?--R-41 (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, I did not say that "a group's stance on the political spectrum is unchangeable", in fact I said the opposite, for example, "someone who believes what was considered radical two hundred years ago may now be considered reactionary", "liberalism in the time of the American Revolution would not be considered right wing, but it would be today". Your theory however is that the stance is unchangeable, because it is based on the theory that the Right is defined as support of hierarchy.  Therefore since Vanderbilt supported hierarchy we would have to consider Jacksonian democracy as right-wing.  My view is that Vanderbilt's set of beliefs would be considered right-wing for today but not for 1830, i.e., the stance on the political spectrum is changeable.  TFD (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommended reading: The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt
Reading this book provides insight into how language has changed over the years. Practically nobody in 1776 (except Tom Paine) could meet today's standards of liberalism (freedom of religion, opposition to slavery), but they were still liberal by the standards of their time. The book shows how Cornelius Vanderbilt moved from being a radical liberal to being a staunch conservative without ever getting involved in politics and without ever changing his views one iota. The country shifted while he stayed the same. Ideas are meaningless without context. The book also provides insight into the days when it was the liberals who had contempt for the poor, and it takes a deep look at how "classical liberalism" changed, to become "social liberalism". Rick Norwood (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I have been saying all along. We cannot have a core set of principles that will be equally valid across time and different countries.  In this case laissez faire liberalism in the time of Jackson would not be considered right wing, but it would be during the New Deal.  TFD (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From a more realpolitik perspective, the left-right spectrum has remained the same, what has changed is who has access to desired resources and power. Any serious history book will note that the rise of capitalism saw a shift of power from the feudalist aristocrats to the capitalist bourgeoisie. In 1776, aristocracy was still a major force in the world and aristocrats held immense resources and power. The bourgeoisie and proletariat were then united on the left in hostility to that aristocratic hierarchy. In the 19th century that power then shifted from aristocrats to the bourgeoisie with the Industrial Revolution. While the power of heredity with aristocracy and royalty fell in the place of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat did not gain equality and remained disatisfied. Now the primary egalitarian vs. hierarchy power struggle in contemporary has generally been proletarian vs. bourgeois, of course there are lower bourgeoisie who sympathize with the proletariat and there are proletarians who support bourgeois values. I use Marxist terminology not because I completely agree with Marx, and the terms are oversimplifying for this matter, but because it gets down to the economic point quicker and provides a better generalization that using "middle" or "lower" class that have less real meaning.--R-41 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, the liberalism in the time of the American Revolution would not be considered right wing, but it would be today. We cannot have a core set of principles that will be equally valid across time and different countries.  That is what I have been saying all along.  TFD (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "core set of principles" you mean specific principles by specific cultures like the American Right's limited government, laissez-faire, Protestant Christian tradition, anti-social welfare principles, then yes, those cannot be equally valid in different cultures or over time. The topics of aristocracy and absolute monarchy so important to the French Revolution are moot topics in American left-right politics today. But the basic schism of those advocating social equality on the left, and those advocating social hierarchy on the right, has not changed, scholars have identified this and have also noted the changes in its specific historical and cultural manifestations.--R-41 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are saying then that Vanderbilt advocated social equality in the time of Jackson and social hierarchy in the Guilded Age even though his views did not change during that time. That is logically inconsistent.  Your source btw only says that the conservatives who supported aristocracy and monarchy advocated social hierarchy.  TFD (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Vanderbilt advocated capitalism at a time where the conservatives favored a system in which the "best" families were granted government monopolies and the liberals and radicals favored unlimited economic competition. Vanderbilt continued to advocate capitalism sixty years later, at a time when the conservatives favored the new rich and the liberals feared the growing power of corporations. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rick Norwood. Put in realpolitik terms, the power structure back in the French Revolutionary days placed mercantilist and pro-nobility conservatives on the right - they sought the preservation of their nepotist hierarchy from being opened up to ideas of meritocracy and that "all men are created equal" because that challenged the hierarchy of noble birth. Some more radical Jacobin figures initially sought a very left-wing direction for the French Revolution, but eventually capitalist and pro-bourgeoisie liberals won out. Also note that liberals are typically described as generally centrist by most people except the lunatic fringe of the libertarian right in the USA. With the rise of socialism in political significance, complaining that bourgeois liberals didn't do enough to entrench equality for proletarians, the dynamic has continued.