Timmy ElsewhereNovember 20, 2007 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere4 CommentsTwo at The Business. Can we please stop calling fascists "right-wing" and the idiocy of minimum wage laws. previousBritblog Roundup # 144nextBookish Things. 4 thoughts on “Timmy Elsewhere” Thom November 20, 2007 at 5:12 pm Fascism isn’t a racist ideology; its an ideology that attracts racists through perversions of concepts like solidarity and discrimination. By that logic the BNP itself isn’t a racist party; merely its members that make it up have been shown to have racist tendencies. Can we stop giving human behavioural tendencies to inanimate social concepts and parties. Agree with you though Tim on the “fascist right” switcheroo;” the greatest trick the devil pulled…” and all but perhaps a slightly less sleight of hand is “…to convince people left was right”. Larry Teabag November 20, 2007 at 6:40 pm Oh come on Tim, this is so old! Apart from anything else you must be the only person in the whole world who cares a damn about the BNP’s economic policies. Certainly no-one who votes for them gives the tiniest shit, and neither do I. They’re a one-issue pressure group, everyone knows it, and that one issue isn’t economic policy. As such it’s a ridiculous basis on which to decide which wing they are. Tim adds: There is a point Larry. The BNP (and the like) are described as being “right”. I’m also described as being of the right. I am, thus, by implication, smeared as being a racist know nothing thug. That’s why it’s done of course, (no, not just to annoy me) to associate all things bad with all things “right”. You know, using markets leads to throwing jews into ovens. It’s very effective propaganda, too. Which is why I’d like us all to remember that facism is of the left: certainly, throwing people into concentration camps seems to be a rather more lefty idea than a rightie one. Another way of putting it is that facism and communism both turned out, in practice, to be highly authoritarain systems where the individual was markedly less important than the State. So whatever words we use to describe them we should use the same for both. How about socialist, as that’s what they both were? Philip Thomas November 20, 2007 at 6:47 pm Larry, yes and no. People might not care about the BNP’s economic policy in general (nationalisation, self-sufficiency, etc.) but they do care about seeing the “scroungers” on (normally) their own council estate getting fewer benefits. That said, I’ve no idea whether the BNP actually have such a policy, only that those that profess to support them think that they have. TDK November 20, 2007 at 10:55 pm The problem is that Fascism is very varied depending upon the country. I think it very hard to make a case that Franco or Pinochet were not basically of the right. They were certainly social conservatives. However, the cases of Italy and Germany are more problematic. Both parties had origins on the far left. Mussolini was editor of a Marxist newspaper. The National Socialists were keen to implement policies that are regarded as leftist such as state control of industry and welfare. Eugenics was a leftist movement prior to WWII. Communists voted more often with the National Socialists against the Weimar liberals than for them. Ex communists were welcomed into the NS party more than liberals. Today they don’t look like leftists because of the uniforms but look at the Russian example. It’s also true that Stalin/Mao look more like their fascist opponents than anything markedly distinct. Collectivists one and all. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.