What does being Right Wing Mean?

Elmo

The BNP (British National Party) have gain seats in the local elections in England.

Looking and hearing the people that went up for this party, which is "right wing", I could help but fell that these people are only right wing in the sense that they want to curb emigration laws etc. I.e. they are in some way racist, with out put a name on it.
They don't look or sound like Tories(In the sence of being right wing).

So are the BNP policies like Tory/PD policies or are the just right wing because they are "Racist".

So please someone explain what it is to be right wing.

sanvean

BNP as far as i know, aren't simply an anti-immigration party (like Aine Ni Chonaill's Immigration Control Platform). They are a 'proper' party, and are also concerned with British workers (over and against foreign workers) as well as concentrating on money for pensioners (as opposed to money for 'asylum seekers'). Alot of their policies touch upon the anti-immigration platform, but it would be hard for any party to gain such high support with concentrating solely on that issue. So the concentration on big-businesses, British workers, etc etc, would lead itself to being described as nationalist socialist, i guess.

Elmo

So the Media are wrong to call them Right Wing, as many of their policies are left wing.

sanvean

No, the Nazi party was a nationalist socialist party, albeit far more extreme than the BNP. As far as i know, the media are correct in calling them a right wing party. other people would probably be able to explain this better, though.

Elmo

They aren't Right Wing are they?

The Corinthian

Probable origins of Left and Right Wing as descriptive political terms.

Of course, defining difference between left and right as that between liberal and conservative could also be a bit of an oversimplification, but as far as oversimplified definitions go, it’s probably the best of a bad lot.

Much of the confusion between left and right wing, today probably comes from the twentieth century ideologies of socialism and fascism, that were ultimately very similar on the political spectrum, in that both were radical and often violent ideologies, while having different emphases - one taking a more Darwinist approach, while the other rejecting this in favour of a more communal approach (although both believed that the individual was only a part of the whole - be it a class or nation).

My own feeling is that a political ideology or social belief system is too complex (socially, economically, etc.) to be so easily labelled. It would be like saying that everything that Fascism did was bad and everything that liberal democracy did was good - a gross over-simplification. Labels, such as left and right wing are more often than not required more by those who need them to define themselves, rather than for any constructive reason.

Sparks

www.politicalcompass.org

Éomer of Rohan

They aren't Right Wing are they?

No we are certainly not right wing.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No we are certainly not right wing.

Ah sure Éomer, an anarchist might not agree with you there :rolleyes:

Éomer of Rohan

Anarchists tend not to place themselves on the political spectrum - though anarcho-syndicalists would say they are more left than communists - whereas I would disagree - I would say that communism will be the more effective of the two at bringing benefits to the common workers.

The Corinthian

Splitter!!!

Éomer of Rohan

It is nothing to do with splitting - Anarchism and Anarcho Syndicalism and Communism are very different systems of government or non-government as the case may be. The all have one aim but ultimately only one of the three will work - given the circumstances in which people will live up to what Pericles demanded of them in democracy and what Abraham Lincoln reasserted - that they take the power themselves and use it rather than give it to other men and themselves seek wealth and luxury which are the corruptors of all that is worthy in men.

Éomer of Rohan

as did Gaius Memmius, a plebian tribune in Rome just after the time of the Gracchi if I remember correctly - they were discussing the Jugurthine War and a possible (but unactuated) seccession of the plebs from the city.

The Corinthian

Right... Very earnest...

Éomer of Rohan

You seem less than plauditive - why?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You seem less than plauditive - why?

Meaoooow! :rolleyes:

Never mind. I never expected the... no, I won't say it.

We now return you to your scheduled thread...

