Via Chicken Yoghurt, I see that the Flying Rodent takes exception to Iain Dale pointing out that the BNP are, in fact, a party of the left, rather than as is usually stated in the media the “far right”:
Thus does prominent Tory blogger Iain Dale summarise his belief that the BNP are left wingers, much to the joy of his readership. It’s perhaps the most stark example of the UK’s internet-enabled culture of emboldened, self-confident stupidity and belligerent ignorance as I’ve seen.
Yes, well, if you are going to accuse someone of ignorance, it’s generally a good idea to avoid indulging oneself…
The blunt stupidity of the piece is so blatant that I imagine the argument from authority itself finds it embarrassing. The evidence presented for the leftism of the BNP amounts to a) they support nationalisation and b) that’s it.
The BNP’s manifesto is collectivist in nature. Collectivism is a left-wing ideology. Of course, this only applies if we revert to the original meanings of left and right to refer to economic policy (as opposed to the idiocy of those who assume that right-wing means “not agreeing with me” as some of the lefty bloggers will have it).
I am, for the purposes of this essay, doing just that. Left-wing and right-wing therefore are references to economic policy and nothing else. The left is a philosophy of public ownership of the means of production – encapsulated in the Labour party’s clause 4. The right prefer a free market approach and are liberal on economic matters. The BNP wishes to nationalise the railways for example – this is a left-wing philosophy.
Some snippets from their manifesto for your delectation:
We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people.
…..
Renationalise monopoly utilities and services,compensating only individual investors and pension funds
…..
Only nationalism can deliver a successful economy and a prosperous people.
These statements are not, by any stretch of the imagination, right-wing. If you have the patience, a read through the manifesto will determine that the BNP is an extremely authoritarian (and racist) organisation, but it is not right-wing.
Anyway, back to the Rodent:
To say that there’s a lot more evidence for their right wing credentials is a wild understatement. The BNP advocate the hang ’em and flog ’em politics beloved of Britain’s rowdy right wing. They blame the country’s problems on the EU, immigrants, the Human Rights Act and a sinister liberal, left wing elite intent on destroying the country. Their politics are a melange of the kind of bullshit victimhood and bellicose race-baiting that would give the average Mail reader a raging hard-on – gun ownership, corporal and capital punishment, execution for paedos, shutting the borders, those bloody queers… The list goes on and on.
The problem with this little rant is that none of these issues has anything whatsoever to do with economic policy – they are on the other political scale; the authoritarian/libertarian axis, which is where most of the BNP’s policies reside. It is perfectly possible to be left-wing economically and yet authoritarian – the two are not mutually exclusive. And while we are at it; racism is not the preserve of the right.
For another – objective – opinion the Political Compass provides a picture of the British Political landscape:
Well, well, well, what have we here? The BNP are (correctly) positioned on the authoritarian left. That is because they are – as Iain points out – a left-wing party. It is also worth noting that it is Labour voters who are shifting allegiance to the BNP. Why is this? No, I’m not offering prizes.
When Iain Dale says that the BNP belong to the left in political theoretical terms, he means according to the ludicrous criteria that I have just pulled out of my arse.
No, it is because that is what an objective assessment of the BNP manifesto tells us they are.
In order to assert such a patently boneheaded idea, Dale has to define mainstream conservatism as his own beliefs. Ergo, because he himself is not racist and he doesn’t support nationalisation, the BNP must be left wing, and the fact that this argument is honking, brainless shite matters not a jot.
Oh, hello Mr Strawman, I wondered when you would show up. Dale didn’t say this.
An idiotic statement, argued in idiotic terms for the consumption of other idiots.
Um… Well… If the cap fits and all that…. Oh, sorry, you meant Iain Dale…
Joshing aside, the self avowed left do not like it when it is pointed out that the BNP are their fellow travellers (Dale did say that) – but it is time they became used to the idea. That’s the trouble with politics, one cannot always choose those who travel the same or a similar road. The BNP are the flotsam of British politics and any decent left wing activist will rightly despise them. So, too, will those on the right. But make no mistake, they are a left-wing authoritarian party – any objective assessment of their policies will confirm this. Don’t like it? Tough. Facts are not always convenient and we do not always get what we want in life.
Dale is right, Rodent is wrong.
