5 ms·

What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits. This has indeed happened. 1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks-claims-tory-party-is-quite-literally-the-national-front-212309/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...
- gadders 4y ago
  UKIP is not far-right. You can't just label anyone you disagree with as "Far Right". You have to base your argument on facts.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    You can't just label someone as "not Far Right", just because you agree with them. That's denial.
    - gadders 4y ago
      I would say the onus of proof would be on the accuser.
barneygale 4y ago
Immigration enforcement raids against mostly black/brown people. Putting them on flights to countries they left as infants. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for "processing". Sending British citizens to the Carribean because we were too disorganised to issue them passports in the 50s. The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.
- temp8964 4y ago
  LoL. This is not a definition.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jleyank 4y ago
There’s a whole lot of working definitions provided by the 20th century that can be used as measuring sticks on the passage to the right. Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority. There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  You're conflating "the right", "far right", fascism, and totalitarianism. Which, I think, is why the term "far right" was invented - so leftists could basically call other people fascists without having to substantiate the claim. Being "on the right" is about policy. Someone on the right believes in democracy, freedom, capitalism, human rights, etc. They hold policy positions such as lower taxes, controlled immigration, and greater punishment for criminals. These policy positions put them in opposition to those on the left. Someone "on the right" is not a fascist, and is not nearer being a fascist than someone "on the left". Fascism means the abolition of human rights, democracy, free capitalism, and everything "the right" believes in. It's common to cherry pick little policy points from previous facsict states and use that as evidence that the right is facsict. "Hitler limited immigration, the Tories want to limit immigration, the Tories are fascist!!!!". That makes no sense. "Mao raised taxes, Biden wants to raise taxes, Biden is literally a communist!!!". Facsism is not about policy. It is a fundamentally different, totalitarian, way to structure a society.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Ok, then socialism and communism aren’t associated with the far left. This makes right/left terms about where they sit in parliament. We’re trapped by common usage when it comes to jargon, and your usage of fascism vs. Nazism shows you’re not parsing them correctly. The former was a corporatist state that preserved trappings and some legitimacy of existing governmental power. The latter, well, didn’t. How about: leaders <- government <- owners <-> workers -> government -> leaders. Which I can’t format in a circle. And the presence or absence of “for all” can be a tell about where on the political spectrum people or groups sit. It’s generally accepted that the red states sit to the right vs. the blue states and the us sits to the right of Western Europe. There’s a spectrum of countries as there’s a spectrum of states (or provinces in Canada). The “political middle ground” can be constructed from this set and then decorated with secular or religions states from elsewhere throughout.
Zenst 4y ago
Well that is a good question as no real solid answer. I do know that what has been classed as far-right in the media has shifted more and more towards the center to the stage that if Hitler was around today, most things on the current far-right would appear centerist-left. Though I like to look at that as progress. Though equally some people class what is on the left as far-left and it's all just got very silly with focus upon labels and arguing over rational logical debate with facts. If you look at various media outlets, their own definition of far-left or far-right varies so much that you can end up being labeled as both very easily. Another issue would be cultural aspects and you will find what is far-left or far-right will vary country to country and with that. Subjective labels have and always will be a can-of-worms.

There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits. This has indeed happened. 1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks-claims-tory-party-is-quite-literally-the-national-front-212309/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...

gadders 4y ago
UKIP is not far-right. You can't just label anyone you disagree with as "Far Right". You have to base your argument on facts.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  You can't just label someone as "not Far Right", just because you agree with them. That's denial.
  - gadders 4y ago
    I would say the onus of proof would be on the accuser.

barneygale 4y ago

Immigration enforcement raids against mostly black/brown people. Putting them on flights to countries they left as infants. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for "processing". Sending British citizens to the Carribean because we were too disorganised to issue them passports in the 50s. The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.

temp8964 4y ago
LoL. This is not a definition.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jleyank 4y ago

There’s a whole lot of working definitions provided by the 20th century that can be used as measuring sticks on the passage to the right. Signs include a breakdown or suppression of a free press, simplification of the political spectrum, identification of and processing of enemies of the state, weakening of the rules and protections of government and so on. A shift from the idea of equality of all (protection of minorities) towards the will of the majority. There dan also be an anti-rational or anti-scientific aspect. And as an old history prof lectured, the political spectrum is not linear it’s a circle. The far ends turn out to be the same part of the circle. Power for the in group and problems for the rest. Read animal farm.

dahfizz 4y ago
You're conflating "the right", "far right", fascism, and totalitarianism. Which, I think, is why the term "far right" was invented - so leftists could basically call other people fascists without having to substantiate the claim. Being "on the right" is about policy. Someone on the right believes in democracy, freedom, capitalism, human rights, etc. They hold policy positions such as lower taxes, controlled immigration, and greater punishment for criminals. These policy positions put them in opposition to those on the left. Someone "on the right" is not a fascist, and is not nearer being a fascist than someone "on the left". Fascism means the abolition of human rights, democracy, free capitalism, and everything "the right" believes in. It's common to cherry pick little policy points from previous facsict states and use that as evidence that the right is facsict. "Hitler limited immigration, the Tories want to limit immigration, the Tories are fascist!!!!". That makes no sense. "Mao raised taxes, Biden wants to raise taxes, Biden is literally a communist!!!". Facsism is not about policy. It is a fundamentally different, totalitarian, way to structure a society.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Ok, then socialism and communism aren’t associated with the far left. This makes right/left terms about where they sit in parliament. We’re trapped by common usage when it comes to jargon, and your usage of fascism vs. Nazism shows you’re not parsing them correctly. The former was a corporatist state that preserved trappings and some legitimacy of existing governmental power. The latter, well, didn’t. How about: leaders <- government <- owners <-> workers -> government -> leaders. Which I can’t format in a circle. And the presence or absence of “for all” can be a tell about where on the political spectrum people or groups sit. It’s generally accepted that the red states sit to the right vs. the blue states and the us sits to the right of Western Europe. There’s a spectrum of countries as there’s a spectrum of states (or provinces in Canada). The “political middle ground” can be constructed from this set and then decorated with secular or religions states from elsewhere throughout.

Zenst 4y ago

Well that is a good question as no real solid answer. I do know that what has been classed as far-right in the media has shifted more and more towards the center to the stage that if Hitler was around today, most things on the current far-right would appear centerist-left. Though I like to look at that as progress. Though equally some people class what is on the left as far-left and it's all just got very silly with focus upon labels and arguing over rational logical debate with facts. If you look at various media outlets, their own definition of far-left or far-right varies so much that you can end up being labeled as both very easily. Another issue would be cultural aspects and you will find what is far-left or far-right will vary country to country and with that. Subjective labels have and always will be a can-of-worms.