The sad thing is many of them wear these committee roles like a form of badge of honour when most people think they are just busybodies with nothing better to do. Next time take notice of the left winger when rattling out their past committees and boards that they have been on. Pretty pathetic.

Say what? And there goes the remaining shreds of your credibility. That was too easy.

Back to topic don’t you think Danyl? I still am wondering why you think compulsory membership is worth defending. And, just in case you didn’t, why then all the nonsense attacking the BRT? God it must get awfully busy in that head of yours.

..as has any group that has strayed from obeisance to the Marxist scriptures promoted by the left and their mainstream media agents.

Funny that, when Nazi is short for national SOCIALIST WORKER’S party.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772824/posts

It’s a real shame that ACT has wound up sharing the landscape of it’s political nomenclature with the Nazi party, but that’s not really my problem and I’m not going to stop using a universally recognised terminology just to indulge the worlds couple dozen surviving ACT supporters.

I’d also add that the far left, such as the Greens and Progressives presumably have the same cross to bear about being thrown into the same category as Stalin and Pol Pot. Again, kind of sad but not really my problem either.

I will repeat what I said in my last post-

“The point is Danyl that you referred to the BRT as a “far-right lobby group”, a tactic often used by the left (although not necessarily by you) to associate it with what most people see as far-right politics- fascism.”

Geddit??

If you believe the left-right axis is so inaccuarte, why do you use the loaded term “far-right”.

Ahem

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Not at all, provided one fit into the little Aryan box Nazis deemed necessary to be a good citizen.

Not really. Even if one were Aryan there was massive state imposed gender and sexual orientation inequality.

Anyway . . .

Do you then regard ACT and the CIS as “far-right”?? These groups do not appear to fit into your classification as far-right on social issues.

Andrew, if you look closely you’ll see that I anticipated this line of debate and carefully framed my description of the BRT in economic terms:

in economic terms (which are the only ones the BRT is interested in) left and right are distinguished by three main factors . . .

We can carry on debating the political economy of fascism and the accuracy of the left-right axis all you like but it doesn’t detract from my original point that in terms of political economy the BRT (and CIS, and ACT) are far-right.

Not at all, provided one fit into the little Aryan box Nazis deemed necessary to be a good citizen.

But that’s getting a little off the point.

Do you then regard ACT and the CIS as “far-right”?? These groups do not appear to fit into your classification as far-right on social issues.

Are you saying that fascist groups are “far-right” socially, and centrist economically; while groups like the BRT, ACT and CIS are centrist socially (the latter two in particular), and “far-right” economically??

So it would be fair to say that these groups have absolutely nothing in common and it would be quite unfair to tarnish them both with the same “far-right” brush??

Odd that those three things you mention, it is often parties many would call “far-right” (BNP, NF, Nazis etc) that espouse state intervention by a large state, and equality for all citizens being paramount rather than freedom.

As you already know, the left-right axis is two dimensional and economic issues is only half of the picture. The other issue of different runs down the social liberal/conservative line.

The fascists they advocated a strong state but also a strong private industry. The state acted as the main buyer and seller in the economy but property and capital remained in private hands. This puts them in the centre of the economic axis, but their social policies (church, kitchen, children ect) put them far to the right in terms of the liberal/conservative divide.

And I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that the Nazis were in favor of ‘equality for all citizens’. They seemed to practise the opposite.

State intervention in the economy
Size of the State
Equality over freedom”

Danyl,
Odd that those three things you mention, it is often parties many would call “far-right” (BNP, NF, Nazis etc) that espouse state intervention by a large state, and equality for all citizens being paramount rather than freedom.

Does that mean these groups are far-left?

If they are far right I’d hate to get your analysis on where Anderton or the Greens lie on your spectrum. Left of centre? Sheesh, and I suspect you’ll put Comrade Stalin about centre left right?

Danyl – could you elaborate on what sort of policies qualify as far right and what qualifies as far left?

Since you sprinkle the terms around on yuor blog like confetti I find it surprising you’re so confused about their meaning. I guess it’s a nice way for you to distract the conversation from my original point: that your original comparison between student unions and the BRT is disingeniuous and false.

Anyway, to answer your question: in economic terms (which are the only ones the BRT is interested in) left and right are distinguished by three main factors:

State intervention in the economy
Size of the State
Equality over freedom

People who want total state control of the economy, an all-powerful state (nationalised property and industry, ect) and absolute equality are on the far left side of the spectrum and referred to as communists. People on the far-right want no state intervention (sell all the schools, hospitals, state-owned assets ect), minimal state (usually just police, army and courts) and value freedom over equality.

The BRT are pretty candid about what kind of political economy they want for New Zealand – it’s firmly on the far-right of the political economic spectrum.

And to expand upon my original point – the BRT is not a very representitive organisation. It lobbies for a very small number of super-rich individuals. The Employers and Manufacturers assocition is the group that represents the vast majority of New Zealand businesses, not the BRT. The EMA are the people who actually engage with the government and try to force concessions from them while the BRT are braying into the wind about selling off all our hospitals and privatising the National Parks.

Sinner, I didn’t know that was an ACT policy to do all that, but I would agree with it!