——————
Update: I see that the Rodent has responded. As I suspected – the man is an idiot. Yes, Rodent, the majority of the BNP policies are irrelevant to the left/right axis – this is an observable fact. This was pointed out to you in plain English; a language you clearly have difficulty following. Ultimately, your opinion – utter twaddle that it is – is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. The BNP is a left-wing party. You don’t like it? Oh diddums. Grow the fuck up.
That the BNP and the Daily Mail share authoritarian tendencies is not evidence that the BNP are right-wing; it is merely evidence that authoritarianism is found on both the left and the right of the spectrum. Politics is not black and white, left and right, it is multi-faceted. Anyone of reasonable intelligence realises this. Oh, right, yeah… The following arse dribble puts paid to that one:
Readers are free to engage in chit-chat on this blisteringly urgent and endlessly fascinating topic, but as a veteran of such debates I have to warn you that you will find this a bit like bashing your own face with a hot iron. By far the most annoying Libertarian habit is their tendency to announce that their own politics are super-cool new political wizardry that nobody has ever thought of before, thus meaning that every other movement in history is obviously left wing.
Not only that, they have a wondrous habit of shouting Tyranny! on everything from parking fines to the licence fee, which doesn’t make for much constructive dialogue – it’s a bit like talking to the dad on Goodness Gracious Me who thinks everything and everyone remotely admirable is Indian, except with fascism instead. I guess if you define your own politics as Freedom, Doodz! anything else looks like oppression, but the whole concept is so thoroughly infected by the Oooh, did you see him oppressing me there? sketch in The Holy Grail I have a hard time taking it seriously.
Knock yourselves out, but I’m off to do something more enjoyable and productive like rubbing a cheese-grater on my clackersack or downing a few pints of hot sick.
My, oh my, it’s that Mr Strawman again. No, that is not what libertarians believe and never was. Libertarianism is neither left nor right – it isn’t difficult to figure out for those of average intelligence. Although the evidence suggests that for some it clearly is…
The Flying Rodent is another of those cretinous lefties – a paid up member of the Righteous – who label anyone they don’t agree with as right-wing; never mind what the term really means; and who clearly is incapable of understanding just what libertarian philosophy actually is. Still, he is right in one respect – arguing with idiots is a pointless exercise.
—————————-
Update: Sunny in the Rodent’s comments:
To be honest though, I don’t bother engaging when idiots make these claims because they’re only trying to convince themselves. It’s trolling, with a pseudo-intellectual veneer.
Anyone who spends time looking up the BNP’s economic policies and judges them solely on that basis is an idiot.
Jeez! Talk about stupid. Look, nowhere have I said that I am judging the BNP solely on their economic policies. I judge them on all of their policies, just as I judge all of the parties fighting an election on all of their policies.
Look, it is really, really simple, so I will type it especially slowly so that you can mouth the words as you read:
Left/right refers to economic policies. On this basis the BNP are left-wing.
Authoritarian/Libertarian refers to the social scale. On this basis the BNP are authoritarian. They are, therefore an authoritarian left-wing party. There, not too difficult was it?
Insisting that you do not conflate your silly opinions with verifiable fact is not trolling. And the only idiots in evidence are those who insist, despite the evidence, that the BNP are right-wing and that illiberal authoritarian polices are on the economic scale – oh and those who pick up on one part of a discussion and project a position based on nothing more substantial than their own prejudices. That would be you, then, wouldn’t it, Sunny?
—————————————————————-
Update: In response to some of the comments, some clarification. Larry Teabag picks up on my linguistic accuracy. He makes a fair point. In my defence, I tend to type as I think, so sometimes these will slip through. So, perhaps, I could have used words such as “measurable” “logical” or “accurate” rather than “original”.
He makes a point that there is more than one interpretation for left and right in political terms. This is true. Does it, however, change the end result? If we look at dictionary definitions for right wing, we will come across terms such as “conservative”, “resistant to change” and “reactionary”. The problem with all of this is that they are subjective terms and how one interprets them will depend very much on their own position. Are the BNP reactionary? probably so. This,then makes them right wing. However, the Labour party is also reactionary, therefore they are right wing as well. What about conservative? Doubtful. Therefore it’s back to the left, then. How about resistant to change? Do me a favour – political parties are all about change. Use that as a yardstick and all political parties become left-wing.
