How the Far-Right Views the Economy and the Stab-in-the-Back Myth

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Calling public news broadcaster like DW "partial", "Lügenpresse" or "fake news" without any evidence is a common narrative within far right conspiracy theories.

[Razor]

Communism certainly doesn't want a return to a glorified past. Even the rosy description of pre-historic communities as class-free utopias never meant that the goal was supposed to be a progressive return to that social situation. Even if it was, I doubt it is comparable to the nostalgia felt by many supporters of the alt-right about the prosperous '80s and '90s, when dad's salary in the Chrysler factory in Detroit or the steel industry of Metz. I also disagree with the argument that the economy is not the primary factor for the rise of extremist populism. Although far-right groups prefer to insist more on cultural or ethical controversies for obvious reasons (lacking a sufficiently coherent manifesto), the role of the economy is undisputed, according to the statistical data. In the United States, blue-collar workers were crucial for the defeat of Clinton, in Sweden, the declining welfare protections are mainly responsible for the growth of the far-right Swedish Democrats, in Britain, impoverished Wales is a bastion of Brexit feeilings and in France, Marine Le Pen owes her popularity to rural regions, with tiny financial opportunities and an almost zero presence of immigrants.

Well that was the plan. First a revolution, then a dictatorship of the workers to eradicate all other social classes. After that the complete dissolution of the state and the living in harmonious communes/communities.
Communism's 'glorified past' is in that sense indeed a (re)turn to the human state of living in communes/communities, like in pre-historic times, an idealized past and idea that people can live happily together free of war and oppressive authority of the state and the other social classes, that depend on social structures such as feudalism and capitalism and even nations and nation states.

I'm not too sure that right-wingers want a return to an idealized past per se, rather they want to stop certain ongoing trends and want to 'normalize' the current situation, where men are allowed to be 'men' again, white people don’t have to apologize for their skin color and their history to minorities, where the diversity madness is stopped and immigration from third world countries is curbed, and the national culture is respected and not constantly attacked by minorities. Generally they want to return to a (more recent) past where all this wasn't the case.

Also, Right-wingers idealize the 80s and 90s? Since when? What I understand is that here in Western Europe they generally abhor the 80s and 90s because that was the time when the effects of migration started to show and the whole topic was declared off-limits to discuss.

As for the economy, of course the economy does play a role for voters, but the economy often isn't the selling point of nationalist politicians alone. The economics are subordinated to the greater narrative of immigration and the return to the nation state, in which economics obviously do play a part, but within the context of the nation state and migration and the aversion against globalism. If the economy was the sole reason that people vote for 'right-wing' politicians, then they could very well vote for leftist parties, but in Western Europe they're generally viewed upon as kind of 'traitors' to their (original) cause, not really protecting the poor and the workers anymore like they used to, but focusing more on protecting immigrants instead.

What you're essentially saying here is that all political movements are different. While this is certainly accurate, it doesn't really address the argument. The far-right has no economic coherence because their economics are often self-contradictory. They fear socialism and "socialist" economic policies, yet the oppose trade liberalization and embrace protectionism. This incoherence extends itself to other policy spheres.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the self-contradictory aspect of right-wing economics. You portray it like there’s no middle ground between 'socialist' economic policies and liberal economic policies. What about a nationalist economic policy?

I think your analysis is in general closer to the mark, but it has to be noted that even if this demographic combines a social conservatism more traditionally found on the right with an aversion of economic globalism more commonly considered leftist, the individuals who speak on behalf of if almost universally blame 'the left' for all their woes. I think that is what Abdulmecid's post is trying to get at, because in this narrative, somehow traditionallly rightist developments (like economic deregulation and globalisation and military interventionism) have to be attributed to leftist agents, so that traditional right wing parties (natural allies of the socially conservative agenda) are somewhat absolved. I don't think they care the least bit whether that story is even consistent, let alone founded in reality as long as it's what gets the desired reaction. It's not called populism for nothing.

I agree. This tendency to blame everything on the left is very wrong and to even situate themselves as right (versus the left) is dubious when you think of it, since they often embrace a number of originally leftist ideas themselves and to add to that many leftist parties had quite nationalistic tone and were for example against the coming of guest workers in the 60s and 70s, which were in turn instigated by right-wing parties and the liberals. However, it does create a clearer picture to voters about what they stand for. As for the word populism, I generally dislike the usage of that word in politics today.

