Why are the BNP considered to be hard right?

[Somewhatfoolish]

A cursory glance at their policies shows them to be hard left socialist scum.

It is easy to come to the conclusion that "hard right", as a term, is commie propaganda designed to associate right wing parties with BNP types. Any reason not to think this?

[TonyToniTone]

could be their links to the NF and combat 18?

[Halb]

Because of their polices?
[wuote=wiki]The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom, formed as a splinter group of the British National Front by John Tyndall in 1982....Far right, extreme right, hard right, ultra-right or radical right are terms used to discuss the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. The terms far right and far left are often used to imply that someone is an extremist.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Part...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right

Edited by Halb on Sunday 6th September 17:38

[Somewhatfoolish]

Those politics could be better characterised as far-left, though.

[s2art]

Somewhatfoolish said:

A cursory glance at their policies shows them to be hard left socialist scum.

It is easy to come to the conclusion that "hard right", as a term, is commie propaganda designed to associate right wing parties with BNP types. Any reason not to think this?

You are probably right. The BNP is extremist left.

[Randy Winkman]

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

[BrassMan]

Because dividing along national, cultural or racial lines is traditionally associated with ultra-nationalists (including fascists and a ruling class needing a scapegoat)?

Somewhatfoolish said:

commie propaganda

I've got a tinfoil hat here, you want it?

[s2art]

Randy Winkman said:

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

Mussolini, Hitler? For that matter Australia after WW2 for a long time had a REALLY tough immigration policy whilst being socialist/Labour. IIRC in the UK Labour was pretty anti immigration at the time Enoch was arguing against Tory immigration policies. So, yes it can be.

[s2art]

BrassMan said:

Because dividing along national, cultural or racial lines is traditionally associated with ultra-nationalists (including fascists and a ruling class needing a scapegoat)?

Somewhatfoolish said:

commie propaganda

I've got a tinfoil hat here, you want it?

Fascists being nationalism plus socialism by normal definition. (see Mussolini and Hitler)

[Somewhatfoolish]

Randy Winkman said:

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

I don't think it correlates well with left or right tbh. Take a look at their economic policies.

[OnTheOverrun]

Randy Winkman said:

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

Frequently, yes. Most left wing governments rely on the working class for their core suppport and that working class don't like immigrants taking their jobs, be that simply in their perception or in reality. It is only when we have a situation like New Labour where decisions are motiviated increasingly by political correctness over the needs of their core support that a vaccuum appears and is filled by the likes of the BNP.

[Randy Winkman]

OnTheOverrun said:

Randy Winkman said:

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

Frequently, yes. Most left wing governments rely on the working class for their core suppport and that working class don't like immigrants taking their jobs, be that simply in their perception or in reality. It is only when we have a situation like New Labour where decisions are motiviated increasingly by political correctness over the needs of their core support that a vaccuum appears and is filled by the likes of the BNP.

So when the Tories take power they'll be more easy-going with regard immigration?

[s2art]

Randy Winkman said:

OnTheOverrun said:

Randy Winkman said:

So a tough approach to immigration is typical of left-wing Governments?

Frequently, yes. Most left wing governments rely on the working class for their core suppport and that working class don't like immigrants taking their jobs, be that simply in their perception or in reality. It is only when we have a situation like New Labour where decisions are motiviated increasingly by political correctness over the needs of their core support that a vaccuum appears and is filled by the likes of the BNP.

So when the Tories take power they'll be more easy-going with regard immigration?

Unlikely given the mood of the voters. In the past however the Tories were the ones encouraging immigration of cheap labour, not least because it kept pressure on the unions.

[Eggman]

I recently enjoyed reading 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, which deals with this question in some detail. Iirc, the explanation for why fascist policies are characterised as far right was that it was a gambit used by Stalin to create distance between the Communist party and the fascists and thereby provide a rationale for going to war with them when they'd only recently signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The book explains how fascism is in fact a left wing phenomeonon (the Nazis were after all National Socialists; Mussolini's dad was on the first international with Trotsky and the two were great mates) and how a lot of modern left wing policies have a big intellectual debt to fascist ideology - hence why New Labour is authoritarian.

