Talk Elections

   The politics of immigration, both in the US and elsewhere is, for me anyway, endlessly fascinating.  I love how big business and the left are united on this one issue.  What I've noticed is that whenever a candidate or a party proposes a big reduction in existing legal immigration that party or candidate is usually identified as right wing, even if the rest of the politics about that party or candidate isn't inherently right wing.
    I think Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands and his party is a great case.  He was against immigration of Moslems into the Netherlands because he felt they were a threat to the continued existence of a socially liberal society, IIRC. 
    Bill Clinton tapped liberal Democrat Barbara Jordan to chair a study on the overall impact of immigration into the US, back in the 90's, and the commission ended up calling for less immigration, though in that case I don't believe Jordan was labeled right wing.
    If an otherwise liberal Democrat came out for less immigration would they still be a liberal Democrat?
    In Europe it seems like a lot of the less immigration parties, like the Progress and Peoples parties in Norway and Denmark are called right-wing, even though the rest of their platforms don't seem very right wing.  Perhaps it is a matter of style, in that the British Conservatives have called for very significant immigration reductions (not sure that its happened since Cameron has become PM though), without the Tories being labelled an imminent threat to freedom and democracy.

Sorry, but they're some of the worst examples to make the point imaginable. The Progress & People's parties are blatantly right-wing, with opposition to immigration just one facet of that platform, and the idea that Fortuyn or his predecessors are serious about protecting social liberalism from an influx of reactionary muslims is pretty laughable, and evidently just a smoke-screen to allow them to cloak their bigotry in a more palatable/respectable concern.

For my part, I don't regard those arguing for less immigration as inherently right-wing; it all depends on the context and the reasoning  - overstretched services, flooding labour market causing downward pressure on wages/workers' power are something we've seen in Britain, and the free movement of labour helps the capitalists enormously. Although, I'd want to be convinced they were internationalists before supporting them.

The Progress Party in Norway is clearly a right-wing party, no question about it. The Peoples' Party in Denmark, on the other hand, is not on issues other than immigration.

Since Fortuyn ran around with his black boyfriend I'd say his liberal stance was probably pretty genuine. Since his death that's probably not the case though.

In Denmark the Progress Party is clearly a Libertarian party, whereas the Danish Peoples Party (not the Peoples Party..) is a centrist party on economics and welfare. But conservative on law and order issues, church/state relationship and environmental issues.
I think all European anti-immigration parties are conservative on law and order issues, euro-sceptics and pro the "established order"on cultural issues. In that sense they are conservative. But not necessarily on economics, since they often have a working class constituency.

Nope. Most working class UK Labour voters I know from the urban West Midlands are for tough immigration rules, againts the EU, and harsh ponishment for violent crime, but socialist on economic policy and not racist or homphobic. It could best be described as "sovereign socialism" or in the US "National Liberalism".

The answer is no, through the parties you mention shot over the table. But an example of a left-wing xenophobic party was the Danish party "Fælles Kurs/Common Course", a socialist party which was in the Danish parliament in the 80ties, which embraced hostility toward immigration and immigrants.

But xenophobic parties do tend to be conservative (in the real ideological meaning of the word), a important reason for this, is that it's much harder for socialists and liberals to be ideological coherent and embrace anti-immigration policies. Conservatives on the other hand can easily embrace many of the more left policies of populists and be ideology coherent. Conservatism has always had a communitaristic streak, which easily can be expanded into economic policies.

As for the idea that Danish People Party not being right wing, it's a common theory among embarassed right wingers, but they have supported neoliberal policies, tax cuts and removal of labour rights, so yes they are right wing. 

To call DPP a right winged economic party only really makes sense if you think that all other parties, except the Red-Green Alliance, are right winged as well. And while that's a legitimate view it does make little room for looking at the differences in economic policies that exist between those parties.