Sparks

It is rather annoying that the most common reaction to discussions of communism, anarchism or similar forms of government (or non-government) is scorn and derision of the people involved - while noone seems to have a problem with the more right-wing forms of government

mike65

Originally posted by Sparks

It is rather annoying that the most common reaction to discussions of communism, anarchism or similar forms of government (or non-government) is scorn and derision of the people involved - while noone seems to have a problem with the more right-wing forms of government

Proberly got something to do with the legacy of communism in eastern Europe which was seen by most as anti-freedom (in thought and movement) and anti-decent consumerist oppotunities! I dont think by defintion, you could really have an anarchist government...Right is'nt allways right and but it works better for most ppl most of the time.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
It is rather annoying that the most common reaction to discussions of communism, anarchism or similar forms of government (or non-government) is scorn and derision of the people involved - while noone seems to have a problem with the more right-wing forms of government

Don’t be so silly, I wasn’t being serious - I thought that was obvious.

And you shouldn’t assume that it’s only your political preference that gets attacked so - Consider the Religious who will be told that all religion is evil because of paedophile priests and a few crusades, or the Fascist who can’t utter a word without being accused of being racist, or the Liberal who people just like to pick on anyway.

Sweeping statements are often made about all ideologies. No doubt you’ve made a few too, in the past.

Sparks

Right is'nt allways right and but it works better for most ppl most of the time.

Unfortunately, you're thinking of stalinism not communism - and stalinism is an example of exceptionally authoritarian government while communism isn't.
( www.politicalcompass.org )

Me, I just think that if an idea is sound enough, it has no need to fear critical debate. Which is why I always get worried when proponents of authoritarian political systems like ours dismiss liberal systems out of hand.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Unfortunately, you're thinking of stalinism not communism - and stalinism is an example of exceptionally authoritarian government while communism isn't.
( www.politicalcompass.org )

If what you're basing this assessment is that site (why else would you post the URL?), then by it’s own definition Stalinism is authoritarian Communism and indeed there is nothing stopping Communism from being exceptionally authoritarian.

Sparks

That's not what I'm basing that statement on and I posted the link so that it wouldn't be confusing when I referred to left, right, liberal and authoritarian.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
That's not what I'm basing that statement on and I posted the link so that it wouldn't be confusing when I referred to left, right, liberal and authoritarian.

Right - then you reject it's analysis that Stalinism was Authoritarian Communism (even though you posted it to stop this apparent confusion)?

Sparks

Correct, I don't agree with it's analysis of stalinism.
(And I posted it to clarify terminology in political alignment, specifically the seperation of economic theory - the left/right classification - and policy - the liberal/authoritarian classification.)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Correct, I don't agree with it's analysis of stalinism.
(And I posted it to clarify terminology in political alignment, specifically the seperation of economic theory - the left/right classification - and policy - the liberal/authoritarian classification.)

So you posted it to clarify the separation between the social and economic components of ideology, then reject the notion that this separation could exist in the case of Stalinism.

A little contradictory, I think.

Sparks

No Corininthian. Sorry if I'm not being clear. I wanted to differentiate between the left/right scale and the authoritarian/liberal scale so I posted the link. They classify Stalin as left/authoritarian. I disagree with their conclusion in this case, I classify him as right/authoritarian. Clearer?
(That's what I hate about technical discussions of political systems, whoever invented the field was obviously being paid by the letter when they invented the terminology )

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
They classify Stalin as left/authoritarian. I disagree with their conclusion in this case, I classify him as right/authoritarian. Clearer?

What you call the left/right scale depicted is actually that of economic ideology - one of the major differentials between the various political philosophies. In such a case left would traditionally imply State planned or controlled economies while right would be the more Darwinist, or Market driven, Laisse Faire approach.

You can’t seriously be suggesting that Stalinism endorsed an unplanned economy?

Otherwise, you are only selectively accepting the model presented by that site, or have misinterpreted it.

bugler

OMFG!!1 Stalin was a Nazi!

To return to the original question, if you ask me being mainstream right-wing refers to essentially wanting to keep the order of things the same as they are now(i.e conservatism). Seen as the world/society is perfect and all. This isn't their preserve alone god knows. I'd ignore the extreme right for purposes of clarity, as their....radical views tend to confuse matters.

There's no simple answer to the question, but maybe that will help you in real terms...

Sparks

You can't seriously be suggesting that Stalinism endorsed an unplanned economy?

