But in order to be a far-right extremist, you only have to say something like "saving money is good" or "being in debt is bad."
-Renegade
Not true. But you have your agenda I suppose. 
-40hz
Try discussing monetary policy, currency, etc. You'll very quickly find that only "far-right extremists" advocate things like that.
Here's a quick example from a professor of economics at Oxford:
http://mainlymacro.b...esian-economics.htmlSo my argument is that Keynesian theory is not left wing...
Etc. etc.
Keynesian economics is framed as centrist. He puts fiscal conservatism on the far right. And he's far from alone.
Now, keep in mind chapter 2 of "The Communist Manifesto" and this:
https://www.marxists...t-manifesto/ch02.htmNevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
...
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Which are also central tenants of Keynesian economics. i.e. Progressive taxation and central banks.
I could blather on about this for quite some time, but I think I've sufficiently made my point: All you need to do to be a right-wing extremist is to advocate fiscal responsibility outside of a Keynesian/communist model.
NOTE: I've picked economics for the example deliberately as there is a stronger argument to be made that economics is a science compared to some other areas where someone might also be called "right-wing", though with much greater justification.
For a quick diversion there:
http://www.theguardi...ience-robert-shillerThe advance of behavioural economics is not fundamentally in conflict with mathematical economics, as some seem to think, though it may well be in conflict with some currently fashionable mathematical economic models. And, while economics presents its own methodological problems, the basic challenges facing researchers are not fundamentally different from those faced by researchers in other fields. As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed.
• Robert J. Shiller, a 2013 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Yale University.
And just some random, dissenting opinion... And one more from The Harvard Crimson...Also, since the article itself is about "traditional hard science", it makes little sense to frame the example in the same terms. As to whether economics is a science, that all depends on who you listen to. The mainstream or establishment view is that it is a science. This is debatable. Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism" (1936~1957 [a bit complicated - it was first a reading, then a full book but lacked publication for a number of years]) helps to clarify how the point can be contested. Part of the inspiration for the book was Popper wanting to illustrate how both communism and fascism drew inspiration from historicism. Expanding on the quote above:
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Each point made is clearly within the domain of economics, with only point #10 being remotely contestable.
So at a minimum we can see how Marxism (and thus Marxist economics) falls into that category of historicism that Popper wishes to attack. The same holds for fascism.
It might be useful to note that the first reading of the paper "The Poverty of Historicism" was at the invite of Friedrich von Hayek, a classical liberal economist, who at the time would have been considered more "centrist" than today. Here's a fun tidbit to help make that point:
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Friedrich_HayekIn 1984, he was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for his "services to the study of economics".
I think we know where most people put Thatcher.
But, why would I spend so long blather on about Karl Popper?
http://plato.stanfor....edu/entries/popper/Additionally, Peter Medawar, John Eccles and Hermann Bondi are amongst the distinguished scientists who have acknowledged their intellectual indebtedness to his work, the latter declaring that 'There is no more to science than its method, and there is no more to its method than Popper has said.'
Because in a thread about science it's useful to understand the man (and his writings) who basically defined science.
But back to the example being one of economics...
If we are to take science as neutral, but economics as political, can we take economics as science? That seems like a hard pill to swallow. Or do we take economics as potentially science, and potentially political, with some criteria by which we can separate the two? I would say that it lies entirely in the answer to whether or not its statements can be falsified.
If I can briefly rephrase my original 2 statements:
Original:
saving money is good
Rephrased:
It is advantageous to have resources to freely draw upon at will
Original:
being in debt is bad
Rephrased:
It is disadvantageous to have future labour allocated to uses that have no personal benefit (this could be better phrased, but close enough)
Whether or not those statements are falsifiable may be open to debate, but that saying them will end up with you being called "right-wing" isn't really up for debate because it happens. Regularly. The SPLC and Mark Potok are great examples there.
Recent Posts
