Talk:Syncretic politics

message: Is the Minaret of Freedom Institute a syncretic organization combining Islamism and libertarianism? --GCarty 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Minaret of Freedom Institute]] and syncretism 

message: I think that the following passage is somewhat debatable:
:the National Bolshevik Party of Russia, formed from the unlikely union of Leninist and Fascist aesthetics.
The french historian Pierre Chaunu said that nazism (easily regarded as fascism) and communism were "heterozygous twins", I believe that Alain Besançon may also share a similar opinion. Adolf Eichmann said that they were "quasi-siblings", and there is quite an amount of mentions of people on the nazi party in favor of socialism (their, german national, but socialism nevertheless), many can be found here in wikipedia. I'll just remove the "unlikely" then. Extremophile 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat POV/controversial on judging the likelihood of association between leninism and fascism 

message: I found this entry confusing.  The description of syncretic politics indicates that it is characterized by the synthesis of beliefs from both ends of the left-right spectrum, which makes sense as far as it goes.  But some more examples of syncretic political systems (or ideologies?) would be very useful.  Right now the only examples given are listed under syncretic fascism, and are also defined only in opposition to left-right politics, as ideologies whose proponents criticize the left and right equally.  As a result, it is unclear whether any political system that critiques both left and right (like libertarianism) is syncretic.  It is also unclear whether syncretic politics usually or always refer to fascist systems, as is suggested by the fact that these are the only examples given.
It would be great if someone could extend the definition and provide a variety of examples.  It would also help to present the examples in terms of how they positively exemplify syncretic politics.  In other words, something like:  (X) is a syncretic political system because it combines (Y) elements of left ideology along with (Z) elements of right ideology, but does not qualify as centrist because of (A).  Such an explanation would be much more helpful than: (X) is syncretic because it criticizes the left as well as the right.  
I am not knowledgeable about syncretic politics and did not find this article particularly helpful.  I hope that my feedback will be useful to someone who can strengthen the article.  151.201.28.172 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition seems incomplete, Examples do not seem to support definition 

message: An IP changed Nazi Party to National Socialist German Workers Party.  I suggest using the most common term, Nazi Party.  TFD (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea as the mention of "workers" would be a way to induce readers into assuming that it's marxist according to rhetoric currently being piped out. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Party 

message: You mean the guy that joked that his "right hand didn't know what [his] far-right hand was doing"?
This whole concept (and hence the article, through no fault of its own) seems to be an attempt from modern rightists to distance themselves from the excesses of their forebears -- with a few strained token "left" examples thrown in, as if to give te exception that proves the rule.
But putting that aside -- Reagan? Really?
184.17.180.234 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "You and I are increasingly told we must choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down - up to...individual freedom consistent with law and order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism..." Ronald Reagan, speech in 1964.--R-41 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This just points up again the fundamental problem with the whole article, which I think is irreparably POV, and (if not deleted) should at least be identified as a POV rather than presented as a standard category of political thought.  There is nothing in Reagan's comments that suggest any syncretism, in the sense of taking a little bit from here and a little bit from there.  Rather, he is talking about a consistent political position that doesn't happen to line up with "left" and "right".  To describe that as "syncretic" is to assume that "left" and "right" themselves are logically consistent, which I think it's pretty obvious they are not. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definition on Wikipedia: Syncretic politics or spectral-syncretic is any of a number of types of politics outside of the conventional left-right political spectrum.. Reagan: "I would like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right."--R-41 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's exactly the problem — the definition is bullshit.  Going outside of left or right does not make you "syncretic", which is a term for religions created by putting together bits and pieces of existing religions.  What Reagan is talking about (distinct from what he did in practice, of course, at least sometimes) has nothing to do with putting together bits and pieces of left and right, but instead with applying a fundamental principle and letting the left/right labels fall where they may. --Trovatore (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This article is inherently POV and OR.  Syncretic politics merely means taking stuff from competing ideologies.  Well every political groups does that - or they disappear.  So we begin by saying that fascism was called syncretic, because none of their ideas were original.  Then we say, you know who else was syncretic?  Ronald Reagan!  Can anyone point to a single book or article specifically about syncretic politics as opposed for example to different papers saying fascism was syncretic or Reagan was syncretic?  TFD (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There, I've deleted all material that did not make a direct reference to syncretic politics or was refering to "syncretic" in a religious sense as in one of the books, it is now only showing its use by some scholars like Roger Griffin and others describe fascism. All the sources in the article now directly mention syncretic politics, all else has been removed. I suggest that the reduced article be merged into the article Third Position, that is what what this article is essentially about now.--R-41 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a scholar in this area, but looking over the Third Position article, it seems like it would make sense. 184.17.180.234 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan? 

message: Should someone perhaps reformulate the definition of syncretic politics in this article, because it is wrong. By the most accepted rules of defining, you include only the genus and the differentia in the definition. The fascism part does not belong in the definition of syncretic politics, and should only be mentioned later in text. Having it put like this gives a negative connotation to syncretism - which is untrue - and also breaks Wikipedia's rules of neutrality. It should be made clear that syncretic politics can be both negative and positive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.18.52.223 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism 

message: How exactly is this different from centrism? The article could clarify on this. KarstenO (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity in the definition