Brazil elects new president - Why are the left wing BBC and guardian claiming he is 'far right'...?

First topic message reminder :

Jair Messias Bolsonaro is a Brazilian politician and former military officer who is the President-elect of Brazil. He has served as a member of the Chamber of Deputies, representing the state of Rio de Janeiro, since 1991. He is a member of the Social Liberal Party.


BBC headline...

Jair Bolsonaro: Far-right candidate wins Brazil poll



Guardian headline...

Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro wins presidential vote – as it happened




Can anyone explain what it is that makes him 'far right'...???


Or are the left wing media lying again...?

Just like they do when they try to label other political party's as 'far right', in UK and across Europe...?

I shall bump this to keep it fresh until such time as Tommy answers the same questions that Didge, Les and I have have asked of him.
Namely...What is YOUR definition of Far Right, and which groups, parties and/ or people belong in that category?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


We all know North Korea isn't democratic... I've never said it was...


But that has nothing to do with Brazil... whereby this man and party were democratically elected... and there is nothing you have said that defines them as far right... it's just a label that lefty's like to throw around at anyone they don't like...!!!

Wrong. It is hilarious you claim them not be far-right, whipe ignoring all the factors I mentioned which put them in absolute opposition to Left/liberals, amd without even bothering to state what you believe to define the far right. So, what EXACTLY do YOU think makes a party Far Right?

And if you acknowledge the Democratic Republic of Korea is NOT democratic, despite its name, you can acknowledge a party may not be socially liberal despite being called a Social Liberal party, right?

Socially liberal doesn't necessarily mean having to comply with your favoured 'progressive' lefty agenda of pro homo promotion and propaganda, and political correctness etc...


As I said, actively promoting homosexuality and elevating its status to a lorded position that it is undeserving of is an extreme... just like the opposite extreme is actively persecuting homosexuals and throwing them off buildings...


A socially liberal position sounds more like middle ground whereby homosexuality is allowed but not promoted or persecuted, but instead heterosexuality/marriage and family is promoted as the right way of things...


And also socially liberal sounds more to me like allowing more freedom to the majority of law abiding citizens to be treated like adults and to behave like adults instead of being restricted and dictated to by a lefty nanny state that is always trying to treat everyone like children and telling people what they can and can't do within the lefty enforced agenda based views on things...



And one more thing... I haven't run away... I've been busy at work!!!


I've asked didge, Andy and Les to define far right here and on other threads, as well as ask them to justify voting against British democracy by voting in favour of being in the EU dictatorship... (as well as questions on other things)... and they have all consistently run away!!!

Socially liberal actually means minimal government interference in people's social lives. Your nonsense about "promoting" heterosexuality as "the right way of things" sounds like authoritarian right-wing bullshit.

Tom took his usual, cowardly way out when he has lost the debate and cannot answer a simple question. Tom white feather Monk runs away and hides.

Where is Jackboot, Black shirt, Tommy the Hun Monk when you want an answer to a simple question?

I think we shot him down in flames, just as out brave boys and girls did to his Luftwaffe in WW2.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Socially liberal doesn't necessarily mean having to comply with your favoured 'progressive' lefty agenda of pro homo promotion and propaganda, and political correctness etc...


As I said, actively promoting homosexuality and elevating its status to a lorded position that it is undeserving of is an extreme... just like the opposite extreme is actively persecuting homosexuals and throwing them off buildings...


A socially liberal position sounds more like middle ground whereby homosexuality is allowed but not promoted or persecuted, but instead heterosexuality/marriage and family is promoted as the right way of things...


And also socially liberal sounds more to me like allowing more freedom to the majority of law abiding citizens to be treated like adults and to behave like adults instead of being restricted and dictated to by a lefty nanny state that is always trying to treat everyone like children and telling people what they can and can't do within the lefty enforced agenda based views on things...



And one more thing... I haven't run away... I've been busy at work!!!


I've asked didge, Andy and Les to define far right here and on other threads, as well as ask them to justify voting against British democracy by voting in favour of being in the EU dictatorship... (as well as questions on other things)... and they have all consistently run away!!!

Socially liberal actually means minimal government interference in people's social lives. Your nonsense about "promoting" heterosexuality as "the right way of things" sounds like authoritarian right-wing bullshit.

As I have always said... left is always big govt and big state control, with the extreme being heavily authoritarian, while right is lesser govt and lesser state controls over everybody and lesser authoritarian...


The lefty pro homo agenda is authoritarian and extreme in that it is forcing the idea that homosexuality is right and good and trying to force everybody else (the overwhelming vast majority) to abandon their own common sense view on it and instead adopt the lefty agenda, or else...!


I've explained what I think is a more middle ground common sense approach and which doesn't involve govt trying to force the agenda...


Which is not following either extreme, aggressively promoting homosexuality or aggressively persecuting homosexuals... the middle ground is allow them to get on with it free from persecution while the normal and natural heterosexuality and marriage and family ideals are promoted.

Angry Andy wrote:Tom took his usual, cowardly way out when he has lost the debate and cannot answer a simple question. Tom white feather Monk runs away and hides.

I'm still waiting for you lot to give an actual definition...

Far-right politics includes but is not limited to aspects of authoritarianism, anti-communism and nativism.[3] Claims that superior people should have greater rights than inferior people are often associated with the far-right.[10] The far-right has historically favored an elitist society based on its belief in the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.[11]

Some aspects of fascist ideology have been identified with right-wing political parties: in particular, the fascist idea that superior persons should dominate society while undesirable elements should be purged, which in the case of Nazism resulted in genocide.[12] Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform in London, has distinguished between right-wing nationalist parties—which are often described as far-right such as the National Front in France—and fascism.[1] One issue is whether parties should be labelled radical or extreme,[13] a distinction that is made by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany when determining whether or not a party should be banned. Another question is what the label "right" implies when it is applied to the extreme right, given the fact that many parties that were originally labeled right-wing extremist tended to advance neoliberal and free market agendas as late as the 1980s, but now advocate economic policies which are more traditionally associated with the left, such as anti-globalisation, nationalization and protectionism. One approach, drawing on the writings of Norberto Bobbio, argues that attitudes towards political equality are what distinguish the left from the right and they therefore allow these parties to be positioned on the right of the political spectrum.