It also provides the following features of left and right wing policies:
Left Wing: socially 'progressive' (i.e change = good), big government, authoritarianism, 'the people' > the individual
Right Wing: socially 'conservative' (i.e. the status quo = good), small goverment, laissez faire, the individual > 'the people'

[BrassMan]

s2art said:

BrassMan said:

Because dividing along national, cultural or racial lines is traditionally associated with ultra-nationalists (including fascists and a ruling class needing a scapegoat)?

Somewhatfoolish said:

commie propaganda

I've got a tinfoil hat here, you want it?

Fascists being nationalism plus socialism by normal definition. (see Mussolini and Hitler)

I think that may be refering to the etomology of Nazi?

Fascism seems to be as hard to pin down as socialism. It sucks up philosophy and ideology to gather popular support, just like socialism. It seeks to create a new order in its own image, like communism. It rejects class conflict in favour of nationalism or racialism (as opposed to racism).

Wiki sez:
Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25] although writers on the subject have often found placing it on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

[s2art]

BrassMan said:

s2art said:

BrassMan said:

Because dividing along national, cultural or racial lines is traditionally associated with ultra-nationalists (including fascists and a ruling class needing a scapegoat)?

Somewhatfoolish said:

commie propaganda

I've got a tinfoil hat here, you want it?

Fascists being nationalism plus socialism by normal definition. (see Mussolini and Hitler)

I think that may be refering to the etomology of Nazi?

Fascism seems to be as hard to pin down as socialism. It sucks up philosophy and ideology to gather popular support, just like socialism. It seeks to create a new order in its own image, like communism. It rejects class conflict in favour of nationalism or racialism (as opposed to racism).

Wiki sez:
Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"[25] although writers on the subject have often found placing it on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex.[26] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.[27] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

Fascism emerged from syndicalism, a form of socialism.

[Somewhatfoolish]

Eggman said:

I recently enjoyed reading 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, which deals with this question in some detail. Iirc, the explanation for why fascist policies are characterised as far right was that it was a gambit used by Stalin to create distance between the Communist party and the fascists and thereby provide a rationale for going to war with them when they'd only recently signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The book explains how fascism is in fact a left wing phenomeonon (the Nazis were after all National Socialists; Mussolini's dad was on the first international with Trotsky and the two were great mates) and how a lot of modern left wing policies have a big intellectual debt to fascist ideology - hence why New Labour is authoritarian.

It also provides the following features of left and right wing policies:
Left Wing: socially 'progressive' (i.e change = good), big government, authoritarianism, 'the people' > the individual
Right Wing: socially 'conservative' (i.e. the status quo = good), small goverment, laissez faire, the individual > 'the people'

That makes a lot of sense to me, I'll look it up

[Randy Winkman]

Eggman said:

I recently enjoyed reading 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg, which deals with this question in some detail. Iirc, the explanation for why fascist policies are characterised as far right was that it was a gambit used by Stalin to create distance between the Communist party and the fascists and thereby provide a rationale for going to war with them when they'd only recently signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The book explains how fascism is in fact a left wing phenomeonon (the Nazis were after all National Socialists; Mussolini's dad was on the first international with Trotsky and the two were great mates) and how a lot of modern left wing policies have a big intellectual debt to fascist ideology - hence why New Labour is authoritarian.

It also provides the following features of left and right wing policies:
Left Wing: socially 'progressive' (i.e change = good), big government, authoritarianism, 'the people' > the individual
Right Wing: socially 'conservative' (i.e. the status quo = good), small goverment, laissez faire, the individual > 'the people'

So we would expect a "right wing" Government to open-up borders and let people from different countries work and live wherever they want.

[Eggman]

You can listen to the author talking about the book on 'Start the Week' if you click this linky here.

His comment about the middle of the book doing too much showing and not enough telling is spot on - one or two of the chapters do start to drag somewhat but I still think it's well worth reading.

(btw, 'What's Left' by Nick Cohen is a similarly good read!)

[Eggman]

Randy Winkman said:

So we would expect a "right wing" Government to open-up borders and let people from different countries work and live wherever they want.

I suppose you might - it would certainly be consistent with a laissez-faire small government approach.