DPP's economic policies are broadly social democratic. They will support more liberal economic policies when they are in power due to the parliamentary situation in much the same way as the SD and SPP now support more liberal economic policies due to the parliamentary situation. The tax reforms are good examples; when the DPP was in power and agreed on fairly liberal tax reforms, the SD and SPP criticised them for being unfair and favouring the rich, and now when the SD and SPP are in power and makes a fairly liberal tax reform, the DPP criticised it for being unfair and favouring the rich.

No. There are plenty of racist/xenophobic parties on the Left - the best example being the Bloc Quebecois/Parti Quebecoise. One could also make the argument that the PVV is a left-leaning party, though that's a little iffy. But one could make that argument.

The DPP is also the leftist party in Taiwan and by far, the most xenophobic/chauvinistic as well as dismissive of even the native aboriginals. And the Korean Left has historically always been much more racist/xenophobic than the Korean Right. If anything, the Korean left is probably the most xenophobic left-wing movement in the developed world.

Though it is true that most anti-immigration parties are on the right, at least in the West.

In Australia, the ALP were arguably more racist than the Liberals before the 60's. So no.

I'm sorry but xenophobia is one of the things that kind of dismisses you as left-wing. Left-wing is not just on economy, left-wing is a package on all topics. As for reducing immigration, it can be advocated without xenophobic stances, so it's a bit so-so. But if you're willing to apply the exact same law on all issues to immigrants as well as national citizens, there is no argument to reduce immigration. I mean when you say it causes downward pressure on wages, you just have to apply the same wage-laws to every one and that's not an issue anymore.

Those who want less immigration are typically those who fear for their "identity" whatever the hell that can be. So broadly speaking, yes they are right-wing.

Bullsh**t, the supporters of parties like the BNP are lefties to to the core. They are anti market, pro union, and pro welfare state and arguably better social democrats than labour. Furthermore, the economic spectrum is accepted almost everywhere as the divider between "right" and "left". Unless you are willing to call libertarians "left" your argument falls short.

If for instance the PVV in the Netherlands support some left-wing policies on economy, that doesn't make them left-wing because they are a fkcing pre-fascist far-right wing party on virtually any other issue. Nothing else. Economy doesn't make it all.

Precisely my point. Many sources in the 1930's sources viewed the National Socialists and Fascists as members of the left. Anti communist members of the left, but leftists nonetheless. As opposed to "far-right" parties like the DNVP which were monarchist, hierarchical.

To put it in terms of Dutch politics, it appears that PVV has more in common with Labour or SP than they do with right wing parties like the CDA, VVD, or Christian Union. I'd certainly grant that there are a lot of right wing, anti-immigrant parties out there like UKIP or some Republicans, but it is certainly not a left/right issue in the sense that taxes or universal health care is.

I'd compare immigration to foreign policy where both left and right are split. There are old right republicans and libertarians that are doves and hawkish neocons. Likewise pacifists and Joe Lieberman both vote democrat. In each case the issue is split, unlike most social and economic issues that divide left and right more cleanly.

Not this sh!t again. One of these days this kind of drivel will actually drive me to commit a violent act. But not tonight. Instead...

Comrade Sibboleth, would you mind posting or PM'ing me some of those right wing economic historians who think the Nazi's were economic right wingers? A quick google search just garnered me the von Mises institute talking about how much of a raging socialist Hitler was.

The issue of whether the Nazis were left or right is irrelevant to my original point; immigration does not produce a clean left-right split like other issues.

Not necessarily.

...

e: I like that this inanity comes up frequently enough that Al now has a stock response.

A certain moron in this thread makes me ashamed to be Canadian, again.

What Sibboleth said. Xenophobia is a right-wing value. Openness and internationalism are left-wing values. Period.

one thing that has yet to be mentioned is the historical position of trade unions -- very xenophobic verging into outright racism, for obvious and even defensible reasons.

1. Openness and internationalism are liberal/libertarian values as well, and socialists can be nationalist (most third world/ex colony socialists are).