There is also debate about how appropriate the labels fascist or neo-Fascist are. According to Cas Mudde, "the labels Neo-Nazi and to a lesser extent neo-Fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich or quote historical National Socialism as their ideological influence".[13]

Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right.[14][15] Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.[18]

Proponents of the horseshoe theory interpretation of the left-right spectrum identify the far-left and the far-right as having more in common with each other as extremists than each of them has with moderate centrists.[19]
The hard right in the United States
Main article: Radical right (United States)

In the United States, the term hard right has been used to describe groups such as the Tea Party movement and the Patriot movement.[20][21]

The term has also been used to describe ideologies such as paleoconservatism, Dominion Theology and white nationalism.[22]
The far right in the United Kingdom
Main article: Far-right politics in the United Kingdom
History

This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This section needs additional citations for verification. (July 2015)
The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with Western Europe and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (October 2017)
Bologna bombing by Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, 1980

The German political scientist Klaus von Beyme describes three historical phases in the development of far-right parties in Western Europe after World War II.[18][23]

From 1945 to the mid-1950s, far-right parties were marginalised and their ideologies were discredited due to the recent existence and defeat of Nazism. Thus in the years immediately following World War II, the main objective of far-right parties was survival and achieving any political impact at all was largely not expected.

From the mid-1950s to the 1970s, the so-called "populist protest phase" emerged with sporadic electoral success. During this period, far-right parties drew to them charismatic leaders whose profound mistrust of the political establishment led to an "us-versus-them" mind set: "us" being the nation's citizenry, "them" being the politicians and bureaucrats who were then in office.

Beginning in the 1980s, the electoral successes of far-right political candidates made it possible for far-right political parties to revitalize anti-immigration as a mainstream issue.
Nature of support

Jens Rydgren describes a number of theories as to why individuals support far-right political parties and the academic literature on this topic distinguishes between demand-side theories that have changed the "interests, emotions, attitudes and preferences of voters" and supply-side theories which focus on the programmes of parties, their organisation and the opportunity structures within individual political systems.[24] The most common demand-side theories are the social breakdown thesis, the relative deprivation thesis, the modernisation losers thesis and the ethnic competition thesis.[25] The rise of far-right political parties has also been viewed as a rejection of post-materialist values on the part of some voters. This theory which is known as the reverse post-material thesis blames both left-wing and progressive parties for embracing a post-material agenda (including feminism and environmentalism) that alienates traditional working class voters.[citation needed] Another study argues that individuals who join far-right parties determine whether those parties develop into major political players or whether they remain marginalized.[26]

Early academic studies adopted psychoanalytical explanations for the far-right's support. For example, the 1933 publication The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich argued the theory that fascists came to power in Germany as a result of sexual repression. For some far-right political parties in Western Europe, the issue of immigration has become the dominant issue among them, so much so that some scholars refer to these parties as "anti-immigrant" parties.[27]
Right-wing terrorism
Main article: Right-wing terrorism

Right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by a variety of far right ideologies and beliefs, including anti-communism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, racism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration. This type of terrorism has been sporadic, with little or no international cooperation.[2] Modern right-wing terrorism first appeared in western Europe in the 1980s and it first appeared in Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[28]

Right-wing terrorists aim to overthrow governments and replace them with nationalist or fascist-oriented governments.[2] The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, far-right hooligans, youth sympathisers and intellectual guides who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect rightful citizens.[28] However, they usually lack a rigid ideology.[

I shan't hold my breath waiting for your definition of FAR RIGHT, and which people, groups and political parties would fall into this category.

The first paragraph of your long post describes national socialism...

Angry Andy wrote:I shan't hold my breath waiting for your definition of FAR RIGHT, and which people, groups and political parties would fall into this category.

He's a complete coward. All he can do is say others are wrong (despite every major news source, online definition, political pundits and historians saying the same as us) without having the balls to make a statement of his own. We're wasting our efforts here, Andy

Tommy Monk wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Tom took his usual, cowardly way out when he has lost the debate and cannot answer a simple question. Tom white feather Monk runs away and hides.

I'm still waiting for you lot to give an actual definition...

We all have. YOU cannot say ANYTHING is wrong if you provide nothing for comparison at all. Coward.

''Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right.[14][15] Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.''


i guess i'm far right

Hitler Mussolini were ardent socialists... le pen and the BNP have very left wing policies on socio economics...

gelico wrote:

''Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right.[14][15] Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.''


i guess i'm far right

Really?

"Anti-integration toward undesirable and inferior groups."
"Groups should stay separate."

Why is this even still going on with Tommy?

I mean just imagine this was a court case.

Everyone presents evidence in history, uses political scientits, historians as expert witness.

Tommy presentes:

errrrrrrr nothing but denial

Let him wallow in his delusions as one thing Far right supporters, do. Is deny they are Far right. Hence the radical defense to claim and deny Far right Politics. Its as bad as Holocasut denialism. If people argue there was not a holocaust, then the Nazi's are not looked at, as a henious evil group. This is how Nazis look to make apologist views on the Nazi's. The same absurd reasoning is applied by Far right supporters, on Far right politics itself. By trying deny Far right politics is an actual reality, they try to argue thus or instead its actually left wing. They are not then racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc. Even though they are. Its a complete straw man argument. So all extremes are seen as the Far left and not the Far right, which is blatantly absurd. What they do is see, how the Far left and Far right share some common traites like Totalitarianism, anti-democracy etc and then absirdly claim them to be the same.

