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

by Tommy Monk Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:00 pm

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...?

lol!

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:10 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
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 also 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'...!!!???

There are many different flavors of left and right, Tommy, as you should know. I think you pretend not to know, in order to troll people on here.

There are many, many right-wingers in America who support and defend our socialist programs Medicare (only for those 65 and older) and Social Security (again, only for retirees in most cases). Then there are other right-wingers who want to demolish those programs.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:57 pm

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

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 also 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'...!!!???

There are many different flavors of left and right, Tommy, as you should know. I think you pretend not to know, in order to troll people on here.

There are many, many right-wingers in America who support and defend our socialist programs Medicare (only for those 65 and older) and Social Security (again, only for retirees in most cases). Then there are other right-wingers who want to demolish those programs.

I am not pretending anything... just posting my opinion and trying to answer the requests from others to explain my opinion...

If there has been any 'trolling' going on in this thread... it has not been by me... but by others, against me...!

Just have a read back over the insults thrown at me on this thread...

by Eilzel Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:54 pm

Problem is tommy, I can definitively say Hitler was Far RW because I can define the differences between the authoritarian Left and Right.

You have, for days, failed to make such a definition

Which leads me to believe you confuse authoritarianism and libertarianism with Left and Right.

If you cannot what Far RW IS, then you cannot say Hitler (or anyone) is not Far Right.

by 'Wolfie Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:04 am

Tommy has proven himself to be the most dogmatic and recalcitrant non-thinker on here...

No logic, no rational thought processes -- and certainly no "common sense" to be seen, even though he luvs throwing that phrase around..

And his wacky self-imposed "daffynitions" that he uses to claim "proof" and "evidence" for his agendas !

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:37 am

gelico wrote:

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

Are you?

You have just done a Tommy

and avoided my previous post

You are not far right and you can have at least a gripe about this and the left are to blame. How they class many people wrongly as the far right

by Andy Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:44 am

Are we wrong to classify Tommy as far right?

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:52 am

Angry Andy wrote:Are we wrong to classify Tommy as far right?

No, but what you are wrong on. Is not being able to help turn him away from this.

He is in denial and yet you do not help that factor mate

by Andy Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:53 am

He refuses to give HIS definition of the far right wing. I have asked. Quill asked. So did Les.
Dialogue is a 2 way street.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:06 am

I am still waiting for a definition that fits from you lot here...

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 also 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'...!!!???

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:08 am

Guest 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

I am still waiting for Tommy to answer countless points raised to him

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:47 am

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...

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:51 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy has proven himself to be the most dogmatic and recalcitrant non-thinker on here...

No logic, no rational thought processes -- and certainly no "common sense" to be seen, even though he luvs throwing that phrase around..

And his wacky self-imposed "daffynitions" that he uses to claim "proof" and "evidence" for his agendas !

daffynitions

Brazil elects new president - Why are the left wing BBC and guardian claiming he is 'far right'...? - Page 4 3489511464

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:56 am

Phildidge wrote:
Guest 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

I am still waiting for Tommy to answer countless points raised to him

And tommy still cannot answer my points

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:56 am

Angry Andy wrote:Are we wrong to classify Tommy as far right?

i agree with some of what tommy says

i also agree with the official definition that quill put up (mostly)

so i am far right then

hey ho

i shall wear that badge with honour

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:58 am

Phildidge wrote:
Guest 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

I am still waiting for Tommy to answer countless points raised to him

And I've answered...

Here it is again...

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... ie they are both the same...

But 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...

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Guest 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

I am still waiting for Tommy to answer countless points raised to him

Still waiting for an answer

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:05 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

I am still waiting for Tommy to answer countless points raised to him

Still waiting for an answer

And I've answered...

Here it is again...

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... ie they are both the same...

But 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...

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:10 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

Still waiting for an answer

Can anyone show me how Tommy answered all my questions?

