PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't anyone consider the positives of right-wing politics?



Buick6
09-11-2005, 11:00 AM
Is this a democratic forum?

Anyway, capitalism or 'right wing' politics has some positives. I know many musicians who do GREAT works and struggle really badly, and HATE file sharing. I mean we DON'T live in an anarchist society, and some musicians need to make a living and don't have a large audience, so file sharing kills them, and we all know most career critics DON'T BUY MUSIC and ultimately their jobs serves a capitalistic function.

Another thing is that many of the totalitarian countries started off with 'popular revolutions' and leftist views, and then pretty much defined the sorta 'fascist' model we have. Look at Russia and China for example, and even Cuba have some pretty shocking rights abuses. and wasn't the Nazi Party a Nationalist SOCIALIST party.

SO there is some good in 'right wing' politics, despite all the shit you might beleive.

But then, I'm not sure there is a political movement that is 'perfect' when you come down to it.

Buick6
09-11-2005, 11:02 AM
Get Off The Internerd!

DigitalDjigit
09-11-2005, 01:22 PM
Right-wing politics doesn't have a monopoly on human rights. In fact, traditionally it was the opposite. Remember: right-wing = conservative, left-wing = liberal. Liberal is all about personal freedom and free markets and such.

Of course socialism/communism is also left-wing but they are not the only ones with a record of human rights abuse.

That's why a one axis political spectrum is totally useless. There are many axes (?): human rights, economic structure, social policies etc.

droid
09-11-2005, 01:41 PM
Right-wing politics doesn't have a monopoly on human rights. In fact, traditionally it was the opposite. Remember: right-wing = conservative, left-wing = liberal. Liberal is all about personal freedom and free markets and such.

Theres also 'conservative libertarians' of course. Those who hold traditional conservative views on economy and military policies, but who oppose 'faith based' and other restrictions on the personal freedoms of the individual.


Of course socialism/communism is also left-wing but they are not the only ones with a record of human rights abuse.

That's why a one axis political spectrum is totally useless. There are many axes (?): human rights, economic structure, social policies etc.

Absoloutely.

You could also argue the point that the 'sorta facist' model that has typically resulted from socialist revolution has little to do with left/right wing alliances, and more to do with autocratic political vanguardism. Whether or not youre a fan of communism/socialism/marxism in general, its hardly fair to describe Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, or even Lenin - as 'socialists' - they were (or quickly became) dictators who used the rhethoric of the left to grab and maintain power - with disasterous results for 'the masses' that they claimed to be representing.

Oh - And Hitler wasnt a Socialist btw, his fanatical anti-communist stance was the main reason why the West delayed picking a fight with him for so long...

Buick6
10-11-2005, 12:07 AM
dictators who used the rhethoric of the left to grab and maintain power - with disasterous results for 'the masses' that they claimed to be representing.

Oh - And Hitler wasnt a Socialist btw, his fanatical anti-communist stance was the main reason why the West delayed picking a fight with him for so long...

Which to some degree happens quite liberally in the 'creative' arts, something that is based on harsh criticisms some based on political stands and weeding out the 'best' - I mean the best for who exactly?

Anyway I can vouch for my own fascistic (or 'Catholic') tastes, but when you decontruct things far enough , not only do you get shit, you realise that you might be a shithead too!

Being an TRUE anarchist it seems, is IMPOSSIBLE in the modern world.

droid
10-11-2005, 09:40 AM
er - Im a bit lost here, can you outline again exactly whats so 'good' about right-wing politics?

Diggedy Derek
10-11-2005, 10:01 AM
Of course being a true anarchist is impossible- as are being a true freemarketeer, or true socialist! Pure economic systems are impossible.

I concur with Droid, what's your point here? I for one would be willing to suggest right wing politics seems to have less going for it now than ever before. Trickle down theories don't work. Privatisation doesn't seem to work. Market choice doesn't seem to work.

Melchior
11-11-2005, 04:07 AM
Oh - And Hitler wasnt a Socialist btw, his fanatical anti-communist stance was the main reason why the West delayed picking a fight with him for so long...

Hitler was a national socialist, avowadly. Socialism is a big idea and being anti-communist does not equal being anti-socialist per se.

Buick6
11-11-2005, 06:33 AM
My point being is that there can be good things found in systems that people think are 'bad'.

And understanding why things are more popular than others, others than saying 'because people are stupid, or ignorant, or whatever'.

I mean socialism fell with the Berlin wall, but the InterNerd technology that has given you the right to start a virtual 'socialistic' place like this was invented by the American Military. :p

matt b
11-11-2005, 09:54 AM
you want to PM paul hotflush- it could be the start of something beautiful ;)

droid
11-11-2005, 11:16 AM
Hitler was a national socialist, avowadly.

Yep - Im not arguing about the name Hilter chose for his party - whats in a name after all? The only way to judge him is by his actions.

