h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But all parties claim to be out to benefit society as a whole. You strongly believe Hitler was right-wing, yet much of his policy was about benefiting German society, to benefit all Germans, not just himself, he was very ideolligically driven. Alternatively, Stalin could be largely driven by a desire for personal control.

I assume you to be left-wing in your opinions, your view of the right-wing is very critical in approach. I can't imagine a party in Britain claiming to desire political power for their own self-gain.

bb

"But all parties claim to be out to benefit society as a whole. You strongly believe Hitler was right-wing, yet much of his policy was about benefiting German society, to benefit all Germans, not just himself, he was very ideolligically driven. Alternatively, Stalin could be largely driven by a desire for personal control."

Hitler's policy was about achieving German dominance and destroying what he imagined were the international conspiracies dedicated to preventing it. He wasn't interested in "benfitting" German society - his social experiments were about furthering German's aims.

"I assume you to be left-wing in your opinions, your view of the right-wing is very critical in approach. I can't imagine a party in Britain claiming to desire political power for their own self-gain."

I call myself centre-left. I'm not sure my description of the right is entirely critical (most centre-rightists, for example, are not belligerent in their self-interest and definitely believe there are lines that cannot be crossed in pursuing self-interest).

The conservatives, for example, are a centre-right party and they believe in self-interest without entirely neglecting social concerns. They are not a far-right party who would ignore the helpless nor an extreme-right party who believe that the helpless are better done away with. I don't agree with the conservative's position but I don't think it's "evil". Similarly, I don't agree with the extreme-left position that social justice is so important that basic economic and social freedom should be sacrificed in its pursuit.

"You strongly believe Hitler was right-wing, yet much of his policy was about benefiting German society, to benefit all Germans, not just himself"

While it might be fair to argue that a lot of his policy worked to benefit *some* Germans and not just himself, you'd need to use a very, very narrow definition of "Germans" for the above to be true. "All Germans" would include Jews, trade unionists, members of the Communist party, and gays for instance, who Nazi policy didn't greatly benefit.

"But all parties claim to be out to benefit society as a whole."

This is true and, incidentally, pretty much the reason the Nazis had "socialist" in their name.

I doubt Hitler was out to do much else than serve himself. But it is true that was the reason the Nazi party was succesful, because people saw them as doing what was best for Germany. I'd say many right wingers believe what they do is best for the country, they are the ones supposed to be patriotic after all.

"While it might be fair to argue that a lot of his policy worked to benefit *some* Germans and not just himself, you'd need to use a very, very narrow definition of "Germans" for the above to be true. "All Germans" would include Jews, trade unionists, members of the Communist party, and gays for instance, who Nazi policy didn't greatly benefit."

I agree. Hitler regarded German Jews as not being truly German (this was one of the things that fueled his anti-semitism) and he regarded German communists as being part of the international bolshevik conspiracy which was dedicated to destroying Germany as a nation and making it part of an international dictatorship of the proletariat. Hitler saw Germany as an ideal and a nation that was capable of dominating Europe and the world and he believed that there were those within Germany who actively wanted to prevent that.

NB: I said Hitler was out to benefit German Society, not all Germans (well I meant to ). The way he saw to do this involved 'racial cleansing'.

Xantic, I believe Hitler was one of the most ideologically driven leaders we have seen. He was not in it for personal gain (anti-semitism didn't benefit him personally.)

Systems promoting personal power are corrupt systems. These are more likely to be right-wing parties, the reasons being shown in by the dealings of the (as of today) ex-PM of Italy, ie economic (negative) freedom, lack of govt intervention allowing shady dealings easier.

I don't see the conservatives as being self-serving. Economic freedom benefits those who already have money, ie the middle-classes, and is of less benefits to the poor, lack of welfare. However, I don't see this position being the result of MPs mainly being middle-class. It is based on an ideology, again seeking benefit for society as a whole.

bb

Hmm, we do have rather different definitions there Zagreb. I guess I'd have a problem with yours on the grounds that there's a bit too much of the polemical to it, there's no opportunity for right wingers to be good but misguided, they're all out for themselves. Whereas I think example will show that all sorts of crazy people have thought that their ideas or the very fact of them being in charge were the best thing for their country and all its people.

