Why is racism associated with Right-Wing ideology?

[BasketCase]

Since when are hierarchy, authoritarianism, militarism, or exploitation the exclusive domain of the right? (I disagree that the USSR was chauvanist, they actually seemed to treat women quite well)

Public ownership of the means of production, imposed by force. All schools will admit all ethnic groups in proportions representing the general population--or the school's administrators will be shot. And there ya have it: authoritarianism.

Large military to protect those publicly-owned factories and ethnically-mixed schools. Bam. Militarism.

Leaders who, in any state of any kind, must automatically have more power than the masses. Hierarchy.

And an exploiting elite can exist anywhere. In fact, when people are indoctrinated to work towards the well-being of everybody instead of letting them sink or swim in a market economy, theft and embezzlement are actually easier.

The USSR wasn't necessarily any or all of the above, but all of the above are definitely possible on the left.

 

[MamboJoel]

I fail to see how the USSR in any way should be termed as the extreme left. It was a hierarchical, authoritarian state with an exploiting elite as well as being chauvinistic and militaristic.

Come on boys, the ideological field authoritarian/anarchist to define right/left is so outdated ... Also, remember that in a lot of left countries (I think all) big companies found some good ways to do good business with the protection of the power.
Also, since economical liberalism said to be a right wing ideology is by definition non authoritarian whereas it's keynesianism left opposit is authoritarian how can you still hold the old school debate about right is conservatism leads to authority leads to holism leads to nationalism leads racism ? ...
Racism has absolutly nothing to do with politics it's a feeling that some have deep in their body (should they be left or right wingers doesn't matter) and that eventually they sadly manifest, and that has been used at different periods as a strategical tool by some dangerous politicians.
When associated to right or left here and there it is the exact same process.

 

[bhsup]

VRWC: that is not true. The left-ideology is non-authoritarian and perfectly democratic - unlike the right-ideology. It's kinda ironic that reality morphs ideologies into something else in practice...

It doesn't really matter what nice pie-in-the-sky ideologies are talked about amongst academics when the real world application of that ideology is completely different. The only thing people should really base their opinions of communism on are real world communist governments.

 

[Rik Meleet]

It doesn't really matter what nice pie-in-the-sky ideologies are talked about amongst academics when the real world application of that ideology is completely different. The only thing people should really base their opinions of communism on are real world communist governments.

Fine; that excludes the Soviet Union.

Because the Soviet Union was Leninistic and Stalinistic and that are different branches on the socialism - tree than communism.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Regarding all this talk of the far left and the Soviet Union - I refer you to the incedent of the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

A far-left rebellion against the Bolsheviks. How very different history could have been if that had suceeded.


In answer to the original question posed - 'why is racism associated with Right-Wing idealogy?' - well it is so because the far-right is all about racial purity and the supremcy of one race and an all powerful state. Right-wingnes sin general has a history of being opposed to immigration and presevration of the status-quo, thus throughout the 20th century when alot of immigrants came into European countries right-wing groups tended to be rascist against them.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Why is it unthinkable to cut off 'aid' to Africa? What will happen if we stop supporting them economically?

Because then they won't buy our arms any more dagnamit!

 

[Richard Cribb]

Since when are hierarchy, authoritarianism, militarism, or exploitation the exclusive domain of the right? (I disagree that the USSR was chauvanist, they actually seemed to treat women quite well)

Can you tell me exactly where I wrote male chauvinism? You are sure you know what chauvinism means?

Public ownership of the means of production, imposed by force. All schools will admit all ethnic groups in proportions representing the general population--or the school's administrators will be shot. And there ya have it: authoritarianism.

First of all there is a difference between public ownership and state ownership.
As for the rest; rubbish.

Large military to protect those publicly-owned factories and ethnically-mixed schools. Bam. Militarism.

Having a national defense is not the same as militaristic, what every civ3-player should know. Unbam.