[Love Mountain]

I'm not sure I understand your point about the self-contradictory aspect of right-wing economics. You portray it like there’s no middle ground between 'socialist' economic policies and liberal economic policies. What about a nationalist economic policy?

There isn't such a thing as a "nationalist economic policy". That's something people make up when they don't want the wrong labels. I'm also not saying there isn't a middle ground, in fact, almost all economic policies are middle grounds due to the necessity of choosing second-best policies, rather than optimal solutions. What I am saying is that the far-right is logically inconsistent on economic issues. This is because they don't have a coherent answer on the issue, and while they might be economic liberals one day, another group might be protectionist the other day. The far-right isn't unique on this issue, almost all political parties have some inconsistency depending on how you model their rhetoric.

What makes far-right unique, is that they very little about economics, and when they do, it does not seem to follow any particular economic ideology.

I agree. This tendency to blame everything on the left is very wrong and to even situate themselves as right (versus the left) is dubious when you think of it, since they often embrace a number of originally leftist ideas themselves and to add to that many leftist parties had quite nationalistic tone and were for example against the coming of guest workers in the 60s and 70s, which were in turn instigated by right-wing parties and the liberals. However, it does create a clearer picture to voters about what they stand for. As for the word populism, I generally dislike the usage of that word in politics today.

Politics since 2016 can be characterized by a single word, populism.

[Aexodus]

What I am saying is that the far-right is logically inconsistent on economic issues. This is because they don't have a coherent answer on the issue, and while they might be economic liberals one day, another group might be protectionist the other day.

That happens when you erroneously group lots of unrelated parties together.

[Love Mountain]

That happens when you erroneously group lots of unrelated parties together.

This is a meaningless statement insofar as many political groups will claim a political distinction, especially if the umbrella term is deemed toxic. Just as many White Supremacist groups will vehemently deny that they are in any way, shape, or form racist, fascist, or otherwise unsavory, by claiming that they are merely patriotic nationalists, I'm sure the AfD, Front Nationale, and Swedish Democrats will all quickly deny that they are in any way a radical right-wing party.

On the other hand, I doubt I'll ever see any right-wing TWCer actually point out a difference between two radical left-wing groups. Despite the fact that there is a world of difference between Anarcho-Marxists, and the rather statist Communist party in USA. In other words, "minute" political distinctions are only brought up when it suits to poison the well of discussion, rather than honestly discuss the parallels in narratives, tactics, and goals of political parties generally categorized as "far-right".

[Aexodus]

I’m saying the categorisation is wrong. They’re not far right.

[Heathen Hammer]

"Far-right" doesn't have a "coherent" economic policy because it is an umbrella term for different ideologies which have different outlook on the economy.
Of course, the assertion that liberal elites are to blame for current problems is less of "scapegoating", but more of an accurate observation, made without disinformation from mainstream media outlets that seek to praise these elites and demonize those that criticize them.
I find it quite interesting, how the thread gives us a peek into a liberal mind and helps us understand why liberals chose to abandon logic and objective truth in their culture war against "far-right" (which is pretty much anyone who disagrees with cosmopolitan liberalism).

[Love Mountain]

I’m saying the categorisation is wrong. They’re not far right.

And Im saying its not. Mainstream Conservative parties are significantly different from these new right wing parties. Sorry, •Far right” parties. They also share a large number of similarities between each other.

[Heathen Hammer]

From liberal perspective, both libertarians and monarchists would be considered as "far-right", despite those two ideologies sharing basically nothing in common. Essentially term "far-right" is just a buzzword, used to make any anti-establishment perspective sound "extreme".

[Aexodus]

Well, if that’s the case, who is to the right of the far right?

[Love Mountain]

Well, if that’s the case, who is to the right of the far right?

Modern Fascists and the like.

[Razor]

There isn't such a thing as a "nationalist economic policy". That's something people make up when they don't want the wrong labels. I'm also not saying there isn't a middle ground, in fact, almost all economic policies are middle grounds due to the necessity of choosing second-best policies, rather than optimal solutions. What I am saying is that the far-right is logically inconsistent on economic issues. This is because they don't have a coherent answer on the issue, and while they might be economic liberals one day, another group might be protectionist the other day. The far-right isn't unique on this issue, almost all political parties have some inconsistency depending on how you model their rhetoric.

What makes far-right unique, is that they very little about economics, and when they do, it does not seem to follow any particular economic ideology.

Which is why I'm calling it a 'nationalist' economic policy, because whether they want to follow a more liberal economic policy or a more socialist economic policy or anything in between, it's within the context of a nationalist perspective and narrative. Sure it's not really a thing, but what else do you want to call it, besides 'incoherent' which I think is a misnomer?

Politics since 2016 can be characterized by a single word, populism.

Why 2016?

[Love Mountain]

If I say 2+2=5 and call it Sukiyama's mathematics, that makes it no less coherent or logical, regardless of how I feel about it. I also fail to see any sort of ideological consistency on the part of far-right parties like AfD or Front Nationale. Certainly, as I previously said, they are not unique in that regard, but we have several decades of behavior on which to base on mainstream parties. But the rebuttal to this criticism isn't that mainstream parties are inconsistent on their economic policy. Indeed, the far-right is united in their belief that mainstream economics is all about enriching the elite in one giant conspiracy (regardless of whether it's by deliberate design or not) and destroying national sovereignty.

I find it odd that while these far-right parties mostly decry or reject the EU (with some even calling for referendum to remain part of it), when they do not realize that decreasing the power of the EU will hurt their own national economies that are so dependent on the trade that's based on the EEC. Similarly, while so many complain about how immigration and globalization has damaged their substantial welfare states, parties like Front Nationale and AfD explicitly talk about reducing certain parts of the welfare state because it hurts the economy.

At the same time, constant talk of reducing bureaucratic red tape and regulations, while at the same time decrying global elites and globalization that made regulation and red tape powerless, thus allowing financial crisis and refugee crisis to wreak havoc in their own country. So which is it? Is it more regulations? Is it less regulations? The "Northern Periphery" of Europe constantly decries wealth transfers to the South that are enabled by the existence of the Euro monetary union. Which ignores the fact that the North dis-proportionally benefited from the Euro due to higher returns on capital in the South.

This is laughable, the Germans, their elite in particular, have benefited hugely from the Euro and the European Union. If one were to actually be Nationalist, and pursuing Nationalist goals, one would think the only change they would make, is that of migrants and refugees entering Germany. But for some reason, the far-right of the European "North" is up in arms over anything and everything. Which indicates that this is less about a coherent ideological criticism, and more about faux outrage fueled by growing inequality.

What's funny to me, is that the ones to benefit from far-right policies are not going to be the average joe, or the average citizen of the "nation". But a localized category of political and financial elite who will benefit from a low tax-regime, and protectionist favored policies proposed by the far-right.

[Cope]

If I say 2+2=5 and call it Sukiyama's mathematics, that makes it no less coherent or logical, regardless of how I feel about it. I also fail to see any sort of ideological consistency on the part of far-right parties like AfD or Front Nationale. Certainly, as I previously said, they are not unique in that regard, but we have several decades of behavior on which to base on mainstream parties. But the rebuttal to this criticism isn't that mainstream parties are inconsistent on their economic policy. Indeed, the far-right is united in their belief that mainstream economics is all about enriching the elite in one giant conspiracy (regardless of whether it's by deliberate design or not) and destroying national sovereignty.

I find it odd that while these far-right parties mostly decry or reject the EU (with some even calling for referendum to remain part of it), when they do not realize that decreasing the power of the EU will hurt their own national economies that are so dependent on the trade that's based on the EEC. Similarly, while so many complain about how immigration and globalization has damaged their substantial welfare states, parties like Front Nationale and AfD explicitly talk about reducing certain parts of the welfare state because it hurts the economy.

At the same time, constant talk of reducing bureaucratic red tape and regulations, while at the same time decrying global elites and globalization that made regulation and red tape powerless, thus allowing financial crisis and refugee crisis to wreak havoc in their own country. So which is it? Is it more regulations? Is it less regulations? The "Northern Periphery" of Europe constantly decries wealth transfers to the South that are enabled by the existence of the Euro monetary union. Which ignores the fact that the North dis-proportionally benefited from the Euro due to higher returns on capital in the South.