Its simple a poor attempt at a trick, to try and confuse people and does not work

Hence people are here continually fueling his delusions. As at no point has Tommy actually proposed anything other than denialism

Hence

Holocaust denialis and Far right denialism, walk hand in hand

Didge... it is me who has presented evidence about both Hitler and Mussolini being hard left authoritarian socialists...


Others have just thrown round labels, or actually posted stiff that proves my points...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... it is me who has presented evidence about both Hitler and Mussolini being hard left authoritarian socialists...


Others have just thrown round labels, or actually posted stiff that proves my points...

Really?

On what level was Hitler left wing authoritarian, by going to war with a Left wing authoritarian dictatorship. In the form of the Soviet Union?

How was it, that Romania, Hungary, Spain (not offical, but had the Blue Division fight in the Soviet Union), Italy, Croatia, Finland etc, all right wing Authoritarian dictatoships. Allied themselves with Hitler and the Nazi's to go to war with the Soviet Union? How was it that in the nations that the Nazi's occupied, that they recruited Far right supporters, of those nations, to join the Waffen SS, to fight the Soviet Union? All being ardently against left wing authoritarian Communism?

This is why you show yourself to be an apologist for Nazism, which was most definately Far right.

In all these other occupied countries, there was left wing authoritarian groups as ressistance fighters against Nazism

How is that possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... it is me who has presented evidence about both Hitler and Mussolini being hard left authoritarian socialists...


Others have just thrown round labels, or actually posted stiff that proves my points...

Really?

On what level was Hitler left wing authoritarian, by going to war with a Left wing authoritarian dictatorship. In the form of the Soviet Union?

How was it, that Romania, Hungary, Spain (not offical, but had the Blue Division fight in the Soviet Union), Italy, Croatia, Finland etc, all right wing Authoritarian dictatoships. Allied themselves with Hitler and the Nazi's to go to war with the Soviet Union? How was it that in the nations that the Nazi's occupied, that they recruited Far right supporters, of those nations, to join the Waffen SS, to fight the Soviet Union? All being ardently against left wing authoritarian Communism?

This is why you show yourself to be an apologist for Nazism, which was most definately Far right.

In all these other occupied countries, there was left wing authoritarian groups as ressistance fighters against Nazism

How is that Tommy?

He doesn't even know what Far-Right is, he's a confused little tommy.

Never call him a Tommy.  He was , is and always will be a Nazi supporting Hun.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

On what level was Hitler left wing authoritarian, by going to war with a Left wing authoritarian dictatorship. In the form of the Soviet Union?

How was it, that Romania, Hungary, Spain (not offical, but had the Blue Division fight in the Soviet Union), Italy, Croatia, Finland etc, all right wing Authoritarian dictatoships. Allied themselves with Hitler and the Nazi's to go to war with the Soviet Union? How was it that in the nations that the Nazi's occupied, that they recruited Far right supporters, of those nations, to join the Waffen SS, to fight the Soviet Union? All being ardently against left wing authoritarian Communism?

This is why you show yourself to be an apologist for Nazism, which was most definately Far right.

In all these other occupied countries, there was left wing authoritarian groups as ressistance fighters against Nazism

How is that Tommy?

He doesn't even know what Far-Right is, he's a confused little tommy.

Sadly that is the case and its as I said before.

You have people today try to deny the Holocaust

You have the same also now with people try to deny such a thing as the Far right and that instead its left wing to them. Its an association fallacy. Where clearly the reason its done, is to poorly assign the wrongs done in the name of the Far right, to the left. Thus far right supporters, being in denial, trying to dissassociate themselves from this form of political hate.

I mean maybe Tommy can explain why Hitler targeted Communists, pacifists and Trade unionists when he came to power?

How within a year of being elected, he eradicated the socialists elements of the Nazi Party and the SA. It clearly dispells the myth, that Tommy is trying to promote

This poor revisionist history stems from Conservatism, within the US and its completely embarressing. Espically, when we also know the horrors within every Communist state in history. You also see some on the left try to shift the blame there and also claim that is not socialism

Its people on both political spectrums trying to deny the inherant facts and problems with Far left and Far right politics. They look to blame the other or continually be in denial

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

On what level was Hitler left wing authoritarian, by going to war with a Left wing authoritarian dictatorship. In the form of the Soviet Union?

How was it, that Romania, Hungary, Spain (not offical, but had the Blue Division fight in the Soviet Union), Italy, Croatia, Finland etc, all right wing Authoritarian dictatoships. Allied themselves with Hitler and the Nazi's to go to war with the Soviet Union? How was it that in the nations that the Nazi's occupied, that they recruited Far right supporters, of those nations, to join the Waffen SS, to fight the Soviet Union? All being ardently against left wing authoritarian Communism?

This is why you show yourself to be an apologist for Nazism, which was most definately Far right.

In all these other occupied countries, there was left wing authoritarian groups as ressistance fighters against Nazism

How is that Tommy?

He doesn't even know what Far-Right is, he's a confused little tommy.

Sadly that is the case and its as I said before.

You have people today try to deny the Holocaust

You have the sme also now with people try to deny such a thing as the Far right and that instead its left wing to them. Its an association fallacy. Where clearly the reason its done, is to poorly assign the wrongs done in the name of the Far right, to the left. Thus far right supporters, being in denial, trying to dissassociate themselves from this form of political hate.

I mean maybe Tommy can explain why Hitler targeted Communists, pacifists and Trade unionists when he came to power?

