Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    On TSR we call the BNP left-wing for being socialists, so over here it's correct to imply that free-market capitalism means being right-wing, just look at Maggie Thatcher, hardly a leftie was she.
    Pehaps, but was she that pro-market, either? I have heard, for instance, that she was deeply worried about the idea of floating exchange rates. The size of government under her fell a few percentile points, but by the time the tories left office, it was as big as when she had entered.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Pehaps, but was she that pro-market, either? I have heard, for instance, that she was deeply worried about the idea of floating exchange rates. The size of government under her fell a few percentile points, but by the time the tories left office, it was as big as when she had entered.
    Well I suppose she didn't apply her ideology as consistently as some people think - I love floating exchange rates personally. :p:

    But that was only an example anyway, my general point is that TSR has four political positions. Left-wing and liberal, left-wing and authoritarian, right-wing and liberal and right-wing and authoritarian.

    The BNP are the second of those, libertarians are the opposite (the third one) and so on. But BNP are leftie, and we're both right-wing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Here's the famous Nolan chart, I'm interested where you would place the BNP?


    Doesn't their low Personal Freedom and Low Economic Freedoms place them on the Bottom Left?
    My friend Nigel Meek once produced a chart like the Nolan chart, but with different questions and more room for varying strengths of agreement and disagreement, whilst analysing the flaws of the traditional political spectrum. He then went through party manifesto to match party positions to answers so he could find their position on the chart. The result is here. The BNP fall dead in the centre of the bottom, authoritarian, quadrant.

    Doesn't it? I think you are a little bit off the mark here, if I convince you of anything I say here it should be this: Economic Freedom is the raison d'etre of the Conservative Party.

    "Wikipedia: "the Right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets".
    Which is not the same as saying that supporting capitalism and free markets is indicative of being right wing, is it?

    Again: "Rafael Di Tella (Harvard Business School) and Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[53] Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

    (OK, wikipedia's hardly amazing, but it's points are valid here)

    Right wingers do traditionally believe in a laissez faire economy, relating to the quote, look at Ronald Reagan's presidency in America, there was some quote of his about having a Trickle Down Laissez Faire economy, but I admit that I have no idea what it was anymore. Look at Thatcher, the woman was pure, undeniable right wing. Do you agree? Well her idea of privatising industry, allowing them to fend for themselves, and do literally anything (within the law) that they wanted couldn't be described as anything else but Economic Freedom. Another example, a Right wing party would traditionally not bail out the banks in an economic crisis like Labour have just done, they believe in leaving them to their own devices.
    You forget a number of important details. Firstly, Thatcher and Reagan are figures from the past three decades, and so are relatively recent compared to the entire history of conservatism.

    Secondly, spending grew massively under Reagan.

    Thirdly, Reagan joined the Republican party having defected from the Democrats, claiming that he never moved away from Democrat positions, but they moved away from him.

    Fourthly, the most significant privatisations and degrerulations acreditted to Reagan were put in place actually by Jimmy Carter (abolishing the CAB, for instance). Likewise, things like rail privatisation were completed after Thatcher left office.

    And lastly, you ignore what a break Thatcher was with the Conservative mainstream - just look at the first episode of Tory! Tory! Tory! to get my point.

    Now the BNP, have they not just backed that very move - the bailing out of the banks? They have supported nationalisation of companies, like what happened with Northern Rock, too. Here's something from their own website:

    “The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism”

    Based on everything I just said, that isn't Right Wing. That idea of a Command and Control Economy puts them directly in league with the USSR and China. Have you seen the cars the Russians drove during the Cold War? And only Russian cars were allowed, that reminds me of the BNP's "British products only" 'idea'.
    Or opposition to free trade and promotion of "national economies," which was typical of early twentieth, late nineteenth century Conservative policy?

    Take Ted Heath: A Conservative prime minister who thought that it should be the job of government to decide what price milk or biscuits were sold at? Heath imposed wage and price controls, remember?

    At the same time, so did Nixon. And he took the US off what remained of the gold standard.

    Hmm, I respect that if it's your view, but I have to disagree. He was clearly a different type of Authoritarian Left, he was more of a traditional Populist, but still not that different in some ways at all. Look at both his and Stalin's views on the economy especially, Russian-only products, nationalised industry, vertical collectivism etc.

