Wow, how fucked. Though there has been so much anti-Chinese racism as part of the 'free Tibet movement' lately I am sure the New Right felt right at home
rebel love
Dave
I didn't think anyone could deflect the argument of Tibet in a stupid direction like this but it seems someone has.
Two things must be remembered.
China is not truly Socialist, in fact if you look at the police state they live in with their harsh penalties and death squads it is one of the most Right wing countries there is.
Secondly, rather than shame the supporters of the fascist regime that took Chinese flags and flocked in the thousands to intimidate the Tibetans you have generalised anyone supporting Tibet's cause.
And who said the horseshoe theory was dead and buried?
"China is not truly Socialist, in fact if you look at the police state they live in with their harsh penalties and death squads it is one of the most Right wing countries there is."
Maybe. China claims to be Communist. It's ruled by the Communist Party of China (CPC), and has been since 1949 (officially). As to whether or not it's 'Socialist', I dunno, but harsh legal penalties (up to and including the death sentence) have been utilised by all such regimes (I know of no exceptions -- perhaps you do). In other words, both left- and right-wing regimes commit (what I presume you would declare to be) 'human rights abuses'.
"Secondly, rather than shame the supporters of the fascist regime that took Chinese flags and flocked in the thousands to intimidate the Tibetans you have generalised anyone supporting Tibet's cause."
If what you mean is that I've described any and all those who protested in Canberra regarding China's occupation of Tibet as being in some way supportive of the New Right, you're simply wrong: I've done no such thing. As far as I'm aware, in addition to Tibetan nationalists, there were members of the Greens (MPs Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle, among others), socialists and various human rights activists in Canberra. Support for Tibetan nationalism, in other words, draws from a range of political perspectives. In my opinion, the New Right were there to engage in a publicity stunt, just as they were at the APEC protests.
"And who said the horseshoe theory was dead and buried?"
The earliest reference to 'horseshoe theory' I can find occurs on a blog, ex candore decus, dated October 4, 2007. It reads:
"Horseshoe Theory
I have a friend that majored in Political Science in college, and even worked for a Congressman. While we’re on different sides of the political spectrum, we’re really not that far off in our beliefs - both trending towards the middle. That conforms to a theory he’s developed, which he calls the ‘Horseshoe Theory’.
Imagine a horseshoe. At each end point, are the people that subscribe to the extreme right and left political views. Extrapolate those views up the horseshoe to the middle. If you notice, the two extremes are closer together, which is the point of this theory: Those espousing the extreme political views are more closer together in thought then they would believe. The majority of the people on the spectrum fall into the heavier top part of the horseshoe."
http://www.ex-candore-decus.com/?p=94
Drawing a political equivalence between the extreme right and left is obviously not new; what's new is the use of the image of a horseshoe to provide a graphic illustration.
What this has to do with the protest in Canberra, or what I've written regarding it, I'm not sure. Are you suggesting that the 'extreme left' (a reference, perhaps, to members of the Democratic Socialist Perspective) and the extreme right (the New Right), because both attended the Canberra protest, are alike?
From a memory of one of my US History courses - there was an American sociology academic in the 1950/60s who spent several hundred pages to come to the conclusion that political philosophies could be said to exist on a circular continuum, with Nazism and Soviet Communism/Chinese Maoism sitting almost side by side.
Not at all. DSP is a Socialist organisation which bases its ideology on Trotskyism as opposed to Stalinist states such as China, Cuba and Nth Korea which go against the true theory of Socialism/Communism. The DSP is a party that is willing to work within the system of Capitalism to reform it in ways seen more commonly in Venezuela.
Your story focuses on this 'New Right' whilst completely ignoring the crimes that take place in China. If you want to talk about a Big Brother Government look at regulation of media and the internet there, look at the imperialistic expansionary policy and nationalist claims on Tibet and Taiwan. Does this sound like a Left country? It's the furthest to the left? It's Communist isn't it? China as it stands is no better than Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Apartheid South Africa.
When you describe the New Right who exactly are you talking about? There are numerous forms of "RIGHT", economically (Thatcher-Reagan or differently, 19th century style monopolising capitalism), Socially (pro life, religious nuts [America and Iran]) or are you referring to the Neo-Nazis? Groups like Australia First and One Nation?
