Talk:Right-wing politics

See Also section

Under the see also section, structural functionalism is listed. The article on structural functionalism directly says: "It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism" and cites a source; following this quote it states conflict theory can be seen as having a left-wing bent. I think either a removal or a further explanation in this article about how functionalism directly relates to right wing politics would be helpful. CalorusRex (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017

Why is social/cultural liberalism listed as right-wing?

Many people who identify as social/cultural liberals would object to being counted as right wing. Since the conception of left/right, social liberalism was usually a leftist project.

The political compass suggests splitting the political spectrum into an egalitarian (leftist) vs. economic liberal (rightist) dimension vs. an authoritarian/social liberal dimension. This reflects that eg. nazism is generally considered right wing and authoritarian, Soviet Union style communism is left wing and authoritarian. DarthBarth (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The article does not mention social/cultural liberalism. It does mention "liberal conservatives" who stress small government and free markets, but that is very different from social or cultural liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Christer Pursainen due?

We have a single paper presenting a WP:FRINGE view of the politics of the CPC hinged off a single book by a minor academic. h-index - 9 - doesn't indicate he's particularly influential in his field. I didn't delete this when I did my first pass on the China stuff because I was more focused on the failed verifications but now I'm asking: does anybody think this is due a specific pullout? Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Anti-communism "needs additional citations "

I added more citations to the Anti-communism section, so I think the template can be removed. Zyxrq (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Zyxrq Okay, good. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Economics

@User:Deva1995 If we are going to have images of Milton Friedman Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, I think we should add a paragraph about the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics. Also I saved the image in the anti-communism section of the article. Zyxrq (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, paragraphs about the Austrian and Chicago schools should be added. Deva1995 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, do you agree that the anti communist section should realistically be made a sub section of the economic section? Zyxrq (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? The anti-communism section discusses economics very little. Deva1995 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If anything I was just curious about your thoughts on the subject. It just feels weird to me that the economics section comes after the anti communism section. As being a anti communist is related to economics, it doesn't necessarily need to be a subsection though. I'm not necessarily for or against this change. Zyxrq (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan you removed information by @Deva1995, I still think it's good information to keep so I reverted your edit. Zyxrq (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zyxrq: That's fine if you want to take responsibility for the changes. Thanks for letting me know. You may want to verify the sources against the updated text given the history of the blocked account. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti-communism isn't primarily about economics but about its challenge to the structure of society. It's more an extreme reaction to communism rather than one based on rational argument. TFD (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)