Why is racism associated with Right-Wing ideology?

[Richard Cribb]

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

Exactly.
Follow me on this one, people: The German Democratic Republic means democracy.

 

[luiz]

Fact is the common definition of left and right is severely limited. It is a trend to use "left=good" and "right=bad". When one points out to attrocities commited in supposedely left-wing regimes, the automatic answer is "well, they were not really left-wing".

I honestly don't see how the likes of Hitler and von Mises can be lumped together in the extreme right. Unless anyone wants to argue that Mises, a pacifist and a Jew, was actually an anti-semitic nazi.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't get it. Most groups of people that would be described as "Extreme Right" (KKK, Nazis, etc.) are avowed racists. Where as those of the "Extreme Left" (Communists, Anarchists, etc.) are not.

I want to know why this is, because i'm sure that there are some racist elements of left-wing ideology as well.

Discuss.

P.S. PLEASE keep the cynical/sarcastic witticisms to a minimum. A few are acceptable, but don't threadjack.

Actually the KKK was historically composed of Democrats. Historically, the Republicans have a far better civil rights record than the Democrats.

 

[Arcades057]

SHHH, John HSOG, don't spoil their fun! God forbid they realize they are the pot in this issue.

 

[FredLC]

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.

Mind if I bring in a few quotes from Mein Kampf itself?

Anyone who believes that the People's National Socialist State should distinguish itself from the other States only mechanically, as it were, through the better construction of its economic life – thanks to a better equilibrium between poverty and riches, or to the extension to broader masses of the power to determine the economic process, or to a fairer wage, or to the elimination of vast differences in the scale of salaries – anyone who thinks this understands only the superficial features of our movement and has not the least idea of what we mean when we speak of our Weltanschhauung.

There can be no doubt that personality was then the sole factor in all decisions and achievements, which were afterwards taken over by the whole of humanity as a matter of course. An exact exemplification of this may be found in those fundamental military principles which have now become the basis of all strategy in war. Originally they sprang from the brain of a single individual and in the course of many years, maybe even thousands of years, they were accepted all round as a matter of course and this gained universal validity.

Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence.

Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community. The most valuable factor of an invention, whether it be in the world of material realities or in the world of abstract ideas, is the personality of the inventor himself. The first and supreme duty of an organized folk community is to place the inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all. Indeed the very purpose of the organization is to put this principle into practice. Only by so doing can it ward off the curse of mechanization and remain a living thing. In itself it must personify the effort to place men of brains above the multitude and to make the latter obey the former.

Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership.

The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Hmmmm... Not very collectivist. In fact, all praising of individuality.

Regards .

 

[Odin2006]

Fact is the common definition of left and right are severely limited. It is a trend to use "left=good" and "right=bad". When one points out to attrocities commited in supposedely left-wing regimes, the automatic answer is "well, they were not really left-wing".

Just like how right-wingers think Right = Good and Left = Bad and then label the Nazis as Left wing since they have "socialist" in thier name and because right-wingers are good by definition.

 

[Taliesin]

It's times like these when I wish the Estates-General had convened in a round building.

 

[Heffalump]

Racism is certainly not a pillar of "left-wing" ideology in the sense of the role it played with Nazism for example. In fact the opposite. Most left-wing agendas a strongly race neutral. You have to give it credit there.

A couple of points though. There is a strong trend today among socialists & communits of all stripes to disassociate themselves from most real world incarnations of their ideology, undoubtedly driven by the stunning lack of success experienced by these regimes over the years. Apart from social democratic governments in the west, who generally content themselves tinkering at capitalism's edges, you won't find many beacons of socialist success.

VRWCAgent makes a fair point when he says he'll judge socialism by the regimes he's seen, and not by some "pie in the sky" theories. As well he should. The impulse towards authoritarianism is difficult to avoid when you're advocating policies of forced collectivism, public ownership, and wealth re-distribution.

What is the definition of socialism? Even the socialists don't know and can't agree. However it is not unreasonable hold that it amounts in no small part what it's 20th Century leaders said it amounted to; and for the most part these leaders (Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung) led their countries into a cul-de-sac.

 

[luiz]

Just like how right-wingers think Right = Good and Left = Bad and then label the Nazis as Left wing since they have "socialist" in thier name and because right-wingers are good by definition.

Did I say that?
I think that a bi-dimensional spectrum à la Politcal Compass is a much better representation of one's political leaning's than this linear crap.

 

[Danghis Khan]

It's times like these when I wish the Estates-General had convened in a round building.