2. You don't have to be xenophobic to be anti-immigration. There are plenty of economic and environmental reasons to be against mass immigration.

3. It doesn't make much sense to define right and left in other terms than socioeconomic ones.

#2 is especially relevant. You should hear what members of the Parti Quebecois think of anglophone migrants to "their" province.

What a pratty thing to say. I suppose David Laws, Ken Clarke and Gary Johnson are ultra nationalist freaks by your definition. I'd also guess Stalin was a soppy peacenik.
There are millions of patriotic, eurosceptic, ant-imigration people in this nation who are socially liberal, atheists and socialists who loathe the Tory party, and it is fundamentally illegitimate to describe them as right wing.

Since nobody was calling the Nazi's left wing, we'd rather you dealth with the Idea that maybe fully fledged economic collectivism and democratic socialism can co-exist with racial prejudice, national patriotism and xenophobia.

It can and it has with astonishing regularity, especially in Europe.

Consider reading threads before you post in them.

For example?

I consider myself as a progressive centre-leftist (even though some in your True Leftist ilk might consider me an evil neoliberal), I certainly have nothing but scorn for the reactionary right and their associated racist/crass nationalist/xenophobic penchants and I think that those who think Nazis are lefties are retarded idiots who should read a book; but what you said is utterly ridiculous and hackish to the nth degree. I know that the left loves to treat all right-wingers as intolerant, uneducated, racist, xenophobic regressive morons - and while some (way too much) are, to brand them all as such is just stupid and ridiculously hackish. You can defend your ideological perspective without turning into a hack who says these kinds of ridiculous things. Come on, admitting that some on the left can be xenophobic too isn't akin to treason to some broader True Leftist cause. Similarly, the left certainly doesn't have the monopoly on openness and internationalism. Plenty of centrists, liberals and right-wingers can be considered internationalist, a bunch can be considered "open" whatever that means. Again, why can't you just adopt an open mind? Not all those who disagree with your views are horrible people. Not all those who don't fit in with your definition of the left is some fascist right-winger.

Right-wingers love to bring up Stalin as some xenophobic left-winger, and while nobody can argue that he was a racist etc scumbag he wasn't a left-winger. But need I bring up, for further examples, Georges Marchais and the PCF's crass attempt at race baiting in the 1980s? For another example, in the Rand Rebellion in 1921-1922, the SALP - which was clearly a socialist party - used the slogan "workers of the world unite, and fight for a white South Africa". You could, arguably, redefine being left-wing to exclude all these kind of folks, but that's just stupid. The "left" is broader, much broader, then what you envision it to be.

Please, open your mind. The world isn't black and white, for Christ's sake, and politics is more complex than "my side = good" and "the other side = evil fascists".

I won't respond on the Stalin thing, it's just silly.

Patriotic is not the same thing as nationalist. Do you agree ? The members of national liberation movements in the Third World that have been conscious socialists were patriotic, but not nationalistic, albeit maybe in the name of the parties. Their nationalism was built on the opposition with the colonizing mainland, and not against their neighbours. You can be proud of where you were born, of your roots, of your culture, without hating your neighbours. That's what I'd describe as the difference between patriotism and nationalism, but these words will change meanings depending on what context you will use them, so maybe we should speak about internationalism and xenophobia instead.

You can be eurosceptic in many ways. I myself am eurosceptic in the way of the current orientation of the EU. That doesn't mean I have any grudge against any other people inside the EU or outside for that matter.

You can be willing to put some regulations on how people can immigrate in your country without being xenophobic. There are indeed many reasons why having massive amounts of people emigrating is a problem. I always say I'm not against immigration, I'm against emigration. I feel nobody should be compelled to emigrate from where they live by economical or oppressive reasons. But since those reasons are more often than not originated in the glorious intervention of our colonizating powers, and the continuing neo-colonial influence, I feel we are not in the best seat to be pushing those folks back to the sea because they threaten our identity or anything. Of course, if 800 million Africans did come knocking on our door one day, we could be having a problem. Not with the dozen thousands we have now.