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps TFD, you may be partially correct on one thing: I can agree with you that the left-right spectrum does vary to a degree by culture due to different cultural expectations of what constitutes things like "equality" are. But that does not mean that the contrast between support of social equality on the left and support of social hierarchy on the left, as noted by scholars is not consistent, it is about expectations. In the Soviet Union there were people who were Bolshevik communists who were critically called "right-wing" by other communists - it could be just a slur, but it shows the significance of expectations. To the expectations of the person who made the accusation, they obviously believed that such "right-wing" communists did not cross the threshold into the egalitarianism of the left. It does indeed involve cultural expectations - as the left is interested with equality, what kind of equality and the means of achieving equality for people will undoubtedly differ between people - a left-wing individualist will require equality of individuals, a feminist will require equality of genders, a multicultural advocate will require equality of cultures. However it should be noted that scholars have placed certain ideologies in categories, fascists are consistently regarded by mainstream scholars as far-right due to their extremist supremacist doctrines of superiority of a nation or race over others.--R-41 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the dividing line between the Right and other groups can shift then there can be no defining properties. We can say for example that the Right is less egalitarian that the Left, but we cannot say they support inequality, while the other groups support equality.  TFD (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course there can be defining properties. Just because what is left and what right depends on where you stand does not mean that left and right are not defined. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD's statement is illogical because it presumes that people who are seeking social equality - who are typically disadvantaged people - would not change their stances upon losing their disadvantages. So TFD's claim is based upon left-wing, right-wing, or centrist, as being alike a tattoo that is permanent, unchanging, rather than a stance that is based upon circumstances and goals. I assume everyone can imagine a cynical example of a person or group being or feeling disadvantaged that would associate with the left because they want equal rights, but should they not only achieve that but go above and beyond to a very privileged position, that they would then be very reluctant to reduce their privileges out of self-interest.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It might seem logical that most people who want social equality are disadvantaged, but, oddly, the data says otherwise. In the US, people in poor states tend to vote Republican, people in rich states tend to vote Democrat.  Bill Gates, at one time the richest man in the world, is a liberal.  A lot of my friends and neighbors, who get food stamps, shop at WalMart, and go to the emergency room when they get sick, are staunch conservatives.  It isn't necessarily logical, but it's a fact. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that critique, indeed I know poor people who fully blame themselves for their lot in life and accept capitalist hierarchy. However I would say that liberalism today even in the American-style social liberal form is not that left-wing, and given its stances on private property, free trade, and economic globalization, I am not surprised at all that billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros associate with social liberalism. But let's focus on the main problem of what TFD is saying: that a group's stance and its characteristics on the political spectrum are unchangeable, that it is alike a tattoo. That is not a realistic interpretation, given that politics involves circumstances and goals of people. As I have said before, mainstream historians record that Western society profoundly changed in the last two hundred years or so, from a nobility aristocracy based society to a bourgeois capitalist society, and that has affected the nature of social hierarchies across the West and now across the world. Put simply, obviously no leftist in the west is currently going out on protests about absolute monarchy in the West unlike the leftists who focused on it during the French Revolution-era, because it no longer exists in any Western country except for Vatican City. But leftists still exist - so the situations have massively changed, but a fundamental dynamic is still existing which is why leftism still exists.--R-41 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I often get the feeling that R-41 and TFD are talking past each other without actually engaging. It would help to focus on something specific in the article that can be improved, and discuss what would constitute an improvement. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead
The lead begins by asserting, "In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy". This is sourced to a description of the authoritarian Right at the time of the French Revolution. However, as Sowell for example has pointed out, the only agreed definition of the Right is opposition to the Left. The main work on right-wing politics, by Eatwell and O'Sullivan, described the specific forms of the Right that have emerged as reactions to a changing Left. While all the terms they use to describe these forms are subject to different uses, specific representatives of the main groups identified would be Maistre, Burke, Mussolini, right-wing populism and Thatcher. As the lead now stands, it is a synthesis of descriptions of various forms of the Right, and I suggest we use sources that seek to define the Right rather than combine various defintions of different forms of the Right. TFD (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can think of two things wrong with describing the Right as just opposition to the Left. First, I cannot think of anybody other than Sowell who defines it that way.  Second, it makes the Right an entirely negative position, when in fact it is often a positive position.  The Right is not just opposed to things, they are also in favor of things.


