Why I think the term "Far Right" should be redefined

[Republic of Coldwater]

The term "Far Right" has been used to describe fascists such as Hitler and Genghis Khan, which bothers me, as it doesn't seem very fitting with the political spectrum

The Far Left are Communists
The Left are Socialists
The Centre-Left are Keynesian
The Centre-Right is composed of NeoConservatives (Welfare State with low taxes and some deregulation)
The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

I honestly don't understand why are we putting Hitler further to the right of the Tea Party and the GOP, when he was a Keynesian, as he nationalized the industries, and used the government's money on welfare and infrastructure, something that is done by the Private Sector in Fiscal Conservatism. As the Right-Left Spectrum mainly deals with fiscal issues based on the definition that most use, the placement of Hitler further to the right of Fiscal Conservatives makes no sense. He should be placed on the Centre-Left, along with FDR and other world leaders during that period for their Keynesianism.

The Far-Right should be the opposite of Communism. Communism is when the idea of private ownership of everything is removed, and handed to everyone equally, or to the government (depends if you are a Statist or Anarchist Communist). The opposite would be Anarcho-Capitalism, when everything is privately owned.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's Far Right because it's ultra-conservative on social issues, not necessarily economic issues.

Some people have tried to claim that Nazism was "leftist" because of the "socialism" in 'national socialism', but this just looks like people on the far-right trying to throw their garbage over the neighbor's fence; they'd point to a few nationalised road-building projects and then apparently ignore all the fascist ultra-conservative policies and actions.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Perhaps Extremely Wrong would be more appropriate.

[Costa Fierro]

Firstly, economics is only but a fraction of what composes a political ideology. Second, fascism is centrist. Thirdly, most people associate fascism with the far right because of their social conservatism on issues such as immigration and LGBT rights for example. A lot of the people in fascist leaning parties in modern politics often are deeply religious and hold strong conservative views and it is these views with which fascists are viewed as far right.

For the most part, fascism is economically centrist, because there's really nothing in fascism that wishes to destroy the free market. Socially, most are conservative.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It's Far Right because it's ultra-conservative on social issues, not necessarily economic issues.

Some Far-Lefters such as Mao and Stalin were socially conservative too.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Everybody knows that putting the entirety of the worlds complex views onto a hilariously inappropriate binary continuum is a stupid idea, we're just to far along to change it.

[Quintium]

There's a difference between a person's economic stance and his stance on social and cultural issues and the military. Hitler was quite a bit more than just centre-left in economic terms - he envisioned a major role for the state in controlling the economy. And then there's the horseshoe model, which holds that two extremes are closer to each other than they are to moderate versions of their views.

Thirdly, most people associate fascism with the far right because of their social conservatism on issues such as immigration and LGBT rights for example.

Most liberal westerners, perhaps. Most of the world agrees with the most conservative westerners on those issues, and would probably call our liberals fascist.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Firstly, economics is only but a fraction of what composes a political ideology. Second, fascism is centrist. Thirdly, most people associate fascism with the far right because of their social conservatism on issues such as immigration and LGBT rights for example. A lot of the people in fascist leaning parties in modern politics often are deeply religious and hold strong conservative views and it is these views with which fascists are viewed as far right.

For the most part, fascism is economically centrist, because there's really nothing in fascism that wishes to destroy the free market. Socially, most are conservative.

Mao killed LGBT people, was an atheist, banned religions and is still considered "Far Left"

[Costa Fierro]

Most liberal westerners, perhaps. Most of the world agrees with the most conservative westerners on those issues, and would probably call our liberals fascist.

In what way, exactly?

[SD_Film Artists]

It's Far Right because it's ultra-conservative on social issues, not necessarily economic issues.

Some Far-Lefters such as Mao and Stalin were socially conservative too.

I think that's because their main identification was 'Communist'*. On the political compass they may share an axis (no pun intended) with Hitler but they won't be on the same side.


*and before anyone says "they weren't true communists™" it was nonetheless what they identified themselves as.

[Costa Fierro]

Mao killed LGBT people, was an atheist, banned religions and is still considered "Far Left"

And he was. But that is purely from an economic standpoint. I also wouldn't call him a fascist, mainly because none of his social policies resembled those of fascists and those who were killed under his regime died of starvation or spoke out against him, or annoyed him in some way. Which is fairly typical of a paranoid despot with absolute power and control. I'd probably go so far as labeling his social policies left wing also, owing to the mobilization of the proletariat and essentially removing the state-designated "bourgeoisie" from political control.