Except that until 1928, a free internal market was encouraged. After that, yes, it all changed, but in response to unrest, not economic factors - which is why I think that Stalin should be catagorised as right and not left-wing. Had economic factors caused the swing, that would be different. I think that the authoritarian won out over economic policy in this case.
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/cienciala/342/ch3.html

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Except that until 1928, a free internal market was encouraged. After that, yes, it all changed, but in response to unrest, not economic factors - which is why I think that Stalin should be catagorised as right and not left-wing. Had economic factors caused the swing, that would be different. I think that the authoritarian won out over economic policy in this case.

Let’s not get carried away here, allowing a highly limited level of private ownership does not make him a capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. The economy and resources were still strictly and centrally controlled.

Ultimately Stalin supported (and implemented) centralized economic control and the planned economy. That it was briefly liberalized to improve the efficiency (and quell descent) is immaterial as he would still be on the left wing or Communist side of the economic control and ownership argument, as for why he would have done so.

Now he may be right wing economically to you, but that’s a different argument.

Sparks

Hmm. Well, I think we can agree on that. And so back to topic

Turnip

People who are right wing are good at making money, people who are left wing are good at taking it. :ninja:

Lefties should realise that it's easy to criticise but it's hard to lead and take responsibility for making tough decisions. Idealism tends to result in power vacuums being created which are then filled by opportunists and despots whose systems are usually much more cruel and vicious than those they supposedly wished to see abolished. Eg. According to the Oxford History Of The French Revolution the peasants were actually much worse off after it.

bugler

I believe it is important to bear in mind that Turnip sees the murder of civilians on the grounds of their political preference as acceptable. As long as they're left-wing of course!

Turnip

I beg your pardon?

It should also be said that lefties like children, have great imagination and like to make stuff up.

Sparks

Right-wing or Authoritarian turnip?
(After a two-page argument on terminology, it'd be nice if you'd be clear on what you're saying...)

Éomer of Rohan

Lefties should realise that it's easy to criticise but it's hard to lead and take responsibility for making tough decisions. Idealism tends to result in power vacuums being created which are then filled by opportunists and despots whose systems are usually much more cruel and vicious than those they supposedly wished to see abolished. Eg. According to the Oxford History Of The French Revolution the peasants were actually much worse off after it.

As a philosophic writer once said, men will break their chains only to forge new ones - and in hitherto progressive revolutions, this has indeed been the case; Russia, France, Germany, Ireland (Civil War), England (CW) etc etc etc - but the point needs to be made that none of these revolutions and upsurges in popular movement were truly left wing - and idealism is exactly what is at fault. Which is precisely why true Marxism is not based on idealism - there is an element of Utopianism which can be construed as the same thing but it is based on a system which itsef can grow rather than stagnate as the ancien régimes, feudalism and capitalism all eventually did or will - the slow down of global capitalism can even be observed today.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Which is precisely why true Marxism is not based on idealism - there is an element of Utopianism which can be construed as the same thing but it is based on a system which itsef can grow rather than stagnate as the ancien régimes, feudalism and capitalism all eventually did or will

That really is just such appalling intellectual masturbation, every ideology will claim that.

the slow down of global capitalism can even be observed today.

Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Éomer of Rohan

As I recall antidisestablishmentarianism is the attitude which people adopt when they wish that the Church retain powers in the operation of the State - for example in Ireland, correct?

Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Not true. ALL adherents of Free Market Capitalism that I have debated with and chatted socially to are very gung ho that the WTO etc will deliver world peace, food on every plate, a ferarri in every garage and so on. As we have discussed many times, all are flawed but some are more flawed than others. Capitalism ranking as second most flawed only to feudalistic forms of government.

Éomer of Rohan

And while you decide to feign anti-intellectualism, I would ask that you do it elsewhere.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And while you decide to feign anti-intellectualism, I would ask that you do it elsewhere.

I never opposed intellectualism, only pseudo-intellectualism, and criticized a florid and verbose post that said absolutely nothing outside of attempting to look clever.