He never did

I will keep posting until he does

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:12 pm

Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge wrote:
Phildidge 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 possible Tommy, when you believe Hitler was Left wing Authoritarian socialist?

Still waiting for an answer

Can anyone show me how Tommy answered all my questions?

He never did

I will keep posting until he does

He hasn't. Nor has he answered the repeated question of defining the Far Right.

I actually just made a new thread destroying the 'Hitler was a socialist' argument Smile

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:15 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Phildidge wrote:

Can anyone show me how Tommy answered all my questions?

He never did

I will keep posting until he does

He hasn't. Nor has he answered the repeated question of defining the Far Right.

I actually just made a new thread destroying the 'Hitler was a socialist' argument

Indeed mate and why I am playing him at his own silly game

I can keep posting up the same post for days

He does not even want to enage in the debate

He poorly ignores historical facts

There is no way, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Findland etc, would have allied themselves to Nazi Germany, if they viewed them as left wing authoritarian. Hence the absurdity of his claim

by 'Wolfie Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:35 pm

Of course Tommy hasn't produced any actual evidence to back his claims...

As he also does with his anti-science and anti-climate nonsense, he Googles a few like-minded nutters who make the same claims, quotes a few fringe blogsites, and attempts to call it "proof", "evidence" and "expert opinions"..

I'd like to see Tommy try and push his arguments through at a junior high school level, let alone in any academic situation -- then again, Tommy has declared himself a "genius" before on here, and is always telling us that he knows better than any scientists or academics.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:38 pm

The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today.

In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

And...

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today.

In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

And...

Your link does not show anything compared to what you posted above lol!

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first-century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper-class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:54 pm

Hitler...

In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Mussolini...

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:56 pm

Hilarious and Tommy does it again

Why is he adding a link that does not correspond with his post?

As seen, he now wants to badly avoid the points raised to him and continually spam

Debate is well and truely over. Where like most Far right cowards, he runs away when he cannot answer

Have a good day everyone

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Hitler...

In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Mussolini...

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/

That quote is from a pamphlet by Gregor Strasser, a socialist member of the Nazis in the early days of the Nazi rise to power.

He was assassinated in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

Those weren't Hitler's words and he never acted on them. Read my post 'Hitler was NEVER a socialist' to see how utterly wrong you are.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:09 pm

Phildidge wrote:Hilarious and Tommy does it again

Why is he adding a link that does not correspond with his post?

As seen, he now wants to badly avoid the points raised to him and continually spam

Debate is well and truely over. Where like most Far right cowards, he runs away when he cannot answer

Have a good day everyone

The link is for info about Mussolini you thicko...

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Phildidge wrote:Hilarious and Tommy does it again

Why is he adding a link that does not correspond with his post?

As seen, he now wants to badly avoid the points raised to him and continually spam

Debate is well and truely over. Where like most Far right cowards, he runs away when he cannot answer

Have a good day everyone

The link is for info about Mussolini you thicko...

And he resorts to abuse when shown up

Does that link backl anything that you claim Tommy

Its a generic link to many people in history

I see you still avoid everything that is posted to you

Like I said, the debate stoped the minute you try to infer revisionist bullshit history

Anyway, I have better things to do, than waste time here with you on this, when you clearly have been brainwashed

Laters

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:52 pm

I've answered plenty...

And if you bothered to read that Mussolini link, that i posted up as a Mussolini link, then you would know it was a Mussolini link, and you would know it was not a link to what I put up on Hitler...

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:00 pm

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with "the Right".

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title, evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals, including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics, convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the consequences have, like Hitler's actual words, been largely edited from our discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:

Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.

Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels himself wrote of the "racial trash" - the groups who would necessarily be supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism - something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without saying. "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?" Hitler had asked his party members in 1920.

Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:08 pm

Hitler was not a socialist, even if he did stash champagne

Were the Nazis socialist? Libertarians continue to insist they were. But quotations should not be taken out of context, and the word of the Nazis not taken at face value

A little while ago, I entered a debate with the brilliant MEP Dan Hannan about Hitler. Dan said that he was a socialist, I disagreed. Now Dan is back with a video in which he drops what appears to be a killer quote by Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that victory over the USSR will herald the arrival of “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism. I remain unconvinced.

I don’t wish to retread old ground. You can read Dan’s original article on the subject here and my reply here. Dan says that the National Socialists were collectivists and self-identified socialists (“the clue is in the name”). I argue that Hitler was in fact a racist who used the language of socialism because it was useful. Yes, Goebbels wanted to eliminate both Bolshevism and capitalism from Russia. But that’s because he believed both were Jewish. He may well have been anticapitalist, but that does not necessarily mean that his concept of socialism sits within the Marxist tradition.

But I’d like to share something that might cast some light on this subject. And, no, it’s not the recent discovery that Hitler hid some cognac and champagne from the Allied air raids. Yes, socialists do like champagne - but let's not damn them by that faint association.

Rather, consider this dialogue between Hitler and the Strasser brothers in 1930 – when the Nazis were approaching the margins of power. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

In May 1930, Hitler met with the Strassers in Berlin to try to persuade them to shut up about a socialist revolution. Hitler began with a lecture on art, arguing that true art conformed to eternal ideas. There were no “breaks” in true art but continuity through inheritance. By implication there could be no “revolution” but simply an assertion of the one truth that mattered to Hitler: racial superiority reflected in authority. Dan Hannan quotes Hitler then telling the Strassers "I am a socialist!", which sure reads like a smoking gun. But consider what Hitler goes on to say about the working-class:

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”

I don’t want to play “drop a quote” on the subject of Hitler and socialism. On the contrary, the fact that Dan can quote Goebbels being pro-socialist and Hitler being pro-capitalist indicates that Nazism was an ideology upon which its followers projected their fantasies and desires. Joachim Fest, reflecting upon the Strasserite dialogue, argued: "Hitler's party was socialist only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word... As with Hitler's protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props."

At the centre of Nazism was a personality cult; its glue was hatred of the Jews; and its leaders were ruthlessly pragmatic if pragmatism served the acquisition of power. It is not easy to define this historical phenomenon, and both Marxist and libertarian attempts have proven flawed. How, for instance, does one explain the fact that Hitler combined building a welfare system with euthanising the vulnerable? Socialists use welfare to protect the weak. Hitler used it to iron out the iniquities of capitalism (mostly unemployment) in order to let the "strong" flourish. The strong were, in his opinion, always the Aryan race. He was beaten, in the end, by an alliance of decadent Western democrats and Slavic communists.

Long before that happy liberation, the destruction of the Strasserite element of the Nazi Party in the Night of the Long Knives (1934) was ordered to satisfy two traditional enemies of socialism: the aristocratic army and the nervous bourgeoisie. That Hitler did this to appease these powerful reactionaries sums up his approach to politics better than a million quotes.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:19 pm

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:21 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Hitler...

In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Mussolini...

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/

That quote is from a pamphlet by Gregor Strasser, a socialist member of the Nazis in the early days of the Nazi rise to power.

He was assassinated in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

Those weren't Hitler's words and he never acted on them. Read my post 'Hitler was NEVER a socialist' to see how utterly wrong you are.

Response tommy?

And anyone can post other people's essays and articles. Why not explain YOUR understanding and YOUR rebuttals to opposing arguments.

I posted an argument about this in a new thread earlier, are you too stupid or too cowardly to answer it with your own words?

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:47 pm

If you say so...

But there are plenty of quotes... And plenty of information that confirms what I say...

The article above by Dan Hannan explains quite well...

And I have already explained in my previous posts...