This is laughable, the Germans, their elite in particular, have benefited hugely from the Euro and the European Union. If one were to actually be Nationalist, and pursuing Nationalist goals, one would think the only change they would make, is that of migrants and refugees entering Germany. But for some reason, the far-right of the European "North" is up in arms over anything and everything. Which indicates that this is less about a coherent ideological criticism, and more about faux outrage fueled by growing inequality.

What's funny to me, is that the ones to benefit from far-right policies are not going to be the average joe, or the average citizen of the "nation". But a localized category of political and financial elite who will benefit from a low tax-regime, and protectionist favored policies proposed by the far-right.

This was painful to read: you're trying far too hard to sound like you know what you're talking about.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think the most difficult thing for liberals is to grasp the concept that majority of population can identify with something other then just profit margins of corporate entities.

[Love Mountain]

I think the most difficult thing for liberals is to grasp the concept that majority of population can identify with something other then just profit margins of corporate entities.

Which is why the natural response is to enact protectionist policies that make local goods more expensive. Because those poor local elites are much better than multinational corporations.

[Muizer]

"Far-right" doesn't have a "coherent" economic policy because it is an umbrella term for different ideologies which have different outlook on the economy.

I think a distinction must be made between what parties say their position on certain issues is, and what they do with it in practice. And quite telling in this regard is where the populist right seek their allies if they need them, and which of their 'ideals' they are willing to trade in to secure their support. The reality is they'll take a ban on burqas and a nominally more stringent approach to immigration and let the traditional right get on with its neoliberal agenda.

[Heathen Hammer]

Which is why the natural response is to enact protectionist policies that make local goods more expensive. Because those poor local elites are much better than multinational corporations.

Local ones are likely to hire locally and less likely to outsource. It is just populations voting in their immediate interests. For some reason liberal left thinks that people who don't want to sacrifice their livelihoods for some ideological castle in the sky are "misinformed", since they care more about their well being then "progressive" talking points. I guess modern liberal brass carries over the good old "let them eat cake" mentality.

I think a distinction must be made between what parties say their position on certain issues is, and what they do with it in practice. And quite telling in this regard is where the populist right seek their allies if they need them, and which of their 'ideals' they are willing to trade in to secure their support. The reality is they'll take a ban on burqas and a nominally more stringent approach to immigration and let the traditional right get on with its neoliberal agenda.

Again, sounds like another generalization. Not to mention that such parties themselves aren't always unified too. However that issue is far more prominent among pro-establishment "progressive" parties that fulfill "progressive" part by making symbolic pandering towards what is perceived to be a "minority", while focusing the rest of their activity on serving the interests of corporate elites. Clearly, for an average Western Joe, "populist right" is just a better alternative. Liberal left simply can't understand that and just doubles-down on strategy that is making them lose popularity in the first place, thinking that electoral failures are due to "Russian misinofrmation" or some other imaginary boogeyman.

[Razor]

If I say 2+2=5 and call it Sukiyama's mathematics, that makes it no less coherent or logical, regardless of how I feel about it. I also fail to see any sort of ideological consistency on the part of far-right parties like AfD or Front Nationale. Certainly, as I previously said, they are not unique in that regard, but we have several decades of behavior on which to base on mainstream parties. But the rebuttal to this criticism isn't that mainstream parties are inconsistent on their economic policy. Indeed, the far-right is united in their belief that mainstream economics is all about enriching the elite in one giant conspiracy (regardless of whether it's by deliberate design or not) and destroying national sovereignty.

You don’t understand. If you push that 2+2=5 and say that’s called “Sukyama’s mathematics” and it catches on then you do have something. You’re looking at it from the wrong angle.
A nationalist economic policy doesn’t tell you about whether it’s liberal or socialist, but it does tell you something about the relation of the country’s policy towards foreign countries and foreign companies, its taxation on import/focus on export, protection of own businesses and from foreign take-overs, protection of its own labour market and its protectionist nature in general etc. That’s a facet that can be both part of a socialist and a liberal economic policy.
Also, if you don’t see at least some ideological consistency, being that they want to (re)focus on the nation state, national sovereignty and shared national/cultural identity, between the “far-right” nationalist parties then this discussion is pointless. That's a consistency in and of its own.