How within a year of being elected, he eradicated the socialists elements of the Nazi Party and the SA. It clearly dispells the myth, that Tommy is trying to promote

This poor revisionist history stems from Conservatism, within the US and its completely embarressing. Espically, when we also know the horrors within every Communist state in history. You also see some on the left try to shift the blame there and also claim that is not socialism

Its people on both political spectrums trying to deny the inherant facts and problems with Far left and Far right politics. They look to blame the other or continually be in denial

To me their entire argument seems to be based on the fact they used certain words, as if using the word alone makes it true. It's utter nonsense.

The Left generally acknowledges the horrors of extreme leftism as practiced by Stalin and Mao, it is disgusting how many on the Right try to claims Hitler to be of a political ideology he in fact despised and persecuted adherents of.

It seems tommy just wants to say everything bad is LW. It is even more ridiculous considering he denies what is FRW while having no definition of what that even is.

I suggest Tommy watch this and then Tell me, that Hitler was left wing?

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sadly that is the case and its as I said before.

You have people today try to deny the Holocaust

You have the sme also now with people try to deny such a thing as the Far right and that instead its left wing to them. Its an association fallacy. Where clearly the reason its done, is to poorly assign the wrongs done in the name of the Far right, to the left. Thus far right supporters, being in denial, trying to dissassociate themselves from this form of political hate.

I mean maybe Tommy can explain why Hitler targeted Communists, pacifists and Trade unionists when he came to power?

How within a year of being elected, he eradicated the socialists elements of the Nazi Party and the SA. It clearly dispells the myth, that Tommy is trying to promote

This poor revisionist history stems from Conservatism, within the US and its completely embarressing. Espically, when we also know the horrors within every Communist state in history. You also see some on the left try to shift the blame there and also claim that is not socialism

Its people on both political spectrums trying to deny the inherant facts and problems with Far left and Far right politics. They look to blame the other or continually be in denial

To me their entire argument seems to be based on the fact they used certain words, as if using the word alone makes it true. It's utter nonsense.

The Left generally acknowledges the horrors of extreme leftism as practiced by Stalin and Mao, it is disgusting how many on the Right try to claims Hitler to be of a political ideology he in fact despised and persecuted adherents of.

It seems tommy just wants to say everything bad is LW. It is even more ridiculous considering he denies what is FRW while having no definition of what that even is.

To be fair mate, many on the left try to disassociate socialism from Communism and Marxism. I have seen it many times on this forum. Where I have stated countless times. That in order to have true socialism, you require Totalitarianism and history shows this to be the case every single time. So to me, people on the left ar as guilty here also on politic beliefs they admire. We even saw this to the extreme recently. Where some students at a University, tried to argue that Gulags, were some how nice correctional camps.

Hence this happens on the left and the right when it comes to denialism. Tommy simple happens to be on the fringe extreme right. Hence why its easier for him to attempt to disassociate right wing politics and poorly blame this as to being leftism.

The problem stems from one simple factor, the Horsehoe theory. Where in reality, the Far left and Far right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center. That they are different forms of totalitarianism. Where the two extreme ends of the horseshoe, are far closer, than they they are to each other at the center.

Its why we end up seeing such poor revisionist history, which blatantly ignores Far leftism and Far rightism in practice. As in some cases, the extreme overlap, as they do in authoritarianism, but what is not excusable with this. Is to then distort this and claim claim Communism and Nazism are thus then the same politically. As Tommy is trying to do poorly, by associating Nazism with Left wing authoritarianism.

What we then end up with, is Tommy not understanding the Horsehoe effect, but promoting the horseshit effect.  

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sadly that is the case and its as I said before.

You have people today try to deny the Holocaust

You have the sme also now with people try to deny such a thing as the Far right and that instead its left wing to them. Its an association fallacy. Where clearly the reason its done, is to poorly assign the wrongs done in the name of the Far right, to the left. Thus far right supporters, being in denial, trying to dissassociate themselves from this form of political hate.

I mean maybe Tommy can explain why Hitler targeted Communists, pacifists and Trade unionists when he came to power?

How within a year of being elected, he eradicated the socialists elements of the Nazi Party and the SA. It clearly dispells the myth, that Tommy is trying to promote

This poor revisionist history stems from Conservatism, within the US and its completely embarressing. Espically, when we also know the horrors within every Communist state in history. You also see some on the left try to shift the blame there and also claim that is not socialism

Its people on both political spectrums trying to deny the inherant facts and problems with Far left and Far right politics. They look to blame the other or continually be in denial

To me their entire argument seems to be based on the fact they used certain words, as if using the word alone makes it true. It's utter nonsense.

The Left generally acknowledges the horrors of extreme leftism as practiced by Stalin and Mao, it is disgusting how many on the Right try to claims Hitler to be of a political ideology he in fact despised and persecuted adherents of.

It seems tommy just wants to say everything bad is LW. It is even more ridiculous considering he denies what is FRW while having no definition of what that even is.

To be fair mate, many on the left try to disassociate socialism from Communism and Marxism. I have seen it many times on this forum. Where I have stated countless times. That in order to have true socialism, you require Totalitarianism and history shows this to be the case every single time. So to me, people on the left ar as guilty here also on politic beliefs they admire. We even saw this to the extreme recently. Where some students at a University, tried to argue that Gulags, were some how nice correctional camps.

Hence this happens on the left and the right when it comes to denialism. Tommy simple happens to be on the fringe extreme right. Hence why its easier for him to attempt to disassociate right wing politics and poorly blame this as to being leftism.

The problem stems from one simple factor, the Horsehoe theory. Where in reality, the Far left and Far right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center. That they are different forms of totalitarianism. Where the two extreme ends of the horseshoe, are far closer, than they they are to each other at the center.

