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