In article  on Thu, 15 Oct
2009 23:52:45 +0100, JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> There are *plenty* of people who share the opinion that fascism and 
> national socialism are... er... socialist creeds. That is, they are 
> belief systems which elevate the interests of the state (as an 
> entity) above those of the individual (which is perhaps an 
> over-simplified way of putting it, but good enough for this 
> discussion).

Being statist (which is what you mean when you say socialist) doesn't
make them left-wing.  Metternich was a statist.  So was Louis XIV.
Neither of them were left-wing.

-- 
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire

Richard Gadsden wrote:

> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

>> There are *plenty* of people who share the opinion that fascism and 
>> national socialism are... er... socialist creeds. That is, they are 
>> belief systems which elevate the interests of the state (as an 
>> entity) above those of the individual (which is perhaps an 
>> over-simplified way of putting it, but good enough for this 
>> discussion).

> Being statist (which is what you mean when you say socialist) doesn't
> make them left-wing.  Metternich was a statist.  So was Louis XIV.
> Neither of them were left-wing.

You are falling into the trap of failing to distinguish the state as an 
entity from rulers as a phenomenon. Monarchs support the state as an adjunct 
to their own personal authority.

I have heard of Metternich but know little of that person. In any case, 
Metternich was not a state and not a political system. A state run under a 
given political system will contain people of various views. It now appears 
that a significant number of the ruling classes of the Soviet Union were not 
socialist, though they sought position and influence in a socialist state. I 
dare say that the same can be said of National Socialist Germany.

BTW: You are aware that this sub-discussion is about *far* left and *far* 
right governments, are you?

We know what a far left government looks like because there were only too 
many of them suring the twentieth century and still too many now. But what 
would you say a *far* right government looks like (and in what way would your 
  definition distinguish a far right government from a straightforward far 
left government)?

Is it only a matter of how they treat racial and ethnic minorities (which is 
an arbitrary distinction) or is there something else equally fundamental?

In article ,
   John M Ward  wrote:
> In article ,
>    JNugent  wrote:
> > Lyn David Thomas wrote:

> > > JNugent  wrote:

> > > The only people who I have heard using the definition of left and
> > > right wing as you do are from the hard right.

> > The hard right (assuming you mean the BNP and similar) are a species
> > of the left-wing, as distinct from the far-right, who - to the extent
> > tht it is possible to identify them - are not.

> That is correct, as the BNP's policies show (most of them, anyway, also
> the principles behind them).  The two-dimensional Political Compass
> shows this clearly, also that they are Authoritarian rather than
> Libertarian (the y-axis of the Compass).  It's fairly obvious anyway,
> even without a diagram, when one looks at for what they stand and their
> methods and policies.

[snip]

Further to this, and just in case anyone remains in any doubt:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

...nails this one completely, once and for all.  It has been obvious for a
long time that the original embarrassment by the Left at being shown up to
be in the same broad category as the then emerging BNP has been twisted
into a dishonest attempt to pretend that they are a party of the political
Right.

Anyone attempting this deception must automatically be treated as suspect:
no-one with integrity and even a modicum of knowledge would do so.

After this, anyone trying to claim that the BNP are "far right" will
obviously have to be considered either thick or a liar.  I shall
permanently killfile anyone who even attempts it -- they can go with all
the rest of the trash...

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

John M Ward  wrote:
> After this, anyone trying to claim that the BNP are "far right" will
> obviously have to be considered either thick or a liar.  I shall
> permanently killfile anyone who even attempts it -- they can go with all
> the rest of the trash...

The BNP are far right.
--
Henry

John M Ward wrote:

>    John M Ward  wrote:
>>    JNugent  wrote:
>>> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>>>> JNugent  wrote:

>>>> The only people who I have heard using the definition of left and
>>>> right wing as you do are from the hard right.

>>> The hard right (assuming you mean the BNP and similar) are a species
>>> of the left-wing, as distinct from the far-right, who - to the extent
>>> tht it is possible to identify them - are not.

>> That is correct, as the BNP's policies show (most of them, anyway, also
>> the principles behind them).  The two-dimensional Political Compass
>> shows this clearly, also that they are Authoritarian rather than
>> Libertarian (the y-axis of the Compass).  It's fairly obvious anyway,
>> even without a diagram, when one looks at for what they stand and their
>> methods and policies.

> [snip]

> Further to this, and just in case anyone remains in any doubt:
<http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright>
> ....nails this one completely, once and for all.  It has been obvious for a
> long time that the original embarrassment by the Left at being shown up to
> be in the same broad category as the then emerging BNP has been twisted
> into a dishonest attempt to pretend that they are a party of the political
> Right.

The tactic is attempted deceit; one can easily imagine a Paddy Ashdown 
holier-than-everyone homily along the lines:

"There is a far left [boo! hiss!] and a far right [slightly louder boo! 
hiss!] but we're a happy medium who carefully stay away from the extremes".

> Anyone attempting this deception must automatically be treated as suspect:
> no-one with integrity and even a modicum of knowledge would do so.

It's politics. Who was it who said that a lie is more likely to be believed 
the bigger it is?

> After this, anyone trying to claim that the BNP are "far right" will
> obviously have to be considered either thick or a liar.

Hmmm... well... it would be a mistake to assume that every "political person" 
has a full grasp of what their frequenrly-resorted-to, stock-in-trade, terms 
actually mean. To some extent, they too can be seen as victims of the deceit. 
Willing victims, admittedly.

In article ,
   JNugent  wrote:
> John M Ward wrote:

> >    John M Ward  wrote:

> > [a chunk snip]

> > Further to this, and just in case anyone remains in any doubt:
> <http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright>
> > ....nails this one completely, once and for all.  It has been obvious
> > for a long time that the original embarrassment by the Left at being
> > shown up to be in the same broad category as the then emerging BNP
> > has been twisted into a dishonest attempt to pretend that they are a
> > party of the political Right.

> The tactic is attempted deceit; one can easily imagine a Paddy Ashdown
> holier-than-everyone homily along the lines:

> "There is a far left [boo! hiss!] and a far right [slightly louder boo!
> hiss!] but we're a happy medium who carefully stay away from the
> extremes".

I can almost mentally picture the scene  :-)

> > Anyone attempting this deception must automatically be treated as
> > suspect: no-one with integrity and even a modicum of knowledge would
> > do so.

> It's politics. Who was it who said that a lie is more likely to be
> believed the bigger it is?

Well, I've said it before: there is no law of the Universe that says it
has to be like this; and some of us play it "clean and straight", hoping
to lead through example.  It doesn't seem to work all that well, but I
still have high hopes that one day...

> > After this, anyone trying to claim that the BNP are "far right" will
> > obviously have to be considered either thick or a liar.

> Hmmm... well... it would be a mistake to assume that every "political
> person" has a full grasp of what their frequenrly-resorted-to,
> stock-in-trade, terms actually mean. To some extent, they too can be
> seen as victims of the deceit. Willing victims, admittedly.

Yes, that was slightly hastily worded: I was (perhaps as one would expect)
specifically targeting the regulars here, without making it obviously
specific because there is a general point that applies equally to those in
a position to know better, such as the mainstream media.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!