Article

2004-09-20 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Kentucky Beef 2004-09-20 05:38|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6563 TROLL 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6563 TROLL 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 That news article didn't make a lot of sense, or the German version of "Right" is very different from here in the US. People were angry at welfare and social benefit cuts, so they vote for the right?

The German government called them a "neo-Nazi" party, which, if true, would put them over on the left with the other socialist types. Of course, since the far left calls anyone it doesn't like a "fascist" or "Nazi," so that may be meaningless.

Posted by jackal 2004-09-20 1:41:40 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-09-20 1:41:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 That's why I tend to use the more generic, but technical term, "loons."

Posted by Fred 2004-09-20 1:50:34 PM|| 2004-09-20 1:50:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 People were angry at welfare and social benefit cuts, so they vote for the right?

Far-right is all in favour of welfare and social benefits as long as it's only the white natives that get said welfare, not brownish foreigners. Far-right is all about being the "protector of the poor and disenfranchised masses of our nation" against the hordes of evil foreigners who get the jobs of *our* poor.

The Nationalist Socialist party was all about being socialists towards your own nation, and murderers towards other nations. :-) That's far-right in Europe.

America's far right is a bit different in points -- I think that's because the US has the whole multiracial aspect of its society, to a greater extent that Europe does.

There even your *native* poor with full citizenship rights are likely to be a member of a minority group to be despised by the far-right. In Europe however the native poor are on the whole more ethnically and racially homogeneous with the rest of the country -- which means that such are *recruiting grounds* for the European far-right, not a targets.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-20 2:12:18 PM|| 2004-09-20 2:12:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Thanks, Aris. That really does help.

I guess you really can't use "Right" when talking about a different country. Here, Right means someone like Goldwater or Reagan for politicians, or Thomas Sowell for philosophy, or Me for that matter, someone emphasizing individualism, self-reliance, and freedom rather than class or group identity and government security. Here, the Libertarians (often called "Liberals" in Europe) are the far right.

I can remember in the late 80s, the mainstream media would refer to the Soviet communists as the "Right," while those who wanted to decrease centralization as "the Left." If that's not a through-the-loocking-glass world, I don't know what is.

We don't really have anybody (except a few loonies with no influence) corresponding to the national socialist types (thank God).

Interesting, though that the far Left is pretty much the same everywhere, differing only in degree, not kind. Someone from the SDP or Labour or Socialist would fit right in with the "Democrat wing of the Democratic party."

Posted by jackal 2004-09-20 5:58:39 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-09-20 5:58:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Hitler's National Socialists were obviously on the left when it comes to individualism-vs-collectivism and economic freedom -vs-state management left/right divisions. I would consider these categories the true defining criteria on which to distinguish the left and right of political thought. Using anything else to categorise groups is specious to say the least. Alleging that the Nazis were rightist simply because they were nationalistic or racist is naive at best, cynically slanderous at worst. The left have long used racism as a stick to beat the right, mistaking or misrepresenting many rightists' reluctance to address race-issues as race-hatred. In fact, most real rightists don't give a damn about other people's race, the reason being that racism is an antithesis of individualism.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-20 6:16:12 PM|| 2004-09-20 6:16:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 In truth the whole babble about "right" vs "left" is meaningless unless you define what you mean by right and left.

In matters of societal mores, "Right-wing" is often defined as the puritan conservative wing, and "left-wing" is defined as the pro-gay, pro-orgies, pro-polygamy wing. In which case (the social scale) the Nazis were again right-wing.

In matters of nationality, the more "internationalist" a party is, the more left-wing it is considered by some, while the more importance it gives nationhood and blood-ancestry the more right-wing it is considered. In this case Nazis were again "right-wing". Nationhood and race and blood-ancestry was *everything* to them. On the other hand the communist's main motto was "Communists of the world unite", and their hymn said "the internationale unites the human race". In ideology therefore, (if not really in practice), the communists were typically left-wing.

In matters of individualism-vs-collectivism though I don't see a distinction between what are typically called "right-wing" and "left-wing" regimes. Or indeed I don't see a distinction between right-wing and left-wing people. I've seen in this rantburg as much collective and racial and ethnic blame as I've seen any communist use, possibly more. If all those right-wing people were so very much about individualism then I'd have heard fewer jabs against Greece because of my nationality.

Left-wing ideologies merely uses collectivism concerning the "classes". The downtrodden versus the masters and stuff like that. Right-wing ideologies use collectivism concerning race and nationality and again ancestry.

