What is the Political Stake and everyone is attacking the so-called Far Right?

The landslide victory of Marine Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (RN) party – almost doubling its votes – in the June 30 French parliamentary elections will further fuel the intense debate that has begun, long before the European elections, about the rise of the Far Right.

In a week (7/7), in the decisive second round of elections, it will be seen whether or not the RN will secure an absolute majority in the National Assembly and appoint the new prime minister of France. And in the background comes Trump in the American elections in November.

Recently, there is no article, analysis or interview that does not refer to Akrodexia. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this report points to the dangers to the institutions of representative democracy and fears of the re-emergence of fascism-Nazism.

A systematic, organized and large-scale propaganda is being carried out to recall memories and phobias of the past in the collective subconscious. But what does the so-called Far Right represent? Why does it receive such a huge attack from the self-proclaimed right-center-right, left-center-left, green-environmentalists and other systemic forces placed in between? What, after all, is the political stake in our time?

In recent centuries, from the French Revolution onwards, conservative parties that sought to maintain the status quo were characterized as right-wing. These parties defended the state-national sovereignty, the capitalist economy, the existing social and productive relations as well as the religious and cultural values ​​of each people.

On the contrary, the parties that sought (reformist or revolutionary) the change of the status quo, according to the evolving social needs, were characterized as left. These parties aimed at the overthrow or state control (with Keynesian policies) of the capitalist production system, the redistribution of wealth, the limitation of class divisions and the liberation from social stereotypes. That is why they were gradually called off.

In today’s era, especially since the 90s, when capitalism has entered a new stage, that of globalization, the concepts of Right and Left have completely changed their content. The Right adopted the edicts of the Left and the Left those of the Right.

Right and Left are now pillars of globalization whose main pillars are the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods and services and the free movement of people (immigration) in order to create a single world market and a common consumer culture, as required by needs of international financial capital and multinational enterprises. Today, the main obstacle to globalization policies are the states – nations with their special interests.

Now it is the Right that seeks to overturn the status quo. National sovereignty is systematically degraded and large parts of it are ceded to supranational organizations such as the EU and the Eurozone. State borders become permeable to migration flows. Strategic infrastructures and businesses are sold off to private individuals – the state is weakened. Domestic production of the agricultural sector, crafts and industry is left unprotected (without duties and taxes) to international competition. The historical identity of the nation is degraded and the homogenous society turns into a multicultural one. The historical accounts, value code, religion, morals and customs and cultural values ​​of any nation are considered outdated – reactionary remnants. The Right also became international. The question is: How can there be a Far Right when there is no Right?

The overwhelmingly larger part of the self-proclaimed Left acts in the same direction. To its earlier internationalism was added ethnonihilism and all kinds of entitlement, e.g. for economic immigrants, for sexual peculiarities, etc. The globalist Left identifies itself with all the basic political choices of globalization. For the Right and the Left there is only one dominant ideological and political proposition which they call “political correctness”.

Against this paver of the deconstruction and dissolution of nations, identities, moral values, economic and labor data, social constants and national security, it was inevitable that strong reactions would develop. In almost all the countries of Europe, parties appeared with positions against globalization or even against some of its manifestations.

These parties promote the restoration of national sovereignty, the development of the domestic economy, the defense of the homogeneity of the population, they are opposed to immigration flows and do not wish to transform their societies into multicultural ones, they oppose the so-called “green transition” and defend the traditional cultural values. In other words, they want their peoples to maintain their identities.

Right-center-right, Left-center-left groups and others accuse these parties of being far-right, nationalist, authoritarian, populist, Eurosceptic, racist, homophobic, as friends of Putin and Trump. These parties can only be characterized as patriotic, since they defend national interests against the internationalism of globalization.

The propaganda of the globalists warns of the danger of a new Mussolini or Hitler. But, fascism – Nazism dominated in some European countries during the interwar period, after the Russian revolution of 1917 prevailed and was the response of the then bourgeois and petty bourgeoisie to the danger of Bolshevism and collectivization. Today such a threat does not exist, so there is no social basis for the revival of fascist or Nazi parties and regimes. On the contrary, the modern threat to freedom, democracy and the dignity of peoples comes from the ideological, political, economic and cultural totalitarianism of globalization.

However, all kinds of characterizations are not enough to stop the reaction to globalization. Recently, several articles and analyzes have appeared, which place the so-called far-right parties within the existing system or classify them in the para-system, that is, in the para-state. But if this is the case, why this furious polemic against them? What can the system fear from a “parastate” of its own?

In Europe, the patriotic parties have not formed an International, as the “Communist International” used to be. In the recently elected European Parliament, they form three different groups (ECR – Meloni, ID – Le Pen and Orbán’s Fidesz with others). These parties have common ideological and political references, but each one determines its tactics according to the major problems of each country, the political correlations and the necessary alliances, in order to increase its electoral power or take power.

The war in Ukraine is another decisive field of confrontation between the ruling system and the patriotic parties, because Russia is a country outside the framework of globalization. In Italy, Meloni supports military aid to Ukraine but opposes sending troops, Hungary’s B. Orban rejected any weapons delivery to Kiev, and the AfD (Alternative for Germany) opposes the continuation of the war and calls for restoration of relations with Moscow.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *