‘The far right’- abused and misused?
Those who refer to the far right as a group or as an ideology almost always romanticize what they are seeing with an aim to do something we humans love doing, that is, to file it in a convenient bin, and to use an older and more exciting almost acceptable context to explain what is largely a group of cognitive biases or human weaknesses masquerading in broad daylight as something else. What else, you ask? Well, I will attempt to answer all your questions shortly, but first, let’s pay a short visit to the source of all this.
It all began with the French Revolution.
At the time of the French revolution, the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly was such that on the left side of the Monarch sat those who supported the revolution and demanded a democratic state where the French people could self-rule for the good of the people. Theoretically, at least, the farthest left would have been those with socialist beliefs.
On the right side of the assembly sat those who supported the King and thus the idea of Monarchy and of the Feudalism that came with it. It has always been considered, quite astutely, I would suggest, that this particular taste was based on a fear of change and lack of the self-confidence to take responsibility for one’s own life, safety and welfare. Of course many on the right were part of feudalism in some small way, by which I mean they benefitted from the efforts of people below them in the pecking order, but certainly even the latter couldn’t see potential gain in, a world without the Feudal lord.
Near-right would have been mildly in favour of the status quo, while far-right, furthest from the centre of the assembly were very adamant about their desire to carry on with Feudalism.
This may be an appropriate time to point out that the above-mentioned resistance to, or fear of change, later became labelled Conservatism and is often, misleadingly used as an alternative label to Right-wing.
In the modern world certainly, if possibly not in ancient France, there is a very big difference in reality between Conservative and Right-Wing.
Right-Wing always refers to a an Economic attitude or standpoint whereas, Conservatism refers to a resistance to change that can be and often is re-written by journalistic types as some sort of a noble attachment to tradition etc, a opposed to old fashioned fear of change and laziness.
What causes the confusion is that Conservative parties, by supporting ideas that trace visibly to Feudalism or indeed reproduce it under thin disguise ( e.g. Bankers rescued if they make a mistake, paid obscene bonuses and not subject to the same laws as the rest of us) and Neoliberal or far-right economics supporters also support Conservatism as an excuse to maintain the old order and keep on robbing the working classes.
In reality, however, you can see that Conservative and Far-Right are by no means the same thing and treating them as such causes immense confusion.
Far-right of France 18th century v Far-right of 2024
We’ve already discussed what Far-Right meant in France and what it means today in an economic sense ( leaving out Conservatism for reasons stated above)
As discussed previously, Far-Right is in fact, closer to a Neoliberal economic idea, but what it represents in 2024 if you are unfortunate enough to watch the news or read a newspaper, is thuggery on the streets directed at foreigners of any kind. Before I take this discussion further, I feel it’s vital to state, or you may read, re-state, that any discussion about society must understand and accept that there is no untouchable definition, but in every analysis, socialisation must be observed and taken into account.
Today a group may be supporters of a Conservative, ‘nothing changes’ ideal, but with a small example like a riot on the streets, a handful of articles etc, they can become a bayeing mob attacking anyone who looks or sounds different and hence, in modern terms at least, Far-Rght. I will always describe such people as Thugs, because that’s what they are. Furthermore, I’d suggest that they are not exercising a democratic right and deserve only to lose their democratic rights until they learn basic manners and how to behave in a civilized society. If I were a minimum wage worker, demotivated and angry, I might well grasp at any straw, but that’s another discussion. If I did, I should be stopped.
2024 Far-Rght is thuggery. Its motivation varies from, boredom, to an axe to grind and any head will do. In certain very confined geographies, genuine fear of foreigners in large numbers arriving, whingeing that, hey, I’m poor and why don’t you help me and leading to the last one, despair and demotivation.
Far-right thuggery 2024-justified or not.
Before I get into the meat of this answer, let me point out that as-per comments above on socialisation of groups of people, there is a neighbouring concept known in modern times as ‘trolling’. In the age of Social Media, governments and marketers have taken to creating fake and hence untraceable profiles as well as hiring influencers who say anything you wish for a fee and using this, fill social media with plausible looking people all believing passionately in whatever mischief the protagonist wants carried out.
In recent times, the drive by Israel and partners UK and USA to begin a war on Islam in words, in order to gain support for a war on Iran and other Middle eastern nations with arms, is a great example of such behaviour. It has resulted in wars on Islam everywhere, even in Ireland where there are 3 and a half Muslims.
I point this out in order to avoid any misunderstandings about what Far-Right really is because of the mischief of a rogue state.
Far-Right, or super-conservative is entitled to talk about its beliefs all day and if they want to adopt Neoliberalism or even outright Feudalism they are entitled to write, talk, sing dance or march politely about it to their heart’s content.
If a group of low paid or unemployed or people from a coastal town where they are genuinely affected by refugees, want to let the government know and get noticed, they are entitled to protest within the reasonable framework of the law, just as I and others do in support of Palestinians.
Making statements that stir up hatred ( socialization of hate) against other groups based on religion, colour, or any identifier is not acceptable and is in fact against the law in UK.
Do I need to comment on attacking and assaulting people of colour on the streets? I didn’t think so. If you agree, please share this and let’s have a reasonable voice in the conversation. If you disagree, please voice opinions respectfully.
Right, Left and their use as economic terms causes confusion.
Up until fairly recently, right or left oriented referred entirely and solely to your Economic ideals.
The Socialist and Communists states were considered to be of the Left. The Conservative and Neoliberal, “Free-market” states were considered to be of the Right.
The simple distinction was that a Free-Market view stated that nobody should interfere with free markets. Let people make what they think will and sell it to whoever they can and the free market ideology will self-govern. Theories of Adam Smith “ Invisible Hand” and Walras “Equilibrium theory” effectively attempting to create a mathematical argument for Smiths idea are the basis of this Free Market world known as The Right.
In UK the Conservatives and in the US GOP are seen as the furthest right, but the furthest left in these countries are also very much right wing, just less so.
In Socialist states the state takes a huge responsibility for ensuring that everyone has the minimum necessary to survive and governs semi-free markets to avoid the worst excesses of the right. In a Communist state like the old USSR, the Government provides everything and governs everything.
Modern economies of the right such as even USA and UK still provide pensions for the elderly and unemployment support for everyone. UK still sort of provides a free health service, albeit shrinking secretly behind a veil of lies. European countries provide a great deal of very good services and support while at the same time supporting fairly free markets to encourage investment and innovation.
These definitions of Right and Left are the better-known and most respected and will live far beyond any temporary attempts to manipulate society.
Following this way of thinking, Far-Left is closer to or actually, socialist, but not Communist and Far-Right is fully Neoliberal at least as far right as the US if not even further.
Neoliberalism, although not fully implemented, does follow the Adam Smith ideal of the invisible hand and says that if we support billionaires they will produce more and it will trickle some down to the poor and that is an optimum economy.
Laissez Faire, or something else, what drives human behaviour in markets?
The earliest economists including Adam Smith, accepted that the behaviour of people within markets were guided by emotions, perceptions, etc. Smiths earlier work, The “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” Dealt with these ideas well, but wasn’t seized upon to the degree that “The Wealth of Nations” was.
The arguments at a meeting of eminent Economists may differ very substantially from that at a Government meeting or indeed at a gathering of citizens, but surely there’s a bottom line to this as there is to all things and that bottom line surely has to be human behaviour.
Whatever the markets do is not some invisible hand, even if that is only a metaphor, but it is very much the hand of ordinary people getting on with their lives and reacting to what is placed before them.
What we learned for the French revolution is that there are in fact at least two broad groups making up the human race, those who feel born to lead and those who feel born to follow. Its not hard to visualise the ones on the right side of the king and those on the left side, nor is it hard to understand their motivations and perhaps to grasp the different experiences in their lives that led them to pick a side.
What really drives them is almost certainly the same concept that has been used since the birth of markets; that of the Bull and the Bear. The Bull has had a taste of sweet grass on yonder pasture and wants more. His greed is making his blood boil and causing him to bellow in his anticipation. The Bear has tried for the soft green grass and been attacked by a pack of wolves, today his predominant world view is fear of the wolves.
Bears do regularly become bullish and the Bear who was once a bull is everyone’s target of derision. They slide back and forth as their memories wain. Not all Buls nor Bears remain upon one side of the line. It all depends on what opportunities cross their paths when they have a certain mindset and whether or not that works out for them.
While the bear is licking his wounds, he’s delighted to find a nice helpful government to provide dressings and feed his family while he licks his wounds, when he recovers he will become an intolerable Bull again demanding we stop wasting money on lazy bears.
We most likely have the opportunity to develop more Bulls, or indeed have a calm world full of Bears, its simply a matter of what we decide upon and of-course, of finding honest leadership among the Bulls.
Back to the thugs painted as Far-Right.
Its possibly true that just a few of these chaps, but definitely not their leaders, are classic bears skulking behind shadows as they throw insults at the Bulls, but it’s much more likely that rather than licking their wounds form the last charge that they are poor frightened bears deserving of our help and maybe our sympathy, but rather that they are devious one-ball-bulls who want to charge, but don’t have the courage and schemed to send a bunch of sad old bears out to do it for them.
Similar articles.
QE and Neoliberalism have reversed decades of progress Damage done by the big crash.
Bring back the light Is there a role for a little more government hand in markets as opposed to “The invisible Hand”