I find it odd that while these far-right parties mostly decry or reject the EU (with some even calling for referendum to remain part of it), when they do not realize that decreasing the power of the EU will hurt their own national economies that are so dependent on the trade that's based on the EEC. Similarly, while so many complain about how immigration and globalization has damaged their substantial welfare states, parties like Front Nationale and AfD explicitly talk about reducing certain parts of the welfare state because it hurts the economy.

These parties want to return to the old EEC that predated the EU and didn’t bind different types of economies to one single currency and European legislation didn’t meddle with national laws as much as they do today. Also they want to revision the Schengen Treaty as on the one hand it’s causing disturbances in the labor markets where cheap foreign labor outcompetes own labor markets in terms of costs and on the other hand wages and jobs get outsourced to countries where costs and wages are lower.
The costs of the welfare state is also a burden, but that in combination with the Schengen Treaty makes it attractive for workers from poorer countries within the EU as well as immigrants from outside the EU who manage to get into the EU to migrate to EU-countries where the welfare state is quite extensive and beneficial to them.

At the same time, constant talk of reducing bureaucratic red tape and regulations, while at the same time decrying global elites and globalization that made regulation and red tape powerless, thus allowing financial crisis and refugee crisis to wreak havoc in their own country. So which is it? Is it more regulations? Is it less regulations? The "Northern Periphery" of Europe constantly decries wealth transfers to the South that are enabled by the existence of the Euro monetary union. Which ignores the fact that the North dis-proportionally benefited from the Euro due to higher returns on capital in the South.

What they want is fair and effective, even decisive, management. The EU is incompetent, because the member states disagree over what policy there needs to be. The financial crisis revealed that the Euro isn’t suitable for both Northern European and Mediterranean countries, because Mediterranean economies are vastly different from the ones from Northern European countries. Countries like Germany insist on austerity while Southern European countries insisted on quantative easing and even bail outs.
You say that it’s the people in Norther Europe who benefit from the EU, but is that really the case? Is it really the people (possibly they do to an extent, indirectly) or the big companies, big industry and banks? Thing is that when push comes to shove and banks are in danger of falling over because of debt crises, it’s the governments (and the taxpayer) who will need to write the cheques to keep them afloat because the banks are “too big to fail”.
The refugee crisis showed that the EU only offered a solution on paper after the facts on the ground were already there and at least a few countries took some decisive measures and created a number of faits accompli on their own while the EU was busy holding sessions after sessions and was just running way behind of things that were happening. That also ties in well with the EU and Frontex that’s supposed to be guarding the exterior borders of the EU, but is way insufficient in doing so and national coast guards and NGO boats are ferrying migrants over from Africa to Europe, while at the same time the EU stands for open internal borders with no control whatsoever over who goes where.

This is laughable, the Germans, their elite in particular, have benefited hugely from the Euro and the European Union. If one were to actually be Nationalist, and pursuing Nationalist goals, one would think the only change they would make, is that of migrants and refugees entering Germany. But for some reason, the far-right of the European "North" is up in arms over anything and everything. Which indicates that this is less about a coherent ideological criticism, and more about faux outrage fueled by growing inequality.

No, the Euro and EU is good for German business and industry, not so much the Germans themselves. The average German often needs more than one job to earn a decent living, because of jobs that get paid poorly. There is growing inequality, but they also see that migration is changing the country and is pushing wages down. They simply wonder whom the Government and the Bondstag, the German federal Parliament, is actually representing, because they feel it’s no longer the German people, as is written on the exterior of the Reichstag.

What's funny to me, is that the ones to benefit from far-right policies are not going to be the average joe, or the average citizen of the "nation". But a localized category of political and financial elite who will benefit from a low tax-regime, and protectionist favored policies proposed by the far-right.

I don’t quite follow you at all. Why would the “far-right” be beneficial to the financial elite? The financial elite doesn’t want protectionist laws, they’re by nature ‘globalist’ because there’s more money to be earned abroad. They’re much more in favor of free trade and less hassle because of national legislations etc. If anything they’re the antagonists of the “far-right”.

[NosPortatArma]

In my opinion, this contradiction reveals the political immaturity of the far-right, as it seems incapable of formulating a consistent policy concerning our society's most vital issue, economy.