In this case, it seems to me that Nazis were again on the "right-wing" side.

I think I'm agreed with you about the economic front -- this seems to be the *only* topic where the Nazis weren't clearly cut what is usually called "right-wing".

You yourself use "the left" and "the right" and then say that "the left" has done this and that against "the right". You can't simply label "the left" all the people you think are against individuality without seeing that historically this has nothing to do with how the term is used -- do you for example deny the existence of right-wing dictatorships? Dictatorships whether right-wing or left-wing are all about destroying freedom and individualism.

------

The funny thing is the way I'm seeing you use such an argument to essentially call the Nazis "leftists", I have likewise seen communists use similar arguments to call the Soviet Union right-wing. Since they defined "right-wing" to be the dominion of an elite over the downtrodden masses and "left-wing" to be people in favour of equality for all, they felt that the Soviet Union was among one of the most right-wing regimes of the century.

My point is -- better to stop using left-wing and right-wing entirely. There are much better words to define meanings precisely. I'm a mostly "laissez-faire liberal" internationalist and societally progressive. That puts me on the right wing in the economic front and on the left wing on both the internationalism and the societal front.

Sidenote Bulldog -- the people who'd be in favour (for religious reasons) of outlawing sodomy : would you consider them right-wing or left-wing? And which of the two major parties would you think they are more likely to vote in modern-day USA?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-20 8:49:22 PM|| 2004-09-20 8:49:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#9
"In matters of nationality, the more "internationalist" a party is, the more left-wing it is considered by some, while the more importance it gives nationhood and blood-ancestry the more right-wing it is considered. In this case Nazis were again "right-wing". "

So were the Soviets, Aris. Ever heard of "Russification?"

See also "Soviet Union" in this link:

"You can't simply label "the left" all the people you think are against individuality without seeing that historically this has nothing to do with how the term is used -- "
But it's strange, but it seems just fine to go indiscriminately calling people "right-wing." What's up with that?

Rabid nationalism and ethnic bigotry can be conditions of the "far right," but they are not sufficient for a definition when "far right" is the same as "far left" on all other significant identifying points.

I really like Hannah Arendt's discussion of Nazism in her "Origins of Totalitarianism." But it's too long to post here, so I'll settle for this:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

Personally, I think the BEEB was saying to themselves: "Hmmm, how do you think we can spin this so people identify our subject with those bastards over in the Colonies?"
"Oh, I know, let's call them 'right-wing.' That way peoiple will think of Bush as a Nazi!"

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-20 10:02:10 PM|| 2004-09-20 10:02:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Heh... for some reason, those links didn't work. In order:
http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/krawch.htm

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/g/genocide.htm

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-20 10:04:18 PM|| 2004-09-20 10:04:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Asedwich> True, the Soviets did impose "Russification". But that's because they were hypocrites that couldn't follow even their own proscribed ideology. *shrug*.

But the communists *claimed* themselves internationalists ("Internationale" see :-), even as the Nazis claimed themselves nationalists. Except that the latter indeed were what they claimed.

But it's strange, but it seems just fine to go indiscriminately calling people "right-wing."

Um, it seems just fine by who? In this thread I referred to *self-described* right-wingers of Rantburg, didn't just label people who hadn't already called that themselves. If that's what you mean.

Rabid nationalism and ethnic bigotry can be conditions of the "far right," but they are not sufficient for a definition when "far right" is the same as "far left" on all other significant identifying points

Far right and far left have the same defining characteristic: authoritarianism -- to crush human freedom and dignity underfoot. The same way that Liberal economic right (laissez faire liberalism) and liberal economic left (progressive social-democracy) offers paths towards the encouragement of liberty.

Yeah, far left and far right are nearly identical. That doesn't mean that far right is any less right-wing or that far left is any left-wing. It simply means that right-wing and left-wing at that point become trivial when the significant thing is not the right-left axis but the authoritarian-liberal axis instead.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-20 11:24:28 PM|| 2004-09-20 11:24:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I'll agree with you that definitions of left and right vary and are hard to define, but I'll also point out that continental ideas of left versus right are quite different from those in the UK and the US. Your idea of which issues are most important in defining which side of the main left/right axis a group or individual belongs to might be quite different from mine. I do not hear much debate in our Parliament about blood or ethnicity or race hatred originating from the Tories. Does this mean they can't be right-wing? Nor the Republicans? Nationalism is an irrelevance when it comes to left/right political divisions unless your idea of normal political debate crawls in the gutter of human depravity.