Leaders who, in any state of any kind, must automatically have more power than the masses. Hierarchy.

Horizontal structures eliminates that problem. The goal of socialism is to eliminate or at least lessen inequality.

And an exploiting elite can exist anywhere. In fact, when people are indoctrinated to work towards the well-being of everybody instead of letting them sink or swim in a market economy, theft and embezzlement are actually easier.

Really? By the way I love the phrase "indoctrinated to work towards the well-being of everybody".

The USSR wasn't necessarily any or all of the above, but all of the above are definitely possible on the left.

Please define the left.

Come on boys, the ideological field authoritarian/anarchist to define right/left is so outdated ... Also, remember that in a lot of left countries (I think all) big companies found some good ways to do good business with the protection of the power.
Also, since economical liberalism said to be a right wing ideology is by definition non authoritarian whereas it's keynesianism left opposit is authoritarian how can you still hold the old school debate about right is conservatism leads to authority leads to holism leads to nationalism leads racism ? ...
Racism has absolutly nothing to do with politics it's a feeling that some have deep in their body (should they be left or right wingers doesn't matter) and that eventually they sadly manifest, and that has been used at different periods as a strategical tool by some dangerous politicians.
When associated to right or left here and there it is the exact same process.

Nice attempt, but not very convincing. I flatly refuse to let economical liberalism get the hegemony of defining political ideologies, and I can't see why Keynesianism should necessarily be something associated with the left.
I suggest you get back to the drawing-board.

It doesn't really matter what nice pie-in-the-sky ideologies are talked about amongst academics when the real world application of that ideology is completely different. The only thing people should really base their opinions of communism on are real world communist governments.

Quite funny, I know my Joe Hill well enough, and pie-in-the sky in reference to socialism seems a bit odd to me.It could be my inadequate understanding of English language, of course.
Anyway, the problem with the last sentence is that to my knowledge there has never been any communistic government anywhere. Please note that a communistic society by definition is a stateless one.

 

[bhsup]

Anyway, the problem with the last sentence is that to my knowledge there has never been any communistic government anywhere. Please note that a communistic society by definition is a stateless one.

That's what I'm getting at. MOST people would say that the USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, North Korea, and so forth are/were communist nations, and it is in that vein that I use the word "communist". I'm not talking about some theoretical form of government that has and cannot possibly ever exist.

 

[MamboJoel]

Nice attempt, but not very convincing. I flatly refuse to let economical liberalism get the hegemony of defining political ideologies, and I can't see why Keynesianism should necessarily be something associated with the left.

"Nice attempt" ? Weird ...
Anyway, you don't give any counter arguments to the fact that racism is not related to political ideology but is a feeling expressed in various ways and that actually connecting it to political ideology :
1. Doesn't make sense
2. Is performing the same dangerous shortcut as some did during the XXth.

I'll quote myself

Racism has absolutly nothing to do with politics it's a feeling that some have deep in their body (should they be left or right wingers doesn't matter) and that eventually they sadly manifest, and that has been used at different periods as a strategical tool by some dangerous politicians.
When associated to right or left here and there it is the exact same process.

 

[Rik Meleet]

That's what I'm getting at. MOST people would say that the USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, North Korea, and so forth are/were communist nations, and it is in that vein that I use the word "communist". I'm not talking about some theoretical form of government that has and cannot possibly ever exist.

I'm glad you finally see that Communism as in the vein that you use the word is not left-wing

 

[bhsup]

Oh no, I never viewed communism as "left wing". It's an extreme form of government that, on the admittedly outdated and too linear left-right scale, fits right on the furthest left edge. Just as Nazism would be on the furthest right past fascism.

In other words, too far left or right and you're screwed.