That's because it's you, not them, who labeled them as far right and then lumped together different groups. Secondly, the "far right" you seem to be talking about is simply nationalism. Ideologies are not symmetrical in what issues they care about. Just because socialism and capitalism exists as two polar opposities doesn't mean every other ideology must position itself someplace along that axis. Nationalism doesn't care about the economy in the same way as capitalism and socialism does, just as capitalism per se doesn't have any particular opinion of the nation. They support whatever policies they think are good for the nation, and if you look at their policies in that light, you will see it is much more consistent. You are simply attempting to understand them by assuming they value what the old capitalist-socialist paradigm cared about. They don't, they don't operate on the economic spectrum but on a nationalism vs globalism scale. Nationalism as such doesn't have any particular economic views, other than to further the national interests.

It also shares some clear similarities with the Stab-in-the-Back myth of post-WWI myth. Moreoever, I think that both conspiracy-theories have been created and developped in a remarkably similar manner.

I don't see any similarity at all actually. Most importantly, I don't even see what the myth or conspiracy is supposed to be. Is it not true that globalisation benefits the upper classes more than the masses? is it not true the elites, naturally, have great influence and that they are overwhelmingly liberal/socialist? Is it not true that in the last decades western countries have experienced truly radical changes brought on by globalisation, in terms of market liberalisation and immigration? The elites support it, because they benefit from it ideologically or economically, and the working class oppose it because they lose from it. Where's the conspiracy?..

I think you only failed to mention that immigration/immigrants and Muslims also tend to be scapegoated along with the Liberal elite. In fact they are often all included together like somee giant conspiracy.

They are mentioned together because it's the liberal elites who facilitate the immigration. I always find comparisons between modern muslims in the west to jews in the 30's to be ridiculous.. did the jewish population grow rapidly from immigration and higher birth rates, whilst exhibiting an antagonistic attitude towards the west, and be overrepresented in crime, be an economic drain, be noticably unwilling to assimilate, and cause social problems and even terrorism explicitly tied to their religion? Well, all of those things are generally true of muslim communities in the west today. Jews in the 30's were well assimilated, probably did less crime that others, and definitely didn't do any suicide bombings. The big difference is that the jews were innocent, victims to actual prejudice. Unlike the muslims in the west today, which are as a group, probably the most problematic minority group.

"What is also clear is that the policy of open borders practiced for decades, ever since 1955, this irrational migration policy for which the old parties are responsible, has bled us financially, as if we had lost another war,"

arguing that immigration isn't beneficial makes you hitler now?

The far-right has no economic coherence because their economics are often self-contradictory. They fear socialism and "socialist" economic policies, yet the oppose trade liberalization and embrace protectionism. This incoherence extends itself to other policy spheres.

see above reply to abdulmecid. Also, free trade =/= capitalism. The west has been capitalist for much longer than it has practised free trade. go back a few decades and protectionism was the norm, capitalist countries protecting the weaker parts of their economies from foreign competition.. as the east asians still do today. globalism, as done today, as nothing to do with capitalism per se.

Calling public news broadcaster like DW "partial", "Lügenpresse" or "fake news" without any evidence is a common narrative within far right conspiracy theories.

But they do lie and distort. this is undeniable surely.

I'm not too sure that right-wingers want a return to an idealized past per se, rather they want to stop certain ongoing trends and want to 'normalize' the current situation, where men are allowed to be 'men' again, white people don’t have to apologize for their skin color and their history to minorities, where the diversity madness is stopped and immigration from third world countries is curbed, and the national culture is respected and not constantly attacked by minorities. Generally they want to return to a (more recent) past where all this wasn't the case.

very well put and true.

There isn't such a thing as a "nationalist economic policy". That's something people make up when they don't want the wrong labels. I'm also not saying there isn't a middle ground, in fact, almost all economic policies are middle grounds due to the necessity of choosing second-best policies, rather than optimal solutions. What I am saying is that the far-right is logically inconsistent on economic issues.

they are not logically inconsistent. you're simply not seeing their logic because you assume they would be following socialist or capitalist logic, which they don't. they follow nationalist logic and values. as such, they want policies that support the nation.

I’m saying the categorisation is wrong. They’re not far right.

no serious analysis of ideologies can be made with the terms "left and right", because ideologies of course exists in more than 1 dimension. colliqually though, they're far right.. but the term is meaningless.