Wouldn't have solved the problem, we'd just argue that racism is an acute angled philosophy.

 

[JohnRM]

SHHH, John HSOG, don't spoil their fun! God forbid they realize they are the pot in this issue.

Its lovely just how nobody has acknowledged this fact. They just ignore it and keeping going on.

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

its discrimination and noone is above it, not the left right or the pinkos or the nazis or anyone else.

if its not about color its about how tall or short you are or if youre too fat or too skinny.

dead horse...here take my whip and keep beating it if it makes you happy.

 

[Perfect_Blue]

Well, I think I can give an modern American flavored example of why the so-called "right/conservatives" equal racists (in some minds); folks like Trent Lott, top echelon of the "right" in America, says he wished a segregationist had won the presidency, in reference to good ol' Strom Thurmond.

I could care less personally about either "right" or "left." I think a poster earlier was trying to make a good point about liberal intolerance as well; "Helping people," whether they want it or not. I can see the point there.

As for myself, I wish there were some real conservatives; get the government out of my freaking business!

 

[blackheart]

Actually the KKK was historically composed of Democrats. Historically, the Republicans have a far better civil rights record than the Democrats.

The Republican party of Lincoln isn't the same Republican party of today. And if I recall correctly, a larger percentage of Republicans voted nay to civil rights laws proposed in the 60s and 70s.

The term "democrat" you are using is in the contest that they are southern (democrats). They are far more socially conservative than the average Democrat, or Republican for that matter.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Exactly.
Follow me on this one, people: The German Democratic Republic means democracy.

I was also thinking of that example

 

[Urederra]

Fact is the common definition of left and right is severely limited. It is a trend to use "left=good" and "right=bad". When one points out to attrocities commited in supposedely left-wing regimes, the automatic answer is "well, they were not really left-wing".

I honestly don't see how the likes of Hitler and von Mises can be lumped together in the extreme right. Unless anyone wants to argue that Mises, a pacifist and a Jew, was actually an anti-semitic nazi.

And when Hitler's party was the Nazi one, which meant NAtional soZialism.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Hey, now! The Republican party of Lincoln was full of Radicals and liberals, back then the Democrats were the conservative party- fighting to preserve the south. The congressional wing of the Democratic party was, even up trough FDR and LBJ, far more conservative than the Presidential wing of the party. So it is true that Republicans have a better record- but it's irrelevant to this discussion, which is about ideologies.

 

[Odin2006]

Did I say that?

No, I was just reminded of a poster at Apolyton (Ned) who said something to that effect.

 

[Odin2006]

Hey, now! The Republican party of Lincoln was full of Radicals and liberals, back then the Democrats were the conservative party- fighting to preserve the south. The congressional wing of the Democratic party was, even up trough FDR and LBJ, far more conservative than the Presidential wing of the party. So it is true that Republicans have a better record- but it's irrelevant to this discussion, which is about ideologies.

The early Republican party was "Liberal" in the European sense, that is, Libertarian.

Until the 1920's the Republicans had left-wingers (like Bob LaFollette) ammong it's ranks (here in Minnesota there was a substantial number of progressive Republicans untill the Religious Right started placing it's grip on the Republican party in the Late 70's) and the Democrats had a substantial number of conservatives voting for them untill 1968.

 

[Yom]

I honestly don't see how the likes of Hitler and von Mises can be lumped together in the extreme right. Unless anyone wants to argue that Mises, a pacifist and a Jew, was actually an anti-semitic nazi.

Well, if von Mises is Libertarian in social issues as well, then I wouldn't qualify him as extreme right, as leftists believe in less restrictive social laws. Libertarians are neither left nor right; authoritarian communists would also be neither left nor right (an increased government role in social sphere being a rightist trait, and an increased government role in the economic sphere being a leftist trait). Hitler, being fascist and not (AFAIK, I'm not that well informed about his policies toward corporations) very restrictive economically, would fit, however, into the far-right.

Actually the KKK was historically composed of Democrats. Historically, the Republicans have a far better civil rights record than the Democrats.

SHHH, John HSOG, don't spoil their fun! God forbid they realize they are the pot in this issue.

The KK was historically Democrat back when Democrats were effectively Republicans. FDR was closer ideologically to Teddy than Herbert Hoover or Silent Cal was, despite being of "different" parties. Today, I'd be very surprised if you would find a Democrat in the KKK. The Republican's civil right's record (starting with Lincoln and ending with Teddy) is moreso inherited by the modern Democratic party than by the modern Republican party. It's just a matter of the name.