View Full Version : World Politics - Far right groups are in fact far left (UK left reconsiders the BNP)
Furunculus
04-25-2009, 11:45
There you have it, the authentic voice of the left in the UK admits that the BNP is actually left of Labour:
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2009/04/bnp-european-party-british
I have been arguing for some time that the BNP have nothing to do with right-wing politics, but it is always to good a talking point from left-wing commentators to introduce discussion on the BNP as the party from the far right of politics.
This has been patently evident from where the BNP derive their core vote, and the fact that inner c-ty labour heaertland is the place that gets bled for new BNP votes, but why let truth get in the way of thing?
It looks like the New Statesmen wishes to introduce a little intellectual honesty into the debate.
InsaneApache
04-25-2009, 11:54
If you strip away the xenophodia and racism then yes, what you have is a socialist program. As I said previously, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.
tibilicus
04-25-2009, 12:30
Not really surprising they get a lot of votes from inner city areas due to the fact they are National Socialists. In fact, they are probably the only party with socialist ideals left who could potentially win some votes. Then again Socialism is a dead movement in the UK, so the fact that most of the UK is only interested voting for moderate centre parties means that the BNP will never make any strong headway in turning the electorate. I would be surprised if they even manage to pull the 5% vote needed to get the deposit back for your party, no far right party ever has.
Besides, I think a substantial amount of people aren't on the same wave length with the BNP thinking. If your going to vote for a party which was founded by a Nazi and continues to be run by some one who denies the extent of the holocaust, well your an idiot.
ICantSpellDawg
04-25-2009, 14:58
If you strip away the xenophodia and racism then yes, what you have is a socialist program. As I said previously, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.
So now that we pretty much admit that fascism and Socialism are part and parcel of the left, what is "the Far Right?
CountArach
04-25-2009, 15:00
Here we go again... but this time I'll write up something well-sourced that explains why Fascism is not a movement of the Left. I have the day off tomorrow to pour over my Fascism and Anti-Fascism Uni sourcebooks. I knew that course would come in handy!
The problem is, you cannot talk or look at the BNP without confronting the two tun elephant in the room. They are a racist party. It is like saying, well without the environmental policies of the Green party, they are a socialist party! Sure, economic policy that is set forward by the BNP are to the left of Labour, it is socialist - nationalisation and funding of services. But they are racist in every way of the word, moreover they are not an honest party - how in this clearly globalised world can you say - I don't like your culture and you people, stay away from me. It is completly bogus.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-25-2009, 17:35
The problem is, you cannot talk or look at the BNP without confronting the two tun elephant in the room. They are a racist party. It is like saying, well without the environmental policies of the Green party, they are a socialist party! Sure, economic policy that is set forward by the BNP are to the left of Labour, it is socialist - nationalisation and funding of services. But they are racist in every way of the word, moreover they are not an honest party - how in this clearly globalised world can you say - I don't like your culture and you people, stay away from me. It is completly bogus.
So what you are saying is that the right is racist and that racism is an inherent trait of the right and never appears on the left?
I love the irony between their political stances on certain issues.
Rhyfelwyr
04-25-2009, 19:12
The BNP are close to my views in many ways, more than any of the new right parties. It's a shame about the racist stuff, otherwise I would vote for them.
*If* the racist stuff is at least seriously watered down in the coming years, it's not impossible that I might vote for them. :sweatdrop:
I know that sounds bad, but the more I think about it the more it seems that it would be even more immoral to vote for the other parties. There might be a bit of racist nonsense with the BNP (but I don't buy the "OMG they'll have a holocaust" talk), but then at the same time - how many people are dying in hospital beds because of the new right's furthering of privatisation? Also, the BNP are anti-abortion, which is a big plus for me (and remember, it's mass murder as far as I'm concerned). Also, I think that as the only socialist party available (lets be honest), I think they will save the lives of a lot of poor people, they will make sure they get a good NHS service and will keep them out of poverty.
If I went to vote and put a mark next to Labour, I would have to ask myself, how many people are going to die because of this (yes I over-analyse a bit, but you get my point).
