Talk:Third Position

Neutrality?

I think that in external politics, third position may also refer to the situation of the neutral countries during the Second World War. _└^Nitro4ce_┘^┌_t^┐  05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reference for this usage? --Cyclopia 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is Third Way. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Way

Isn't this somewhat similar to the idea of Third Way, and could be mentioned within such an article. - Animagentile (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Third Way links to a dab page, and if you look on said page, you will see that a great many contradictory groups and movements refer to themselves as a "third way" or "third position." It is a complicated matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of dodgy as someone might have a knee-jerk reaction when a person talks of a third way in saying it is fascist when it is apparently the simple wish of a group to have a compromise between the right and left extremes.

Perhaps you might be interested in reading into Distributism and Social market economy. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any sort of information available on the political economics of the Third Position movement, either past or present? This Wiki page is strongly linked with the discussion of fascism, but the present write-up here is distanced from the various fascist movements of the previous Century, and there is little or nothing here that speaks to the political aspirations of Third Position advocates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.156.49 (talk • contribs) (04:42, 12 November 2008)

Currently, third way seems to be rather leftist, third position rightist, and we could possibly use syncretic politics as a neutral point of view citing each of the above-mentioned two articles 193.224.72.132 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Currently, third way seems to be rather leftist"

To the left of the right and to the right of the left? --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Position Help?

Although i have almost no experience in editing wikipedia, I do have a lot of knowledge about the "third positionist" movement and would be willing to help, as i read on the article page that references and etc are needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.138.167 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Groups

Does anyone have any current third position groups, or know of any. I have looked a few up on google etc, but when I attempt to post, apparently the one link I found, which still exists, is worthy of deletion? Please, friends, this article needs some updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumpenproliteriate (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardy Lloyd Runs the New Dawn, the only american based Third Position group out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.103 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Lloyd

Hardy Lloyd runs the "New Dawn" out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA... He's given talks in the US, Mexico and Canada... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.56 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• According to whom? See WP:CITE for Wikipedia's policies on references.Spylab (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

According to his website, the ADL, the SPLC, a Pittsburgh Times interview...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.238 (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, see WP:CITE for Wikipedia's policies on citing sources. You still haven't provided any actual references.Spylab (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this guy for a while now... I've gone to his speeches, interviewed him, read interviews in the local paper... I live in his city. Should I bring a blood sample or something??? I mean, WTF? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.77 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, see WP:CITE for Wikipedia's policies on citing sources. You still haven't provided any actual references.Spylab (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You were a hall watcher in school, weren't you.

I can bring the bloody newspaper articles!! Or the FBI report, or the Pittsburgh police file on him, or you can meet him or many other things.........! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.57 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

According to articles in the "Pittsburgh Times", according to the ADL and SPLC, according to an interview I held with Hardy Lloyd and police and local political activists...! Also according to Third Position groups in Chile, Argentina, Spain, Italia, Russia, Germany, France, and the United States.........! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.68 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Lloyd has been spreading the teachings of Benito Mussolini and Julius Evola for 10 years now...

Jargon Tag

I've added the jargon tag. I don't think the opening is clear enough - it is full of technical political jargon which I don't believe many would understand. Politics is something I understand, but I had to look up pretty much every word!

If someone could simplify it, that would be great Dvmedis (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For example: "a racially-homogeneous decentralized tribal form of nationalism coupled with corporatism, distributism or solidarism as a third-way economic system". Dvmedis (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when discussing Third Positionism, there is political jargon that is unavoidable. Regardless, the example you give is a bad one since it is an explanation for what is meant by the simpler expression "racial socialism". Furthermore, we are simply repeating what sources tell us. That being said, I'll see what I can do to "dumb down" the lead... --Loremaster (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Loremaster. Many thanks for your efforts. As per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, dumbing-down isn't required, just improvement for a general audience (From Wiki: Eliminate long strings of adjectives, Add a concrete example, Use jargon and acronyms judiciously, Use analogies, Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation etc etc.) I understand word selection might be difficult, especially when you are sacrificing bits of article you yourself have previously contributed, but I'm only aiming to make it more understood to a wider audience. Many thanks for changes so far - feel free to remove tag whenever Dvmedis (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the Lead now? --Loremaster (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Distributism