Its why we end up seeing such poor revisionist history, which blatantly ignores Far leftism and Far rightism in practice. As in some cases, the extreme overlap, as they do in authoritarianism, but what is not excusable with this. Is to then distort this and claim claim Communism and Nazism are thus then the same politically. As Tommy is trying to do poorly, by associating Nazism with Left wing authoritarianism.

What we then end up with, is Tommy not understanding the Horsehoe effect, but promoting the horseshit effect.  

I agree on authoritarianism being a common feature of both the extreme Right and Left. Tommy seems to confuse Left and Right with Authoritarian and Libertarian.

And I agree socialism can not be fully detached from communism and Marxism, since they are related, with socialism traditionally being required before achieving full communism.

I don't agree that totalitarianism is essential for all forms of socialism. At least not in theory. Of course, every completely socialist or communist regime we've seen has been dictatorial if not full on totalitarian. But at least in theory it could exist without such a regime. It is just very unlikely.

Not that anyone sensible is calling for real socialism.

Socialism is beginning to mean something different, at least when referring to 'Democratic Socialism'. If we're talking about the proletarian ownership of the means of production then YES that needs totalitarianism. But if we mean state ownership of public services and regulation, then that's really Democratic Socialism, or even Social Democracy, and that is not the same.

I think many today, including Jim Carrey recently on Bill Maher, say socialism but really mean Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism.

Didge wrote:That in order to have true socialism, you require Totalitarianism and history shows this to be the case every single time.

Proof?

Didge wrote:the Far left and Far right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center. That they are different forms of totalitarianism.

Proof?

Didge wrote:...the Horsehoe theory

Cite your authority on "the Horseshoe theory"?

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


To be fair mate, many on the left try to disassociate socialism from Communism and Marxism. I have seen it many times on this forum. Where I have stated countless times. That in order to have true socialism, you require Totalitarianism and history shows this to be the case every single time. So to me, people on the left ar as guilty here also on politic beliefs they admire. We even saw this to the extreme recently. Where some students at a University, tried to argue that Gulags, were some how nice correctional camps.

Hence this happens on the left and the right when it comes to denialism. Tommy simple happens to be on the fringe extreme right. Hence why its easier for him to attempt to disassociate right wing politics and poorly blame this as to being leftism.

The problem stems from one simple factor, the Horsehoe theory. Where in reality, the Far left and Far right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center. That they are different forms of totalitarianism. Where the two extreme ends of the horseshoe, are far closer, than they they are to each other at the center.

Its why we end up seeing such poor revisionist history, which blatantly ignores Far leftism and Far rightism in practice. As in some cases, the extreme overlap, as they do in authoritarianism, but what is not excusable with this. Is to then distort this and claim claim Communism and Nazism are thus then the same politically. As Tommy is trying to do poorly, by associating Nazism with Left wing authoritarianism.

What we then end up with, is Tommy not understanding the Horsehoe effect, but promoting the horseshit effect.  

I agree on authoritarianism being a common feature of both the extreme Right and Left. Tommy seems to confuse Left and Right with Authoritarian and Libertarian.

And I agree socialism can not be fully detached from communism and Marxism, since they are related, with socialism traditionally being required before achieving full communism.

I don't agree that totalitarianism is essential for all forms of socialism. At least not in theory. Of course, every completely socialist or communist regime we've seen has been dictatorial if not full on totalitarian. But at least in theory it could exist without such a regime. It is just very unlikely.

Not that anyone sensible is calling for real socialism.

Socialism is beginning to mean something different, at least when referring to 'Democratic Socialism'. If we're talking about the proletarian ownership of the means of production then YES that needs totalitarianism. But if we mean state ownership of public services and regulation, then that's really Democratic Socialism, or even Social Democracy, and that is not the same.

I think many today, including Jim Carrey recently on Bill Maher, say socialism but really mean Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism.

Well in practice, this has always been the case with socialism and please do not claim Norway or sweden, as they also have capitalism, at the very heart of their economies.

Democratic socialism, is not real socialism. State ownership would mean on every single buisness and that would mean, nobody would every strive to better themselves within a society. As what would be the point. It would not be their buisness. You are then not even understanding human nature to strive to better ourselves and why every single time. Its also not understanding evolution within humans. Socialism, requires Totalitarianism. As it means brainwashing people from the earliest ages, to not think they can excel and succeed. Even China has tried, that and has drifted more and more towards capitalism

So whilst I have no issue with Democratic socialism (even though I think its not workable), its not really socialism is it? Its simple a morphed version of capitalism and socialism

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


To be fair mate, many on the left try to disassociate socialism from Communism and Marxism. I have seen it many times on this forum. Where I have stated countless times. That in order to have true socialism, you require Totalitarianism and history shows this to be the case every single time. So to me, people on the left ar as guilty here also on politic beliefs they admire. We even saw this to the extreme recently. Where some students at a University, tried to argue that Gulags, were some how nice correctional camps.

Hence this happens on the left and the right when it comes to denialism. Tommy simple happens to be on the fringe extreme right. Hence why its easier for him to attempt to disassociate right wing politics and poorly blame this as to being leftism.

The problem stems from one simple factor, the Horsehoe theory. Where in reality, the Far left and Far right are more similar to each other in essentials than either is to the political center. That they are different forms of totalitarianism. Where the two extreme ends of the horseshoe, are far closer, than they they are to each other at the center.

Its why we end up seeing such poor revisionist history, which blatantly ignores Far leftism and Far rightism in practice. As in some cases, the extreme overlap, as they do in authoritarianism, but what is not excusable with this. Is to then distort this and claim claim Communism and Nazism are thus then the same politically. As Tommy is trying to do poorly, by associating Nazism with Left wing authoritarianism.

What we then end up with, is Tommy not understanding the Horsehoe effect, but promoting the horseshit effect.  