 * Rather than use the phrase "social hierarchy", it might be better just to say that the Right favors the capitalists and the left favors the workers. That is probably what a Marxist would say.  Marx would then explain the large number of poor people who favor the Right by saying that religion is the opiate of the masses, and the capitalists get workers to vote against their own interests by promising them pie in the sky by and by.  The trouble with that is: Left and Right are older than Marx, and still carry weight today in a world that has largely abandoned Marxism.


 * So the "social hierarchy" bit is a) referenced and b) not as likely to start fights as either "the Right is defined by what it is against" or the Marxist viewpoint. It seems to fit most uses of the word: sometimes the "social hierarchy" is based on noble birth, sometimes on the color of a person's skin, sometimes on natives vs. foreigners, sometimes by the ability to make money, sometimes on the assertion of One True Religion, to which all other religions are inferior.  Can anyone thing of a use of right-wing that does not support some form of social hierarchy? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Eatwell and O'Sullivan wrote, "in the period since the French Revolution the right can most fruitfully be conceived within five 'styles of thought' [that] in practice can be most helpfully conceived as a variety of responses to the left." That framework seems to be generally accepted.  And while groups within the Right are indeed in favor of some things they are not in favor of the same things.  For example, the Right in Venezuela is a coalition of conservatives, christian democrats, liberals and social democrats.
 * I do not understand the reference to Marx. The term right-wing did not exist in his life-time.  He did observe however that liberals and conservatives who had been the two opponents in the revolutions of 1789 and 1830, became allies in the June days uprising of 1848.
 * Yes the hierarchy statement is referenced but it says that authoritarian conservatives in 1789 supported hierarchy. It does not say that the Right supports hierarchy.
 * TFD (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I showed you earlier TFD, this is what Goldthrope says on the view of liberal-conservatives of today "that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one.". On page 51 of Norberto Bobbio's Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, he analyzes Elisabetta Galeotti's perspective that identifies "'hierarchy' for the right" and "'equality' for the left". Galeotti is not saying that only one part of the right supports hierarchy, she is saying that the right is based upon support of hierarchy. Bobbio himself says on page 60: "I believe that the criterion most frequently used to distinguish between the left and right is the attitude of real people in society to the ideal of equality.", on page 62 Bobbio refers to the left as "egalitarian" while he refers to the right as "inegalitarian".--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobbio said that Galeotti in her minority opinion rejected the term "inequality" and used "hierarchy" instead, because liberals also support inequality as defined by the Left. Liberals believe that "unequal rewards are right and desirable", but oppose hierarchy.  Basically you are cherry-picking quotes to support a definition not found in any of the sources.  TFD (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there is no other word to respond with other than saying that what you said is bullshit - especially that you can't put two and two together when Goldthrope's source says that liberal-conservatives believe that "unequal rewards are right and desirable". Yes I used Bobbio's source, and yes he criticized Galeotti's version, but that is her version. And what is his version, it is almost saying the same thing, that the right is "inegalitarian" Try looking up definitions of right-wing politics in Google books, it is nearly impossible to find one that is not talking about "extreme right violence" or American conservatism. Go find a definition of right-wing politics yourself if you think I am so manipulative as to "cherrypick" from non-existant other options of definitions and put it up for discussion - there are almost none - because almost all of the books out there on Google Books talking about the right-wing, are either talking about the extreme right or about the specific American right-wing. TFD, I get really pissed off every single time you disagree with me, that you assume bad faith, after I dedicate a lot of time to put forward scholarly definitions. You spit on my feet every time you are losing an argument by resorting to calling me a manipulative jerk, I won't tolerate it won't have any further part of your pathetic accusation-filled bullshit. Go ahead and report me for WP:UNCIVIL, I'm guilty just as you are for clearly violating Assume good faith.--R-41 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did find a definition from Eatwell and O'Sullivan's The Nature of the Right, one of the few books actually about the subject and has 57 cites on Google scholar. It is not up to us to put two and two together, that is synthesis.  If you believe that "there are none (definitions)", then you should nominate the article for deletion, per "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources".  