I don't think distributism quite belongs on the list, even though it shares some features with third position ideas. Mainly because distributism is not per se a nationalist ideology, let alone tribalist, but a Christian one. --Rallette (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Distributism doesn't have to be a nationalist or tribalist ideology to be mentioned in an article about Third Positionism. The reason why it should be and is mentioned is because it is one of the three economic ideologies that many Third Positionists embrace. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but it's been put on the list of "varieties of third positionism". The article defines third positionism as a "nationalist political ideology" with racialist tendencies, and as said, distributism is not a nationalist ideology but an economic system. Distributism, while arguably reactionary, is entirely compatible with an utterly anti-nationalist politics. (The same actually goes for corporatism.) I have no problem with distributism being mentioned in the article, only with its inclusion on that list in the box.--Rallette (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be raising this issue on the Template talk:Third Position page rather than here... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing Social market economy is an implementation of Distributism Germans will not be happy being told that their current economy is associated with Neo-fascism. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Rockford Institute?

In the article's subsection on the U.S., it claims (or implies) that the paleoconservative organization The Rockford Institute subscribes to Third Positionism. I am not entirely sure if this is an accurate characterization. Third Positionism, in as much as it is anti-capitalist (as acknowledged by this very article's intoductory section), does not speak for the Rockford Institute. On that organization's website, the "About Us" section says [1]:

"For 30 years, The Rockford Institute has carried out its mission of defending and advancing the principles of a free society. Founded in the year of the nation's bicentennial celebration, the Institute has worked to preserve the institutions of the Christian West: the family, the Church, and the rule of law; private property, free enterprise, and moral discipline; high standards of learning, art, and literature."

An organization that promotes "private property" and especially "free enterprise" cannot, in my estimation, fairly be labeled a "Third Position" group. 24.189.139.132 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth nor accuracy or fairness — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true, accurate and fair. That being said, "private property" and "free enterprise" are not incompatible with some of Third Positionism, which promote distributism rather than socialism. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" The only source I see attached to the list of groups delineated in the United States subsection of this article as being Third Positionist is a link to an index of articles published by an organization called Political Research Associates/PublicEye.org. That's a reliable source? One of the articles found on that page about black nationalism surmised something to the effect that "American Jews have more to worry about from David Duke and Pat Buchanan than Louis Farrakhan." In other words, Pat Buchanan is genocidally anti-Semitic. In my opinion, to describe Political Research Associates as having a far-leftist agenda and outlook would be to make a gross understatement. Furthermore, I saw no mention at all of the Rockford Institute in any of the articles indexed on the link attached to the footnote (perhaps I missed a reference?). 24.189.139.132 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Essays published by the PRA are considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the agenda you may perceive they have. That being said, here is link to the section of the essay, which mentions the Rockford Institute. http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/third_position.html

That being said, when the PRA says that "American Jews have more to worry about from David Duke and Pat Buchanan than Louis Farrakhan", they aren't suggesting that they are genocidally anti-Semitic but that Duke and Buchanan are figures who 1) are far more influential with a great number of people than than Farrakhan can even dream of, and 2) have, through out their careers, made statements that incite anti-Semitic feelings.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Syncretic politics be merged into Third position. Syncretic politics refers to ideologies that combine elements from existing ideologies, for example fascism and libertarianism. It is a subject appropriate for a dictionary not an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think syncretic politics could serve as a succinct synonym for the definition on the Third position page, which is better fleshed out. I'm for it. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

these notions are not really well-defined in scientific literature, so i think we have some freedom in handling them. there are also a bit more "leftist" movements that can't be easily interpreted in the left-right terminology, and syncretic politics could serve as a neutral point of view. that is, i'm against merging. by the way third way tries to appear very scientific, but in fact that's the left-leaning article, what u can see with a deeper examination of its basic references. 193.224.72.132 (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Where in the sources does it say that Third Position supports "separate but equal"?