If you look up left wing, you will see terms such as “progressive” and “liberal”. Liberal is probably one of the most abused words in political parlance. Ask an American and they will be referring to the left. Ask a Frenchman and he will be referring to the right. The problem with the left liberal concept is that it is an oxymoron. Collective policies will not work without coercion, forcing citizens into obedience against their will. It is not, therefore, liberal. The liberal is laissez faire and therefore belongs on the right – that is, if we only use the mono-dimensional left/right axis. The BNP and the Labour Party are not, by any stretch of the imagination liberal – they are authoritarian. Indeed, in comparison, the Conservative party are liberal.
Using the definitions given us by the Political Compass at least provides something that is measurable. Collective polices reside on the left as they are built on state control and interference to work – big state, if you like. By this measure, the BNP are left-wing. It doesn’t matter which way you slice this one, it keeps coming back to the same position; left on economics and authoritarian on social. Make a point of labelling them racist if you like; but if you seriously believe that racism is confined to the right, you are deluding yourself and have lost contact with the real world. So while I note Larry’s point about use of language, it doesn’t alter the final analysis.
One final point before putting this to bed – Larry makes the classic mistake of extrapolating a position that I have not taken:
OK Longrider, I get it. When Iain Dale and you say that the BNP is left wing according to economic criteria (which it is), you are political theorists exploring a valid argument. But when anyone responds that under other criteria the BNP is right wing (which it is), they are idiots and snobs throwing around lazy insults.
If I was doing this, I would have made similar comments about him and Tom P. I did not and this should have been a sufficient clue. I called the Rodent and Sunny idiots and snobs because they chose to behave as such. Their comments were puerile and palpably patronising. The opprobrium was aimed specifically at them for a purpose; it was not aimed wildly at everyone who disagrees with me.
Okay – it’s time to call it a day on this one.
“The BNP advocate the hang ‘em and flog ‘em politics beloved of Britain’s rowdy right wing.”
What’s the old saying, a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged?
The Conservaties are less authoriatrian than New Labour. The Conservatives would reject ID cards, ID databases etc. although they would increase policing to give a greater sense of personal security.
I would like to hope so. We will have to wait and see.
I saw the link to this from Iain Dale’s Diary. You have hit the nail on the head. I have been trying to point out to people for years that the BNP is in no sense right-wing.
I have to take issue with the Political compass. New Labour were never that right-wing, even under Blair. Now under Brown, they are more authoritarian than shown on the graph, and should be to the left of the axis. In fact, they should be in almost the identical position to that which the BNP occupy, their authoritarianism comes in a different package, but it is substantially the same authoritarianism.
The LibDems too are in the wrong place. I admit they are Libertarian, but they are if anything even further to the left than Labour and the BNP. The Conservatives are also Libertarian and should be below the axis, although our placement on the left/right scale is correct (at least I hope so).
The Greens are in fact quite authoritarian, although not on anything like the same scale as Labour. They fit just a shade above the axis, and are placed about correctly on the left/right scale.
Sorry about the length of this!!
A link to this blog has now been added to http://ukpoliticsnews.blogspot.com
I have just been reading this, and seen what an extraordinarily good blog it is!! Link http://ukpoliticsnews.blogspot.com
2. Alex: The Conservaties are less authoriatrian than New Labour.
True. The graph refers to 2003. This graph shows the position of the three main parties in 1972, 1982, 1999, 2005, 2006 and 2008. By 2008 the Tories are shown as less authoritarian than New Labour has ever been.
Neil, no need to apologise. LS, thanks for that link – I had forgotten about that one. The Labour Party shifted significantly to the right when they dropped clause 4 and started courting big business. Since the economic crisis, they are reverting to type.
If the Political Compass has a significant flaw, it is that it is somewhat two dimensional. However, for my purposes here, it suffices.
The Flying Rodent’s argument hinges on the Daily Mail readership and editorial policies. However, these have nothing to do with the economic scale. Go into any blue collar workplace and look on the tea room table and you will find the Daily Mail residing alongside the other popular tabloids. I’ve worked with enough hardened Labour voters in my time to know that many of them share the Mail’s approach to criminal justice.