I agree on authoritarianism being a common feature of both the extreme Right and Left. Tommy seems to confuse Left and Right with Authoritarian and Libertarian.

And I agree socialism can not be fully detached from communism and Marxism, since they are related, with socialism traditionally being required before achieving full communism.

I don't agree that totalitarianism is essential for all forms of socialism. At least not in theory. Of course, every completely socialist or communist regime we've seen has been dictatorial if not full on totalitarian. But at least in theory it could exist without such a regime. It is just very unlikely.

Not that anyone sensible is calling for real socialism.

Socialism is beginning to mean something different, at least when referring to 'Democratic Socialism'. If we're talking about the proletarian ownership of the means of production then YES that needs totalitarianism. But if we mean state ownership of public services and regulation, then that's really Democratic Socialism, or even Social Democracy, and that is not the same.

I think many today, including Jim Carrey recently on Bill Maher, say socialism but really mean Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism.

Well in practice, this has always been the case with socialism and please do not claim Norway or sweden, as they also have capitalism, at the very heart of their economies.

Democratic socialism, is not real socialism. State ownership would mean on every single buisness and that would mean, nobody would every strive to better themselves within a society. As what would be the point. It would not be their buisness. You are then not even understanding human nature to strive to better ourselves and why every single time. Its also not understanding evolution within humans. Socialism, requires Totalitarianism. As it means brainwashing people from the earliest ages, to not think they can excel and succeed. Even China has tried, that and has drifted more and more towards capitalism

So whilst I have no issue with Democratic socialism, its not really socialism is it? Its simple a morphed version of capitalism and socialism

It is a morphed version, and it is what people like Bernie Sanders call for. No one in modern western politics wants traditional socialism. But lamguage evolves, and when people talk of socialism today, they usually mean Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy.

Social Democracy is the better term. It includes capitalism and is what is practiced the Norway and Sweden.

China today practices 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' as named by Xi Jinping, which yes, apparently means socialism with a massive dollop of capitalism on top

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well in practice, this has always been the case with socialism and please do not claim Norway or sweden, as they also have capitalism, at the very heart of their economies.

Democratic socialism, is not real socialism. State ownership would mean on every single buisness and that would mean, nobody would every strive to better themselves within a society. As what would be the point. It would not be their buisness. You are then not even understanding human nature to strive to better ourselves and why every single time. Its also not understanding evolution within humans. Socialism, requires Totalitarianism. As it means brainwashing people from the earliest ages, to not think they can excel and succeed. Even China has tried, that and has drifted more and more towards capitalism

So whilst I have no issue with Democratic socialism, its not really socialism is it? Its simple a morphed version of capitalism and socialism

It is a morphed version, and it is what people like Bernie Sanders call for. No one in modern western politics wants traditional socialism. But lamguage evolves, and when people talk of socialism today, they usually mean Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy.

Social Democracy is the better term. It includes capitalism and is what is practiced the Norway and Sweden.

China today practices 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' as named by Xi Jinping, which yes, apparently means socialism with a massive dollop of capitalism on top

Bernie Sanders, is to me quite the fake. He plays to the audiance, as do most socialist democrats

I beg to differ on people today wanting traditional socialism. Just look at the views of momentum and how they have taken over the Labour party, by underhanded means. The view to hold a majority within the party with membership, so they can pick and chose who they want themselves. Even though millions more labour supporters would disagree? Its like I said before. You have a modern form of the Night of the long knives going on within the Labour leadership and MP's. Just like Hitler, Corbyn and co are trying to eradicate the centrist element of the labour party

Sorry mate, I know you are a supporter of Corbyn and co, but I find them decidely underhanded and very corrupt. They certainly do not represent the majority of the left in this country and you have to ask yourself one simple question.

The way the Tories are, why is it, that Labour under Corbyn, is not leaps and bounds in front of the Tories?

Corbyn, like the Far right, deny their true intent. They play to the masses and play down their true aims

Hence, one sucker born every minute

Bring on a new centrist party

Oh and China is very much capitalistic now mate

Original Quill wrote:
Proof?
Proof?Cite your authority on "the Horseshoe theory"?

Oh dear

Every example of socialism in history

Soviet Union
Romania
Hungary
East Germany
Bulgaria
Poland
Cuba
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
North Korea
Venezuela
Do you want me to continue?

As to similiarities, which i already explained.

They are both anti-capitalist
Anti-democracy
Totalitarian
Both oppose liberal values
Both oppose human rights
They both share identity politics at their very core


Do you want me to continue?

Now do you see what I mean Eilzel?

Quill, is as bad as Tommy, when it comes to apoligism and revisionism on politics in history

They both are in denial

Didge wrote:Now do you see what I mean Eilzel?

Quill, is as bad as Tommy, when it comes to apoligism and revisionism on politics in history

They both are in denial

You have an aversion to substantiating your claims?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Proof?
Proof?Cite your authority on "the Horseshoe theory"?

Oh dear

Every example of socialism in history

Soviet Union
Romania
Hungary
East Germany
Bulgaria
Poland
Cuba
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
North Korea
Venezuela
Do you want me to continue?

As to similiarities, which i already explained.

They are both anti-capitalist
Anti-democracy
Totalitarian
Both oppose liberal values
Both oppose human rights
They both share identity politics at their very core


Do you want me to continue?

You mean these facts Quill?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Now do you see what I mean Eilzel?

Quill, is as bad as Tommy, when it comes to apoligism and revisionism on politics in history

They both are in denial

You have an aversion to substantiating your claims?  

I rest my case Eilzel

Quill is as ignorant and as much an apologist as tommy

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You have an aversion to substantiating your claims?  

I rest my case Eilzel

Quill is as ignorant and as much an apologist as tommy

Instead of grooming others, why don't you just offer your proof for your claims? It's not hard...unless they are BS.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Proof?
Proof?Cite your authority on "the Horseshoe theory"?

