What should be done about the populist right?

[Demogorgon]

EDIT: I am going to significantly change this as I feel I was too harsh the first time round. These things are generally not best considered in the wake of atrocities and my overly hard line evidently shows I forgot that.

As an instinctive civil libertarian, the prospect of restricting the expression of views or the formation of political groups is not one that appeals to me. However the rise of the populist right is a major threat and the events in Norway on Friday have taken the problem to another level. We should note first and foremost that the rise of the populist right is due to worsening inequality and other social ills. Scapegoats are being offered and false consciousness means some take them. Telling people that problems are cause by immigration or unionised workers or by a "cultural Marxist elite" appeals to some people who know something is wrong but have not pieced together what it is. Such is the problem of false consciousness.

The ultimate solution is of course to remove these underlying causes. The hatred that leads to people supporting the populist right can only be truly overcome through this, but in the meantime we cannot ignore the danger they present. I believe therefore something has to be done about the populist right and it must be based on the following principles:

1) Any restriction of their political freedom can only be justified to the extent that it protects others from the restrictions they would being in on those they hate.

2) We cannot use this as an excuse to oppress those we disagree with. This must be targeted solely at the populist right who are presenting a unique threat.

3) The groups targeted must not be targeted based on how offensive or right wing their ideology is, but upon the extent to which they might be able to carry out their goals.

4) We should not seek punishment, but rather rehabilitation of those expousing hateful views.

Based upon this, I think we should identify two main problems the populist right are presenting us with. The first is that it is a source of violence, as we so tragically saw on Friday. The second-and actually more serious-is that their political agenda is to make scapegoats of vulnerable groups, remove civil liberties and generally make life less pleasant for a lot of people. It is on this basis that we can justify cracking down on the populist right.

The violence issue should not be ignored. Very right wing groups are an obvious source of potential violence and should be treated with due caution.

As for the political agenda problem, it would be wrong to try and crack down on those we view as having unacceptable views. We should not seek such a removal of freedom, the only justifiable restrictions would be those that are necessary to prevent their agenda from being realised and only where no other way can succeed in reasonable time. On this basis it would not be acceptable to ban Neo-Nazi groups in most places as they are pathetic idiots who have no hope of achieving anything. They should be treated as a potential criminal threat as mentioned above, but no ban on them can be justified.

On the other hand the modern populist right is a real danger. It centres around blaming immigrants for the various problems we face. It does not, it is important to note, simply engage in the view that fewer visas should be granted or whatever, but targets immigrants, that is individual human beings. This is dangerous from groups with the potential to take part in Government. It is necessary therefore to grant more protection to immigrants. Therefore immigrants should be added to groups protected from hate crimes and hate speech. Those who indulge in habitual attacks on immigrats in public or on the internet should be dealt with, as gently as possible, with those who persist faced with appropriate sanctions.

Appropriate sanctions should involve being forced to confront their own prejudices. Research shows that opposition to immigration is strongest amongst those who live in areas with few immigrants while support for immigration thrives amongst people who live around immigrants. Therefore those found to be indulging in habitual bile against immigrants should be required to learn more about the people they target as well as the immigration process they imagine is so soft. Part of any sanction against them should be to be required to learn about immigrants and the immigration process. Any further sanction if required should involve community service helping the immigrant community. A balance has to be struck here of course. Being an idiot does not take away your right to say what you want, but rather that right can only be restricted where it is necessary to prevent it gaining mainstream acceptance. Therefore there can never be any ban on racist views in private. Nor is it justified to close down explicitly racist sites like Stormfront, much as I would like to, so long as they remain fringe. Only the expression of these views on mainstream websites or in mainstream public gatherings can be restricted and dealt with in this manner. The distinction is important. Those with prejudices who are willing to keep themselves on the fringe can be tolerated. Those who drive into the mainstream, particularly when they may not even be aware that they are prejudiced, need to be addressed.

Dealing with the parties and the press that support them is difficult. I do not favour press censorship, nor banning political parties. In the case of the press, in the long run a more diverse press would help, but in the meantime, I think prevention of hate speech against immigrants has to be enforced. Political parties dealing in that poison should also be looked at.

I am aware that these policies will be very difficult to implement given the fact that the populist right has such a chokehold on politics these days, but I believe that we should still try to pursue this. These are not final thoughts, but rather potential ideas. I would welcome comment on them.

[RGacky3]

Jesus Christ,
A: First you have to be in power,
B: YOu need to have a non democratic state
C: That would mean you don't have socialism
D: Then whats the point.

HEres what we do, use logic, arguments and win people to ourside.