Indeed, when I joined the rail industry in the early nineties, I was surprised to encounter endemic casual racism and sexism among my fellows.
As an auditor, I look for evidence to support a company’s assertions that they meet the standard. In this instance, I am doing likewise. The evidence supports the assertions made by Iain Dale and John Redwood – that evidence being the BNP’s manifesto. The evidence does not support the Flying Rodent’s assertions. Opinion is not fact and no amount of willing will make it so.
Hi Longrider, thanks for that analysis, most interesting. Just to point out a little something else – you might also have added that historically most of the BNP’s intellectual forerunners who do not emerge from the military of their countries (important qualification) have started out as left-wingers. Here we have Mussolini (once editor of Italy’s leading Socialist newspaper) Hitler (no coincidence that his party was “National Socialist” because it originally had Marxist leanings) Mosley (of course never made it to dictator, and is in any case a more awkward one – he started out a Tory, then became a right wing independent, and only then joined Labour and migrated to its left wing, from whence he founded his National Front).
Of course you also get fascists in particular from the military – Pinochet and Idi Amin being two prime examples – but that is a slightly different case, and generally they achieve power from their military strength rather than their political ideals (or in the case of the Central American dictators, with American backing).
Part of this may be explained by the fact that fascism necessarily demands many of the trappings of Communism – a large industrial proletariat of limited education and straitened means to function as a powerbase, in a delicate balancing act along with big money from the workers’ bosses to service the finances, and an aggressive nationalist economic policy to keep both these groups sweet while in power – all of which requires a big, centralised state, traditionally regarded as a left-wing position.
Similarly, the BNP vote is drawn overwhelmingly from the white working class, motivated by the xenophobic/racist nature of the BNP – who would demand some sort of collectivist policy as a quid pro quo for their support, as has been noted.
Hope that’s of interest
Thankyou for your interest and comment – it adds depth to the point I am making here.
Out of interest, given that fascists are supposed to be left-wing how do you explain the fact that the overlap in membership in the UK has generally been between the BNP (and NF before them) and the Tories, rather than Labour? And why in countries like Germany in the 30s, Italy up to the present day, Austria in 2000 etc, did fascists and their offspring ally with the Right to get into power?
Presumably it’s because they hadn’t done that political compass thing…
Tom, welcome.
I noticed that you made this point on your own blog. The bleed to the BNP is predominantly from Labour voters, not Tory ones. It is Labour who are running scared of them, not the Tories – that is the current situation and it is the current situation that I am discussing here. That Tory voters may have supported them in the past doesn’t change the verifiable facts; that the BNP’s economic polices are collectivist and measuring the social scale as if it is an economic one is erroneous.
While you ask an interesting question about historic allegiances (perhaps you should ask them rather than me as I would suggest that you have answered your own question), it does not alter the observable fact that the BNP’s economic policy is left-wing as measured on the left/right scale.
Presumably not – BNP voters are unlikely to be measured by their intelligence. If they were, they would learn the lessons of history – or, if you like literature (Animal Farm springs to mind – the fate of Boxer is likely to be similar under any totalitarian regime).
Given that I am centrist on economics, it makes no pragmatic difference to me where they lie economically – I abhor their social policies and therefore oppose them for that reason. However, I do object to the constant refrain in the media that the BNP are “far right” when they patently are nothing of the sort; they are social authoritarians
Yep, agreed that the BNP vote has increasingly come from previous Labour supporters, but in terms of political activity (activists and electoral alliances) the overlap is with the mainstream Right.
You’re right that I’ve answered my own question in the sense that I believe that what fascists do in practice seems to demonstrate they see themselves as on the Right (because they seek to ally with the Right). Pretty recently too in Italy and Austria for example.
My main point which I’ve also made on my own blog is that this ‘debate’ is pretty pointless since we don’t agree on how to classify political parties and movements. Lots of parties have been ‘left-wing’ because of their economic policies according to some definitions, but only according to those definitions. If you classify them by what they seek to achieve you end up with a completely different perspective. So the debate is really about the relative merits of classification systems.
Ho hum.
Indeed. Simply labelling a party “far right” is trite and inaccurate and demonstrates an unwillingness to think for oneself. I have attempted to use the original meanings of the terms used for accuracy. Just as I object to the use of “liberal” to mean its precise opposite.