The Emperor’s willy is showing...

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
Right-wing or Authoritarian turnip?
(After a two-page argument on terminology, it'd be nice if you'd be clear on what you're saying...)

Right wing. I vote PD, they're a radical and realistic party. The country needs a major shakeup particularly with regard to the poor work ethic. More than anything I'd like to see major social welfare reform. What's the dole? 120 euros or something? For doing nothing?? Are we mad?

I don't like the word authoritarian. Those who break the law should receive the correct punishment. No more no less.

Zombrex

The Corinthian
Ironically, capitalists (unlike many, if not most, socialists) do not claim that capitalism is a perfect system - Just the best of a bad lot.

Ah nothing like wild stereotypical statements to prove a point. Well most (if not all) capitalist I talk to think capitalism is a stupid idea ... haha I win

Capitalism is quite popular (especially in the US) not cause it is a particularly good system, but because it is a system that allows a person to believe they are as free as possible to make and keep money and wealth. In a truly capitalist society there would be no taxation (and a small government), and any money you made you would get to keep. You would then buy on the free market anything you need such as health insurance, housing, police force etc etc.

Socialism is a quite unpopular system in a lot of places (especially the US!!) cause it asks people to give up the opportunity to make vast fortunes for the sake of the wider society, and to be honest most people couldn't give 2 ****s about the wider society. It doesn't matter if it gives all people the security of education and health care (such as Cuba), greed and the desire for more wealth are basic human natures that is hard to reason with (which is why hundreds of Cubans leave for Florida every year to live in the slums of Miami with virtually no health care, education system or prospects of a good long turn job).

In truth Capitalism is an appalling system when a true free market model is used.

Imagine a truly capitalistic system ...

Money stops filtering down to the unskilled working classes in country A cause all the jobs have gone to country B where they do it for half the price. Just look at the flood of industries that down-sized in the US to move to Asia, leaving thousands unemployed.

But wait you say, times are changing, these unskilled workers need to become skilled in areas that are in demanded!

But you forget! ... we live in a truly capitalist system, where education costs money and such lefty wishy washy ideas a free education are considered stupid unrealistic idealism!!.

An unemployed unskilled worker cannot afford the education necessary to train himself, and the wealthy elite refuse to pay the taxes that could help him to pay for the training.

The worker, who was stupid enough to be born without rich parents to pay for his education is left unemployed and unemployable ... so he naturally goes on the welfare to survive right? Of course not my dear reader!!, because such socialist lefty communist hippie notions of others giving their hard earned money in tax to help support our lazy unemployed probably-doesn’t-even-want-a-job worker would never exist in our utopian capitalist free market world.

No if he wants money he should get a job like the rest of us damn it!! Oh that’s right, forgot his factory was moved to Vietnam, where a small Asian girl does that same amount of work for a tenth of the cost you would have to pay our worker.

Of course some not-really-sure-what-they-are-talking-about person is going to replay "Socialism is just as bad ... sure look at Stalin!!!)

Can I just make a small point about communism, socialism and one party dictatorships

There is a reason why most communist countries are not democracies and it is not because socialism lends itself to have a mad insane leader

It is simply because, people, i.e. the human race, are greedy, self-serving, "that is mine and I will kill you if you take it from me" creatures. Simply put, we have to be FORCED TO SHARE, and any very socialist country that was also a democracy would simply vote itself out of socialism (look at New Zealand) , unless great effort is put into showing the people the benefits of social responsibility. And lets be honest, who wants to do that, as it is unpopular and you have all the right-wingers scream "they want to take your money"

So to sum up ... WE ARE ALL SCREWED ... capitalist systems will NOT work in the long run, but ironically we are all draw to them as the promise that everything is possible, even thought you might not get it yourself (just like the Lotto).

Zombrex

Originally posted by Turnip
What's the dole? 120 euros or something? For doing nothing?? Are we mad?

OMG ... so many things wrong with that one statement alone ... where to begin

Just ask you what would u do if you were fired from your job, and couldn't get another ... would you live off the land, growing carrots in a ditch off the M50?