As asked in the headline, where in the sources does it say that?--R-41 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't check all of them, and surely not now: but for example source 7 ( http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html ) discusses a similar concept extensively about Alain de Benoist version of New Right/Third Positionism. Quote: "Benoist extended the notion of an alliance of European nations with the Third World against their main enemies: the United States, liberalism, and capitalism. But against the fascists who desired a united Europe under a super-state, Benoist instead calls for radical federalism and the political decentralization of Europe. Roger Griffin describes this vision as: The pluralistic, multicultural society of liberal democracy was to give way, not to a culturally coordinated, charismatic, and, in the case of Nazism, racially pure, national community coterminous with the nation-state, but to an alliance of homogeneous ethnic-cultural communities (ethnies) within the framework of a federalist European “empire.”(33) " --Cyclopia^talk 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sharpening up cites

The cites could use sharpening up with page number info. See {{sfn}}, {{rp}}, and other footnote templates for some tools which can help with doing this with re-used cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This article may have serious conceptual problems

In my opinion, this article does not bring an accurate definition of "third position" in both domestic and international politics. Third Positionism is an historically situated idea: an alternative to the Cold War bipolarity. The Non-Aligned Movement is its well-known product. Latin American populism (Perón and many others), Panarabic Nationalism (Nasser and many others), and other national liberation movements worldwide in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe participated in this trend. And many political theorists and commentators from third-world countries (I can give a list of Latin American authors) used "third position" to label their political views.

But this article almost says that "ẗhird position" is a by-product of European fascism, ignoring the well-known international history of third-positionism. It is important not to confuse third-world national liberation movements from European and Western fascism: they are completely different phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observatorio (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While I understand that you're saying "third position" can be taken literally to merely mean "a third option other than capitalism and communism", the term is no longer so general. It has come to specifically denote groups united by racial and environmental preservation -- two issues capitalism and communism have obviously neglected which led to a reactionary movement. It is not simply a synonym for "independent" or "third party". On the other hand, I do agree with the other part of your post. Third Positionism is not unique to Europe and the article heavily cites sources with clear "anti-fascism" agendas. The article needs to be cleaned up so that the citations are simply defining Third Positionism rather than being openly hostile or affiliating it as "rebranded nazism". There are Third Positionist movements all around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

There is a movement in Greece which is generally labelled as being third-positionist, aiming to crack down on what they view as corrupt foreign financial institutions and instead promote racial and environmental restoration. I believe they should be added to the list -- especially since most of the other groups on the list are historical and GD is current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Phalangist movement in Lebanon is also a candidate. While on the surface they appear to be a religious group, their existence was heavily grounded in defending "authentic_ Lebanese blood and soil from a massive demographic shift via Arab Islamic immigration into Lebanon. This included an ideology mixing elements of radical collectivist economics with hardline cultural conservatism - hence the name alluding to Spanish Falangism which was a sort of third revolution after Spain was dissatisfied by the shortcomings of feudalism, capitalism and communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.57.132 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Third Position and National Bolshevism

Advocates of Third Position typically present themselves as "beyond left and right" and "against communism and capitalism" etc. On the contrary, national-bolsheviks present themselves as left-wing nationalists who combine elements of nationalism (especially Russian nationalism) and Communism. GrenadeF1 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FRANCE sentence clarification

"During the 1930s and 1940s, a number of splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism; Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). " doesn't work as a sentence.

Is "During the 1930s and 1940s, a number of splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism, INCLUDING Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). " what is meant?

Or "During the 1930s and 1940s, TWO splinter groups from the radical left became associated with radical nationalism: Jacques Doriot's French Popular Party (from the French Communist Party) and Marcel Déat's National Popular Rally (from the French Section of the Workers' International). " ?

[Feel free to delete this comment after fixing.] Fp cassini (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Third International Theory?

Shouldn't Third International Theory be mentioned?ShimonChai (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Querfront" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Querfront. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Neo-fascist ideology