HoreTore
04-25-2009, 19:36
There you have it, the authentic voice of the left in the UK admits that the BNP is actually left of Labour:
http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2009/04/bnp-european-party-british
I have been arguing for some time that the BNP have nothing to do with right-wing politics, but it is always to good a talking point from left-wing commentators to introduce discussion on the BNP as the party from the far right of politics.
This has been patently evident from where the BNP derive their core vote, and the fact that inner c-ty labour heaertland is the place that gets bled for new BNP votes, but why let truth get in the way of thing?
It looks like the New Statesmen wishes to introduce a little intellectual honesty into the debate.
You have no left-wing parties in the UK anymore. And hardly any centrist parties. New labour belongs on the right, whether BNP is further to the right than that isn't really important, they still belong on the right, left of labour or not.
Anyway..... Ever heard of the concept of "the third way"...? You might want to check it out. Heck, you might even understand that the political world is too diverse and complicated to be divided into just two terms! Go for it!
Furunculus
04-25-2009, 19:43
You have no left-wing parties in the UK anymore. And hardly any centrist parties. New labour belongs on the right, whether BNP is further to the right than that isn't really important, they still belong on the right, left of labour or not.
Anyway..... Ever heard of the concept of "the third way"...? You might want to check it out. Heck, you might even understand that the political world is too diverse and complicated to be divided into just two terms! Go for it!
that's the joy of the thatcher legacy.
no doubt, just thought it would be fun to spread the sunshine which is the hope that right-wing politics will no longer be exclusively tarred by association with the BNP.
HoreTore
04-25-2009, 19:50
that's the joy of the thatcher legacy.
no doubt, just thought it would be fun to spread the sunshine which is the hope that right-wing politics will no longer be exclusively tarred by association with the BNP.
Uhm.... Why should that change? What they've said, is that BNP is to the left of a right-wing party.... Still a long way from a lefty ~;)
"So what you are saying is that the right is racist and that racism is an inherent trait of the right and never appears on the left?"
No. If you become a racist you are not anymore a lefty. The left believes in the great fraternity of humankind, so can't be per definition racist.
That why National Socialism is Right Wing. even if trying to cover under Socialism.
To compare Jaures to Hitler is just a good joke.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-25-2009, 21:52
No. If you become a racist you are not anymore a lefty. The left believes in the great fraternity of humankind, so can't be per definition racist.
That why National Socialism is Right Wing. even if trying to cover under Socialism.
In a single paragraph, you have managed to ignore around a hundred years of history. Congratulations.
Maybe (just maybe) "left" and "right" aren't terribly useful metaphors anymore?
Kralizec
04-25-2009, 22:04
"Right wing" is nowadays considered to include (classical) liberals, wich is ironic since they were considered left wing in the 18th and early 19th century. Only conservatives were considered to be right wing.
The terms are outdated, not even Mussolini or Hitler considered themselves to be either left or right. The people who insist on using them generally consider themselves leftists and anyone who they don't want to be associated with (i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot) as right wingers or at least non-leftist.
InsaneApache
04-26-2009, 00:07
Well someone's got to do it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 06:27
If you strip away the xenophodia and racism then yes, what you have is a socialist program. As I said previously, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.
Far left... could be either anarchistic (social laws) or state control (economic). Left is meaningless.
Far right... could be either anarchistic (economics) or state control (social laws). Right is meaningless.
Two cheeks? Same puckered brownie, that's for sure. Extremist partisans can all kiss my nether region.
"In a single paragraph, you have managed to ignore around a hundred years of history. Congratulations." Thanks.:beam:
However, hundred years of history would be a little bit excessive. The separation between Right and Left is our modern acceptation is younger than that.
So, by the way, can you give me exemple a racist left movements?
Kralizec
04-26-2009, 09:00
The Khmer Rouge actively persecuted ethnic minorities. Mugabe is doing it right now (and being quite frank about his racism too). The Soviet Union and probably most other marxist governments that ever existed....wait, none of those were real leftists were they? :book:
If you strip away the xenophodia and racism then yes, what you have is a socialist program. As I said previously, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.
Damn straight.
"wait, none of those were real leftists were they?".
Yeap. None of them, they betrayed (and trade) the Left values, so they can't claim to be lefty.
Socialism is caracterised by it UNIVERSAL values (not trade). If you don't agree to theses values you are not a real lefty...
