Also, how do you tell the difference between “far left” and “mainstream left”?
The simplistic answer would be the degree of dogmatism, intolerance and authoritarianism with which they promote their views.
The far ends of the spectrum let slip admiration or at least tolerance/excuses for dictators (whether Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Castro).
I’m commenting to subscribe. But also to say, the European far right seems to be the American far left except immigration issues. In the press (and only the press, as I’ve not independently researched the issue), it seems that the only thing defining the European far right is their stance on immigration.
Given their stance on immigration, our own Joe Biden seems to have become part of the European far right (and for our non-US visitors, Joe Biden is the leftmost president we’ve ever had).
Not quite. Here is a wiki article- Populist right groups have shared a number of causes, which typically include opposition to globalisation and immigration, criticism of multiculturalism, and opposition to the European Union,[1] but do not oppose democracy.
But yes, their big thing is xenophobia and bigotry. They are not stupid enough to attack the Euro welfare state- since they live off it.
Not even close.
Another feature is the simplistic view of issues and proposed solutions - “It’s all the fault of X”, “A total ban on Y”, for example.
Mainstream right and left would at least acknowledge that most issues are a bit more complicated than that and nuance their policy proposals accordingly.
(Biden more leftwing than FDR?)
“It is all the fault of the Jews”.
“of the blacks.”
“of the mexican illegal migrants”.
Right Wing Populism.
I don’t see any significant difference between the views of German left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht and French right-wing populist Marine Le Pen. The important part is the word “populist”, not the “right” or “left”, which are pretty meaningless.
From here in the US, the impression I have is that the European far right, in addition to what you mention about immigration, is also largely concerned with taking Russia’s / Putin’s side in the Ukraine - Russia war.
Here’s an overview
?/
It’s also worth noting that broad definitions don’t really apply consistently from country to country, because there are historical and cultural nuances that prevent easy generalization.
Below is an analysis which notes that the farthest-right party in my country of residence, the ADR in Luxembourg, certainly qualifies as a right-wing hard-nationalist group, but it lacks the overt virulent xenophobia that characterizes similar parties in other European states. That’s because Luxembourg is a tiny nation that has always depended on cooperation with and mutual dependence on its larger neighbors for survival, so a close-the-borders go-it-alone mentality would be literally economic suicide. Hence, the ADR is happy to be a party of flag-waving euroskeptics that yells at technocratic clouds on behalf of its rural and largely elderly base of voters, but it can’t go as far as its sister parties elsewhere.
Bumping a thread from a couple of months ago because it seems to be the most relevant recent discussion on the topic of right-wing movements in Europe, as context for some new electoral developments.
The scary-hard-right AfD long led polls and was expected to prevail here, but the centrists managed a last-minute surge and edged them down to second. On the one hand, that’s good news in the short term, but the AfD’s continued strength is concerning (the provisional margin is 30.9% to 29.2%), and it remains to be seen whether this is only a brief lapse or the sign of a longer-term fade. I suspect the former, but we’ll see.
And on this earlier comment:
The article notes that the pro-Kremlin BSW secured 12% of the vote, and suggests that this positions them for participation in a hypothetical coalition. More interestingly, especially in the context of this thread, the article describes them as “leftist conservatives,” which strikes me as an unusual label, considering the usual assumptions about the right-left axis. It’s certainly a more polite way to describe their ideology than the typical but vaguely derogatory label of tankie. Perhaps this coining will attract more usage, since current events are creating a demand for it.
Also in relevant recent news: I mentioned the ADR above, as Luxembourg’s own right-wing nationalist party, and noted that while they may lean sympathetically toward other hard-right parties elsewhere in Europe, they can’t broadcast the same level of xenophobic vitriol, due to the collaborative political culture in Luxembourg. This view is reinforced by an incident from a couple of weeks ago:
Specifically, the guy reacted to an interview with a leftist by saying immigrants were “filthy” and their supporters should be physically attacked (this article translates his comment as saying leftists should be “stabbed” but the better English equivalent of his verb is probably “knifed”). In response, the ADR forced him to resign as a member, because they don’t want the controversy.
And for the record, this is the second resignation from the ADR in recent history where the member was forced out due to inflammatory behavior online.
That’s from a little over a year ago. The guy posted pictures of himself wearing Nazi-adjacent regalia, and, when this was uncovered, found himself no longer welcome in the party.
So the nuanced view is that while parties like the ADR may attract people who harbor these kinds of grotesque political allegiances, they often choose to limit their public expression in the name of electoral survival.
Leftist in economic and fiscal policies and class politics (SW broke away from the Left Party that were the heirs to the East German Communist/Socialist Unity Party), but conservative on immigration and identity politics. Populist on both.
Of course. I’m just noting that I, personally, haven’t often seen that specific construction.
I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.
It’s interestingly strange to me that some extreme(r) leftists seem to find a way to the other end of the spectrum. Whether it’s because they’re more in love with being furiously authoritarian than a realistic political objective…?
Note that Trump could say something like that and no one would even blink.
Le Pen’s party is also sympathetic to Russia. Its economic platform is protectionism and the preservation of France’s generous welfare program. Still not seeing a huge difference to BSW.
It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people cling to one-dimensional models of political opinion such as left versus right. It is obvious that more dimensions are needed, when we have to resort to contradictory terms like ‘leftist conservative’, and of course there are various suggestions for two-axis models that have gained some traction. But in order to accommodate the full range of viewpoints, we would need many more dimensions, which would hardly be practical.
But it seems as if people can’t readily grasp more than one dimension, so we we are stuck with left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, us vs. them.
This, I think, is exactly why the multi-axis models tend to collapse into a single dimension. A longer exploration of the subject deserves its own thread, but ultimately, what we are all looking for, consciously or subconsciously, is a quick and simpified way to determine whether someone is an ally or an enemy, and a label for quantifying it. Hence, X vs Y.
In contrast to the somewhat encouraging result in Germany noted above, there is now very bad news out of Austria.
These guys are fucking nuts. Buckle your seat belts.
Further to some things mentioned in this thread, regarding populism and left/right becoming meaningless:
In the Netherlands the racist populist party PVV of Geert Wilders won the most seats (not an outright majority, nobody does) and managed to form a government with his nasty little club populists.
The views he campaigns on, he calls right wing but besides the xenophobia & racism, what he talks about is left wing:
- cost of living
- rent prices
- healthcare costs
- retirement
- minimum wage
Even in their previous voting record, they didn’t vote as they said but in fact followed the centre right party. Obviously, solving these problems would lose them voters and their voters are all low-information voters, so they have no idea their party is not doing what they said. If anyone raises this they simply shout about immigrants and their base thinks it’s all wonderful.
Now they’re in power and it’s the same thing again. The elected parliamentarians barely show up to votes. Wilders cares about nothing but immigrants. They vote squarely against anything they promised, because solving anything would only lose them votes. (And, secondarily, because what they promised is impossible or would require them to show up and work.) Their voters don’t notice.
So if you’re evaluating whether they are left or right, what are you considering: what they say or what they do? They are primarily populists, liars and racists. The rest is pretty much irrelevant.
When they’re wearing suits and ties, they’re mainstream right. When they start wearing uniforms, they’re hard right.