Also can i just ask you what you think the original idea/point of the dole is?? It amazes me that in this day and age people don't understand why we have a social welfare system.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Ah nothing like wild stereotypical statements to prove a point. Well most (if not all) capitalist I talk to think capitalism is a stupid idea ... haha I win

I think the problem lies with the misconception that capitalism is a political ideology. It’s not, it’s an economic system, and due to it’s organic, libertarian or, frankly, amoral Darwinist approach is by far the most efficient economic system ever to have existence.

However, in itself, it is not a political system. It has no social doctrine, outside of that which will form as a by-product of commerce. So to accuse capitalists of supporting a bankrupt or failing ideology, is inaccurate - some capitalists are socially liberal, while others are highly authoritarian.

Capitalism’s greatest imperfection is that it is not an ideology, and that too many people, both pro and against, try to fit it into that role.

Sparks

The problem TC, as pointed out above, is that pure capitalism is simply not a viable social system. Even the bastions of capitalism have elements of socialism, even if they are ill-considered, underfunded and disdained by many...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
The problem TC, as pointed out above, is that pure capitalism is simply not a viable social system. Even the bastions of capitalism have elements of socialism, even if they are ill-considered, underfunded and disdained by many...

However, the other side of the coin is where, as a reaction to capitalism, ideologies reject capitalist economic theory, in favour of economic philosophies that are disastrously inefficient (five-year plans, et al) - Economic models based upon theories devised in the nineteenth century.

Sparks

TC,
I don't think the age of an economic theory can be used as a reasonable metric. For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

Surely this is only proof of what Corinthian is saying? Capitalism has outlasted political ideologies, systems of governance, wars, revolutions, evolutions, and the rest.

Through it all, capitalism has stayed there...changing its face somewhat to better fit with the ideological demands of the political system of the day....but always remaining.

I personally believe that a socially-responsible democratic capitalism is overall the best system. I'm not sure if thats left, right, or middle...and to be honest I dont really care.

Of course, I'm living in the nation which I believe has the best implementation of such a system at present, so its fair to say that I'm somewhat biased

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I don't think the age of an economic theory can be used as a reasonable metric. For a start, capitalism is rather ancient itself.

Absolutely it should!

Economics is a social science. As such you can’t point to any ‘law of thermodynamics’ in economics that would have been devised centuries ago and we can assume that it still holds. Political circumstances, and their effect upon commerce and resources change, as do our assumptions of the market in the first place.

When Marx argued that religion was the opiate of the masses, he lived in a very different time - he might have thought differently had he known of television

Also capitalism is not really an ancient system. Modern capitalism is only a few centuries old, at best. Concepts such as banking and interest only appeared in the last few centuries; the idea that labour is an input of production is younger still and modern consumerism younger still again.

That modern capitalism is the evolutionary product of feudalism and, before it, the slave-based economies of the ancient world, is correct, but to say that they are the same thing would be not.

Sparks

TC,
Feudalism is a venerable political system with thousands of years of experience to it's name. I don't see many people clamouring for it's return though. Hence my statement that age is not the best metric...

ps. The "law of thermodynamics" (the second one to be exact) has been shown to not hold true at quantum levels. So it's not really a law anymore... not that it ever was...

And somehow I think if you wish to get to the roots of it, communism has rather venerable ancestors as well...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Feudalism is a venerable political system with thousands of years of experience to it's name. I don't see many people clamouring for it's return though. Hence my statement that age is not the best metric...

Your point about age not being the best metric was a response to my implication that certain economic models, from the nineteenth century, were out of date and inaccurate.

Hence you are now arguing that age is not the best metric in some cases, but is in others. You’re contradicting yourself.

ps. The "law of thermodynamics" (the second one to be exact) has been shown to not hold true at quantum levels. So it's not really a law anymore... not that it ever was...

Don’t be pedantic - my point is that as a social science economics is based upon theories rather than laws.

And somehow I think if you wish to get to the roots of it, communism has rather venerable ancestors as well...

Never said it didn’t.