Because people keep coming in here and trying to revert it: Third Position is a neo-fascist ideology. In addition to making the same appeal of being both anti-communist & anti-capitalist as fascism classic, the article repeatedly refers to it as being rooted in fascist ideology and practiced by neo-fascist groups. The only exception to this is the Justicialist Party in Argentina, and even then it doesn't mean much given Peron's documented sympathies for fascism and protection of Nazis after World War II. Docktuh (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you may be editing through bias and think you should recuse yourself from editing this particular article. Your profile lists you as belonging to a number of radical left ideologies which might motivate you to want to "tar" Third Position adherents with the unpleasant label of neo-fascism. As best as I can tell, the ideology is a synthesis of various far right and far left ideas. The article even listed "socialism" as an influence in multiple places - that is, until you personally removed it. I suggest we seek arbitration in this matter. Per WP:NPOV, we should strive to make the article - and especially the lead - as neutral as possible.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Similarly with respect, I've edited multiple articles about things that I find politically abhorrent and not felt the need to call them anything particularly awful sounding unless I had multiple sources to back them up. Third Position was referred to previously as neo-fascist before someone came in and gave it a softer sounding introduction after they'd made multiple edits to various articles about nationalist & racist subjects to make them sound softer as well. And again, the article continuously lists it's origins and adherents as neo-fascist; The Strasserists and early NazBols in Germany, the Terza Pozioine in Italy, the French Popular Party, National Popular Rally, and Nouveau Resistance in France, and the National Front in Britain. If you prefer arbitration on the matter that's fine (I personally don't know how to begin that process so I leave initiation of it to you), but I do ask that if you intend to critique me, do so in good faith. Also, I don't recall removing the instances of the word "socialism" from the article. The only time I've ever done this regarding far-right topics is changing "National Socialism" to "Nazism" (which is really because outside people writing during the Nazi regime, no one really calls it "National Socialism" and God knows we don't need more people running around misunderstanding that term, we get enough of them trying to alter the article on Nazism to say it was left-wing). Anyhow, if I did so I apologize, but could you point me to when that edit was? Docktuh (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, let me start by assuring you that I am acting in good faith, I intend to continue doing so, and assume you are as well. Please do not take my suggestion that you may be politically biased as an accusation of bad faith - I only mean that your particular point of view may make it very difficult for you to maintain NPOV on this article. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on the subject. I'm unsure about the process of arbitration - I'm a relatively new Wikipedian - but in any event I do think getting more experienced editors' eyes on this article would be a good idea. Back to the point: the article does mention neo-fascist origins, but it also mentions communistic origins, alliances with the far left, etc. It seems to me that mentioning one but not the other in the lead is overly biased, even with the acknowledgement that Third Position is somewhere in the ballpark of fascist politics and/or partially arose out of it. Can you find reputable sources (WP:RS) that directly refer to Third Position - as in, the overall ideology - as strictly neo-fascist in all cases? Equally importantly, can you find reputable sources that claim otherwise? Without these, we should be very discerning about claims are made in the lead. If the ideology is indeed a mix of extreme right and extreme left politics, referring to it solely as "neo-fascism" or "fascism" - defined as "a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power" - seems incorrect or at least incomplete. Finally - regarding the edit I was referring to, the link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_Position&diff=953059804&oldid=953059704 wherein you remove the word "socialist" from the History section. CelebrateMotivation (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright then, I misread tone there, that's on me, I apologize. Firstly, there's not much of anything regarding Third Position having communistic origins (even if it did, not much point since it's an anti-communist ideology). The only thing really mentioned is that an early form included the NazBols (who upon even the lightest of research turn out to essentially be left-nationalists more than anything else, I mean heck the modern ones have what is essentially a Nazi flag as their emblem) and that one American Neo-Nazi proposed an alliance of communists & fascists that never went anywhere. Regarding the bit I deleted - thank you for providing that by the by - that's because calling Strasserism "socialism" is kind of dicey. Never mind that it's established fact that "National Socialism" was anything but socialism, even Strasserism's article notes that Strasser and Hitler opposed "Jewish finance capitalism" but were fine with a productivist kind of capitalism. It's the left-wing of the Nazi movement overall, that's indisputable, but it seems contentious at best to call it anything besides anti-capitalist (which, again, in dealing with Nazism is a contentious thing to say the least). Docktuh (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, it's also possible I worded something too vaguely. With regards to NazBols - "left-nationalism" is not the same thing as "fascism" since the definition of fascism specifically references far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism. As a result, if you wanted to refer to Third Position as a "nationalist" ideology in the lead, I think that would be much more appropriate - it addresses the fact that the Third Position is a highly nationalistic ideology without ignoring the influences from the left, the leftist economic ideas inherent in it, etc. Regarding the handling of the article and getting more editors involved: I've done some research, and it appears that "arbitration" is, I guess, the final step when things are very contentious. My bad there. Since this doesn't seem to be a particularly contentious dispute, I will instead be putting in a "request for comments" with my next edit to this talk page, which should - if I'm understanding the process correctly - attract some more editors to weigh in.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you look up Luc Michel and the Communautaire National-Européen or Roberto Fiore and Forza Nuova and take a long journey down those rabbit holes, you'll find that the third position is just simply neo-fascist, regardless as to the political sympathies of the poster here.