You have others points like right for dignity, right to choose, right to be responsible for your choices and other basic duties but the main one is anti-discrimation stance.
....wait, none of those were real leftists were they? :book:
According to some they weren't proper Communist states but they were left wing.
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 10:29
Brain hurts. Such... useless... terminology... left and right have no meaning without a universally accepted definition... ouch.
Kralizec
04-26-2009, 10:46
"wait, none of those were real leftists were they?".
Yeap. None of them, they betrayed (and trade) the Left values, so they can't claim to be lefty.
Socialism is caracterised by it UNIVERSAL values (not trade). If you don't agree to theses values you are not a real lefty...
If you exclude everyone who's racist, why did you bother asking for examples in the first place?
The people who insist on using them generally consider themselves leftists and anyone who they don't want to be associated with (i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot) as right wingers or at least non-leftist.
Incongruous
04-26-2009, 10:47
Brain hurts. Such... useless... terminology... left and right have no meaning without a universally accepted definition... ouch.
Indeed, perhaps we should use socialist and conservative? In that case, only socialism can be considered an ideology, conservatism is just a way of thinking not governing, a conservative in the UK does not believe in the conservatism of the U.S, well if he does he is a nutter and would not be elected.
Fascists, in my opinion do derive alot of their political thoughts from socialism, but they also take a lot from romanticism and jingoism, creating a truly different monster. Socialism and Fascism should be on the same poll but at oposite ends, whereas Liberalism and Conservatism can perhaps be considered for their own spectrum?
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 11:35
Indeed, perhaps we should use socialist and conservative? In that case, only socialism can be considered an ideology, conservatism is just a way of thinking not governing, a conservative in the UK does not believe in the conservatism of the U.S, well if he does he is a nutter and would not be elected.
Fascists, in my opinion do derive alot of their political thoughts from socialism, but they also take a lot from romanticism and jingoism, creating a truly different monster. Socialism and Fascism should be on the same poll but at oposite ends, whereas Liberalism and Conservatism can perhaps be considered for their own spectrum?
Socialist?
Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services. As for the whole mucky conservative thing, conservative simply means resistant to change. It's meaning depends upon what is being changed and by whom. Conservative groups would be the ones keeping abortion legal, by definition... but I doubt "conservatives" identify with that.
Fascists and socialists have little in common in terms of political thought. That's why they have separate words and rarely do they cooperate with one another. Conservatism as it is known in the USA is just another brand of liberalism, with a less progressive bent. That's all. Same love for liberal democracy, human rights, and the same basic stance on free market principles. The current difference between liberal and conservative in the USA? About 3% in federal income taxes and slight differences on foreign and energy policy. The "fascist" and "racist" nonsense that keeps being slung around by wackos on the left and right is just designed to generate interest in the very slight differences between the two monolithic parties.
If Obama is a socialist who wants to turn America into Sweden, I'm looking forward to all those weeks of paid vacation, healthcare, education, etc. But it will never happen because what those on the so-called right are doing, is called using hyperbole to get attention. There is a lack of political will in this mostly moderate, slightly conservative country to progress to the point where we have a balanced social system like Sweden. That's evil communist freedom-hating stuff.
The wingnut partisans on both sides would have you believe the epic battle between the Republicans and the Democrats is the battle between liberal progressive Sweden-like utopia with a balanced ecosystem and state-supported business, and some conservative paradise where Bible camp is tax deductible and abortions and divorce are made illegal, and all the homosexuals get "cured" by Jesus. But the fact is, there's little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, beyond some minor changes. I happen to like some of those changes, and so I have an opinion on the matter. But the Republicans won't turn the nation into Saudi Arabia, and the Democrats won't turn the nation into Sweden. Case closed. Though I'd prefer Sweden over Saudi Arabia, and I think most people alive would, hence why I believe in spite of all their protestations of "conservative" values, most people in America have to own up to the fact that they support liberalism over fundamentalism. It's not a sin, you won't go to hell. Democrats aren't pushing fascism and Republicans aren't pushing Sharia Law. So perhaps we can be less melodramatic about it.
You have a state government which collects income taxes and uses it to fund national services, you've got at least a slightly socialist state. Reps and Dems are nearly identical. I don't recall George Bush cancelling the department of education or closing the federally mandated interstate highway system, or abolishing welfare. Seems kinda socialist to me.