AFAIK The only genuinely Socialist leanings he ever displayed was in the early 20's, with the publication of the "Twenty-Five Points", which (alongside more traditional Nazi policies) included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education. If you were at all cynical you might think that Hitlers name change to 'National Socialist' and the publication of socialist principles was a ploy to hijack popularity from the biggest party in the country - the Social Democrats. And the cynical view seems to bear fruit when you consider Hitlers 1927 pamphlet 'The road to resurgence', distributed to businees leaders only, in which Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.

In the late 20's Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." He also claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich....

Doesnt sound like any form of 'genuine' socialism that I know of.


Socialism is a big idea and being anti-communist does not equal being anti-socialist per se.

Technically speaking I suppose thats correct, although in the case of the Nazis, they were (along with other right wing parties like the DNVP) opposed to an entire range of leftists, from the SDP to the KPD, as well as using hysterical anti-communism to sway voters. Also - I cant think of a single 'socialist' country that opposed communism on ideological grounds (to a significant level at least).


My point being is that there can be good things found in systems that people think are 'bad'.

Jeez - stop the presses! Coming next - the sky is blue! ;)


And understanding why things are more popular than others, others than saying 'because people are stupid, or ignorant, or whatever'.

Or that people are 'bigots'...


I mean socialism fell with the Berlin wall, but the InterNerd technology that has given you the right to start a virtual 'socialistic' place like this was invented by the American Military.


Great - the second world war gave us Radar, Rockets, Penicillen, and thousands of other innovations - was it therefore a 'good thing'?

k-punk
11-11-2005, 02:01 PM
There's no reason why objecting to file-sharing is a province of the right wing. On the contary, there seems to be a very good left wing argument against it to do with exploitation of labour etc. The arguments for file sharing are typically either anarchistic/ Prodhonian (property is theft) and/ or pro-consumerist (the consumer has sovereign rights over the producer) --- sometimes these two positions are not as far apart as they would appear.

More broadly, though, the right-left wing thing can be extremely unhelpful, as Buick's post amply demonstrates.

For instance - to be pro-capitalist is not necessarily to be 'right wing', and to be 'right wing' is not necessarily to be pro-capitalist. The traditional right wing - i.e. fascists - have usually been very spectical about, if not outright hostile to, capitalism. Fascists support - and are defined by their support for - a strong state; many pro-capitalists want a withering away of the state, small government etc. Defenders of capitalism tend to be libertarian, not authoritarian. They tend to support the 'flows of money and people' which the right wing seeks to dam up.

'Right wing' I would define in terms of authoritarianism and nationalism. The neo-conservative agenda in the US is right wing in this sense (tellingly, the neo-cons have little to no interest in economics, and couldn't care less about capitalism). Pro-capitalism I would associate more with neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is essentially an economic doctrine, favouring supply side economics (low taxes, high debt). The Republican party in the US since Reagan, like the Conservative party in Britain since Thatcher, has been an uneasy coalition between neo-con and neo-liberal elements. The problem that the Tories in Britain have faced since Thatcher was forced out is the fissile nature of these elements; their disintegration into trad authoritarian and pro free market camps is a clear sign that there is no natural fit between these two positions.

I would say therefore say that there was NOTHING good about right wing politics, but that neo-liberalism poses questions that need to be answered.

owen
11-11-2005, 02:22 PM
i'm very suspicious of people trying to break down 'binaries' in politics- a rightish friend of mine once lamented (justly i think) the left's refusal to be The Left as unhelpful to democracy, as there was no debate, nothing at stake. follow this line of reasoning and you end up with 'the third way' (which is of course essentially identical with the first way)

tho i might point out that the term 'conservative' was surely made utterly obsolete by reagan and thatcher, who were revolutionary in a way that the left would never dare to be. in this sense someone like kinnock was genuinely 'conservative', in the sense of trying to 'conserve' something, to hold back the tides somewhat (also in his hostility to the revolutionary left but i digress)

oh and buick, if you were to actually look at how the US economy works, you'll find it is in important elements highly socialistic- profits are privatised and losses socialised, hence the much-kicked-around term 'military industrial complex' ;)

Omaar
11-11-2005, 05:49 PM
Is this a democratic forum?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean is it representative of both sides of the right/left binary? there are plenty of outspoken right wings loons here if you mean that for democracy to exist both sides of an argument need to be represented. Which i think is a fallacy anyway.


Anyway, capitalism or 'right wing' politics has some positives. I know many musicians who do GREAT works and struggle really badly, and HATE file sharing. I mean we DON'T live in an anarchist society, and some musicians need to make a living and don't have a large audience, so file sharing kills them, and we all know most career critics DON'T BUY MUSIC and ultimately their jobs serves a capitalistic function.


there's a couple of things in here:

1. the assumption that file sharing is bad for musicians, which i think is bunk, but maybe needs another thread - i tihnk there's already a couple here somewhere.

2. something about the structural role played by music critics - maybe you could clarify what you mean, or any critics here could comment. I suspect things don't work in quite the same way in terms of information flow and consumption and audience with the arrival of the internet.




SO there is some good in 'right wing' politics, despite all the shit you might beleive.



