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

by **Estado Paulista** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:18 am

There is no proper definition for the term "far-right". "Left" and "right" encompass a wide range of very distinct ideologies that don't necessarily have anything in common.

by **Nirya** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:41 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Nirya wrote:Nazism was syncretic, it combined elements of both. Stop trying to put it on the Left or the Right.

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.

by **Sanguinea** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:44 am

Genghis Khan wasn't a fascist, OP. :palm:

But the left-right spectrum conception is pretty inadequate for describing an ideology's postion compared to others.

by **Nirya** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:45 am

Hitler even said it was a syncretic ideology.

by **MERIZoC** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:58 am

Sanguinea wrote:Genghis Khan wasn't a fascist, OP.

But the left-right spectrum conception is pretty inadequate for describing an ideology's postion compared to others.

Genghis Khan was a badass. Nothing else.

by **Constantinopolis** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:32 am

Greater-London wrote:its worth noting that many prominent Fascists where originally Socialists or Syndicalists.

I know this wasn't intended as a cheap dig at socialists or syndicalists, but I just wanted to say that I don't understand why anyone even bothers to bring up this "argument" at all. It's completely irrelevant. Many prominent libertarians (for example Hayek) were originally socialists as well. Some neoconservatives used to be Marxists. Many liberals used to be conservatives, many conservatives used to be liberals, and so on. People change their political views sometimes. This is not news.

by **Sanguinea** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:35 am

Constantinopolis wrote:
Greater-London wrote:its worth noting that many prominent Fascists where originally Socialists or Syndicalists.

I know this wasn't intended as a cheap dig at socialists or syndicalists, but I just wanted to say that I don't understand why anyone even bothers to bring up this "argument" at all. It's completely irrelevant. Many prominent libertarians (for example Hayek) were originally socialists as well. Some neoconservatives used to be Marxists. Many liberals used to be conservatives, many conservatives used to be liberals, and so on. People change their political views sometimes. This is not news.

Fascism was an outgrowth of anti-marxist schools of socialism and their collaboration with radical nationalist groups.

by **Constantinopolis** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:46 am

Fascism was an outgrowth of many different political tendencies cobbled together under the banner of ultra-nationalism and anti-communism.

by **Destrovia** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:48 am

Constantinopolis wrote:Fascism was an outgrowth of many different political tendencies cobbled together under the banner of ultra-nationalism and anti-communism.

Mostly an attempt at uniformity and militarization on a national scale.
Along with burning a few commies.

by **Divair2** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:36 am

Merizoc wrote:
Barnetii wrote:The traditional left right spectrum doesn't capture everything, and fascism is one of those confusing ones. I you take a look at this double axis spectrum it makes a bit more sense. Fascism is in the upper right btw.

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1svcw5BTgJsPHdhrDfiEGCVzQeD9uaLM15P5SXceYW0g/edit?usp=sharing

Try this for something a little simpler.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

And more accurate.

by **Meryuma** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:44 am

Because left and right do not refer to economic systems specifically but rather overall philosophical approaches. The left means revolution and equality, the right means reaction and open inequality. Ancaps are right-wing and can be far-right but they don't exemplify the extreme of right-wing thought the way that fascism does. Far-right (e.g. pro-Confederate, neo-feudalist, white nationalist) ideas do often seep into anarcho-capitalism though.

by **Camelza** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:45 am

Republic of Coldwater wrote:
SD_Film Artists wrote: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.

They were not left-wing at all.

by **Crimson Futures** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:59 am

Far right is anarchism.

by **Divair2** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:01 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:Far right is anarchism.

And Nazism.

by **Yumyumsuppertime** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:01 pm

The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote: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.

I had an entire passage being composed in my head, but this summed it all up quite nicely.

by **Duvniask** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:03 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:Far right is anarchism.

That's quite a dubious claim.

by **Camelza** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:05 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:Far right is anarchism.

Sarcasm or...?

by **Crimson Futures** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:07 pm

Duvniask wrote:
Crimson Futures wrote:Far right is anarchism.

That's quite a dubious claim.

More Government <--> Less Government

Total state ownership, communism, is the far left, no state in the first place, anarchy, is the far right.

Yes, anarchy is "leftist" in that all individuals have maximum opportunity for personal liberty, but in the most basic sense it is far right.

by **Divair2** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:09 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:
Duvniask wrote:That's quite a dubious claim.

More Government <--> Less Government

Total state ownership, communism, is the far left, no state in the first place, anarchy, is the far right.

Yes, anarchy is "leftist" in that all individuals have maximum opportunity for personal liberty, but in the most basic sense it is far right.

That's not what the left/right scale is about.

by **Crimson Futures** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:10 pm

Oh it isn't? Perhaps then, you might enlighten me.

by **Divair2** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:11 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:Oh it isn't? Perhaps then, you might enlighten me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 ... t_politics

The left's goal is to dismantle social hierarchies. The right's goal is to maintain them. The more extreme, the more revolutionary or reactionary.

by **Arcturus Novus** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:16 pm

Honestly, I feel like the terms "social left/right" and "economic left/right" should be kept separate when talking about how far-right something is.

by **Crimson Futures** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:23 pm

The political diametric, six-axis chart.

by **Yumyumsuppertime** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:27 pm

Crimson Futures wrote:
Duvniask wrote:That's quite a dubious claim.

More Government <--> Less Government

Total state ownership, communism, is the far left, no state in the first place, anarchy, is the far right.

Yes, anarchy is "leftist" in that all individuals have maximum opportunity for personal liberty, but in the most basic sense it is far right.

No, communism is when the workers control the means of production. State capitalism, which the Soviets thought would be a transitional period, is when the state owns the means of production.

by **Alyakia** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:28 pm

Merizoc wrote:
Sanguinea wrote:Genghis Khan wasn't a fascist, OP.

But the left-right spectrum conception is pretty inadequate for describing an ideology's postion compared to others.

Genghis Khan was a badass. Nothing else.

don't think it's kinda weird to praise someone for "being really good at raping people"?

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

Who is online