Oh dear

Every example of socialism in history

Soviet Union
Romania
Hungary
East Germany
Bulgaria
Poland
Cuba
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
North Korea
Venezuela
Do you want me to continue?

As to similiarities, which i already explained.

They are both anti-capitalist
Anti-democracy
Totalitarian
Both oppose liberal values
Both oppose human rights
They both share identity politics at their very core


Do you want me to continue?

I did offer proof Quill and the fact you have to be underhanded and claim I am a groomer, shows you have lost the debate

The moment you become underhanded with such pathetic childish insinuations, shows you have lost the debate

Hence you are as ignorant as Tommy

His calling card is this



At leasts its more polite, than you insinuating that I am a sex offender

Didge wrote:I did offer proof Quill and the fact you have to be underhanded and claim I am a groomer, shows you have lost the debate

The moment you become underhanded with such pathetic childish insinuations, shows you have lost the debate

WTF is this? Amateur hour? I have never heard anyone in Romania, for example, speak of a "Horseshoe Theory". Can you give the name of the person who used such a term, as well as the place, date and time?

On this site we generally offer links to substantiate claims.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I did offer proof Quill and the fact you have to be underhanded and claim I am a groomer, shows you have lost the debate

The moment you become underhanded with such pathetic childish insinuations, shows you have lost the debate

WTF is this?  Amateur hour?  I have never heard anyone in Romania, for example, speak of a "Horseshoe Theory".  Can you give the name of the person who used such a term, as well as the place, date and time?

On this site we generally offer links to substantiate claims.

Copout

So you have not heard of this then

You see how you misdirected?

You asked me on similarities?

I answered them and when you have no answer to them, you then hinge on a concept called the "horseshoe Theory". Which is just a theory, and has contsructive evidence behind this

You see, this is when you clutch at straws. Your argument has turned from originally being in disagrement on the similarities to the extreme left and right to now this theory

I will help you out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Didge wrote:I answered them and when you have no answer to them, you then hinge on a concept called the "horseshoe Theory". Which is just a theory, and has contsructive evidence behind this

You see, this is when you clutch at straws. Your argument has turned from originally being in disagrement on the similarities to the extreme left and right to now this theory

Finally, you get to a link.  Well, first, Jean-Pierre Faye is a poet and fiction writer, not an educated philosopher.  And, typical of unlearned voices, he is using facile ideas to express himself (probably because he doesn't know better).

Faye uses the very common argument-to-moderation fallacy, so common in RW circles.  Don't take chances, you might get stuck for an answer!!  This theory holds the 'center' is the only safe haven in politics.  But, surprise, the center itself is something that is constantly shifting.  

So you're just avoiding talking about politics and change.  See, Wolin, S., Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (1960).  Sorry, poets and novelists don't make good political theorists.

Original Quill wrote:Finally, you get to a link.  Well, first, Jean-Pierre Faye is a poet and fiction writer, not an educated philosopher.  And, typical of unlearned voices, he is using facile ideas to express himself (probably because he doesn't know better).

Faye uses the very common argument-to-moderation fallacy, so common in RW circles.  Don't take chances, you might get stuck for an answer!!  This theory holds the 'center' is the only safe haven in politics.  But, surprise, the center itself is something that is constantly shifting.  

So you're just avoiding talking about politics and change.  See, Wolin, S., Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (1960).  Sorry, poets and novelists don't make good political theorists.

Copout again

You went off views of others and nothing yourself

I posted similarities and knew you would go off the theory

Actually, I never did and showed the similarities

I showed the horseshoe effect has validity and why people condemn it Quill, is based on what you just did

People on the left and right are afraid to admit, they do meet in the middle on many views

That they are totalitarian
Authoritarian
Anti-Captitalism
Anti-Human rights
Anti-Free spech
Anti-democracy

Ect, but, you do not6 want to look at that.

You fell into an esay trap and you went off the theory and did what most political commentators do on both the left and right. Try to distance themselves

I mean look at your reply centers on the right and not the left. Its a given then, when people are apologists and you are one of the worst

Now I have given a ball park on what they share

For th fourth time

Give it up! You are obviously in the deep end of the pool, and can't swim.

You are reverting to the facile answers you were giving when I asked you to justify yourself. And, repeating yourself, you are engaging in tautologies.

I'm tired of your antics. I'll look in when you have something of substance to say.

Original Quill wrote:Give it up!    You are obviously in the deep end of the pool, and can't swim.

You are reverting to the facile answers you were giving when I asked you to justify yourself.  And, repeating yourself, you are engaging in tautologies.

I'm tired of your antics.  I'll look in when you have something of substance to say.

Soooooo, nothing to actual counter my points

I have had you class me as a groomer and insinuate I am a child abuser and you have the gall to claim I should give it up?

I presented facts

I presented a theory

You took this, as a que, to be abusive and be the ignorant twat that I have come to know you are

You have never been a judge or a lawyer. You are simple some twat on a forum, trying to big yourself up. Which means you have massive insecurity issues mate

On the later, I would certainly help you, as you clearly have problems

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:

''Right-wing populism, a political ideology that often combines laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism and anti-elitism, is sometimes described as far-right.[14][15] Right-wing populism often involves appeals to the "common man" and opposition to immigration.[16][1] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate and it is based on the belief that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.''


i guess i'm far right

Really?  