You have a state government which is resistant to the idea of stricter controls on guns or more lax restrictions on privacy rights and abortions, you have a government which basically rejects the idea of gay marriage... you have a conservative state that's resistant to progressive values. The Democrats are in power and gay marriage isn't legal in all 50 states, guns are still very very legal, and they haven't really touched the abortion laws. Seems kinda conservative to me.
I wonder, if there will ever come a day when people can leave their political party at the door, and forget all the buzzwords and stereotypes and slogans and divisive propaganda, and sit down together in spite of minor disagreements on policy, and create a language we all understand and accept as being real and legitimate, and use those words to bridge gaps in our understanding and perhaps, just perhaps, agree on the major issues, or agree to disagree while the other party is in power, and otherwise not slander them as being un-American, fascist, racist, etc.
Nah. People are having too much fun creating false controversy and joining factions to gain power over each other to leave all that third-grade behavior at the door. People, in my opinion, are more interested in associating with people who agree with their particular ideology and persecuting those who disagree, than creating a harmonious world which takes into account people's differences, and remembering that if we were all the same, this would be a world filled with billions and billions of examples of human monotony, not exceptional individuals.
Me personally? I say let states decide contentious issues, and leave the national issues for things which are really important, like human rights and legal protections. If you don't want a nationalist light rail system, fine, we won't build one in your state... but let the other states build one. Simple stuff, people. If Texas doesn't want gay marriage... whatever. You live in Texas, you deal with Texas values. But there's no reason why other states can't allow it if the courts rule on it and people vote on it. Let "God" sort out those deep spiritual matters after we're dead, and leave religion out of the law. Live and let live.
Whoooo.... better stop before I really get goin'. I'm the only one who wants to listen to my opinions anyway. This quibbling about left and right though... it's very stupid in my opinion. It's not based on anything substantive, the real definitions have gotten lost, and it's just mindless partisan bickering and slander at this point. But what do I know. :medievalcheers: Didn't mean to intrude... people, have fun portraying political opponents as demons and making little headway convincing them of your worldview.
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 11:40
Heck, you might even understand that the political world is too diverse and complicated to be divided into just two terms! Go for it!
If you were a chick I'd marry you. Well done, sir.
Tribesman
04-26-2009, 11:43
Whats funny about the OP is that Goodwin and Ford have written lots of articles which call the BNP right wing extremists . Goodwin lectures on right wing extremism ...he talks a lot about the BNP in those lectures , well that and the crazy right wing Muslim fundamentalists.
So from the OP the BNP is to the left of new Labour , well thats a surprise isn't it considering new labour is probably to the right of the tories now .
I like Goodwins bit about the growing popularity of the BNP policies with uneducated older white males, he could have just said average daily mail reader instead .
Incongruous
04-26-2009, 11:45
Socialist?
Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services. As for the whole mucky conservative thing, conservative simply means resistant to change. It's meaning depends upon what is being changed and by whom. Conservative groups would be the ones keeping abortion legal, by definition... but I doubt "conservatives" identify with that.
Fascists and socialists have little in common in terms of political thought. That's why they have separate words and rarely do they cooperate with one another. Conservatism as it is known in the USA is just another brand of liberalism, with a less progressive bent. That's all. Same love for liberal democracy, human rights, and the same basic stance on free market principles. The current difference between liberal and conservative in the USA? About 3% in federal income taxes and slight differences on foreign and energy policy. The "fascist" and "racist" nonsense that keeps being slung around by wackos on the left and right is just designed to generate interest in the very slight differences between the two monolithic parties.
If Obama is a socialist who wants to turn America into Sweden, I'm looking forward to all those weeks of paid vacation, healthcare, education, etc. But it will never happen because what those on the so-called right are doing, is called using hyperbole to get attention. There is a lack of political will in this mostly moderate, slightly conservative country to progress to the point where we have a balanced social system like Sweden. That's evil communist freedom-hating stuff.