[Susurrus]

Um, the populist right must mean something different in Europe, here in America it means Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive party...

[Demogorgon]

Jesus Christ,
A: First you have to be in power,
B: YOu need to have a non democratic state
C: That would mean you don't have socialism
D: Then whats the point.

HEres what we do, use logic, arguments and win people to ourside.
EDIT: I have edited the original post quite a bit because looking at it, I feel that I was far too harsh in my views and moreover I expressed them in such a way that it looked like I had a very cavalier attitude to freedom of speech and even democracy. I am still not entirely happy with what I wrote and will likely edit it again.

The question I am asking is what policies to pursue currently. It won't be easy to get them, but we have to try.

Many European countries are in a situation where extremely hateful parties are able to capitalise on anti-immigration policies. For that reason immigrants need to be added to groups protected from hate crimes I believe.

I am not asking for undemocratic policies, I think that would be terrible, rather I believe this is necessary to prevent the undermining of democratic values. Nothing I asked for is considered unacceptable in Western European "Liberal Democracy" for instance. In Scotland just now there is legislation pending to punish propagating sectarian hatred (related to Catholic/Protestant divides) on the internet with up to six months imprisonment in an effort to curb the violence related to Celtic/Rangers football matches. This is coming from what is (relatively speaking of course) one of Europe's more left wing Governments and one that has a reasonably good track record on democracy and civil liberties. My proposal is to extend the ban to propagating hatred to immigrants and seeking much more lenient punishments for it.

As for newspapers. Well if the press here published stories about Jews like they publish against immigrants, they would likely be in serious legal trouble. Again i simply want protection extended to immigrants.

Again this is not about a long term ideal, but rather about policies to be pressed for now in order to try and curb the rot. You will note that I don't deny they will be hard to achieve.

[ComradeMan]

I don't know to be honest.

On the one hand a truly democratic society should give at least a hearing to those it may not want to hear but on the other hand, coming from a society that has lived through the full brunt of fascism and rightwing terrorism I am reluctant to accord them such "democractic favours" knowing full well that they, in power, would not do the same.

What I ask myself is how come, in 2011, 66 years after WWII in which the horrors of fascism and Nazism were made fully apparent there are still those who would adhere to these doctrines and seek to bring us back to the devastation of the 1930s and 40s.

What's going wrong?

I also blame the ineptness of the left in this too... we must also look at ourselves and ask why are the young going to the right and not to the left- as splintered and factional and small-minded as ever?
:(

[Demogorgon]

I don't know to be honest.

On the one hand a truly democratic society should give at least a hearing to those it may not want to hear but on the other hand, coming from a society that has lived through the full brunt of fascism and rightwing terrorism I am reluctant to accord them such "democractic favours" knowing full well that they, in power, would not do the same.

What I ask myself is how come, in 2011, 66 years after WWII in which the horrors of fascism and Nazism were made fully apparent there are still those who would adhere to these doctrines and seek to bring us back to the devastation of the 1930s and 40s.

What's going wrong?

I also blame the ineptness of the left in this too... we must also look at ourselves and ask why are the young going to the right and not to the left- as splintered and factional and small-minded as ever?
:(
Yes I agree and this is the dilemma I am trying to bring across though I think I have come across as too bitter.

Particularly I reject the notion that we can have "guardians" to our democracy that decide what is acceptable and what is not, so restricting a particular political ideology can be no long term solution, but in the short run when it is so dangerous, something must be done.

[ComradeMan]

Yes I agree and this is the dilemma I am trying to bring across though I think I have come across as too bitter.

No, you don't sound bitter.... you sound "old" like me... :rolleyes: ;)


Particularly I reject the notion that we can have "guardians" to our democracy that decide what is acceptable and what is not, so restricting a particular political ideology can be no long term solution, but in the short run when it is so dangerous, something must be done.

Something has to be done.... a regeneration of ideas, cultural innovation or more concerted efforts on all sides to integrate. But what the answer is I really do not know. Can you believe that there are pricks here under the age of 20 who idealise Mussolini?

[eyedrop]

I will respond properly to this later. I just wont have any time, or energy, this week as I'm reducing a 2 room apartment into 3-4 suitcases on the side of a full workweek.

One thing that I should mention is how the anonymity of comments on major media serves as a big way in how the popular right is/has become legitimized.

