What does "far right" mean anyway?

[anywebsite]

Racism has nothing to do with right or left. Nor does any other prejudice.

 

Left wing politics usually seeks to promote egalitarianism which isn't compatible with any prejudice.

[unbeliever]

unbeliever: You're describing the differences between liberal (or libertarian) social policies & more authoritarian social policies.

 

It's possible to be a libertarian communist, just as an authoritarian right wing is possible.

 

These terms I understand and find quite useful and informative, although I struggle to see how one can be a libertarian communist. I would say that libertarian is the opposite of communist. A communist surrenders all that they have to the collective. Once they have done so, they have no means to exercise many of the liberties they may technically have.

 

I would agree that one can be a liberal communist, as liberal's focus on a subset of liberties which are not in conflict with big government.

 

I don't see how one can be an authoritarian and right wing though. As I mentioned before, a small government does not have the means to be overly authoritative.

 

On a related note: Freedoms are in my view divided into liberties and entitlements. Free health care and education are entitlements and the right to be for example homosexual is a liberty. The right to dispose of the money you earn as you see fit is also a liberty. I'm not fond of conflating liberties and entitlements either.

[melthebell]

Racism has nothing to do with right or left. Nor does any other prejudice.

yes it does, forget what other types of people might do or think

 

if youve spent time with anybody who supports far right groups such as NF, BNP, white power bands such as skrewdriver like i have

 

race and homophobia is rife in the thoughts of everyone of em, also **** bashing in the late 70s, early 80s was down to "boneheads" and groups such as the NF and combat 18 in most cases

[anywebsite]

These terms I understand and find quite useful and informative, although I struggle to see how one can be a libertarian communist. I would say that libertarian is the opposite of communist. A communist surrenders all that they have to the collective. Once they have done so, they have no means to exercise many of the liberties they may technically have.

 

I would agree that one can be a liberal communist, as liberal's focus on a subset of liberties which are not in conflict with big government.

 

I don't see how one can be an authoritarian and right wing though. As I mentioned before, a small government does not have the means to be overly authoritative.

 

On a related note: Freedoms are in my view divided into liberties and entitlements. Free health care and education are entitlements and the right to be for example homosexual is a liberty. The right to dispose of the money you earn as you see fit is also a liberty. I'm not fond of conflating liberties and entitlements either.

 

The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, not communism. You can be authoritarian left (typical communist states) or right (fascism).

 

It's possible to believe in redistribution of wealth, collective ownership, etc while still allowing a lot of personal freedom. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

 

Small government isn't an essential right wing belief.

 

Left & right is an overly simplistic one dimensional way to describe political ideologies.

Edited September 18, 2013 by anywebsite

[unbeliever]

i think the point is, most people who can be classified as far right have certain beliefs / traits

 

such as racism, homophobia, islamophobia, misogny in a lot of cases, lack of empathy

and yes these do happen in other types of people including the left too but as far as far right goes they are almost wholly present in most cases

 

Most of these traits I recognise as likely to get one labelled "far right" for showing one or more of them. I still think the term is pretty useless.

 

Surely you wouldn't deny that there are problems with misogyny, homophobia and intolerance to other cultures within Islam?

Would you label a homophobic, misogynist, bigoted muslim "right wing"?

 

Lack of empathy may be a valid point. A very small government is disinclined to take from the rich and give to the poor in order to equalise society. But the situation now is that the poor are both taxed and given benefits which bugs me quite a bit.

[melthebell]

Most of these traits I recognise as likely to get one labelled "far right" for showing one or more of them. I still think the term is pretty useless.

 

Surely you wouldn't deny that there are problems with misogyny, homophobia and intolerance to other cultures within Islam?

Would you label a homophobic, misogynist, bigoted muslim "right wing"?

 

Lack of empathy may be a valid point. A very small government is disinclined to take from the rich and give to the poor in order to equalise society. But the situation now is that the poor are both taxed and given benefits which bugs me quite a bit.

as i said earlier, dont confuse things, those traits are there in other types of people of course, but in the far right those are generally defining characterists of beliefs

 

as for your last bit

look at the current "conservative" governments attack on the poor, they have NO EMPATHY with the poorer in society at all

[unbeliever]

The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, not communism. You can be authoritarian left (typical communist states) or right (fascism).

 

Fascism is not right wing authoritarianism, but a close relative of communism with a few minor tweaks. I am okay with your definition of libertarianism, but liberty necessarily has limits in a society with a big government. Governments regulate and then enforce that regulation. More government tends to lead to less liberty. It may not be impossible to construct a very large government which leaves it's subjects to live as they please, but it seems counter-intuitive and I'm struggling to think of an historical precedent.