The wingnut partisans on both sides would have you believe the epic battle between the Republicans and the Democrats is the battle between liberal progressive Sweden-like utopia with a balanced ecosystem and state-supported business, and some conservative paradise where Bible camp is tax deductible and abortions and divorce are made illegal, and all the homosexuals get "cured" by Jesus. But the fact is, there's little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, beyond some minor changes. I happen to like some of those changes, and so I have an opinion on the matter. But the Republicans won't turn the nation into Saudi Arabia, and the Democrats won't turn the nation into Sweden. Case closed. Though I'd prefer Sweden over Saudi Arabia, and I think most people alive would, hence why I believe in spite of all their protestations of "conservative" values, most people in America have to own up to the fact that they support liberalism over fundamentalism. It's not a sin, you won't go to hell. Democrats aren't pushing fascism and Republicans aren't pushing Sharia Law. So perhaps we can be less melodramatic about it.
You have a state government which collects income taxes and uses it to fund national services, you've got at least a slightly socialist state. Reps and Dems are nearly identical. I don't recall George Bush cancelling the department of education or closing the federally mandated interstate highway system, or abolishing welfare. Seems kinda socialist to me.
You have a state government which is resistant to the idea of stricter controls on guns or more lax restrictions on privacy rights and abortions, you have a government which basically rejects the idea of gay marriage... you have a conservative state that's resistant to progressive values. The Democrats are in power and gay marriage isn't legal in all 50 states, guns are still very very legal, and they haven't really touched the abortion laws. Seems kinda conservative to me.
I wonder, if there will ever come a day when people can leave their political party at the door, and forget all the buzzwords and stereotypes and slogans and divisive propaganda, and sit down together in spite of minor disagreements on policy, and create a language we all understand and accept as being real and legitimate, and use those words to bridge gaps in our understanding and perhaps, just perhaps, agree on the major issues, or agree to disagree while the other party is in power, and otherwise not slander them as being un-American, fascist, racist, etc.
Nah. People are having too much fun creating false controversy and joining factions to gain power over each other to leave all that third-grade behavior at the door. People, in my opinion, are more interested in associating with people who agree with their particular ideology and persecuting those who disagree, than creating a harmonious world which takes into account people's differences, and remembering that if we were all the same, this would be a world filled with billions and billions of examples of human monotony, not exceptional individuals.
Me personally? I say let states decide contentious issues, and leave the national issues for things which are really important, like human rights and legal protections. If you don't want a nationalist light rail system, fine, we won't build one in your state... but let the other states build one. Simple stuff, people. If Texas doesn't want gay marriage... whatever. You live in Texas, you deal with Texas values. But there's no reason why other states can't allow it if the courts rule on it and people vote on it. Let "God" sort out those deep spiritual matters after we're dead, and leave religion out of the law. Live and let live.
Whoooo.... better stop before I really get goin'. I'm the only one who wants to listen to my opinions anyway. This quibbling about left and right though... it's very stupid in my opinion. It's not based on anything substantive, the real definitions have gotten lost, and it's just mindless partisan bickering and slander at this point. But what do I know. :medievalcheers: Didn't mean to intrude... people, have fun portraying political opponents as demons and making little headway convincing them of your worldview.
I don't understand why you posted this in reply to my post.
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 11:54
I don't understand why you posted this in reply to my post.
hit the reply with quote button. You and I were discussing which words to use... socialism, conservatism, etc... talked about fascism, differences between socialism and fascism... my reply was in the context of what, if anything, these words mean anymore, and if they aren't just labels used to play up what is actually much more minor differences.
Wasn't all aimed in your direction. Just expressing frustration with labels and lumping people together by ideologies which are murky at best.
Incongruous
04-26-2009, 12:01
hit the reply with quote button. You and I were discussing which words to use... socialism, conservatism, etc... talked about fascism, differences between socialism and fascism... my reply was in the context of what, if anything, these words mean anymore, and if they aren't just labels used to play up what is actually much more minor differences.
Wasn't all aimed in your direction. Just expressing frustration with labels and lumping people together by ideologies which are murky at best.
I will only call someone a socialist or fascist if they indentify as one, there is no great lack of them.
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 12:07
I will only call someone a socialist or fascist if they indentify as one, there is no great lack of them.
I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.
Out of curiosity, who have you met that self-identifies as a fascist? Perhaps they could educate me on the merits of the value system they believe in.
Incongruous
04-26-2009, 12:20
I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.
Out of curiosity, who have you met that self-identifies as a fascist? Perhaps they could educate me on the merits of the value system they believe in.