If it seems confusing, perhaps, some sort of clarificatory remarks could be made about the differences between the third position, a common belief amongst obscurant neo-fascist intellectuals, the Third Way of Tony Blair, and the third camp, the Cold War political position disavowing support for either the West or the former Soviet Union, of which there were many people who had nothing to do with neo-fascism whatsoever to have supported, as it's a term that was popularized in Trotskyist circles. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC about having the word "neo-fascist" in the lead

Should the lead of this article have "neo-fascist" in it? Is "nationalist" more appropriate? What is the best way to respect WP:NPOV here? See the previous discussion on the talk page above. CelebrateMotivation (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes: Looking at the articles for the various ideologies listed, the furthest left ones are Strasserite, which is still fascist (and still far-right: the left wing of the Nazi Party is still extremely far right). The sources in the article are quite clear that third-positionism is a common component of fascist ideology. Plus, common sense test: if a list of parties includes one called "White Aryan Resistance", can it really be anything but a list of fascist parties? Loki (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: I reiterate my arguments from before, which were more or less summed up by the editor above. Docktuh (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• No: As I mentioned in my arguments above, I still believe that this is too biased for the lead. There are Third Position adherents who would consider themselves as left as they are right; to suggest that all of them are "fascist" (**far-right** authoritarian) is misleading, particularly when the statement is in the lead of the article. I will agree that it is certainly jarring to see something like "White Aryan Resistance" in a list and therefore easy to assume that everything else in that list must be painted with the same brush. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that it's not very accurate. We ought to let people decide for themselves instead of stuffing the lead with emotionally charged language. Regardless, this is all sort of irrelevant until/unless we can find actual reputable sources (WP:RS) that make the direct claim that Third Position is "fascist" or "not fascist." Until then, we ought to err on the side of caution.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• No: Third Position refers to various post-WW2 philosophies and ideologies, thus it should not be defined strictly as "neo-fascist", which is quite vague term. In case of political syncretism it's the best to avoid such narrow definitions. ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No: Within the realm of 'Third Positionism,' we encounter a diverse range of ideologies, some of which hold anti-imperialist, national liberationist, and anti-state (only national anarchism) views (such as National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, and Social Nationalism). These perspectives stand in contrast to fascism, which is fundamentally characterized by its imperialistic and expansionist tendencies. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to categorize these ideologies as "Neo-Fascist" and to exclusively define Third Positionism as "Neo-Fascist" Mr.Feinstein (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the previous comment here was two years ago (and that was from a block evading sock). Better to start a new conversation in such cases. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Third Position and Far-Right Accelerationism

So, this just kind of something that I've surmised, looking at kind of a lot of articles, here, on various far-Right groups, and, so, I'm not requesting to edit the article to include information in this regard, unless someone happens to have it, but, just looking at the various organizations and figures and all, it seems kind of like the so-called "third position" has some sort of influence on far-right accelerationism. I don't have any real evidence to support this, but, after clicking through my many tabs for kind of an extensive period of time, it has become something that I do generally glean. It seems to me that the third position is kind of the de facto ideology of certain neo-fascist intelligentsias and that far-right accelerationism is their praxis. I'm not about to sift through the scores of neo-fascist ideology to find out for absolute certain, but, if anyone has done so already, I would call it a good hunch, y'know. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Critique of article reversion

My article was reverted based on the grounds that 'Third Position does not originally describe Peron, it predates him by some time, and specifically refers to neo-fascist ideas'

Firstly, I did not claim that the term 'Third Position' solely “described Peron”. My assertion was that the term was 'Initially introduced by the Peronist regime.' This is a factual statement. During the period of 1946-1949, under the foreign minister Juan Atilio Bramuglia, the Justicialist/Peronist government pursued a geopolitical policy termed 'Tercera posición' or ‘Third Position’/’third way/’third conception’[2] This policy aimed to forge relations distinct from both the Soviet Union and the United States, aspiring instead to create an anti-imperialist bloc comprising 'Third World' or less developed Latin American governments. Juan Peron, in a speech at Teatro Colón in 1946, even articulated this concept, stating,

'Capitalism, gentlemen, in the world is very reluctant ... The others begin to evolve into new forms. The absolute state system marches under the banner of communism in all latitudes and it would seem that a third conception could form an acceptable solution, in which it would not reach state absolutism nor could it return to the absolute individualism of the previous regime. It would be a balanced solution of the forces that represent the modern state to avoid the annihilation of one of these forces, to unite them and set them in parallel motion, and that the forces of capital and labor, harmoniously combined, set out to build the common destiny, with benefit for the three forces and without prejudice to any of them.'[3][4]