[Quintium]

Most liberal westerners, perhaps. Most of the world agrees with the most conservative westerners on those issues, and would probably call our liberals fascist.

In what way, exactly?

That doesn't matter. "Fascist", nowadays, is a term that's used to attack people instead of attacking their points. And usually, those people aren't even fascist. There are, perhaps, a few thousand people in the west today who adhere to fascism as an ideology, and a few hundred thousand who say they oppose 'fascism' but define 'fascism' to be anything apart from far-left progressivism. Take the group "Unite Against Fascism" in the United Kingdom, for example. In order to legitimize their own existence, they've been calling all kinds of people from left to right fascists for minor reasons.

As for how most of the world would probably agree with the most conservative westerners, here are some examples:

- In most of the world, same-sex couples are not recognised;
- In many countries, homosexuals face the death penalty, and there is no sign of change there;
- In Brunei, people can now be stoned for adultery or have their hands amputated for theft;
- In some countries, witchcraft is still punishable by death (and these aren't colonial holdovers, they're relatively new laws);
- In Singapore, China and many other countries around the world, you can be given the death penalty for carrying a relatively minor amount of drugs on your person;
- Conservative Christian denominations and Sunni Islam are the world's fastest-growing religions;
- Racism is alive and kicking in all but the western world, and ethnic and religious persecution is alive and kicking in places like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, nearly all of the Middle East and Africa.

The rest of the world is less Santorum and more Phelps.

[New Aerios]

I think society needs to stop using a single-axis political spectrum. It doesn't work. The far left are anything from socially libertarian communists to full Stalin mode, the far right can be Fascism or Anarcho-Capitalism, which are complete opposites, then you have the fact that the only thing separating some fascists from Stalinists and Maoists is whether they have a red and gold flag, and yet they're placed at opposite ends of the spectrum. The whole thing needs to change, you can't categorise on one axis when there are so many variables present.

[Constantinopolis]

The Right is Hard-Core Fiscal Conservatism (Little regulations, low taxes, balanced budgets)
And now, we are using Far Right to describe Fascists?

"Now"? No, you've got it wrong. The term "far right" was used to describe fascists before hard-core fiscal conservatism was ever called "the right". If anything, the fascists are the ones who have the original claim to the title "far right", and people like the anarcho-capitalists need to be called something else (besides, I've never heard of an anarcho-capitalist calling himself "far right" anyway).

The Right-Left Spectrum may be understood today as dealing primarily with fiscal issues, but this only began a few decades ago. Originally (and also today in many places), the Right-Left Spectrum was understood as dealing with the question of Equality versus Hierarchy.

To be on "the left" means to support human equality to some extent (and the more you support it, the farther left you are - so for example people who support economic equality are farther left than people who merely support equality of opportunity).

To be on "the right" means to oppose equality and support some type of hierarchy (and the more rigid the hierarchy, the father right you are - so for example people who support a strict hierarchy based on birth are farther right than people who support a fluid hierarchy based on some type of merit).

Fascism is far-right because it advocates a type of society based on rigid hierarchy.

[Nervium]

Keynesianism isn't actually really tied to the political spectrum. Nixon was a Keynesian.

[Constantinopolis]

And now for a more general point:

The fact is, in most places at most times, the various political ideologies and movements naturally organize themselves in two big coalitions - two big camps - that oppose each other. This happens in multi-party systems just as much as in two-party systems (the multitude of parties are still generally divided in two big opposing camps, although some small parties may jump from one camp to the other on a regular basis).

That's the basic reason why we divide politics into "Left" and "Right". There is always "Camp A" and "Camp B", and one of them gets labeled as "Left" while the other gets labeled as "Right". It may be an ultra-simplistic way to represent the political spectrum, but it works well for describing the very common situation of having two big opposing coalitions.

Thus, political groups that strongly hate each other, for whatever reason, will naturally end up being placed on different sides of the Left-Right spectrum, no matter how similar you might think they are. The point is that they are sworn enemies, so they're not in the same camp. It doesn't really matter why they are sworn enemies, as long as they are.