"Anti-integration toward undesirable and inferior groups."
"Groups should stay separate."

well, les i support capitalism, support the independent nation state (for those who want to be so) and anti elitist so that's 3 boxes ticked. with regards to your post

''Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration,,,,,,''

meh, i grew up with an assortment of various foster brothers and sisters from a range of ethnic backgrounds, my childhood playmate was the black girl next door so race was never even considered some kind of issue.

i honestly believe that if the government had stuck to their quota of around 50K on the immigration subject then there would not be so much tension and bad feeling. the fact that so many have come (all over europe and uk) in such a short space of time, some of them with no intention whatsoever of integration at all has caused massive problems

i;m just saying by the description given, i appear to be far right

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Really?  

"Anti-integration toward undesirable and inferior groups."
"Groups should stay separate."

well, les i support capitalism, support the independent nation state (for those who want to be so) and anti elitist so that's 3 boxes ticked.  with regards to your post

''Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration,,,,,,''

meh, i grew up with an assortment of various foster brothers and sisters from a range of ethnic backgrounds, my childhood playmate was the black girl next door so race was never even considered some kind of issue.

i honestly believe that if the government had stuck to their quota of around 50K on the immigration subject then there would not be so much tension and bad feeling.  the fact that so many have come (all over europe and uk) in such a short space of time, some of them with no intention whatsoever of integration at all has caused massive problems

i;m just saying by the description given, i appear to be far right

And you are making the same mistake as Tommy

For example, are you against alll immigration gelico?

Are you against immigration based on skin colour?

By anti-immigration, means based racially as the BNP does

I dont think you believe that do you?

I agree people on the left often conflate people concerned over immigration and I know you are certainly not racist or xenophobic

You are concerned about jobs for people who are citizens, no matter whether they are white, but british born. Even though to me, that is absurd as well. My parents came here and both were not British. My father served in the 2nd Royal Tank regiment and my mother a nurse.

What the problem here Gelico, has never been as you say a quota, but how you percieve a media story.

So lets put this to the test

How is it, that even today, we have a shortage of nurses and doctors in this country, that is one of the most advanced in the world?

What you do, is fall fould of media stories

Now does that mean there is not problems with foreign people taking jobs over people born here?

Yes there is problems, but is that the foreigners fault that comes here to work?

No

Its the system that is at fault

They have every right to come here and work and lets face facts, unemplyment is down huegly

The problem is people use numbers and stats, to use this to cause hate and xenophobia

The problem is never foreigners, Bu the system. The issue of integration, has gone on for well over 300 years. What is the issue, is how the media, is able to sow a discord between people. To the extent you believe foreigners are the problem for all the problems people face today.

Hence its the media that is the problem.

Now you will go, "well what about the grooming gangs"
Indeed, that is a massive problem, but the last time I checked, the vast majority of immigrants were not Pakistani. Even then, this has gone on way before the influx of immigrants

If you were far right you would hold a number of views

Are you against all immigrants?
Are you pro authoritarianism?
Are you against Free speech?
Are you against human rights?
Are you against democracy?
Are you against Capitalism?

Sorry to see you off, didge...

At least both you and Quill explain your positions. Which is more than can be said of the cowardly among us.

Regarding Tom, Les, I think he is SOOOOO far  right, he actually believes EVERYONE is left of him, even those the sane amongst us know to to far right.
So in his mind he is justified in believing it.
But it tells us he could be mentally disturbed.

Angry Andy wrote:Regarding Tom, Les, I think he is SOOOOO far  right, he actually believes EVERYONE is left of him, even those the sane amongst us know to to far right.
So in his mind he is justified in believing it.
But it tells us he could be mentally disturbed.

You might well be right

I, however, tend to think he just doesn't know what he's talking about

Sorry guys... been a bit busy... Will catch up with thread posts in a bit...


But just to try to address the false claim that anything anti communist must be anti left wing so therefore right wing...


This is wrong unless you think that socialism is the only form of communism and communism is the only form of socialism...


If you agree that both are different... then you must also agree that both can be opposed to each other... while both are still forms of the left wing thinking/politics...


And if you realise this is true... then think one step further... they can both have varying levels of authoritarianism... while still both being left wing...

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry guys... been a bit busy... Will catch up with thread posts in a bit...


But just to try to address the false claim that anything anti communist must be anti left wing so therefore right wing...


This is wrong unless you think that socialism is the only form of communism and communism is the only form of socialism...


If you agree that both are different... then you must also agree that both can be opposed to each other... while both are still forms of the left wing thinking/politics...


And if you realise this is true... then think one step further... they can both have varying levels of authoritarianism... while still both being left wing...

Utter gibberish.

You endlessly bang on about left wing, communism and socialism.
Yet you cannot define the far right, which people and groups comprise its members.

You have lost any credibility you had remaining on here by your refusal to answer that question.

I said that by the description given on far rightism that i am indeed far right.

i never thought of myself as far right but it seems to be ok

Angry Andy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry guys... been a bit busy... Will catch up with thread posts in a bit...


But just to try to address the false claim that anything anti communist must be anti left wing so therefore right wing...


This is wrong unless you think that socialism is the only form of communism and communism is the only form of socialism...


If you agree that both are different... then you must also agree that both can be opposed to each other... while both are still forms of the left wing thinking/politics...


And if you realise this is true... then think one step further... they can both have varying levels of authoritarianism... while still both being left wing...

Utter gibberish.

You endlessly bang on about left wing, communism and socialism.
Yet you cannot define the far right, which people and groups comprise its members.

You have lost any credibility you had remaining on here by your refusal to answer that question.

Try addressing what I HAVE said... instead of moaning about what I HAVEN'T said...


I have shown that Hitler was a socialist of the nationalist and authoritarian kind, as well as being anti communist...


Mussolini too...


Yet you call them 'far right'...


The BNP have very socialist policies, and are of the nationalist and anti immigration view ... yet you call them 'far right'...


There are plenty of labour voters in the UK who are supporters of socialism, but also nationalist and opposed to immigration... are you really trying to say that they are 'far right'...!!!???