Maybe I shouldn't have employed "openness" as a value, cause I realize it just sounds too Teddy-Bearish now. But anyway I stand on my point that xenophobia dismisses the possibility of being considered left-wing. If you fight for better living conditions, but only for yourself and not willing to extend them to your neighbours, even if it means he will come to your country and live with you, then you didn't fully understand what socialism is.

Well before calling me a hack repeatedly, which you do tend to do very easily, I'll have at least to explain my using of syllogisms.

In the conversation I was having, when I finally said "xenophobia is a right-wing value", that meant : "xenophobia is not a left-wing value, so any xenophobic politician cannot be sincerely left-wing, or he didn't understand what it really meant", that didn't mean "every right-winger is xenophobic".

You know it's the thing with Socrates being a cat and all that. Every cat is mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a cat. That's a sophism.
In my context, I was saying : "no xenophobic can be truly considered left-wing".

As for internationalism, it's primarily a left-wing value, but I'll grant it to you that some right-wingers are willing to defend internationalistic initiatives, even if, generally, it's more in the interest of the dominant class than the people at large...

I will also grant it to you that therefore, one of my syllogisms worked and the other didn't. Sh!t happens. So I will restate : "Xenophobia cannot be a left-wing value. Internationalism must be a left-wing value. Fcuk openness." But, being right-wing and internationalist isn't enough to shift you to left-wing either. It's just a small first step towards that. It's sooooo easy to be a right-winger... I'm not saying "you" as in "you Hash" now, it's just the general you. Geez you have to be careful in here... Not you. Well, yes, you too.

Anyway. I may be radical, I may consider the "left-wing label" as a bit too sacred to the tastes of many here, but that label has been worn so many times with so much damage for the worker class, that I feel it could be good to be a bit more demanding for a change. Of course I'm not the one, with my little arms, handing out diplomas of left-wingness. I just feel I'm entitled to state what I think, even if I'm not always in the soft-belly of sweet compromise. More often than not, I am though.

So I'll say once more that I do not consider every right-winger as xenophobic, but every xenophobic as right-winger, or at least as not a good/true/sincere/real/intelligent left-winger.

I do not think everything is black or white, but I believe if you adhere to a set of values, you have to play the whole part.

I've explained about "openness" and sh**t.

And you bring up Marchais' PCF (and sometimes even today's PCF), or the SALP in SA, well had I been a political activist in those eras and those countries, I would have fighted those organizations within the worker class as eventual enemies of its interests.

And for Christ's sake, don't describe me as the kind who consider every one on my side good and on the other side : evil fascists ! I'm not sure I even have a side, or maybe one of my own, and I don't consider everyone fascist because it would make fascism commonplace and that is not something I would like.

And if it was all because I didn't propose 9/30 as Aliya Day, I promise I will propose 1/30 as Komova Day...

British National Party (UK)
Front National (France)
Democratie National (Belgium)
Danish People's Party (Denmark)
National Democratic Party (Germany)
Attack (Bulgaria)
Slovak National Party (Slovakia)

Oh f' off. The BNP spend 90% of their time ranting against Marxists, as I'm sure do their counterparts. Their support for socialism is as much that know they wouldn't stand a chance with attracting working class support if they dropped their welfare policies.

Prove it. I was just on the BNP site. Plenty about "muslim paedophiles", marxists not so much.

When I saw its title I knew this thread was gonna be rubbish.

I'm not linking to the BNP, so Google 'site:[their website] marxists'. You'll find plenty of examples. 90% is an exaggeration, and obviously behind muslim paedophiles, but there's no doubt they'd be quick to round up marxists like their ideological fore-bearers had.

To take one example: from their article 'Who is To Blame?'