I work with two Hindu nationalists, both of whom accepted the term fascism does apply to their certain beliefs. They believe in a highly millitarised Hindu state, lead by some kind of super-Hindu/s, which would re-conquer Pakistan, drive all the Muslims out along with those dirty Sikhs (they also want all the Buddhists out because they apparently invented the caste system and slavery). They also hate whit people because we are really, really racist. So racist that in NZ we actually allow them to have a job, a house and a life free of harrasment, its that really secret whitey type of racism.
I don't think you would want to meet them as they are not likely to be your cup of tea.
Basicly a strong state with defined layers of citizens, working class, middle class, upper class, different from socialism because it doesn't aspire equality.
(@ATPG)
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 12:29
Basicly a strong state with defined layers of citizens, working class, middle class, upper class, different from socialism because it doesn't aspire equality.
(@ATPG)
What does the state do, with all its strength? What values do the people of this state believe in?
What does the state do, with all its strength? What values do the people of this state believe in?
Very inward and militarised, with the power in hands of the military class. I guess the value would be a strong military society.
Askthepizzaguy
04-26-2009, 12:38
Very inward and militarised, with the power in hands of the military class. I guess the value would be a strong military society.
And in times of peace this military does what with all its power? Is there a values system involved besides might makes right? Let's see... inward-looking xenophobic people with a singular, undefined ideology who believe their state is supreme, all wielding guns and celebrating their heroic military... why do I suddenly feel compelled to leave such a state and warn the world that they are coming?
InsaneApache
04-26-2009, 12:49
What is...?
You might well ask. I couldn't possibly comment. :laugh4:
And in times of peace this military does what with all its power? Is there a values system involved besides might makes right? Let's see... inward-looking xenophobic people with a singular, undefined ideology who believe their state is supreme, all wielding guns and celebrating their heroic military... why do I suddenly feel compelled to leave such a state and warn the world that they are coming?
No it's not an undefined ideoligy, socialism is class struggle, fascism is class maintainance, but you can't put the clock back 100 years.
You can really make it like this,
socialism: rise of the workers class
liberalism: rise of the middle class
fascism: rise of the upper class
Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2009, 12:51
I'm very interested to speak to these fascists... I really have to wonder what value system they hold dear. My understanding on the subject is vague, but I believe... nationalistic, one-race one-religion kind of people? i.e. xenophobes? But it's obviously not that simple. There has to be more to it than blaming every problem on minorities and the rest of the world. Surely they sense the danger which is inherent in a one-party state populated with people who all think alike. I could name a few rather populated nations who abuse human rights and national sovereignty constantly who cling to such world views.
There is a lot more to it than that. Not all fascists believed in the superiority of their own country/race. For some, they believed that if all nationalities ruled themselves then they could create a utopia across the world. While nowadays we link nationalist with Nazism, Imperial Japan etc, we should remember that in the early days of the 18th/19th Centuries, nationalists from different countries worked across borders to help each other, trying to free various nations from the monarchies, most notably the Hapsburgs.
There were still elements of this utopianism even by WW2. Oswald Mosley, the British fascist, supported a complete independent Irish state - and that pretty much condemned facism to death in Scotland.
Kralizec
04-26-2009, 13:11
Every nation is at least to some degree socialist. You pay taxes, you get a national army and government services.
That's not a very useful definition of socialism you're using. Socialism is usually understood to mean:
1) the state is the sole employer and runs all production and services
2) democracy, since the people run the state all property is "collective"
3) all are equal so nobody's entitled to more wealth than others
A lot of socialists argue that no socialist state has ever existed because the USSR, China etc. were not democratic and because the upper party members were for practical purposes a privileged caste. I'd agree, but would add that the fact that it's been tried so often should show the futility of even attempting.
Most socialist parties have abandoned 3) because in developed societies the middle class is huge and they'd lose income in the case of total redestribution.
Fascism is an ideology that dismisses all enlightenment ideals and thus opposes both socialism and capitalism, the "third way" as Mussolini put it. The government manages the economy without taking away formal ownership from industrials using coersion. It runs all sorts of social programs to build up popular support without recognising that all people are equal. Most self-described socialists deny socialism and fascism have anything in common, but Mussolini and many of his contemporary supporters were former socialists themselves.
Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2009, 13:18
the "third way" as Mussolini put it.
Hey, I think I heard that somewhere else...
EDIT: And yeah, Mussolini was socialist at first, he was the editor of a quite far left-wing paper called "Avanti" IIRC. He believed socialism to be purely materialistic, fascism expanded upon the material equality and offered something deeper in his eyes.
Banquo's Ghost
04-26-2009, 14:27
Gentlemen,
Whereas I find myself astonished that I am going to say this, but rules are rules: please avoid insulting generalisations of people with differing opinions - yes, fascists count as people too, and we have some members who adhere to that philosophy.
You may disagree with their views, but not insult them.
Thank you kindly
BG
Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2009, 14:41
I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.
Kralizec
04-26-2009, 14:57
I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.
I agree somewhat- (Italian) fascism isn't nearly as crazy or as "evil" as national socialism. But that's not a particulary high standard to begin with.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-26-2009, 18:28
Brenus, your logic is like saying that somebody isn't right wing because they believe in big government (for example). You can still be a leftist without being "loving", and saying anything else is just :dizzy2:. All the governments Krazilec mentioned were certainly left-wing.
Incongruous
04-27-2009, 01:16
I'm not a fascist BTW, I just don't think they are as evil as we want them to be.
I don't think their evil I just think that they are more deserving of "meany weany names" thann most other groups, since they profess a hate of me I will profess a belief that they are idiots who feed off the fear of those whom see something wrong with this country at the moment.
"All the governments Krazilec mentioned were certainly left-wing", Indeed they were. However, as much they were murderers (especially the Red Khmer who by the way were destroyed by the very communist Vietnam) they were not institutionally racist.
And to be internationalist doesn't mean your are loving every body.
A real lefty will go to others separations than the nationality, religion or race. He/she will use the class dividers, roughly oppressed and oppressors.
Or she/he will not accept the so-called clash of civilisations as operator, but will go for economico-political tools in order to understand/analyse a given situation.:beam:
A French worker has more things/interests in common with a German worker than with his French manager/employer.
Incongruous
04-27-2009, 08:43
"All the governments Krazilec mentioned were certainly left-wing", Indeed they were. However, as much they were murderers (especially the Red Khmer who by the way were destroyed by the very communist Vietnam) they were not institutionally racist.
And to be internationalist doesn't mean your are loving every body.
A real lefty will go to others separations than the nationality, religion or race. He/she will use the class dividers, roughly oppressed and oppressors.
Or she/he will not accept the so-called clash of civilisations as operator, but will go for economico-political tools in order to understand/analyse a given situation.:beam:
A French worker has more things/interests in common with a German worker than with his French manager/employer.
Ah, so a "lefty" is similar to a fascist in the way they will discriminate against a certain group of people? Instead of seeing reality as the constant conflict of races and states, a "lefty" will see it as class versus class. With the ultimate outcome of the workers detroying the rest?
Furunculus
04-27-2009, 13:38
Uhm.... Why should that change? What they've said, is that BNP is to the left of a right-wing party.... Still a long way from a lefty ~;)
because the british left always describe the BNP as the far-right which acts to tarnish the british right in popular public perception.
seems a little unfair when as a political party they stand on a platform with far greater similarities to the british left than the british right.
LittleGrizzly
04-27-2009, 14:55
The BNP are a little all over the place, thier social policys are probably more right wing type thinking, anti abortion, anti immigration, anti EU and they have a lot of left wing stuff too...
But of course now some left wing person has declared the BNP as left wing (which they probably would be purely on economic policy) i have become a right winger... planned worked.... ~;)
"Ah, so a "lefty" is similar to a fascist in the way they will discriminate against a certain group of people? Instead of seeing reality as the constant conflict of races and states, a "lefty" will see it as class versus class. With the ultimate outcome of the workers destroying the rest? "
:laugh4: No. It is a difference in analyzing the problem, not an action plan...
OK. So you do think that the reality is an Indian peasant have more things in common with a Maharajah than with a Pakistanis peasant?
The Talibans are victims of poverty, ignorance, fear and of religious fanatics. You are not sure to win if you don't improve the situation of the daily life of the Afghan peasants, but if you don't you are sure to loose if you play the nationalist cards.
