The neo-Bolsheviks: Corbyn and the alt-Right

Anne Applebaum, one of the leading historians of the horrors of Soviet Communism, writes on the 100th anniversary of the “Great October Revolution” (which, she notes, was not great, was not in October and was not a revolution):

History repeats itself and so do ideas, but never in exactly the same way. Bolshevik thinking in 2017 does not sound exactly the way it sounded in 1917. There are, it is true, still a few Marxists around. In Spain and Greece they have formed powerful political parties, though in Spain they have yet to win power and in Greece they have been forced by the realities of international markets, to quietly drop their “revolutionary” agenda. The current leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, also comes out of the old pro-Soviet far left. He has voiced anti-American, anti-NATO, anti-Israel, and even anti-British (and pro-IRA) sentiments for decades — predictable views that no longer sound shocking to a generation that cannot remember who sponsored them in the past. Within his party there is a core of radicals who speak of overthrowing capitalism and bringing back nationalization.

In the United States, the Marxist left has also consolidated on the fringes of the Democratic Party — and sometimes not even on the fringes — as well as on campuses, where it polices the speech of its members, fights to prevent students from hearing opposing viewpoints, and teaches a dark, negative version of American history, one calculated to create doubts about democracy and to cast shadows on all political debate. The followers of this new alt-left spurn basic patriotism and support America’s opponents, whether in Russia or the Middle East. As in Britain, they don’t remember the antecedents of their ideas and they don’t make a connection between their language and the words used by fanatics of a different era.

But so far, the new left, however fashionable it may be in some circles, is not in power, and thus has not managed to create a real revolution. In truth, the most influential contemporary Bolsheviks — the people who began, like Lenin and Trotsky, on the extremist fringes of political life and who are now in positions of power and real influence in several Western countries — come from a different political tradition altogether.

Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and Jaroslaw Kaczynski: although they are often described as “far-right” or “alt-right,” these neo-Bolsheviks have little to do with the right that has been part of Western politics since World War II, and they have no connection to existing conservative parties. In continental Europe, they scorn Christian Democracy, which had its political base in the church and sought to bring morality back to politics after the nightmare of the Second World War. Nor do they have anything to do with Anglo-Saxon conservatism, which promoted free markets, free speech and a Burkean small-c conservatism: skepticism of “progress,” suspicion of radicalism in all its forms, and a belief in the importance of conserving institutions and values.

Whether German or Dutch Christian Democrats, British Tories, American Republicans, East European ex-dissidents or French Gaullists, post-war Western conservatives have all been dedicated to representative democracy, religious tolerance, economic integration and the Western alliance.

By contrast, the neo-Bolsheviks of the new right or alt-right do not want to conserve or to preserve what exists. They are not Burkeans but radicals who want to overthrow existing institutions. Instead of the false and misleading vision of the future offered by Lenin and Trotsky, they offer a false and misleading vision of the past. They conjure up worlds made up of ethnically or racially pure nations, old-fashioned factories, traditional male-female hierarchies and impenetrable borders. Their enemies are homosexuals, racial and religious minorities, advocates of human rights, the media, and the courts. They are often not real Christians but rather cynics who use “Christianity” as a tribal identifier, a way of distinguishing themselves from their enemies: they are “Christians” fighting against “Muslims” — or against “liberals” if there are no “Muslims” available.

To an extraordinary degree, they have adopted Lenin’s refusal to compromise, his anti-democratic elevation of some social groups over others and his hateful attacks on his “illegitimate” opponents. Law and Justice, the illiberal nationalist ruling party in Poland, has sorted its compatriots into “true Poles” and “Poles of the worst sort.” Trump speaks of “real” Americans, as opposed to the “elite.” Stephen Miller, a Trump acolyte and speechwriter, recently used the word “cosmopolitan,” an old Stalinist moniker for Jews (the full term was “rootless cosmopolitan”), to describe a reporter asking him tough questions. “Real” Americans are worth talking to; “cosmopolitans” need to be eliminated from public life.