The British National Party are victims of, and not responsible for the inherent bias and corruption of the mass media and in particular the BBC that promoted all these acts of economic, social and cultural sabotage and socialist, Marxist terrorism against the British people.

Considering how many of these movements set up states after liberation which favored their ethnic groups over the inhabitansts of their nations, that is a rather naive statement.

First, it's much more than dozen thousands and second, there is family reunifications, which can continue to bring in immigrants decades after the original immigrants arrived.
Also, what's the point of being against emigration if certain countries should have apparently free entry into Western countries?
And another question: if colonial guilt is the reason why Western countries should accept any of their former colonial subjects, do you agree that all non-colonial countries in Europe have the right to block all immigrants from such countries?

So you're down (to paraphrase) the "no true leftist" fallacy. In fact, since in a democracy politicians must be answerable only to the citizens and not to any special interests (even if the special interest is universal welfare) in no way does fighting only for the living conditions of your own citizens contradict leftist ideology (at least democratic leftist ideology).
Also, even if supporting better living conditions is part of left wing ideology, that doesn't mean that this has to be done through unrestricted immigration. If mass emigration/immigration hinders improvement of the countries that are being abandoned and worsens living conditions in the countries that are being entered (as it arguably does), then mass immigration can't even be said to be positive overall.

I'd just like to point out that the anti-Marxist rants are clearly part of a strategy for xenophobic parties to make the working class vote for them rather than the traditional left. They do it all over the Europe. They think the workers should support them and that Marxist ideas are to blame for this not happening.

You really think French Front national is in any shape at all left-wing, do you ? What's wrong with you ? They always favored the rich, businesses, companies, they always opposed revalorization of minimum wages or pensions, and when in the two or three last years under Marine Le Pen they did try to appear left-wing, they were always debunked because behind the vague declarations they could make on TV there was a program, and their program always includes a counterpart for the rich. Never do they advocate making any redistribution at all. And since they want to cut funding in welfare to anybody who has not his four grandparents French nationals, well they do tend to redistribute wealth only from the poorer to the richer.

Could you just stop trying to say fascist or fascistic or fascistoid parties are left-wing, I'm eventually gonna throw up on my keyboard and it will stop working...

Tbqh, I can't take anyone who says the Front National and the BNP are leftists seriously. At all.

Seriously, though, wikipedia's page on "no true Scotsman" should link to this thread as an example.

Yeah, uhm, what politics you have is actually quite relevant to whether or not you're left-wing.

Hahahaha.  I'm not even European, and I'm entirely aware that the BNP is the farthest thing from being "lefties."  They are racist, authoritarian right wing nationalists to the core.

Laughter+A bald assertion =/ A cogent argument.

I'm afraid that what's not clear to some is that is not enough to say "More houses for the poor!Higher minimum wage!" to be left-wing.

Many neo-fascist groups propose such a "social agenda", trying to appeal to the working class and at the same time to hide their hate towards whoever is "different" (LGBT,foreigners).
Hate which, more often than not, degenerates into physical aggressions.

So,yes,to say that the BNP or the Front National are left-wing is nothing other than believing what they want you to believe, and not look at what they actually do and think.

Economic views has been the left/right standard for centuries. If you use social agenda as your dividing line, you wind up with absurdities like having to call Gary Johnson a lefty or Stalin a right winger.

You obviously misunderstood me.

I am saying that they are authoritarian right-wingers who claim to have leftist views on topics such as housing or welfare just to get more popular support from the working class.
But these remain simple claims, since they never get elected to anything.
So they get some support from the working class and at the same time they appear "civilized" to people like you or whoever tries to make an analysis purely on "formal programmes", but in reality they are (violent) semi-fascists.

And at that point the question is: do you think fascism is left-wing?

First, take a look at my political matrix score in my signature. I'm a hardcore, right wing reactionary. Why would left wing fiscal views seem "respectable" to me? Fascists are godless heathens who worship their race and the state.