Your assertion that the Communists at the time of the Nazis were internationalists averse to nationalism rings a little hollow, Aris. Are you aware that the Soviets under Stalin committed an act of genocide greater even than that committed by Hitler against the Jews? It's reckoned that ten million Ulkranians died under Stalin who was quite prepared to use naitonality and race as justification for mass murder. Ask a Chechen how race-blind Stalin was. Ask Russian Jews, for that matter, Belorussians, ethnic Germans... If you hold the idea that Communists were not nationalistic, you've swallowed an awful lot of pro-Communist propaganda.

In matters of individualism-vs-collectivism though I don't see a distinction between what are typically called "right-wing" and "left-wing" regimes.

Come again? You're joking, right? Every major policy difference between left and right centres around this issue. The left traditionally believes in nationalisation of industry, tight regulation, protectionism, state pensions, state provision of welfare, social proggrammes of all sorts... All these things are driven by a collectivist mindset. Individualists (the extreme being Libertarians) are attracted to the right because the right traditionally advocates minimum state involvement in individual affairs, at least far less so than the Left.

You can't simply label "the left" all the people you think are against individuality without seeing that historically this has nothing to do withhow the term is used -- do you for example deny the existence of right-wing dictatorships?

This is indeed where left and right become confused, and whether you can call a dictatorship right-wing or right wing is debatable. It can be contended that no dictatorship is 'political' in the sense that political philosopy drives Government over and above the consideration of power. In this sense, for example, the Soviets betrayed left-wing rhetoric to impose nothing remotely egalitarian. However, the inescapable truth is that Communism epitomised the natural end-result of left-wing philosopy in that 'equality', if it is to be imposed and maintained, requires an all-powerful Government with absolute power over its people. Without a totalitarian force enforcing equality, you get inequality; the state must be able to control your property and your behaviour. Then, whether the members of that Government live according to the standards of the masses becomes their choice.

Bulldog -- the people who'd be in favour (for religious reasons) of outlawing sodomy : would you consider them right-wing or left-wing? And which of the two major parties would you think they are more likely to vote in modern-day USA?

I would hope that the Republicans would not outlaw sodomy as to do so breaches individual freedoms, but I admit that they'd be more likely to do so owing to pressure from the conservative religious right. A reminder of why it's important to maintain the primacy of secularism in politics.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 5:10:42 AM|| 2004-09-21 5:10:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Does this mean we get to have another pop at Jerry? Rather the Fench, personally.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-09-21 6:04:57 AM|| 2004-09-21 6:04:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Only if Jerry is a frog Howard.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 6:13:07 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-21 6:13:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 "The left traditionally believes in nationalisation of industry, tight regulation, protectionism, state pensions, state provision of welfare, social proggrammes of all sorts... '

And the right traditional believes in state religions, government defining morals, so forth so forth. You choose to focus only on the economic issues.

"Your assertion that the Communists at the time of the Nazis were internationalists averse to nationalism rings a little hollow, Aris."

You didn't read my last post. I said that the communists violated their own supposed principles. Their proclaimed *principles* called for internationalism, but in practice they were hypocrites and violated that principle in mass.

Which can be used as a way to call the Soviet Union "right-wing", same way that Hitler's "socialism" was used by people here to call him "left-wing".

I do not hear much debate in our Parliament about blood or ethnicity or race hatred originating from the Tories. Does this mean they can't be right-wing?

That means they can't be *far*-right. That means that on matters of blood or ethnicity or race they probably centrists or so.

Which party is considered to be more friendly to foreigners and immigrants though, Labour or Torie?

"I would hope that the Republicans would not outlaw sodomy as to do so breaches individual freedoms, owing to pressure from the conservative religious right"

While on the other hand what is traditionally called "the left" on religious issue, wants people to be *free* to do whatever "perverse" thing they have in mind as long as it's between consenting adults. If we're only only to judge the right-left division between what is in favour of collectivism and what is in favour of individualism, why aren't the terms switched around, with the "religious left" being the one tha wants to abolish sodomy and the "rightists" being the one that want to permit it?

Because traditionaly "right-wing" are also called the ones in favour of tradition, while "left-wing" are also called the ones in favour of breaking free from tradition. There's a reason why "conservatives" is afterall sometimes used as synonym for right-wing.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-21 8:54:20 AM|| 2004-09-21 8:54:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 You choose to focus only on the economic issues.

Which can be used as a way to call the Soviet Union "right-wing", same way that Hitler's "socialism" was used by people here to call him "left-wing".