[Tommy4ever]

My theory for the reason for the rise of the populist right is that there are many people who are becoming genuinely disillusioned with the present conditions of society. Feeling that there is something terribly wrong with the world they are living in they search for a narrative to explain what has gone wrong and how to fix it. In the past (say the 60s and 70s) the most prominent narrative would have been a socialist one, today no such left wing narrative exists and the populists seem to offer the only viable narrative that is clear, not discredited (like socialism) and seems to address the disillusionment.

Look at how in the past troubles in the economy might lead to a rise in support for the Left, whilst today the very same occurences cause a rise in support for the far right and see the leftists remain entirely insignificant.

I would like to say that a clear narrative from the Left might be able to stem the rise of the populist right. But I don't think that this is realistic at this time. In the end I have no idea of how to defeat this modern equivalent of fascism. I think I might know some of the reasons why it arose in the past few decades and why it continues to prosper but I have no idea how to defeat it and have become rather pessimistic about the future. :(

[RGacky3]

Its very easy to blame the left, and unfortunately a lot of intellectuals (including those I have tremendous respect for) love to bash the left for not doing enough.

Have you seen the indignados protests in europe? The General strikes all around? The massiave anti austerity protests?

Second of all, anytime you have a crisis in Capitalism you will have the far right scape goating and trying to get people, and sometimes they will have some success.

The far right wants to destroy socialism, democracy, equality, selective freedom of speach and so on. Socialists should be fighting for MORE democracy, they should be fighting for MORE freedom.

I agree with Tommy, a clear narrative, hope and organization can beat out the right.

Its not a "democratic favor" its a democratic right, restricting them in anyway, (if we are in power), will do 2 things, 1. TOTALLY discredit the left, 2. give sympathy to the right, and for good reason.

Wisconsin is slowly but surely taking out the righ there, in Europe you have leftist movements all over the place. But one thing the left should be doing imo, is not just trying to save or build social democracy or the welfare state, we need to be more hungry. If you reach for the stars you'll at least get a cloud, if you reach for the cloud you'll probably get nothing.

We should'nt be only talking and stopping cuts and raising taxes, we should be talking about taking over industries, socializing banks, worker control and so on.

[Thirsty Crow]

In my opinion, the core action that is needed if we were to even engage in an attempt at countering the populist right must be to pursue full employment in the advanced capitalist economies, followed by every possible action undertaken to unionize most of the workforce, disregarding differences of sector, ethnicity, gender, culture, skill set, whatever.

Unfortunately, this sounds as a practically impossibilist program at this point since, and I think this stands, a crackdown on the vile scum is enabled by a severe crackdown on the global capitalist class. But the political situation isn't really conducive to that being considered as a viable short-term goal, I'm afraid (just look at Obama's handouts, the slashing of Social Security and Medicare; just look at everwhere in the advanced capitalist "world" and I think you'll have to recognize that not a single one of the so called labour, social democratic parties is able or willing to push things in this direction; austerity, in one form or another, is the law).



I agree with Tommy, a clear narrative, hope and organization can beat out the right.

No anti-discriminatory narrative stands a chance of significantly altering social relations when it is not coupled with a concrete measures which ameliorate the breeding ground for reactionary narratives, which thrive in situations like this that plagues us, as workers, students, revolutionaries and human beings.

[RGacky3]

I think you'll have to recognize that not a single one of the so called labour, social democratic parties is able or willing to push things in this direction; austerity, in one form or another, is the law).


I think this is important to notice, force FROM the left is what keeps people from being dissalusioned, force from unions from radical parties and so on, give people a way to fight for a better world. When people have no hope, thats when the right wing comes in and their lies start to look attractive.

[ComradeMan]

I think this is important to notice, force FROM the left is what keeps people from being dissalusioned, force from unions from radical parties and so on, give people a way to fight for a better world. When people have no hope, thats when the right wing comes in and their lies start to look attractive.

The trouble is Gacky that in a political sense the left is pretty fragmented and splintered in Europe at the moment. Okay, there are unions etc but they are not in the driving seat really, are they?

[RGacky3]

Well Unions need to GET into the driving seat, and you can only get their by becoming militant, no leftist ever got what they wanted by playing along, the same goes with the parties.

[ComradeMan]

Well Unions need to GET into the driving seat, and you can only get their by becoming militant, no leftist ever got what they wanted by playing along, the same goes with the parties.

Well- that's fair enough, but it isn't the current situation and this is why I think the populist right have been able to gain so much in recent years.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well Unions need to GET into the driving seat, and you can only get their by becoming militant, no leftist ever got what they wanted by playing along, the same goes with the parties.
No, it's not true that the same goes with parties, if you're refering here to the reformist, socialdemocratic left. Their political positions have been driven further to the right and if there is something that this prolonged crisis have shown us, it is that workers cannot rely on the political weight of their reformist representatives in adverting at least a part of the costs of the crisis which the ruling class is very anxious to dump on workers, students and pensioner, in its entirety.