And no one should be surprised that Trump’s former strategist and current Breitbart News chairman media cheerleader Steve Bannon once called himself a Leninist. Lenin, he said, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
What all neo-Bolsheviks have in common is a sneering contempt for old-fashioned liberal democracy at home or abroad.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/11/07/the-neo-bolsheviks-corbyn-and-the-alt-right/

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Fuck off, you lying Nazi-apologist scum...

The totals are much closer than your bullshit alt.right meme would suggest..

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Is that your way of downplaying the evil of the Right? No one denies a lot of people died because of versions of communist ideology in the 20th century. Most died because of horrifically incompetent policies like collectivisation which were not realistically practicable. Many more died due to paranoid despots and their murderous frenzies. Communism does not warrant the extermination of peoples, but its adherents who used it led their countries to similar tragedy.

Nazism of course is significantly different. It demanded the extermination of millions from minority groups, in a way only a political ideology that grounds itself in superiority of groups and prejudice ever could.

Eilzel wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Is that your way of downplaying the evil of the Right? No one denies a lot of people died because of versions of communist ideology in the 20th century. Most died because of horrifically incompetent policies like collectivisation which were not realistically practicable. Many more died due to paranoid despots and their murderous frenzies. Communism does not warrant the extermination of peoples, but its adherents who used it led their countries to similar tragedy.

Nazism of course is significantly different. It demanded the extermination of millions from minority groups, in a way only a political ideology that grounds itself in superiority of groups and prejudice ever could.

And there you have one of the most piss poor apologist arguments for Communism.
As this is the symbol of Communist Russia
That had concentration camps
Murdered milllons of people, ethnically cleansed peoples and starved to death millions

Maybe you can point out from the many different countless examples of Communist nations in history that have not murdered people and given them civil rights?
You have countless to choose from

Communist Russia killed how many people over nearly 75 years ?

20 million ?   30 million ?


Hitler's mob killed 15 million over 'the Holocaust' alone (6 million Jews, 9 million non-Jews.. ); plus all those during WWII  --  not only millions killed during fighting,  but also an estimated 20+ million Russians who died during that same period..

These are those figures that the far-right denialists like dick head and SmellyNaziLover will deny.

The alt.right also likes to claim these days that "over 100 million" people died in the Soviet Union --  a ridiculous and grossly exaggerated figure, with no actual explanations to back up their ongoing lies..            

(Even adding the 20+ million who died in China during Mao's reign onto Russia, that gives between 40 and 50 million for the two big Commie empires --  roughly the same as can be laid at Hitlers jackbooted feet..).

Like I said above,  the true figures are still much closer than our resident nazi-denialist clique will try and deny..        (And, let's not even touch self-declared "genius" Tommy's insane claims that Hitler was the biggest commie of all time..).

Eilzel wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Is that your way of downplaying the evil of the Right? No one denies a lot of people died because of versions of communist ideology in the 20th century. Most died because of horrifically incompetent policies like collectivisation which were not realistically practicable. Many more died due to paranoid despots and their murderous frenzies. Communism does not warrant the extermination of peoples, but its adherents who used it led their countries to similar tragedy.

Nazism of course is significantly different. It demanded the extermination of millions from minority groups, in a way only a political ideology that grounds itself in superiority of groups and prejudice ever could.

so nazism is worse because it deliberately kills people whereas corbyn will kill people because he is incompetent

thats good news for all involved

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Is that your way of downplaying the evil of the Right? No one denies a lot of people died because of versions of communist ideology in the 20th century. Most died because of horrifically incompetent policies like collectivisation which were not realistically practicable. Many more died due to paranoid despots and their murderous frenzies. Communism does not warrant the extermination of peoples, but its adherents who used it led their countries to similar tragedy.

Nazism of course is significantly different. It demanded the extermination of millions from minority groups, in a way only a political ideology that grounds itself in superiority of groups and prejudice ever could.

And there you have one of the most piss poor apologist arguments for Communism.
As this is the symbol of Communist Russia
That had concentration camps
Murdered milllons of people, ethnically cleansed peoples and starved to death millions

Maybe you can point out from the many different countless examples of Communist nations in history that have not murdered people and given them civil rights?
You have countless to choose from

And did the Soviet Union murder millions because of the ideology of communism or because of Stalinism? Millions starved due to the failure of collectivisation.