Secondly, it is erroneous to exclusively equate that all of Third Positionism is sets of ‘Neo-Fascism’, as the umbrella term encompasses a broad and diverse range of ideologies, some of which exhibit anti-imperialist, national liberationist, and anti-statist characteristics.[5][6] For instance, ideologies like Social-Nationalism and National-Anarchism fall under the Third Position umbrella. It's important to recognize that Fascism is characterized by expansionism, pro-imperialism, and pro-statism, whereas the aforementioned non-fascist Third Position ideologies exhibit different characteristics that are diametrically opposed to expansionism and statism. Hence, categorizing all these ideologies as 'Neo-Fascist' oversimplifies their distinctions. It would be akin labeling all of Leftism as exclusively a set of Marxist-Leninist ideas.

Lastly, I would also like to dispute the 'neo' in 'neo-fascism' as well, as I believe the umbrella term 'Third Position' can also be used to describe ideologies that existed before and during the fascist era such as National Syndicalism, Yellow Socialism, National Communism/National Bolshevism and even some odd ones like monarchist syndicalism.[7]

Thus, I propose a slightly revised description: The Third Position is an umbrella term that pertains to a collection of nationalist syncretic political ideologies. These ideologies encompass elements from the social far-right and economic center and far-left spectrums. Distinguishing themselves from the conventional left-right political spectrum, these ideologies adopt the mantle of a 'Third Position', positioning themselves in contrast to Capitalism and Communism. Notable ideologies falling under the umbrella of the 'Third Position' include but are not limited to: National Syndicalism, Fascism, National Socialism, National Bolshevism, National anarchism, and Social-Nationalism.'

I hope the points mentioned above are able to win you over and we can conclude at the definition/description above.

Mr.Feinstein (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If fascism is a form of "third position", then your edit appears to go against the strong consensus that fascism is a form of right-wing politics. I'll revert the edit for now, based on that understanding, but would be happy to discuss further. Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean for my edit to contest the consensus that fascism is a part of the right. I probably should've specified the mainstream academic consensus surrounding the 'Third Position' as a whole and its relation to rightism.

With that in mind, how does this new description sound? "The Third Position is an umbrella term that refers to a range of nationalist syncretic political ideologies. These ideologies encompass elements from the social far-right and economic center and far-left spectrums. Attempting to distinguish themselves from the conventional left-right political spectrum, these ideologies adopt the term of the 'Third Position', positioning themselves in contrast to Capitalism and Communism. Notable ideologies falling under the umbrella of the 'Third Position' include but are not limited to: National Syndicalism, Fascism, National Socialism, National Bolshevism, National anarchism, and Social-Nationalism. Academics classify the Third Position within the realm of far-right politics, largely due to its prevalent ultranationalist and discriminatory characteristics." Mr.Feinstein (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. However I'm not sure that tacking on within the realm of far-right politics, largely due to its prevalent ultranationalist and discriminatory characteristics is the best way forward. While there's nothing fundamentally incorrect in what you've written, as far as I can see, it's not clear to me how it improves upon the existing text, which is –– I think you would agree –– far more approachable for the reader. Generalrelative (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

hmmm... Perhaps discarding that and replacing 'Nationalist' with 'Far-right' will do? I was thinking this could help maintain clarity while still indicating the ideological positioning in the initial definition. Mr.Feinstein (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BA'athism and others ideologies

Ba'athism#Controversy says that Baathism has fascist and racist inspirations. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaddafism and others "Arab socialisms"

The Third International Theory meets the criteria to be in third position, as it promotes opposition to capitalism and communism along with a certain nationalism at the hands of an authoritarian government. Gaddafi initially led a military dictatorship. ComradeHektor (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Gaddafi was many unpleasant things, but a neo-fascist was not one of them. This claim requires reliable sources. Docktuh (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, however, the fact that characters and ideologies such as Peronism or Getulism are mentioned in the section, either out of sympathies or for protecting Nazis after the war, makes one wonder if they are not related. More so taking into account people like Johann von Leers or the article on Arab socialism itself (where it differs from Marxism). There are reliable sources that confirm its closeness -of Arab socialism– to Fascism. ComradeHektor (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)