 

[Winner]

This sort of ignorant statement crops up form time to another and it is no fun shooting it down anymore, so a small comment should be sufficient here.
Fascism in general and German Nazism in particular are obviously right-wing ideologies.
Big Business had a great time under the protecting wings of NSDAP, which is a small wonder considering the amount of money they contributed to said party:

Nonsense. NSDAP allowed some of the big corporations to control the German economy (because nazis controled them and it was more effective than stealing them from their owners). Though it is true, that they haven't destroyed private companies as totally as the communists have, they maintained a tight grip on the economy. As you surely know, the state control of the economy is one of the characteristics of a "socialist" (in fact communist) regime.

Is it so different from expropriating the companies and letting them to be run by government-appointed directors (as was the case in the Eastern Bloc regimes)? I don't think so.

I think this posters knowledge about Fascism as well as the far left can easily dance on the head of a pin.

Racism is a right-wing phenomena because it is an idea associated with hierarchy, inequality and chauvinism.

Racism has nothing in common with capitalism in its pure form. Capitalism is a form of economic order. It has no ties with racist political ideologies or personal xenopohobias.

I guess it is associeted with the right wing just because originally the right wing was associated only with conservatism, while liberalism was a leftist approach. After the socialists and communists hijacked the left and liberalism found a refuge on the right, there is no reason in associating the fascism/nazism with the right wing ideologies.

 

[Arcades057]

Follow me on this one, people: National SOCIALIST means left. People of today have changed the government of Hitler to represent a far right dictatorship rather than a leftist, but that's just to make people consider modern day conservatives as Nazis.

Communism, including the Soviet model, was on the left, not the right. The USSR during the second world war engaged in a program of forced starvation that killed millions, but it is not common knowledge since Hitler was our enemy at the time. They also engaged in pogroms targeting Jews and the Asian-Siberians.

To then say the Right are the racists is funny, but not at all unexpected from liberals, who can come up with a rational, original thought about as often as my dog can talk.Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Richard Cribb]

Nonsense. NSDAP allowed some of the big corporations to control the German economy (because nazis controled them and it was more effective than stealing them from their owners). Though it is true, that they haven't destroyed private companies as totally as the communists have, they maintained a tight grip on the economy. As you surely know, the state control of the economy is one of the characteristics of a "socialist" (in fact communist) regime.

It is obvious that the Nazis "allowed some of the big corporations to control the economy". That is exactly the point.Few governments ever have been more business-friendly than that of Herr Hitler.That must be some other illustrious right-wing dictators in that case.
I am not going to write a full lecture about the Nazis, but the trivial facts are that labour unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike was forbidden while workers became increasingly exploited. At the same time, profits sky-rocketed.Later also corporations would get more than their fill of cheap labour and raw goods from the occupied areas.Why the heck should "a tight grip" be any source of worry then, especially since other classes were squeezed so much tighter?
The very definition of communism still incorporates absence of the state, whether you like it or not. Furthermore,socialism is public control with the economy, which is something entirely different.

Is it so different from expropriating the companies and letting them to be run by government-appointed directors (as was the case in the Eastern Bloc regimes)? I don't think so.

If you had bothered to read my posts, you would find my opinion on the USSR. My point is precisely that the difference is not necessarily so big as long as we are talking about authoritarian systems, stately or private.

Racism has nothing in common with capitalism in its pure form. Capitalism is a form of economic order. It has no ties with racist political ideologies or personal xenopohobias.

I disagree. I view capitalism as a social system, and trying to separate economy this way is a bit mystifying.
You might also want to raise your level of precision a bit. The question is not the link between capitalism and racism, but between the political right and racism. That said, while capitalism is not inherently racist, its obsession with inequality and exploitative nature will typically lead to creation of a a friendly athmosphere for racism and sexism.

I guess it is associeted with the right wing just because originally the right wing was associated only with conservatism, while liberalism was a leftist approach. After the socialists and communists hijacked the left and liberalism found a refuge on the right, there is no reason in associating the fascism/nazism with the right wing ideologies.