It is for you and others who are shouting 'far right' to explain the definition... because from what I can see, when actually looking at the details, these so called 'far right' are actually very socialist in their policy and ideals but just authoritarian and/or nationalist... And in other cases, very socialist but just nationalist and against mass immigration too, like BNP and le pen party in France...

I can't believe how much you try to deny this blatantly obvious truth...!

by Andy Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:05 pm

It's like trying to talk quantum physics to the retard at the care in the community centre..

On second thoughts, you will get a better reply from the retard.

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:06 pm

Eilzel wrote:

That quote is from a pamphlet by Gregor Strasser, a socialist member of the Nazis in the early days of the Nazi rise to power.

He was assassinated in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

Those weren't Hitler's words and he never acted on them. Read my post 'Hitler was NEVER a socialist' to see how utterly wrong you are.

Response tommy?

And anyone can post other people's essays and articles. Why not explain YOUR understanding and YOUR rebuttals to opposing arguments.

I posted an argument about this in a new thread earlier, are you too stupid or too cowardly to answer it with your own words?

Mate, he has avoided every single point put to him and will continue to spam and avoid

Its the only way he knows how to debate

If he wants to remain ignorant, then there is little you can do for such a sheep as Tommy

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:28 pm

It is my points that are being ignored... the lefty blind eye syndrome in play here...!

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:02 pm

You are pathetic tommy.

You have been given definitions by multiple people which all match. All you can say is no it isn't.

I have made a whole thread debunking the Hitler socialost myth using his own quotes which you snivel away from.

You give NO definitions while others have.
You respond to no points while others have.

All you can do is say others a wrong while saying nothing for yourself.

You are a pathetic poster: stupid or a coward or a troll.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:57 pm

Multiple definitions that all match...???

Really...???

Would you be so kind as to highlight this conclusive list of defining criteria...???

As all I've seen are a couple of posts of generalised points that can easily apply to many others not classed as far right... And are not all applicable to those you do try to class as far right...

And... as I've already pointed out... many you do try to class as far right had/have very left wing socialist policies...!

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Multiple definitions that all match...???

Really...???

Would you be so kind as to highlight this conclusive list of defining criteria...???

As all I've seen are a couple of posts of generalised points that can easily apply to many others not classed as far right... And are not all applicable to those you do try to class as far right...

And... as I've already pointed out... many you do try to class as far right had/have very left wing socialist policies...!

So just more denial and zero substance.

Care to reply to my thread on the subject? Or are you incapable?

by Eilzel Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:18 pm

Me: Far-Right, in all its iterations (in Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and various Latin American regimes) is characterised by extreme social conservatism, anti-leftism, Nationalism and authoritarianism.

Andy (from wikipedia): Far right politics usually involve supremacism — a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm. Far right politics often support segregation; the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior. Far right politics also commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia. The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms.

Gelico: so in my mind i connect far rightism with racism and white superiority mainly and that deffo describes the bnp

3 definitions, or partial definitions of the Far-Right. Where is yours tommy? so far you look like a no-nothing troll.

by 'Wolfie Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:50 pm

Tommy Monk is proving to be a disgusting lying piece of shit...

He hasn't giving one realistic definition of either "left wing" or "right wing" amongst all his crap, but simply keeps om misrepresenting what both terms actually mean..

With his continuing garbage posts on climate change, evolution and "right wing" politics over recent months, all he proven is that he can be a bigger troll than the likes of Nems, Horatio and 'Independent Thoughts'.

Tommy's right up there with the Alpha_Trolls Smelly and Stormee, when it comes down to the pathetic lying, spamming and bigotted crapfests...

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:21 am

'...extreme social conservatism, anti-leftism, Nationalism and authoritarianism...'

1. extreme social conservatism - kind of vague, don't you think? And could well be applied to many... so not defining factor...

2. Anti leftism - The BNP and le pens party in France have very left wing socialist policies... And Mussolini was an ardent socialist... And you are still getting confused in thinking that anti communism must mean anti socialism...