That a French workers have the same interest than his factory's owner? If yes, how do you explain the exodus of factories and production units in foreign countries?
For a fascist, the solution is to ban all factories to go in foreign lands... For a lefty the solution is to increase the salaries in the foreign countries so the competition is nt based on low wages/exploitation of the weak but on savoir-faire...
So, no, even if it is a very tempting solution, the ultimate goal is not to destroy the rest (if you follow Marx, you will just replace the leaders, not the system) but to change the system, to re balance the powers, not in down grading the riches but in raising the poorest.
I know it is not what the righties scare-mongering are actually propagating. :beam:
King Henry V
04-27-2009, 20:15
Like socialism, fascism is essentially a working class ideology in origin, and therefore has quite a few points in common with socialism, or the more extreme forms of it anyway. The Nazi Party was originally the German Workers' Party, Benito started off as a socialist and though the latter broke away from socialism and Hitler eliminated most of the left-wing element in his party in the Night of the Long Knives, it would be wrong to deny that socialism had no influence on fascism. Nazism developed the idea of the Volksgemeinschaft, or people's community; like communism, fascism believed in a radical break with the past and creation of a new order; various social reform was enacted (increase of paid holiday, anti-child labour legislation, compensation for asbestos-related illnesses), which of course only applied to Aryans, but was still quite left-wing when compared to other Western countries. National Socialism was pretty much that, quasi-socialist ultra-nationalism.
The BNP just continues in this tradition, which of course the economic crisis has done much to foster, as declaiming the filthy rich, especially when they are Jews (they must have been over the moon when the Madoff case came out) and other "dirty" foreign types, is a sure vote-winner when it comes to poor whites who need to blame someone for why they don't have a job, other than their own lack of intelligence and willingness to work, naturally.
Like socialism, fascism is essentially a working class ideology in origin
Why do people insist on that, fascism may be a heavily top-down but there is no desire for any class-struggle, you can't see fascism without social darwinism.
King Henry V
04-27-2009, 21:29
Why do people insist on that, fascism may be a heavily top-down but there is no desire for any class-struggle, you can't see fascism without social darwinism.
Because the first supporters of fascism were primarily working class, or at least lower-middle class. Xenophobia, promise of better living conditions, destruction of liberal democracy (usually dominated by the middle classes) were all tenets very popular with the poorly educated, empoverished and seemingly disenfranchised lower classes who for various reasons didn't support the other alternative socialism/communism.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-27-2009, 22:16
"All the governments Krazilec mentioned were certainly left-wing", Indeed they were. However, as much they were murderers (especially the Red Khmer who by the way were destroyed by the very communist Vietnam) they were not institutionally racist.
:inquisitive:
No racism? Do you want to take a bet on that?
Tribesman
04-28-2009, 00:23
No racism? Do you want to take a bet on that?
Mars is correct , the Khmer Rouge as well as having a basic hatred for just about everyone also had an additional hatred for different ethnic groups in Cambodia .
"No racism? Do you want to take a bet on that? " Yeap. I even ignore the Red Khmers had a constitution where racism is institutionalized. So I will be very happy that they were even more evil than I thought...:2thumbsup:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-28-2009, 21:35
"No racism? Do you want to take a bet on that? " Yeap. I even ignore the Red Khmers had a constitution where racism is institutionalized. So I will be very happy that they were even more evil than I thought...:2thumbsup:
You know as well as anyone that Red states didn't exactly take their constitutions seriously, starting with the Soviet Union and working your way down. I'll use Khmer Rouge Democratic Kampuchea as an example:
The State of Kampuchea is an independent, unified, peaceful, neutral, non-aligned, sovereign, and democratic State enjoying territorial integrity.
The State of Kampuchea is a State of the people, workers, peasants, and all other Kampuchean labourers.
:laugh4:
Justice is administered by people's courts, representing and defending the people's justice, defending the democratic rights and liberties of the people, and condemning any activities directed against the people's State or violating the laws of the people's State.
I can keep going, but they have a short constitution and I'm laughing pretty hard as it is.
If you prefer the word xenophobic, we can use that instead. But there is no denying that that is exactly what many of the policies of, for example, the Soviet Union were. None.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.