Now I wonder who is talking nonsense. Nobody "hijacked" the left, and fascism is a right-wing ideology now matter how blue your face gets reading it.The "liberalism" you refer to did not have to find a "refuge" on the right, it always naturally belonged there.

 

[Xenocrates]

For me it comes down to Darwinism. Capitalism was built on the principles developed by people like Herbert Spencer and were heavily influenced by Darwin.

The argument is simply this: "If in nature the fittest survive and nature is 'red in tooth and claw' then it is the responsibility of the strong to put the weak to the sword, thus ensuring that our species continues to evolve."

At the time of the most famous formulation of Darwin's theory China had been terrorised by the Europeans, Africa was a backward hellhole and India was subjugated etc. Therefore the Europeans were by definition the fittest. The policy of eugenics grew up around this time and it was biologists that were at the centre of it (Darwin connection) such as Charles B Davenport in the USA and Francis Galton, who was Charles Darwin's cousin. The work of Darwin reinforced the policy of British expansionism and imperialism.

This feeds into capitalism because it is a game where there are no ideals only the competition of company against company and man against man.

In other words Capitalism is a misunderstanding of Darwinism and so is eugenics; the same misunderstanding. Darwin was providing a description of what happens in nature and Spencer etc. were advocating the application of "dog eat dog" to human society - as you can see one doesn't follow from the other.

Communism, on the other hand, was equally influenced by Darwin, but it read class competition into it instead of race competition. Hence the link between capitalism and racism.

 

[Babbler]

I think the Nazis were definitely right-wing, despite some socialist colouring.

And Capitalism is not based on "Darwinism"; they are complete different things.

 

[bigfatron]

In answer to the original question posed - 'why is racism associated with Right-Wing idealogy?' - well it is so because the far-right is all about racial purity and the supremcy of one race and an all powerful state. Right-wingnes sin general has a history of being opposed to immigration and presevration of the status-quo, thus throughout the 20th century when alot of immigrants came into European countries right-wing groups tended to be rascist against them.

Spot on as I understand it.

All autocratic and semi-autocratic systems require the adherents to commit themselves to support of a group - 'us' - against an opposing group - 'them' - defined in some manner or other that suits the governing group.

Right-wing ideologies place greatest emphasis on the nation state and service to the nation. This creates difficulties in many nations where it is hard to define what the nation means except by means of national, racial stereotypes - Germans are Aryan, etc. 'Them' are necessarily defined in racial terms; as a result, many extreme right-wing groups are outwardly racist, and many soft-right groups are opposed to large-scale immigration, fearful of cultural swamping, etc.

The US, interestingly, has got around this problem of lack of a racial stereotype by placing certain symbols in their place - the Flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Constitution, the presidency, the military - of which veneration renders an individual 'American' (and criticism 'un-American'). Attempts to define the US in racial terms by the ultra-right, e.g. the KKK, have failed.

For the Soviet Union, veneration of communist theory was used as an intellectual identifier, although nationalism was extensively used in WW2 to justify massive human sacrifices, demonstrating that intellectual identifiers are rarely as powerful as racial/linguistic ones.


Liberal democracies generally don't do this, which is why they often have trouble identifying who 'us' and 'them' are in times of real conflict, but also why liberal democracies don't generally start wars (I exclude the administration of the US from my definition of liberal democracy!)

 

[Odin2006]

@luceafarul and anarres: You take either left or right and go extreme and you'll end up with authoritarian governments.

<--commie--socialist--left leaning--center--right leaning--jingoistic--fascist-->

EDIT: Actually, it would probably be best to start bending those arrows towards one another like a circle.

BS, Ideologies fall on a 2-D graph (economic on one axis, social on the other), not a line.

 

[Odin2006]

The right is seen as racist because of:

1. Jingoistic nationalism
2. the Nazis
3. (in the US) The defection of Southern racists from the Democrats to the Republicans.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Follow me on this one, people: National SOCIALIST means left.

No it doesn't. Just because it has the word in doesn't make it so.