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and did you not cherrypick that like you accuse of me? And you say that my sources are all unreliable, how dare you be so smug. Go ahead and report me for WP:UNCIVIL, I really don't care because this discussion has become insane, now you are relying on gut instinct interpretations of what my sinister manipulative means and goals are, and not even being able to apply common sense when looking at the sources I have provided, that several scholars looking at the left-right spectrum all through their reviews identify the left as egalitarian, while the right is hierarchical or inegalitarian. This has become just too pathetic to even bother further discussion.--R-41 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, inegalitarian is not hierarchical, as your source (Bobbio) points out. It is not cherry picking to search for a book by a well known expert that is extensively cited. You should remember Eatwell as one of the developers of the "consensus theory" of fascism.  TFD (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at your source (Eatwell), showing Chip Berlet's article, it is terrible. And what is the main topic he is talking about? Fascism. On the page you provided, he quickly describes a "New Right" as one combining capitalism and collectivism in the USA??? Okay, so all the right-libertarians out there are collectivists regardless of the fact that the Tea Party folk go on and on about their fear of a collectivist government destroying their individual rights...Give me a break. And all this fanning of the flames that I am not interpreting the sources I found correctly, and the only source you have brought to the table is exactly what I told you about being so common - one about the extreme right - obscurely titled On the Evolution of Alienation - that sounds like it could mean anything from alienation of people in families, to sexual alienation, etc. And I am accused of cherrypicking for picking a source that is clearly on the topic at hand titled Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction ... Again, demonstrating that discussion has really become insane and pathetic and should just end.--R-41 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is not Eatwell and the reason it mentions fascism is that the author Chip Berlet writing about the fringe right. However, Eatwell's 'new' right ("a rejection of the synthesis of economic liberalism and the collectivist state dominant in Western culture after WWII") is not fascist, that is the main form of the right today.  Eatwell's 'moderate'. right, typified by Burke, which he describes here, is also not fascist.  Nor is the radical right necessarily, since it includes right-wing populists such as the Reform Party of Canada.  Bobbio's book is of course a good source, but like any source it is only good if used accurately.  TFD (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've put in the intro that it can also refer to social inequality as well as Bobbio stated, so there is no point in continuing this discussion. And frankly, considering that Berlet has written such politically charged POV material with a political agenda titled: "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort" and "Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash", I find it absurd that you would choose him as a source, as Berlet does appear to be even attempting to be a dispassionate neutral observer of the left-right spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source does not depend on the political views of the writer. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, and in peer-reviewed articles it is possible to tell the difference.  TFD (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the only facts that I can read from it, are that Eatwell, that the very politically-motivated author Berlet uses, has identified different categories of the right that he is analyzing. He does not appear to be analyzing what the schism between the left and right is at all, he is only describing what their manifestations are. And with each post, we will only discover that both of us are approaching this from opposite angles, to which no relevant conclusion will be made, rendering this discussion pointless.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eatwell explains that "the history of the right can be seen in part as reactive: that it is 'most helpfully conceived as a variety of responses to the left'". The schisms differ, depending on the nature of the left.  E.g., French republicanism, Communism and post war social democracy were responded to by ultraroyalism, fascism and the New Right respectively.  Your argument is similar to ones I have encountered in discussions about the BNP. EDL and other far right groups.  The mainstream opposes them, therefore the mainstream is biased.  Yet Bobbio was a socialist, which you also claim to be.  He was actually imprisoned by the Fascists, and an opponent of Berlusconi, so he too would be biased.  TFD (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Above doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. The lede still asserts the patent falsehood that there is no egalitarian right wing and that that is the essence of the right wing/conservatism. It's no more than a tendency, not a defining characteristic. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is an egalitarian right, you need to cite a source that says so. Certainly, at the time the term was coined, the defining characteristic of the Right was antiegalitarianism.  