I am not being an apologist here, Soviet, Maoist and other forms of totalitarian communism were horrific, but that was down to awful leadership more than the ideology itself.

Nazism is outright evil and can only lead to attrocious outcomes.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


And there you have one of the most piss poor apologist arguments for Communism.
As this is the symbol of Communist Russia
That had concentration camps
Murdered milllons of people, ethnically cleansed peoples and starved to death millions

Maybe you can point out from the many different countless examples of Communist nations in history that have not murdered people and given them civil rights?
You have countless to choose from

And did the Soviet Union murder millions because of the ideology of communism or because of Stalinism? Millions starved due to the failure of collectivisation.

I am not being an apologist here, Soviet, Maoist and other forms of totalitarian communism were horrific, but that was down to awful leadership more than the ideology itself.

Nazism is outright evil and can only lead to attrocious outcomes.

Yes they did murder and ethnically cleanse many ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, clearly showing you have no idea on the actual history at the time with Stalin

The ideology of Nazism in its beginnings did not call on the murder of the Jews either. It was the later views of Hitler and others that conceived the final solution. So your views to compare are based on complete babble

So in each case it was down to the leaders Hitler and Stalin (as well as Lenin) that conceived the murder of countless ethnic groups.

The reality is this and i see you could not answer my question. In every Communist state that there has ever been, people are denied civil rights and are persecuted and murdered

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


And there you have one of the most piss poor apologist arguments for Communism.
As this is the symbol of Communist Russia
That had concentration camps
Murdered milllons of people, ethnically cleansed peoples and starved to death millions

Maybe you can point out from the many different countless examples of Communist nations in history that have not murdered people and given them civil rights?
You have countless to choose from

And did the Soviet Union murder millions because of the ideology of communism or because of Stalinism? Millions starved due to the failure of collectivisation.

I am not being an apologist here, Soviet, Maoist and other forms of totalitarian communism were horrific, but that was down to awful leadership more than the ideology itself.

Nazism is outright evil and can only lead to attrocious outcomes.

Yes they did murder and ethnically cleanse many ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, clearly showing you have no idea on the actual history at the time with Stalin

The ideology of Nazism in its beginnings did not call on the murder of the Jews either. It was the later views of Hitler and others that conceived the final solution. So your views to compare are based on complete babble

So in each case it was down to the leaders Hitler and Stalin (as well as Lenin) that conceived the murder of countless ethnic groups.

The reality is this and i see you could not answer my question. In every Communist state that there has ever been, people are denied civil rights and are persecuted and murdered

But did they ethnically cleanse in the Soviet Union because of communism or because of the leadership?

Did Nazism envision a superior people or not? It did, and such a view naturally can lead to the persecutions under Nazism.

I didn't answer your last question because it is besides the point. Show me any totalitarian regime that hasn't done those things, left or right.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes they did murder and ethnically cleanse many ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, clearly showing you have no idea on the actual history at the time with Stalin

The ideology of Nazism in its beginnings did not call on the murder of the Jews either. It was the later views of Hitler and others that conceived the final solution. So your views to compare are based on complete babble

So in each case it was down to the leaders Hitler and Stalin (as well as Lenin) that conceived the murder of countless ethnic groups.

The reality is this and i see you could not answer my question. In every Communist state that there has ever been, people are denied civil rights and are persecuted and murdered

But did they ethnically cleanse in the Soviet Union because of communism or because of the leadership?

Did Nazism envision a superior people or not? It did, and such a view naturally can lead to the persecutions under Nazism.

I didn't answer your last question because it is besides the point. Show me any totalitarian regime that hasn't done those things, left or right.

The answer to your question is undoubtedly yes, that they did ethnically cleanse due to their views on Communism, as they saw such groups as threats to Communism itself.

Nazism was a racist ideology, completely abhorant, of which i have not denied, but in its political form there was no actual form to wipe out a people. It certainly was always going to lead to discrimination and persecution, again I am not denying. Its the reality that Hitler took over and wished to eradicate the Jews. You see at this time it was not just Nazi Germany, even Poland had conceived ideas to ethnically cleanse its nation of the Jews. Views were formed to forcibly remove them to other places.