On the other hand, a small government is incapable of being authoritarian.

 

It's possible to believe in redistribution of wealth, etc while still allowing a lot of personal freedom.

 

How are people to exercise said freedoms when the government has all their money?

 

Small government isn't an essential right wing belief.

 

It absolutely is. Either that or redistribution of wealth is not an essential left wing belief. I which case I've so completely lost track of left as well as right now that I'm really going to struggle to find my way to work in the morning.

 

Left & right is an overly simplistic one dimensional way to describe political ideologies.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

---------- Post added 18-09-2013 at 21:28 ----------

 

as i said earlier, dont confuse things, those traits are there in other types of people of course, but in the far right those are generally defining characterists of beliefs

 

as for your last bit

look at the current "conservative" governments attack on the poor, they have NO EMPATHY with the poorer in society at all

 

Okay. If you're classifying the current government as "far right" then you've completely lost me. A "far right government" would not have 20% VAT, up to 45% income tax, and typically 50% overall taxation for its citizens. The current government is still giving absolutely masses of money to the poor whilst at the same time taxing it back off them, just like the last one. They're also still increasing the several percent of GDP sent to help the poorest in the world.

Surely even a devoted socialist can see no virtue in taxing the working poor so much that they're worse off than the work shy.

 

This is all beside the point anyway. The BNP and the like are not small government and are therefore not right wing. Like them or not (and I certainly have little accord with them) they are not small government by nature. It seems nonsense to me to make out that they are an extreme version of the mainstream small government parties of the west.

[anywebsite]

Fascism is not right wing authoritarianism, but a close relative of communism with a few minor tweaks. I am okay with your definition of libertarianism, but liberty necessarily has limits in a society with a big government. Governments regulate and then enforce that regulation. More government tends to lead to less liberty. It may not be impossible to construct a very large government which leaves it's subjects to live as they please, but it seems counter-intuitive and I'm struggling to think of an historical precedent.

On the other hand, a small government is incapable of being authoritarian.

 

 

How are people to exercise said freedoms when the government has all their money?

 

 

 

It absolutely is. Either that or redistribution of wealth is not an essential left wing belief. I which case I've so completely lost track of left as well as right now that I'm really going to struggle to find my way to work in the morning.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Redistribution of wealth, the collective ownership of land & the means of production are core beliefs essential to communism, "big government" is an authoritarian belief, not a communist one. Fascists don't believe in collective ownership, it's a totally separate ideology. You keep confusing authoritarianism with communism, possibly because the communist party is usually very authoritarian. Fascists are also authoritarian, but they're certainly not communist.

 

You can believe in the economics of collective ownership & also social personal freedom / small government.

 

An anarchist communist would argue that true personal freedom isn't possible in a capitalist society, since you have big corporations controlling the economy rather than a big government, the proletariat aren't free. A big government would be against their beliefs, ideally there wouldn't be a state (don't ask me how this would work, I'm not one). Money wouldn't exist in their ideal society, they'd rather base their economy on cooperatives, gifts & barter.

 

There are very few real world examples of places that have been run in this manner, there may have been places during the Spanish & Russian revolutions that were briefly run in this manner.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Edited September 18, 2013 by anywebsite

[unbeliever]

Redistribution of wealth, the collective ownership of land & the means of production are core beliefs essential to communism. Fascists don't believe in that, it's a totally separate ideology.

 

You can believe in the economics of collective ownership & also social personal freedom.

 

An anarchist communist would argue that true personal freedom isn't possible in a capitalist society, since you have big corporations controlling the economy rather than a big government, the proletariat aren't free.

 

Oh come on now. You can't possibly be an anarchist communist.

In a communist system the government is so big that it controls everything. In an anarchist system there is no government.

[nightrider]

The term "far right" has come to refer to anybody that those who are on the side of big government find most objectionable.

 

I was just reading this thread on the EDL, and it reminded me that this has been bothering me for a while.

 

In general the "right" is associated with small government and the "left" with big government. Based on this definition "far right" would mean libertarian or classical anarchist, but it never seems to be used to mean that. Don't even get me started on modern "anarchists" (communists in disguise).

 

I find it particularly bemusing when extreme socialists who tend toward ethnic genocide and warmongering such as Hitler and Stalin are referred to as "far right" which is just nonsense. These people are blatantly "far left".

 

When did this happen? Did I miss a memo? How are National Socialists "far right"?

 

Perhaps it's time to abandon this right/left nonsense as it has lost all useful meaning and pick some specific terminology for what is currently labelled "far right". Any suggestions?

 

I'm not sure Stalin is known for being far right?! He's more famous as a communist dictator.

 

The Nazis had a mix of policies from right and left, so its probably overly simplistic to call them far right.