If a group is not antiegalitarian, you would need a source that explained why it was called right-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not going to bother, they are numerous, Conservatism's lede correctly states the actual essence. Anti-egalitarianism may be being confused with out-group prejudices. In the modern period, and in the West in particular, outside of specific situational/institutional contexts, (in-group) egalitarianism is the default. It is a particular highly touted aspect of American society for example, regardless of the underlying current or historical realities. Right wingers don't stand clearly in opposition to that as a whole, I think, at least not yet, and especially if equality of opportunity (at least for one's in-group) is made distinct from equality of outcomes. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing is not the same as conservative. Originally, it was used to describe supporters of the aristocracy, and until fairly recently it was used to describe dictators, such as Hitler and Franco. Similarly, left-wing was used to describe communists, such as Marx and Stalin. The modern use is so at odds with the useage when I was young that reading any book written before 1950, say, can come as a shock to someone who grew up with the modern usage. Of course, words do change over time, and often come to mean the opposite of what they meant before. Still, the modern Right in the US still has a strong anti-egalitarian bent, as shown, for example, by Mitt Romney's comments about the 47%. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

social hierarchy and social inequality
This seems an unnecessary distinction. I suppose social inequality without a hierarchy is theoretically possible, meaning a case where A > B, B > C, and C > A. But I can't think of any examples. The recent edits do not seem to add anything to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it is part of the actual issue -- ought "equality" mean "equality of results no matter whether the person exerts himself or not", or "equality before the law inherent in being a person", or "getting all of what one 'needs' - with those being the neediest getting the most whether or not they exert themselves", or "getting at least the minimum needed for anyone, but requiring exertion to get 'more' than that minimum" etc. As soon as one allows those who work the hardest or best to get 'more,' one diverges from Mars's dicta, and gets to the traditional liberal view that as long "equality before the law" exists, that "equality" exists.  What precisely is "social equality"? Collect (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the idea of equality of outcomes is a big issue with some on the Right, but since nobody favors equality of outcomes, it is a non-issue on the Left. That still doesn't answer my question: what is the difference between "social hierarchy" and "social inequality". I have no preference for one phrase above the other. To use both seems redundant. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)"Hierarchy" rather implies "inequality before the law" which is not applicable per sources. And we have no real definition of "social equality" at all -- and Marx specifically believed in "receiving according to need" which has been shown to be a problematic position at best. Most socialist states no longer believe that one's "best work" is not needed to get state monies. Collect (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Social hierarchy means, per Goldthrope, means "a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradition". Inequality means either hierarchy or "unequal rewards [where] competition for wealth and power is a fair one."  So  Her Majesty reigns because her father did, while the President attained office due to his natural abilities and efforts.
 * You can read Bobbio's book here. Social inequality is inequality created by society and Bobbio gives several examples including laws that discriminate by gender or ethnicity.  I notice he says that both equality and the left-right are relative terms (pp. 56, 60).
 * "The two concepts 'left' and 'right' are relative, not absolute. They are not substantive or ontological concepts. They are not intrinsic qualities of the political universe, but are situated in 'political space'. They represent a given political topology, which has nothing to do with political ontology: 'One is not "left-wing" or "right-wing" in the same way as one is "communist", "liberal" or "Catholic". In other words, 'left' and 'right' are not words which designate immutable meanings, but can signify different things in different times and situations. Revelli uses the example of the shift in the nineteenth-century left from a liberal movement to a democratic one, and again to a socialist one. The content of the left is defined in terms of the content of the right. The fact that left and right are opposites simply means that one cannot be on both the left and the right at the same time; but it says nothing about the content of the opposing sides. The opposition remains, although the two opposites can change."
 * Based on that it appears the book is more relevant to the political spectrum than to either left or right wing politics. Even then, his analysis is contentious.  David Plotze, the editor of the The Radical Right, for example, says that Bobbio's definition has limited application to the U.S. because there is no one arguing in favor of social inequality.