If so there must be a distinction made. Whilst yes they are Right, economically you will be hard pressed to distinguish the policies of far Right groups like One Nation, National Party, Australia [First] Party from the Greens and Socialist Alliance.
What do they have in common you ask? National protectionist policy. Going back to the 1960s and before, there was a fear of foreign ownership and 'yanks and japs taking over'. Protectionist policies were racist, used to keep overseas competitors out and worst of all creating oligopoly, meaning the only protection was the protection of profits for big business, not for the workers.
G'day Interesting,
A few points.
1) The DSP does describe itself as being socialist. However, technically speaking, it abandoned orthodox Trotskyism in the 1980s, when it was known as the Socialist Workers' Party. In August 1985, the Party withdrew from the Fourth (Trotskyist) International (United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI or USec)). Since then it has pursued building solidarity with the 'socialist' regimes in Nicaragua (defunct), Cuba (ongoing) and, in recent years, Venezuela under Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. With regards its political strategies in Australia, it employs the Socialist Alliance to contest elections.
2) My story does refer to the New Right. What I mean by that, in this context, is made explicit by clinking on the link where the term first appears. The blog entry ignores human rights abuses by the Chinese regime because it's not concerned with documenting them. But if anyone wishes to read more about these crimes, there's certainly no shortage of information available elsewhere. By the same token, I make no reference to the economic, social or political conditions in Tibet prior to the (re-)establishment of Chinese control, but this should not be read as indicating either my ignorance or approval of that state-of-affairs. (Pre-1950 Tibet was a feudal theocracy.) The same goes for the Chinese regime's attempts at media censorship (which, in relation to the Internet, it conducts in full co-operation, incidentally, with US-based TNCs).
3) Regarding the meaning of both 'communism' and 'socialism', I think it's worthwhile making a distinction between these two understood as constituting a body of theory, on the one hand, and a body of practice, on the other. In this sense, it's possible to note numerous contradictions, both between practice and theory, but also between competing schools and understandings of both 'communism' and 'socialism'. The important thing is to arrive at a commonly-understood definition; otherwise, we risk simply speaking at cross-purposes.
So, in terms of the relationship between contemporary China, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and apartheid South Africa, yes, there are parallels, but so too are there differences. These differences are important, not only because they exist in reality, but also because our understanding of these regimes also shape how we respond to them. The examples you provide are largely -- but not entirely -- of historical, not contemporary, significance, whereas the nature of contemporary China is, to the extent that we wish to understand and respond to its existence, of much more importance. And I think it more productive to understand contemporary China as a legacy of the Communist movement of the early twentieth century, and as a nation-state which for the past few decades has undergone 'economic liberalisation'; that is, a fuller incorporation into the world market, on the basis of new state policies...
Obviously, a great deal more could be said on this subject, and there exists a vast literature on the subject. Suffice it to say that, while it's important to make note of and condemn the crimes committed by the Chinese state -- not only against Tibetan nationals, but its own citizens -- I think a political analysis should proceed from additional bases. That is, what's going on in China? To simply reduce this to stating that China is just like Nazi Germany et cetera I think is radically insufficient.
4) I disagree with you regarding your understanding of the economic policies of One Nation, National, Australia First, the Greens and Socialist Alliance Parties.
To begin with, the most obvious exception in this lineup of suspects is the National Party. National Party economic policy essentially mirrors that of their Coalition partners, the Tories. The only real deviation is with regards the interests of a small number of farmers and rural business. Their influence is waning partly as a result of their inability to protect these interests from market forces. This helps to explain why they've been reduced to holding just ten seats in the Lower House nationwide (their worst result since 1943), and just six in the Senate.
One of the principal distinctions between the Greens and SA and the far right, in terms of economic policy, lies in the extent to which the former incorporates the concept of 'sustainability', and a conscious commitment to the re-distribution of social wealth to workers.
As for protectionism, its real erosion began under the Hawke-Keating regime. These policies were not 'racist', but aimed at allowing Australian industry, in particular manufacturing, to develop with Government assistance most notably in the form of tariffs on imported manufactures. The manner in which the benefits of such policies flowed principally to Australian-based manufacturers -- that is, outside of the provision of jobs in the manufacturing sector -- was a result of other policy commitments, and therefore not the inevitable consequence of 'protectionism' as such.
Commenting by HaloScan