When a government censors or bans something, it doesn't say "this is because we're afraid of getting kicked out and losing our station", it says "we're doing this to keep law and order, for the betterment of everyone".

Or how about those who thought that "spreading civilization" by conquest would be the best thing possible for all those dirty savages?

"You strongly believe Hitler was right-wing, yet much of his policy was about benefiting German society, to benefit all Germans, not just himself"

Incidentally, to expand what I was saying, self-interest does not literally mean the individual it can mean something larger that the individual belongs to and that is separate from other groups. For some rightwingers, self-interest is literally all about themselves, for others it's them and their families, for others it's them, their families and their nation/racial group. It rarely goes beyond that. The driving idea is specifically looking-after the interests of the group to which they belong and being far less interested in/not interested in/hostile to the considerations of other individuals/groupings.

So that would make all groups representing certain sectors of society rightwing? Right from the SNP to the RSPCA? Really?

bb

"So that would make all groups representing certain sectors of society rightwing? Right from the SNP to the RSPCA? Really?"

The SNP - arguably if we take them at their single-policy of self-government for Scotland.

RSPCA - no, because wanting to help animals generally is wanting to help something outside of your own group.

OK, but all sector pressure groups? That makes all Trade Unions right-wing in your description. And both Labour (centre) and Lib Dem (slightly left) and all but the extremes for that matter, are ultimately looking out for what you label 'self-intrest', ie Britain.

bb

Well, how would you define group. Wanting the best for society by putting criminals in jail, would that the wrong then? Since you again divide people into groups.

"how would you define group"

In this case I wouldn't. I don't define the political spectrum on the people/groups/sectors parties represent, I base it on their social and economic policies instead.

I think there is a problem defining group in this context, that's my point, I don't think the concept works in this situation.

bb

"OK, but all sector pressure groups? That makes all Trade Unions right-wing in your description. And both Labour (centre) and Lib Dem (slightly left) and all but the extremes for that matter, are ultimately looking out for what you label 'self-intrest', ie Britain."

It's possible to join a trade union for entirely selfish reasons, so yes on that note. Trade Unions usually look after their own membership, the idea that they are intrinsically leftist is a bit of a myth except when they strike out of solidarity with another union. Most of the time they are basically collective self-interest.

As for Labour and Lib-Dems, I think both of them place Britain first but are keenly interested in conditions in other countries and (rhetorically at least) Labour is very keen on things such as aleviating foreign debt. Tellingly, a centre-left or centrist outlook on the world is becoming quite mainstream in British politics with the "Britain first" isolationism of the right becoming largely the preserve of the Tory rightwing and the BNP.

"I think there is a problem defining group in this context, that's my point, I don't think the concept works in this situation."

I do think my left/right description is imperfect but I do think it's better and more accurate than the crude assertion many make that it's something to do with whether you think everything should be nationalised or whether you're a racist.

Holding with my original defenition, I think I would agree that alot of the time, in practice, your system also fits.

As I said before, I believe people/parties out for personal/party gain are corrupt, and find it easier they establish right-wing control, die to (-)freedom econmically.

So, we're both right

bb

Or even how do you define homophobia? How does the word phobia come into it? Does that mean someone will jump back in fright when seeing a picture of Oscar Wilde? There are certain sexual practices I don't think people should indulge in, does that make me sheepshaggiphobic? Or are we talking people who are beating others up in the street due to them being gay?

>>"So that would make all groups representing certain sectors of society rightwing? Right from the SNP to the RSPCA? Really?"

>>The SNP - arguably if we take them at their single-policy of self-government for Scotland.

In point of fact, the SNP are to the left of Labour. Alex Salmond has spoken of them as a left wing party. They are one of two left-wing parliamentary parties. There's a prize for naming the other.


But Xanatic's question is a good one. In political terms there may be a difference between actively discriminating against homosexuals. Such nonsense as 'The prevalence of homosexuality illustrates the moral decline in society which is at the root of our problems' is a convenient right-wing smokescreen. It's somewhat different to the 'shudder reaction' of people who haven't come to terms with sexuality in general - they're found within all factions.

Bigotry isn't political, it's personal.