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

[Threlizdun]

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

In the idea of Pure Communism, there is no government.

No state, not no government.

[Untaroicht]

In the idea of Pure Communism, there is no government.

No state, not no government.

"state" and "government" are fucking synonyms!

"True" communism is, by NSG's definition, just a subsect of anarchism.

[Napkiraly]

No state, not no government.

"state" and "government" are fucking synonyms!

No they aren't.

[Dejanic]

No state, not no government.

"state" and "government" are fucking synonyms!

"True" communism is, by NSG's definition, just a subsect of anarchism.

It's not NSG's definition, it's the Marxian definition, even dogs like Stalin followed this definition of Communism. You're conflating Communism the society and mode of production with the Marxist-Leninist states led by Communist parties, if you had done about 5 minutes of research you'd of probably discovered that these states didn't claim that they had achieved Communism, they claimed that they were "Socialist" states, heading the transition towards eventual Communism.

And no, "state" and "government" are not synonyms, it's obviously easy to use them as such in daily conversation, but political scientists generally make a distinction between the two terms. Government is one of the elements of a state (so a state cannot exist without government), but government is also a distinct element in itself, and it can easily exist without a state. The differences between "state" and "government" are way to long to list, so I'd probably suggest doing a google search and finding out yourself. With the world wide web right infront of you there is no excuse.

Here's a decent explanation to help you out. http://www.preservearticles.com/2010122 ... nment.html

[Gaelic Celtia]

No state, not no government.

"state" and "government" are fucking synonyms!

"True" communism is, by NSG's definition, just a subsect of anarchism.

Both of those are very untrue. Very.

And yeah my bad no state

[Divair2]

No state, not no government.

"state" and "government" are fucking synonyms!

"True" communism is, by NSG's definition, just a subsect of anarchism.

Nope.

[Costa Fierro]

That doesn't matter.

So what your saying as people who are loosely defined as "liberals" aren't considered as "fascists"?

[McCatsonia]

This is exactly why it is hard to implement it in real life.

I'd ratheter take the word of world class professors and Wikipedia over some random bloke on the internet. Communism is state control over the economy.

Not quite. Traditional communism is stateless.

[Old Tyrannia]

Rather than join this clusterfuck of an argument and immerse myself in ignorance and tit-for-tat, I have decided to compile a list of political terms and phrases that have been horribly misused in this thread:

• Fascism
• Far Left
• Far-Right
• Communist
• Leftist
• Conservative
• Social Conservatism
• Liberal
• Stalinist
• Maoist
• Authoritarianism
• Militaristic
• Atheist
• Nihilist
• Christian
• Clerofascist
• Reaction
• Neoliberal
• Strasserism
• Social Democratic
• Revolutionary
• Soviet
• State Capitalism
• Feudalism
• Absolute Monarch
• Capitalism
• "Tenant"

[SD_Film Artists]

Any government is syncretic to some degree, but I think it's safe to say that Nazism is on the far-right.

With their anti-religious movements and Socialist government power? No. They had plenty of Far-Right aspects, but they had plenty of Leftist aspects as well.

Besides some government-funded projects in what way were they Socialist?

[Quintium]

That doesn't matter.

So what your saying as people who are loosely defined as "liberals" aren't considered as "fascists"?

Depends. If they propose any state power over people's lives, then the libertarian part of the right will call them "fascists".
It's just a very fashionable term at the moment, because comparing people to Hitler is so 2004.

[Ixzara]

So what your saying as people who are loosely defined as "liberals" aren't considered as "fascists"?

Depends. If they propose any state power over people's lives, then the libertarian part of the right will call them "fascists".
It's just a very fashionable term at the moment, because comparing people to Hitler is so 2004.

So what should we call them now? Miley Cyrusists?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Depends. If they propose any state power over people's lives, then the libertarian part of the right will call them "fascists".
It's just a very fashionable term at the moment, because comparing people to Hitler is so 2004.

So what should we call them now? Miley Cyrusists?

Hey, HEY....

Let's not go saying things that we'll later regret.

[Ixzara]

So what should we call them now? Miley Cyrusists?

Hey, HEY....

Let's not go saying things that we'll later regret.

Party in the USA?

[Tekania]

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.

Part of it is you're trying to fit a multi-dimentional concept of polotics on a single line left-right spectrum. The core concept of left<->right is based on a dynamic between appeals to authoritarian traditions (right) and personal freedom (left) at its inception. Which workes fine when you are dealing with a post revolution european govenrment in contest between monarchial supporter and freemen, not so much with modern use.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Part of it is you're trying to fit a multi-dimentional concept of polotics on a single line left-right spectrum. The core concept of left<->right is based on a dynamic between appeals to authoritarian traditions (right) and personal freedom (left) at its inception. Which workes fine when you are dealing with a post revolution european govenrment in contest between monarchial supporter and freemen, not so much with modern use.

Exactly. The Political Compass chart has its flaws, but it's significantly better as a way of pinpointing one's general political outlook.

[Lamaredia]

The spectrum combines economical and social stance. That's why I like the compass system. For example, I am medium-far lower-left in the spectrum. I'm both socially and economically left. Hitler would be at the top of the compass, and a tad to the left.

The first one is me and the second is where some famous people are/were. The third includes Hitler

[Liberaxia]

Just ditch political spectrums. They're useless.

[Duvniask]

Just ditch political spectrums. They're useless.

Why are they useless? They seem rather useful as a means of easy classification.

[Liberaxia]

Just ditch political spectrums. They're useless.

Why are they useless? They seem rather useful as a means of easy classification.

Oh yeah? Where would Islamic fundamentalism fit on America's left-right political spectrum?

I have a problems with the whole deal of X is more Y than Z, where X and Z are fitted on a simplistic line. Just doesn't feel accurate. I have my own non-spectral classifications. If you judge by signature, for example, you wouldn't know where to place me.

[MERIZoC]

Why are they useless? They seem rather useful as a means of easy classification.

Oh yeah? Where would Islamic dundamentalism fit on America's left-right political spectrum?

I have a problems with the whole deal of X is more Y than Z, where X and Z are fitted on a simplistic line. Just doesn't feel accurate. I have my own non-spectral classifications. If you judge by signature, for example, you wouldn't know where to place me.

If by "dundamentalism" you mean fundamentalism, then it would be on the more authoritarian side. Simple answers to simple questions.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Left or Right are useless terms, Politics should be about solving problems not about ideologies which all have bad and good points.

[Duvniask]

Why are they useless? They seem rather useful as a means of easy classification.

Oh yeah? Where would Islamic dundamentalism fit on America's left-right political spectrum?

I have a problems with the whole deal of X is more Y than Z, where X and Z are fitted on a simplistic line. Just doesn't feel accurate. I have my own non-spectral classifications. If you judge by signature, for example, you eouldn't know where to place me.

I'm not sure if you have considered what you just said. You implied that many, most or all political spectrums were useless by using the plural form. So what if the left-right political spectrum doesn't always apply? It's generally useful in describing the different group beliefs of people. Left implies support of social equality in some form, whereas right implies support (or belief in the natural inherence) of social inequality.

If you think that's not sophisticated enough, you can always add more axes or address different things entirely. They would still be political spectrums of their own.

[SD_Film Artists]

Left or Right are useless terms, Politics should be about solving problems not about ideologies which all have bad and good points.

And someone's definition of a "problem" defines what side of the spectrum they are on.

[Hochste Kaiserreich]

Far Right applies to Fascism only in social terms. In economic terms it is closer to the Left. But due to the radical natures of it's social policy, on a general scale it is more right than the GOP.