 * TFD (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If people have been awake for the past 50 years, in the US political right the Republicans talk about poor people in general as "lazy" "welfare bums" all the time - Reagan did it since the 1960s and Romney did it without specifically saying the crass term by saying that he isn't interested in 47 percent of the US population because they rely on welfare and allegedly feel entitled to it. Republicans praise the social ladder of capitalism as being legitimate, and those who fail to rise the ladder are regarded as failures. And any serious reviewer of American Republican neoconservative trade and foreign policy will now know that it has been about asserting American "unilateral" dominance (a.k.a. one country's imperial dominance) over strategic economic resources such as oil. The US neoconservative is filled with very inegalitarian and hierarchical appeals to the superiority of the American way of life (laissez-faire capitalism in their view) that in their view legitimates them to threaten, economically damage, overthrow, or wage war on other governments that don't adhere to this; a winners-keepers and losers-weepers attitude to capitalism; and open disrespect to multilateral cooperation as promoted by international institutions. Goldthrope's recognition that the Republican-types of economically-liberal conservatives accepting economic inequality, is exactly the issue. Call it hierarchy or inequality, it amounts to the same thing, a toleration of social and economic disparity amongst individuals or groups that the right doesn't believe require egalitarian measures to end such disparity.--R-41 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would Bobbio have called that inequality or inegalitarianism (a distinction that he makes)? Surely Reagan did not propose to legislate different treatments of the poor depending on their (hereditary) social class.  TFD (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobbio calls it inequality, others call it hierarchy. I have included both hierarchy and social inequality to identify both views, and both in either case involve tolerating social and economic disparity amongst individuals and groups in combination with opposing egalitarian measures to end such disparity. There is hereditary hierarchy and there is non-hereditary hierarchy - i.e. a chain of command in the military - it is hierarchical but not hereditary. The US capitalist economy has strong hierarchy within it the CEO at the top and the manual labourer at the bottom of those within the economic system, outside of those involved in the system of it is the unemployed who is regarded at the very bottom of a capitalist society. Would the Republicans invite a CEO of a big company to meet a Republican President, sure. Would the Republicans invite an unemployed person on welfare for many years to meet a Republican President, I doubt it - especially considering that they commonly call such people "welfare bums".--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you don't believe me that neoliberal conservatives in North America despise and stereotype people who depend on welfare as "welfare bums", take a look at this advertisement by the new Conservative Party of Quebec in my country of Canada, .--R-41 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does Bobbio say that? (The Quebec Conservative Party, which is French Canadian, received 0.18% of the vote, and that was probably due to confusion with the national party of the same name.  How are they representative of neoliberal conservatives in North America?)  TFD (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobbio calls the right "inegalitarian" - I gave you the page earlier, you can find it yourself. The new Quebec Conservatives are continuing an agenda that has gone on for years in North America - cut down on welfare spending on the basis of claiming that there is substantial fraud of the system by "welfare bums". Want another example from Canada of a similarly degrading attitude towards lower-class and poor people? Mike Harris and the Ontario PC government in the 1990s - they sent in the police to arrest and evict homeless people because they set up tents on public property such as parks, that was the only place they could set up tents because if they did it on private property they would have been immediately evicted. As I said, Reagan called those dependent on welfare as "welfare bums", Romney has said he is not interested in 47 percent of the US population whom he identifies as being dependent on welfare.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect: Why does "hierarchy" imply inequality before the law and "inequality" not? The only difference I see between the two is that "hierarchy" implies that one group is on top, while it would be posible, though unlikely, to have a case where groups were unequal but no one group was on top. As for Marx, there are not many Marxists left these days. In the last sentence of your post, I'm not sure whether you intended a double negative or not. In most social democracies, there is no equality of outcome, but there is food, clothing, shelter, health care, and eduction for even the poorest, while the rich get two cadillacs and an elevator in the garage. Hardly equality of outcomes.

In any case, it is easy to have inequality without "inequality before the law". For example, even in those parts of the US where the law treats the poor and rich the same, the state still provides a much better education for the children of the rich and businesses pay men more than women for the same work. So it is commonplace to have equality before the law but no real equality.

R-41: If there is no distinction between the two terms, why include both? It seems to me to just clutter up the lead. I doubt if many people are aware of the distinction that TFD makes, per Goldthorpe, that hierarchy refers to ability and inequality to results. That may be how one writer defined the terms for the purposes of his book, but it is not in general use. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a discussion that you and TFD need to sort out. I have accommodated TFD's criticism that the term hierarchy and inequality are not coinciding and his noting of Bobbio's stance. TFD's claim is that hierarchy implies an ordered set of positions that are unequal in authority or power, while inequality itself does not imply such an ordered set but merely a presence of unequal situations of individuals or groups. I don't precisely know the full definition of "hierarchy" - but I personally think that if that term applies more broadly than merely an ordered set of positions that are unequal in authority or power, then hierarchy alone would be preferable to use, because "inequality" implies that "equality" is the normal base of the distinction. But Bobbio uses "inegalitarian" rather than just hierarchical. Regardless of that fine distinction, the acceptance or support of either "hierarchy" or "inequality" implicitly involves tolerating an unlevel allocation of power and resources with some having more and others having less while rejecting egalitarian measures to end such disparity. I have said this before, I have spent enough time with this, it is up to you and TFD to continue this discussion.--R-41 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think we have gone on as long as is productive. I would rather have just one word or the other, but I can live with things as they are. TFD: do you prefer having both words in the lead? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer both because hierarchy implies a formal class system. TFD (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)