I'm not just focusing on economic issues. The left's obssession with controlling the lives of other people is obviously manifested in economic issues, but also through a plethora of social engineering projects, large and small, dressed up a 'progressive' nonsense which usually benefits no one but the occasional few at the expense of the rest! And your own obssession with race hatred and the politics of negative nationalism and ethnic rivalry as legitimate political divisors say more about your own attitudes and experiences than they do about the real world. There is no more a place for xenophobia and latent racism in true right-wing politics than there is on the left. And to insist there is, is to ignorantly slander a huge number of people, including myself.

Which party is considered to be more friendly to foreigners and immigrants though, Labour or Torie?

That depends entirely on who you ask. The left, as usual, in this country tries to grasp at power through a policy of societal divide and rule. 'Multicultutalism' is used as a slogan to promote racial sectarianism and keep racism institutionalised. The Democrats do the same thing in the US, and I expect many leftists in Greece do the same thing too. A I right? Leftists are obssessed with race and think that by missing no opportunity to tell people that their skin colour or ethnic origin sets them aside from their neighbours they can channel blame for perceived injustices from minority groups against the established order or their political opponents. Trying to keep minorities apart from the manjority, they believe, guarantees them support from such minorities, and at the same time the effect is to actively encourage racial division. Meanwhile, the right is criticised for being more keen to limit immigration for 'racist' reasons. For some who sit on the right that may be true (just as for many on the left there's no shame in introducing race into politics for their own ends), but there are also, of course, sound economic and social reasons to resist mass immigration to any country.

While on the other hand what is traditionally called "the left" on religious issue, wants people to be *free* to do whatever "perverse" thing they have in mind as long as it's between consenting adults.

That's by no means a left-only attitude. Ask a Libertarian how they stand on 'consenting adults' issues and it seems you might be surprised. Ask a Labourite in the UK how they think 'consenting adults' should behave as regards foxes, and you might also be surprised. The recent vote to ban fox-hunting is just the most recent example of left-wing politicians in the UK acting to curtail civil liberties and act in a decidedly intolerant and authoritarian manner.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-21 9:53:24 AM|| 2004-09-21 9:53:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Well this right leaning proto libertarian will tell you both. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of governments concern or anyone elses.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-21 10:10:13 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-21 10:10:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 I somehow don't think that foxes fall under the category of "consenting adults".

'Multicultutalism' is used as a slogan to promote racial sectarianism and keep racism institutionalised. The Democrats do the same thing in the US, and I expect many leftists in Greece do the same thing too. A I right?

Over here we have school parades at national holidays with the best student lifting the flag. Some years ago a serious dispute arose over the fact that ethnic Albanian students often were the ones to so lift it, having come out with the best grades. It was the authoritarian right (atleast they tended to call themselves "right") that wanted ethnic Albanians to be banned from ever lifting the Greek flag -- it was the left (+ the liberal right) that wanted the best students to lift it regardless of ethnicity.

So, you tell me -- who was striving for integration now, the authoritarian right or the left? Who wants Albanian immigrants to remain a slave-caste with no political rights?

Mind you, the communist parties, having allied with the chauvinists long ago (far left and far right stick together, in their mutual hatred of freedoms) are hardly the forefront in defending minority rights either.

It's the liberal sections of *both* the right and the left that defend minorities.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-21 3:39:45 PM|| 2004-09-21 3:39:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 But Libertarians don't define themselves through the rightwing-leftwing axis.

See this for example: http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Image:2d_political_spectrum.png

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-21 3:45:20 PM|| 2004-09-21 3:45:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6563 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6563 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| 2004-09-20 12:14:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Fred 2004-09-20 1:46:29 PM|| 2004-09-20 1:46:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Fred 2004-09-20 1:48:37 PM|| 2004-09-20 1:48:37 PM|| Front Page Top

13:48 Fred
13:46 Fred
12:14 Anonymous6563
12:14 Anonymous6563
02:55 Anonymous6560
02:55 Anonymous6560
01:22 Anonymous6558
01:22 Anonymous6558
00:38 Anonymous6556
00:38 Anonymous6556
19:23 Today
01:49 Anonymous6590
15:45 Aris Katsaris
15:39 Aris Katsaris
10:10 Sock Puppet of Doom
09:53 Bulldog
09:20 RN
08:57 TS(vice girl)
08:54 Aris Katsaris
08:20 2B
06:13 Sock Puppet of Doom
06:04 Howard UK
05:10 Bulldog
03:38 Super Hose