Right-wing bloggers must be the only people in the country who give the slightest fuck about the BNP’s economic policy. None of their membership or voters do. And neither, now I come to think about it, do I.
People use “left-wing” and “right-wing” in innumerable, hazily defined, and mutually contradictory ways. You cannot insist that the economic interpretation are the only valid one (or for that matter “the original meanings” – no they are not), and that goes x1000 when discussing an extremist party for whom economics is a total and utter irrelevance.
The irrefutable fact is that there are commonly understood and legitimate interpretations of “right-wing”, according to which the BNP are indeed very much it. And if that’s inconvenient, then bad luck.
“Simply labelling a party “far right” is trite and inaccurate and demonstrates an unwillingness to think for oneself.”
Not really what I was getting at. One could make the same point about labelling the BNP ‘left wing’. It’s just a classification system.
I’m sure BNP members, and most voters, believe that people from different ethnic backgrounds are inherently unequal, and that’s a big reason why they support the BNP. I can’t see how that worldview can be called left-wing. But that’s my way of classifying.
What part of “I am centrist” did you not understand? I don’t much care pragmatically where they stand, either. My issue is with the somewhat risible, idiotic polemics produced by the likes of Flying Rodent and the intellectual snobbery of people like Sunny. That much should have been obvious to even the most casual reader. Iain Dale’s original point was a perfectly valid one and the Rodent’s response was staggeringly stupid – and it was this that I was exploring. The squeals of protest from Sunny, Paulie and the Rodent speak volumes.
Given that most of the time they are thrown around as lazy insults, I can apply the appropriate meanings (actually, I can do as I damn well please – you appear to be doing so) – the left/right applies to the economic axis – the other “hazy meanings” are meaningless, so I am perfectly valid in ignoring them. You cannot have a discussion unless you pin down the meanings – I made that pretty clear in my opening statements and used a valid source to do so.
Of course it is valid – a party should be judged on all of their polices before making a rational judgement. Sure, some policies may outweigh others. I reject them for both their social policies and their economic ones.
Bollocks. “Commonly understood” is not an irrefutable fact, it is opinion. Facts are supported by measurable evidence. “Commonly understood” is not evidence. And if you don’t like it, that’s just too bad. Get used to the idea.
Tom, the reason those of us who refer to the BNP as left-wing is because we have read the manifesto and applied the political axis accurately. That the terms may have become meaningless is another matter. It is indeed sometimes difficult to accurately classify political positions, particularly when meanings become corrupted and used as terms of abuse, so we use the tools we have. I did mention earlier on in the discussion that the Political Compass model has flaws – this is because, although it is better than the simple left/right classification, it still lacks nuance. I’d like to see something better, though.
I suspect that you are right.
It isn’t and I have not said that it is – it is a social aspect, not an economic one. You simply cannot measure this aspect of their policy by the left/right axis. It doesn’t apply.
OK Longrider, I get it. When Iain Dale and you say that the BNP is left wing according to economic criteria (which it is), you are political theorists exploring a valid argument. But when anyone responds that under other criteria the BNP is right wing (which it is), they are idiots and snobs throwing around lazy insults.
But, in point of fact, you are wrong. The terms “left”/”right” do not simply apply to economic policy. Consult a dictionary if you’re in any doubt about it. To insist that it’s “valid” to ignore the multitude of other widespread and legitimate interpretations of these words (which happen to contradict your case) isn’t an argument. It is simply being ridiculous.
Historically, the original meanings of “left”/”right” were not economic either, as you have repeatedly stated. Consult an etymological dictionary if you’re in any doubt about that. I’m sure you’ll be happy update your post again in the light of this error.
Ah, yes, fair point – I presume you are referring to the French Revolution?
Because that is precisely what they chose to do.
It’s late and I have to get up in the morning. I’ll probably return to this discussion when I’ve slept on it.
though I think we have to agree to disagree, cheers for an interesting chinwag.
Fair enough. You’re welcome.
Avoid the left/right terms completely. Go for statist vs libertarian.
The BNP are an extreme statist party. New Labour are an extreme statist party.
Communists and fascists argue about which books to burn, and which people to shoot, but when it comes to the fundamental question of whether to burn books or shoot people they are in full agreement.
Why should I bother differentiating between them?