3. Nationalism - all national political party's should have the national interest at the core of their policy... the snp are nationalist... so are plaid cumry... the BNP want to re nationalise public services... as do Labour... And Hitler Nazis also espoused nationalised public services, as well as taking control over the means of production of huge swathes of so called private businesses...

4. Authoritarianism - some of those you try to class as far right were definitely authoritarian... but it is not the case that authoritarian = far right...

So... your definitive list falls apart at the first sign of scrutiny...!!!

I already replied to Andy's long post of descriptions...

by Eilzel Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:27 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

'...extreme social conservatism, anti-leftism, Nationalism and authoritarianism...'

1. extreme social conservatism - kind of vague, don't you think? And could well be applied to many... so not defining factor...

2. Anti leftism - The BNP and le pens party in France have very left wing socialist policies... And Mussolini was an ardent socialist... And you are still getting confused in thinking that anti communism must mean anti socialism...

3. Nationalism - all national political party's should have the national interest at the core of their policy... the snp are nationalist... so are plaid cumry... the BNP want to re nationalise public services... as do Labour... And Hitler Nazis also espoused nationalised public services, as well as taking control over the means of production of huge swathes of so called private businesses...

4. Authoritarianism - some of those you try to class as far right were definitely authoritarian... but it is not the case that authoritarian = far right...

So... your definitive list falls apart at the first sign of scrutiny...!!!

I already replied to Andy's long post of descriptions...

Are you just bad at this kind of thing?

Individually those things do NOT define the Far-Right.
Altogether they DO.

The extreme Left is ALSO authoritarian but it is not socially conservative or nationalist or anti-leftist.

But you are still either wrong or painfully thick if you continue to say what FRW isn't, while being incapable of saying what it IS Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:34 am

Sorry... but you are wrong...

by Eilzel Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:43 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Sorry... but you are wrong...

And there you are.

You know, I actually look forward to proper debates with decent debators. If you look back, I didn't start with insults against your intelligence, I just got frustrated with your evasiveness later on.

I've given you multiple chances to explain your understanding of terms, because that makes discussions interesting, and you've deliberately not done so.

It is a shame. But I guess you really are just too stupid to explain anything.

You just read things from more well read RWers than yourself then regurgitate it like it's gold without showing any understanding for yourself and not bothering to read anything by anyone else.

I'd hoped to get beyond that. Shame on me.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:48 am

Try reading what I've said... I've clearly shown that not all of those things apply to many you try to claim are far right...

And many of those things apply to others that you don't want to try to class as far right...

So... as I said... your definitive list falls apart at the first sign of scrutiny...

by Eilzel Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:51 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Try reading what I've said... I've clearly shown that not all of those things apply to many you try to claim are far right...

And many of those things apply to others that you don't want to try to class as far right...

So... as I said... your definitive list falls apart at the first sign of scrutiny...

So what is it then, according to you?

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:12 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Sorry... but you are wrong...

And there you are.

You know, I actually look forward to proper debates with decent debators. If you look back, I didn't start with insults against your intelligence, I just got frustrated with your evasiveness later on.

I've given you multiple chances to explain your understanding of terms, because that makes discussions interesting, and you've deliberately not done so.

It is a shame. But I guess you really are just too stupid to explain anything.

You just read things from more well read RWers than yourself then regurgitate it like it's gold without showing any understanding for yourself and not bothering to read anything by anyone else.

I'd hoped to get beyond that. Shame on me.

No... what I've done is had a look at the actual policies of some of those who are routinely labelled as 'far right', only to find that they are very clearly very left wing socialist...!!!

by Eilzel Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:23 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Try reading what I've said... I've clearly shown that not all of those things apply to many you try to claim are far right...

And many of those things apply to others that you don't want to try to class as far right...

So... as I said... your definitive list falls apart at the first sign of scrutiny...

So what is it then, according to you?

by Sponsored content