I don't follow - what is the good about capitalism or right wing politics that you're suggesting here - that the above systems/ideologies are good because they allow musicians to survive, do what they do, etc. - you're not clear about what the good aspects of the above are. is that only reason there is?



Another thing is that many of the totalitarian countries started off with 'popular revolutions' and leftist views, and then pretty much defined the sorta 'fascist' model we have. Look at Russia and China for example, and even Cuba have some pretty shocking rights abuses. and wasn't the Nazi Party a Nationalist SOCIALIST party.


also according to godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law) you just equated socialism with the nazi's which completely invalidates your argument ;)

droid
11-11-2005, 06:15 PM
also according to godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law) you just equated socialism with the nazi's which completely invalidates your argument ;)

Genius! Why didnt I just say that?? :mad:

Wouldve been far less boring for all involved...

Buick6
11-11-2005, 08:56 PM
also according to godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law) you just equated socialism with the nazi's which completely invalidates your argument ;)

You didn't read the definition:

As an online discussion grows LONGER, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

I STARTED with it and you took the bait.

Melchior
12-11-2005, 12:30 AM
droid, on Hitler, you're not wrong btu you're also not right. But it's not really the point of the thread so if you want to dscuss it further, start another and I'll come and contribute.

Omaar wins the thread by the way.

Ness Rowlah
12-11-2005, 12:51 AM
Socialism dead?

The prime ministers of both Norway and Sweden are socialists.
Of the social-democratic kind, but still good old Scandinavian socialists.

Arguably two of the wealthiest and best countries to live in
(Norway seem to clinch those UN lists every year) - lead by freely elected socialists.

droid
12-11-2005, 03:39 PM
droid, on Hitler, you're not wrong btu you're also not right. But it's not really the point of the thread so if you want to dscuss it further, start another and I'll come and contribute.

Of course theres room for doubt and interpretation (like most of history) - and Im no professor. ;) But the only place Ive ever come across the literal 'Hitler was a Socialist' meme is in polemical anti-left rants. (not that Im insinuating that this is your position at all).

All in all though, I dont know if its worth another thread...


Omaar wins the thread by the way.

How many points should he get? :D


Socialism dead?

The prime ministers of both Norway and Sweden are socialists.
Of the social-democratic kind, but still good old Scandinavian socialists.

Arguably two of the wealthiest and best countries to live in
(Norway seem to clinch those UN lists every year) - lead by freely elected socialists.

Gwann the Social Democrats! Lucky they were based in Western Europe, or they would have been snuffed out like every other popular left movement of the last 50 years..

owen
12-11-2005, 05:23 PM
Gwann the Social Democrats! Lucky they were based in Western Europe, or they would have been snuffed out like every other popular left movement of the last 50 years..

:D no, droid wins the thread

qwerty south
12-11-2005, 06:42 PM
theodore dalrymple (aka dr anthony daniels) is my favourite modern writer. an intellectual who has worked as a prison doctor and challenges many 'liberal' ideas...

http://search.city-journal.org/query.go?query=Theodore+Dalrymple&B1=GO&crid=796dceee09460404

Melchior
12-11-2005, 11:48 PM
:D no, droid wins the thread

I should have said "to this point". One things clear however: Buick6 has lost the plot. ;)

D84
18-11-2005, 01:53 AM
theodore dalrymple (aka dr anthony daniels) is my favourite modern writer. an intellectual who has worked as a prison doctor and challenges many 'liberal' ideas...

http://search.city-journal.org/query.go?query=Theodore+Dalrymple&B1=GO&crid=796dceee09460404

Cripes - Dalrymple... No offense qwerty but I have a very deep distrust of this man.. I think he is just another right-wing misanthrope.

I had a look at the first article raised by that search, "Lo, the Poor Terrorist (http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_20_04td.html)" which only confirms my suspicion: at one point he adds the aside that a video of the strangulation is available in certain circles - like I care! what does that add to his point? (a purely stylistic criticism, I admit). He argues that Islamic terrorists are not necessarily created by poverty etc because many terrorists are actually middle class - which is a damned good point - but the thrust of this article is that Islam brings them to terrorism, which I think is a gross, dangerous and racist/bigoted thing to say. Maybe the terrorist might be unhinged? How about all the other Christian terrorists out there?

Anyway back to Buick6's topic.

Yeah, I agree with the others in that the best idea of conservatism is leaving behind a heritage to one's descendants in a better state than you received it.

But it's this heritage business which starts all the trouble. Whose heritage is it exactly? Is it a private heritage or does it belong to one's country or community?

Recently on Australian TV they played a documentary of sorts called The F***ing Fulfords which described the existence of the land rich but income poor family of the Fulfords. There the pater familias said unequivocally that his heritage was utterly private and had nothing to do with England, which is fair enough I guess, but when you think about how this mentality is persued in right-wing policy elsewhere it's not exactly healthy for society.

What happens when a certain section of the population has inherited all the good land and resources and everyone else is left on the edges catching whatever scraps that might fall from the table? etc.

A poor generalisation/metaphor but I hope you get the drift.