So you admit that Communism is Totalitarian, as lets face it, the reality it needs to be in order to function.

You hold a poor apologist view point on a failed ideology

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes they did murder and ethnically cleanse many ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, clearly showing you have no idea on the actual history at the time with Stalin

The ideology of Nazism in its beginnings did not call on the murder of the Jews either. It was the later views of Hitler and others that conceived the final solution. So your views to compare are based on complete babble

So in each case it was down to the leaders Hitler and Stalin (as well as Lenin) that conceived the murder of countless ethnic groups.

The reality is this and i see you could not answer my question. In every Communist state that there has ever been, people are denied civil rights and are persecuted and murdered

But did they ethnically cleanse in the Soviet Union because of communism or because of the leadership?

Did Nazism envision a superior people or not? It did, and such a view naturally can lead to the persecutions under Nazism.

I didn't answer your last question because it is besides the point. Show me any totalitarian regime that hasn't done those things, left or right.

The answer to your question is undoubtedly yes, that they did ethnically cleanse due to their views on Communism, as they saw such groups as threats to Communism itself.

Nazism was a racist ideology, completely abhorant, of which i have not denied, but in its political form there was no actual form to wipe out a people. It certainly was always going to lead to discrimination and persecution, again I am not denying. Its the reality that Hitler took over and wished to eradicate the Jews. You see at this time it was not just Nazi Germany, even Poland had conceived ideas to ethnically cleanse its nation of the Jews. Views were formed to forcibly remove them to other places.

So you admit that Communism is Totalitarian, as lets face it, the reality it needs to be in order to function.

You hold a poor apologist view point on a failed ideology

Communism is not inherrently totalitarian, and I mentioned totalitarian regimes both Left and Right.

Also, attacking groups that opposed the politics of a regime is not attacking them because of the inate beliefs of that ideology.

I stand by the communist view of the wealthy paying more to support those in need. I support a degree of wealth distribution. I do not, however, support discrimination or persecution of any kind.

My overall point though, was that there is a straight line from Nazism to persecution that doesn't exist with communism.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

The answer to your question is undoubtedly yes, that they did ethnically cleanse due to their views on Communism, as they saw such groups as threats to Communism itself.

Nazism was a racist ideology, completely abhorant, of which i have not denied, but in its political form there was no actual form to wipe out a people. It certainly was always going to lead to discrimination and persecution, again I am not denying. Its the reality that Hitler took over and wished to eradicate the Jews. You see at this time it was not just Nazi Germany, even Poland had conceived ideas to ethnically cleanse its nation of the Jews. Views were formed to forcibly remove them to other places.

So you admit that Communism is Totalitarian, as lets face it, the reality it needs to be in order to function.

You hold a poor apologist view point on a failed ideology

Communism is not inherrently totalitarian, and I mentioned totalitarian regimes both Left and Right.

Also, attacking groups that opposed the politics of a regime is not attacking them because of the inate beliefs of that ideology.

I stand by the communist view of the wealthy paying more to support those in need. I support a degree of wealth distribution. I do not, however, support discrimination or persecution of any kind.

My overall point though, was that there is a straight line from Nazism to persecution that doesn't exist with communism.

Really? then how do you adopt its policies if not by force? Proven by the fact in every example of history this has actually happened?

Utter rubbish on every level. They were perceived based on their ethnicity as a threat to Communism. They were seen as a people inherantly opposed to Communism, not based on their beliefs, but how they were perceived ethnically by the leaders of the Soviet Union.

You can support what you like, that does not mean that in every case it still requires Totalitarianism to enable such a view. Its you and this ideology forcing a view onto people.

Well can you show me an example of Communism that has not persecuted people and given then civil rights?

There has only been one Nazi state in history and countless Communist ones

That's because the base, core views of communism are all about supporting the majority, the working people, against the rich and powerful. The problem is the leaders who adopted it.

Eilzel wrote:That's because the base, core views of communism are all about supporting the majority, the working people, against the rich and powerful. The problem is the leaders who adopted it.

Which means discriminating against the rich does it not?

Thus it is an inherantly prejudiced ideology