    I'm not alone in thinking this. A good book is the very famous 'The Road To Serfdom' by Friedrich Hayek, he argues quite eloquently and convincingly of the similarities of National Socialism (like the BNP) and International Socialism like the USSR (though obviously before the BNP existed) and points out that their hatred of each other is closer to that of a Turf War. The author held two PhDs and a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, not a stupid man. Please, go ahead and write a book disproving him.
    And, whilst you are reading Hayek, check out his essay "Why I am not a Conservative," and recall the fact that he would rather identify himself as an "Old Whig," the political opponents of the Tories, and the guys that became the Liberal Party, as opposed to the Conservative Party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Well I suppose she didn't apply her ideology as consistently as some people think - I love floating exchange rates personally. :p:

    But that was only an example anyway, my general point is that TSR has four political positions. Left-wing and liberal, left-wing and authoritarian, right-wing and liberal and right-wing and authoritarian.

    The BNP are the second of those, libertarians are the opposite (the third one) and so on. But BNP are leftie, and we're both right-wing.
    I dunno, the idea of being "right wing" fills me with shivers! I can't see what I have in common with Nazi's, Fascists, Conservatives, or Populists like Pat Buchanon or the KKK.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    I dunno, the idea of being "right wing" fills me with shivers! I can't see what I have in common with Nazi's, Fascists, Conservatives, or Populists like Pat Buchanon or the KKK.
    You're socially liberal - none of those you listed can claim that. In fact some of those are economically socialist as well, and therefore the complete opposite of you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    No, I have a complete understanding of how flawed it is. Just look at its history: The term "left wing" and "right wing" come from the French assembly, where those who sat on the left of the house were the radicals and republicans, and those who sat on the right were the conservatives and the royalists. The consequence was that Frederick Bastiat, the extreme free market liberal, sat next to the socialist anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, on the left of the house.

    But that is precisely my point: Since fascists favour socialistic economic positions coupled with a cultural conservatism, whilst classical liberals reject both, fasicts are the diametric opposite of the classical liberals. And since socialists accept an economic stance similar to that of the fascists, whilst accepting a position on culutural issues closer to the classical liberals, that puts socialists somewhere in between the liberals and the fascists, since they neither reject fascism entirely, nor liberalism entirely.

    But that means that if fascism is an ideology of the far right, and liberalism is the diametric opposite, and socialism somewhere between the two, liassez faire liberalism is left-wing, and socialism is centrist.



    That puts them closer to the centre, which is the socialist position.
    First of all fascism doesn't have a socialistic economic position. It has a managerial one but it certainly isn't socialist.

    Socialism is not centrist as it has always been far more radical than classical liberalism.

    And Conservatism is most certainly not in the middle ground between radicalism and it's opposite: conservatism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    On what grounds? The only reason that people would call him right-wing is because he favours free-market capitalism and private enterprise. But that is precisely what makes him different from the far right.
    He is "culturally" conservative and religious. Just look at many of the bloggers on his website. It's full of the Old American Right.

    Thomas DiLorenzo
    Pat Buchanan
    Paul Gottfried
    Peter Schiff
    Ron Paul
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    And, whilst you are reading Hayek, check out his essay "Why I am not a Conservative," and recall the fact that he would rather identify himself as an "Old Whig," the political opponents of the Tories, and the guys that became the Liberal Party, as opposed to the Conservative Party.
    Edmund Burke was an "Old Whig". That doesn't prove anything. And if you read Hayek it is quite clear that he shares many similarities with conservatives while not being one, he's anti-rationalist, respecting of tradition and opposed to government engineering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    First of all fascism doesn't have a socialistic economic position. It has a managerial one but it certainly isn't socialist.
    State control of the economy is socialist.

    Socialism is not centrist as it has always been far more radical than classical liberalism.
    Who cares how "radical" it has been? What does that have to do with being centrist of not? Being centrist means falling between two diametrically opposed positions. Socialism falls between fascism and liberalism (and socialism has plainly not been more radical than, say, Herbery Spencers, or Auberon Herbery, or Gustave de Molinari and other French classical liberalsm, etc, except perhaps anarchist socialists, if only because they were anarchists like these liberals).

    And Conservatism is most certainly not in the middle ground between radicalism and it's opposite: conservatism.
    Of course not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    He is "culturally" conservative and religious. Just look at many of the bloggers on his website. It's full of the Old American Right.

    Thomas DiLorenzo
    Pat Buchanan
    Paul Gottfried
    Peter Schiff
    Ron Paul
    That would also make Proudhon right-wing, of course, since he too was a "cutural conservative."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Edmund Burke was an "Old Whig". That doesn't prove anything. And if you read Hayek it is quite clear that he shares many similarities with conservatives while not being one, he's anti-rationalist, respecting of tradition and opposed to government engineering.
    That's because he is impressed by the British/Scottish Enlightenment rather than the European form; favouring individualism and markets, etc, as self-correcting, like Adam Smith or David Hume.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    State control of the economy is socialist.
    No, it isn't that simple.

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Who cares how "radical" it has been? What does that have to do with being centrist of not? Being centrist means falling between two diametrically opposed positions. Socialism falls between fascism and liberalism (and socialism has plainly not been more radical than, say, Herbery Spencers, or Auberon Herbery, or Gustave de Molinari and other French classical liberalsm, etc, except perhaps anarchist socialists, if only because they were anarchists like these liberals).
    Because that is what the political spectrum is about. You are placing too much importance on economics.

    And the most important classical liberals such as Adam Smith and so on have been fairly conservative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    That's because he is impressed by the British/Scottish Enlightenment rather than the European form; favouring individualism and markets, etc, as self-correcting, like Adam Smith or David Hume.
    Both Adam Smith and David Hume were conservatives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Both Adam Smith and David Hume were conservatives.
    =/ Wut? Adam Smith, who quite clearly despised the status quo he lived in, was a conservative?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    =/ Wut? Adam Smith, who quite clearly despised the status quo he lived in, was a conservative?
    The man was a great friend of Burke's and almost completely agreed with him on the role of government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The man was a great friend of Burke's and almost completely agreed with him on the role of government.
    I scarcely think that being friends with a conservative makes one a conservative, or even agreeing with them on the role of government (since it is the reason for that role that marks the main difference).

    Incidentally, had you read Burke's early defence of anarchism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    I scarcely think that being friends with a conservative makes one a conservative, or even agreeing with them on the role of government (since it is the reason for that role that marks the main difference).
    Except that he did support many of the conservative ideas of either Burke or Hume. He was also anti-rationalistic. He support institutions like the monarchy and so on.

    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Incidentally, had you read Burke's early defence of anarchism?
    "Vindication of Natural Society"? You know that that was satire, right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Would you support a socialist revolution that attempted to end our free-market economy and implement an economic system which reconciled economic development with a social conscience?
    Similarly, if the new republic were to be founded on the principles of promoting freedom, ending class privelige (including the monarchy), nationalising the country's resources and tackling the excessive power of trans-global companies (many of which exploit workers' human rights), would you support the revolution?
    No, you idealistic bint.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    No, you idealistic bint.
    Bint?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Except that he did support many of the conservative ideas of either Burke or Hume. He was also anti-rationalistic. He support institutions like the monarchy and so on.


    "Vindication of Natural Society"? You know that that was satire, right?
    Burke claimed as such later. But that doesn't mean that it was intended as satire when he wrote it. Certainly some anarchists have taken it seriously: It was published in 1756, but a reprint was published one hundred years later in a pamphlet entitled The Inherent Evils of All State Governments Demonstrated in 1858. The editor of this pamphlet included a post script suggesting that Josiah Warren's system on individualist anarchism was the viable alternative to "state governments."

    However, this could just be a note from someone who had fallen for Burke's joke, if it were a satire. However, Rothbard had a more serious argument that it was not satirical. He notes that Burke was not given to writing works of satire later in his life, and that he claimed that the Vindication was published before Burke embarked on his parliamentary career, and his claim that it was a satire was made when he started that career - so he would have had motive to tell people he didn't really mean it, even if her did. Rothbard also notes that the Vindication bears plenty of similarities with serious writings thate Burke did previously, too.

    This point is also made by Burke biographer Isaac Kramnick, in his The Rage of Edmund Burke, who seems to suggest that Burke was "semi-serious," since he was as yet youthful and undecided in his positions. An interesting post, with relevant extracts from Kramnick's book can be found here.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.