The Left-Right spectrum always makes perfect sense if you understand it as meaning Coalition A versus Coalition B.

[Shie]

Being left or right hurts my stomach, I want out.

[Magna Libero]

I agree on that the one dimensional political spectrum isn't broad enough. It should include factors, such as authoritarianism, social/cultural conservatism, economic liberalism or not, centralized/decentralized.

That said, I agree that the term "far right" should be redefined. I think it should be "economic right or left". It's difficult to measure "far right" socially or in an authoritarian or conservative context, as it includes atleast three factors (centralized/decentralized, authoritarianism and social conservatism).

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

I dunno, both Nazis and conservatives are socially conservative, generally ubernationalistic and militaristic, and ludicrously horrible to have in charge.

[The USOT]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different ways.

TBH though the terms "right" or "left" are meaningless beyond a vague common use.
As you have rightly pointed out, putting Objectivists who are free market, atheist, "libertarian" free speech and anti-coercion with Nazis who are anti-free market, were anti-atheist, totalitarian, against free speech and pro-coercion is absurd.

Likewise on the left it is extremely weird to put the likes of Stalin who was extremely centralist, top down totalitarian with people like Emma Goldman who were decentralist, bottom up and an anarchist. Everything from policy to theory seperates the two to the greatest extreme.

[Avenio]

Jeez, how original.

"FDR was a big nasty statist Just Like Hitler, so we should really be putting fascists in the centre left alongside liberals. This is totally not because I just want to accuse liberals of being Just Like Hitler, really, there's an ideological reason for it, I swear. I can't think of any actual reasons at the moment other than to foam at the mouth a little bit, go cross-eyed and shout 'KEYNESIANISM', but trust me, there is."

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Jeez, how original.

"FDR was a big nasty statist Just Like Hitler, so we should really be putting fascists in the centre left alongside liberals. This is totally not because I just want to accuse liberals of being Just Like Hitler, really, there's an ideological reason for it, I swear. I can't think of any actual reasons other than to foam at the mouth a little bit, go cross-eyed and shout 'KEYNESIANISM', but trust me, there is."

Relax, Hitler isn't one of theirs, they hate blacks and poors, not Jews.

[Vissegaard]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different ways.
TBH though the terms "right" or "left" are meaningless beyond a vague common use.
As you have rightly pointed out, putting Objectivists who are free market, atheist, "libertarian" free speech and anti-coercion with Nazis who are anti-free market, were anti-atheist, totalitarian, against free speech and pro-coercion is absurd.
Likewise on the left it is extremely weird to put the likes of Stalin who was extremely centralist, top down totalitarian with people like Emma Goldman who were decentralist, bottom up and an anarchist. Everything from policy to theory seperates the two to the greatest extreme.

Nazis were atheist/nihilist.

The original definition of both left and right comes from the first post-revolutionary parliament of France, where jacobines sat in the left, republicans in the middle and the "black party", eg. monarchists and aristocrats in the right part of the stage. I consider myself far right in this meaning of the word.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

First of all, who applies the term "far right" to Genghis Kahn? He existed prior to the term having any relevance, nevermind his not having any coherant position/ruling many territories in many different ways.
TBH though the terms "right" or "left" are meaningless beyond a vague common use.
As you have rightly pointed out, putting Objectivists who are free market, atheist, "libertarian" free speech and anti-coercion with Nazis who are anti-free market, were anti-atheist, totalitarian, against free speech and pro-coercion is absurd.
Likewise on the left it is extremely weird to put the likes of Stalin who was extremely centralist, top down totalitarian with people like Emma Goldman who were decentralist, bottom up and an anarchist. Everything from policy to theory seperates the two to the greatest extreme.

Nazis were atheist/nihilist.

The original definition of both left and right comes from the first post-revolutionary parliament of France, where jacobines sat in the left, republicans in the middle and the "black party", eg. monarchists and aristocrats in the right part of the stage. I consider myself far right in this meaning of the word.

A fun Christian lie.

Of course you do.

[Vissegaard]

Nazis were atheist/nihilist.
The original definition of both left and right comes from the first post-revolutionary parliament of France, where jacobines sat in the left, republicans in the middle and the "black party", eg. monarchists and aristocrats in the right part of the stage. I consider myself far right in this meaning of the word.

A fun Christian lie.
Of course you do.

Not a Christian, neither a lie, sorry