I'd dispute your "they never get elected" claim. Front National in France for example has controlled local governments and increased welfare measure that the Parti Socialiste abandoned.

To answer your question, I'll use the BNP as my example. It depends on where you put the centre. If we are talking American politics, then absolutely yes. The same goes for British or Australian politics, where  the BNP is well to the left of Labour. Throughout the Anglosphere, the BNP is to the left of virtually all major parties. Now of course if they were in Sweden, the BNP would be right wing.

However, in the context of this forum I would call fascism left wing. It is certainly to the right of communism and most forms of socialism, but it is still a left leaning ideology.

INteresting analyse, through I disagree. I have followed the party since its start in 1995, and while it have sometimes argued for what we would see as social democratic economic values, just as often it has argued for liberal or conservative values. Yes DPP has called itself the new Social democratic party, but it has also called itself the new centre party and the new conservative party. It have tradionational been a party which adapt much of its policies to what was popular and used ideologies buzz words as nothing more than someting to beat other parties in the head with ("we are the real social democratic/conservative/centre party not you", some of the MPs has even defined themselves as liberals. The problem is worsen by the fact that their princip program includes no comments about their economic views, and only in their working programs we see mentioning of taxes (they would like to see lower taxes but not without equal cuts, also they support the "tax stop"). Compare them to the Socioal Democrats who goes in much deeper detail about how they want a more equal society, and they are clearly to the right of them.
Yes economic they lay to the left of the Social Liberals (but right now everybody but LA do so too). I would put them economic as a traditional centre right party, where they share economic position with Venstre's left. But hjonestly they are hard to place because economy have never been a important part of DPP's platform.

Why do people think it's acceptable to make up their own facts?

When they have called themselves the real conservative party it has been in relation to their stances on immigration, law and order, schools etc. They have to a rather large extent adapted the traditional conservative line of "God, King and Fatherland" while at least some parts of the Conservatives have moved towards international, liberal views.

I agree that the DPP's economic policy is more like take things as they come which makes them somewhat hard to place, but I will maintain that their policies are generally rather similar to those of the SD. It's of course always difficult to compare as SD has also changed their attitude to f.ex. taxes several times. Helle Thorning was in favor of the "tax stop" when she was elected leader, then she made the "fair" agreements with SPP that included tax rises, and recently they agreed on a tax reform that lowered taxes and cut the state benefits for unemployed, some pensioners etc.

DPP not only opposed the latest tax reform, they also opposed reforms/cuts on early retirement benefits and flexible jobs. They introduced the "elderly cheque" and generally worked for better conditions for, especially the poorest, pensioners.

JUST. F.U.C.K.I.N.G. NO.
It wasn't what defined them in the first place in the National Assembly of the French Revolution where it originated, and still isn't enough anywhere except for political maniacs or dumbasses like you seem to be.

Yes ! Gary Johnson AND Joseph Stalin ARE right-wingers for f**k's sake.

In the context of this forum, I will just call the ice liquid, chlorophyllia red, haggis a dessert, the Earth flat, and your account ignored from now on.

Personally, the only thing determining left vs. right for me is where you're seated relative to the speaker.

Haggis is delicious and don't you forget it.

Hitler was Far-Right and Stalin was Far-Left both are equally evil tyrants who believe in complete government control the only differences is Fascism/Nazism is of the Far-Right and Communism is of the Far-Left both are evil disgusting ideologies. Its that simple.

To me, far left and center left politics are differing degrees of the same belief, whereas center right and far right politics are two different creatures that cannot be reconciled.

I think it depends on the type of far-left you're talking about. If you mean Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism or whatever you want to call it, then yes I think that's a different degree of the belief chain running from Left-Liberalism->Social Democracy->Democratic Socialism->etc. But if you mean authoritarian communism (Stalinism or Maoism for example), then no, I think that is a completely different belief system than the modern (at least developed world) "center-left".

My head hurts after just reading through this entire thread. Thanks guys.