I think that the Greek situation illustrates, in an extreme way, how this situation seems to tend towards presenting the workers' and other dominated groups, more and more, day by day, with the need for radical action. There is no single established bourgeois party which would go after the capitalists. This poses the question of workers' conquest of political power and the transformation of social relations of production. Though, the sad fact is that classs struggle, both in its more immediately economic aspects and political ones, is developing very unevenly, Greece probably representing the peak of the possibilities for igniting the flame.

Also, there would have to be a rise in the militancy of the union movement of miraculous proportions if they were to get into the driving seat. I don't think I have to say that most of the unions were effecively transformed into appendices of class compromise from the onset of the postwar boom, especially if we consider the structure and actions of their leadership.
But basically, I'm not sure what you're imlying here since unions cannot function as the general political force which organizes capitalist accumulation and mediates class war. The capitalist state is that body of apparatuses, endowed with power of command and the monopoly on violence, which acts as the chief authority. So how would unions get in charge if not by proposing to the government which specific measures to enact? And here I'd refer you to the struggles in France over pension rights. Just remember how that turned out.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People in Western Europe don't know how good they have it. The populist right-wing may be on the rise there, but at least it's not dominating political discourse. (AFAIK)

The right-wing in the USA isn't even considered "right-wing". (Although to be fair it's a different type of right-wing here.)

[Skooma Addict]

I didn't read the OP, but I don't think the populist right is going to have the same influence in the future as is does now. It seems like social conservatism is not going to stand the test of time. Low IQ people will still revert to the populism of the right, but the political influence of the entire group will decline. It seems like this is already happening with the evangelicals. It is far less compatible with mainstream culture than it used to be.

[RGacky3]

, if you're refering here to the reformist, socialdemocratic left.

I'm not, I'm talking about the anti-capitalist left that sprung up to oppose the socialdemocratic left that turned third way.


But basically, I'm not sure what you're imlying here since unions cannot function as the general political force which organizes capitalist accumulation and mediates class war. The capitalist state is that body of apparatuses, endowed with power of command and the monopoly on violence, which acts as the chief authority. So how would unions get in charge if not by proposing to the government which specific measures to enact? And here I'd refer you to the struggles in France over pension rights. Just remember how that turned out.

YOu don't need political power, you need first and formost economic power, which then gets transfered to political power.

[Demogorgon]

No, you don't sound bitter.... you sound "old" like me... :rolleyes: ;)

Well that would be even worse given I am only 25!


Something has to be done.... a regeneration of ideas, cultural innovation or more concerted efforts on all sides to integrate. But what the answer is I really do not know. Can you believe that there are pricks here under the age of 20 who idealise Mussolini?
Yes I can believe it and that is the problem. Right wing populism is on the rise in paret because people have forgotten where this led before.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't read the OP, but I don't think the populist right is going to have the same influence in the future as is does now. It seems like social conservatism is not going to stand the test of time. Low IQ people will still revert to the populism of the right, but the political influence of the entire group will decline. It seems like this is already happening with the evangelicals. It is far less compatible with mainstream culture than it used to be.

Uh yeah, you're very special with the blazing color. Shame your posts don't reflect this.

Have you got any evidence that it is only people with a "low IQ" who bite into these ideas? If not, this is prejudice of yours in fact.

[ckaihatsu]

My take on all of this is that the *momentum* of the neoliberal narrative for society's ongoing civilization has now decisively hit a wall.

(Partisan politics in the U.S. has re-emerged over the extent of social service budget cuts, in order to maintain the sacrosanct dignity of capitalism's balance sheets. In the EU politicians are likewise now decidedly on the defensive, looking just as inept as their political responsibilities overshadow them due to the economic slowdown, resulting in political identity crises for member states. In such an environment the casual observer can't help but exclaim 'WTF?!'.)

People who may casually judge the state of the world by the momentum of the ongoing "mainstream" political narrative are now at a loss because they aren't equipped with a sense of potential participatory cooperative control, as revolutionary leftists are. Anyone who is normally used to looking to the powers-that-be as a capable force of global proprietorship now cannot fathom how else the world might be steered, and sees only a void ahead.

A profound sense of powerlessness, from de facto personal investment in the bourgeois status quo, would result here and could be enough to set people off into petty emotionalist trips, substituting a localized blame game in place of a more-comprehensive analysis of economic trends and the crisis of global capitalism.