|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jul 30, 2024 9:50:00 GMT
With the exception of Pinochet, they were all far left ( National Socialist for example - the clue is in the name). But even if we ignore that, and stick purely with the overtly far left regimes, they have still taken far more lives then your faux far right. So your assertion that the far right are more dangerous is false. So all those African nations with "Republic" in their name are actually Republics? Sudan: in name a Republic, in fact a Military Junta. Rwanda: in name a presidential Republic, in fact a Dictatorship. Uganda: in name a Republic, in fact an Authoritarian State Need I go on? What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is.Was Nazi Germany even remotely Socialist? No, it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship. Can a Dictatorship be Socialist? Yes, it can. It can also be extreme right-wing, and everything in between. Now, originally the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was more socialist leaning; but by the time the Nazis were transporting Jews, and others, to Concentration Camps it was wholly anti-Marxist, which is very strange place for an, allegedly, Socialist organisation to be at. Socialism also tends to reject folkish / racist sentiments - both of which were entirely central to the Nazi ideology. Failure to look beneath the surface, beyond the label, all too often leads to a complete misunderstanding of what something is; as is clear from the quote above. All The Best By the same token, that means by legislation and convention Britain functions as a democracy. Contrary to what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 30, 2024 10:17:15 GMT
With the exception of Pinochet, they were all far left ( National Socialist for example - the clue is in the name). But even if we ignore that, and stick purely with the overtly far left regimes, they have still taken far more lives then your faux far right. So your assertion that the far right are more dangerous is false. So all those African nations with "Republic" in their name are actually Republics? Sudan: in name a Republic, in fact a Military Junta. Rwanda: in name a presidential Republic, in fact a Dictatorship. Uganda: in name a Republic, in fact an Authoritarian State Need I go on? What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is. Was Nazi Germany even remotely Socialist? No, it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship. Can a Dictatorship be Socialist? Yes, it can. It can also be extreme right-wing, and everything in between. Now, originally the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was more socialist leaning; but by the time the Nazis were transporting Jews, and others, to Concentration Camps it was wholly anti-Marxist, which is very strange place for an, allegedly, Socialist organisation to be at. Socialism also tends to reject folkish / racist sentiments - both of which were entirely central to the Nazi ideology. Failure to look beneath the surface, beyond the label, all too often leads to a complete misunderstanding of what something is; as is clear from the quote above. All The Best Yeah, yada, yada. So the National Socialists hated the Marxists. Well of course they did: They were political rivals and the left, to this day, hate anyone that's not exactly the same brand of left that they are. But that doesn't make them right wing. The National Socialists were antisemitic socialists, exactly like the current Labour Party. So does that make our current government right wing? I think not. But you're right when you say it's about how they function, and the left seldom tell the truth. Except that I can't think of a single right wing function that the Nazis exhibited. Can you? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 30, 2024 10:23:20 GMT
So all those African nations with "Republic" in their name are actually Republics? Sudan: in name a Republic, in fact a Military Junta. Rwanda: in name a presidential Republic, in fact a Dictatorship. Uganda: in name a Republic, in fact an Authoritarian State Need I go on? What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is.Was Nazi Germany even remotely Socialist? No, it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship. Can a Dictatorship be Socialist? Yes, it can. It can also be extreme right-wing, and everything in between. Now, originally the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was more socialist leaning; but by the time the Nazis were transporting Jews, and others, to Concentration Camps it was wholly anti-Marxist, which is very strange place for an, allegedly, Socialist organisation to be at. Socialism also tends to reject folkish / racist sentiments - both of which were entirely central to the Nazi ideology. Failure to look beneath the surface, beyond the label, all too often leads to a complete misunderstanding of what something is; as is clear from the quote above. All The Best By the same token, that means by legislation and convention Britain functions as a democracy. Contrary to what you said. Except it doesn't. The ultimate arbiter of which laws are enacted, when Parliament is dissolved, who can form a new Parliament, all lay with The Monarch. Now if they lay with the Monarch but the Monarch never exercised them you would be right, on function alone we would be a Democracy. However, the Monarch DOES exercise those privileges, even if only perfunctorily. As long as the Monarch continues to exercise those privileges, that is those privileges still FUNCTION, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 30, 2024 10:29:14 GMT
By the same token, that means by legislation and convention Britain functions as a democracy. Contrary to what you said. Except it doesn't. The ultimate arbiter of which laws are enacted, when Parliament is dissolved, who can form a new Parliament, all lay with The Monarch. Now if they lay with the Monarch but the Monarch never exercised them you would be right, on function alone we would be a Democracy. However, the Monarch DOES exercise those privileges, even if only perfunctorily. As long as the Monarch continues to exercise those privileges, that is those privileges still FUNCTION, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best Now you've changed your tune. Previously, you disagreed when I said that we were a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 30, 2024 10:29:50 GMT
When Hitler was still seeking votes at the ballot box, he campaigned on left wing issues.
His right hand man Ernst Rohm (whom he later had murdered), was as left wing as they come.
Their top competitors, Communists, so, they campaigned on left wing issues, work, bread, jobs, nationalisation, profit sharing etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 30, 2024 10:30:47 GMT
So all those African nations with "Republic" in their name are actually Republics? Sudan: in name a Republic, in fact a Military Junta. Rwanda: in name a presidential Republic, in fact a Dictatorship. Uganda: in name a Republic, in fact an Authoritarian State Need I go on? What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is. Was Nazi Germany even remotely Socialist? No, it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship. Can a Dictatorship be Socialist? Yes, it can. It can also be extreme right-wing, and everything in between. Now, originally the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was more socialist leaning; but by the time the Nazis were transporting Jews, and others, to Concentration Camps it was wholly anti-Marxist, which is very strange place for an, allegedly, Socialist organisation to be at. Socialism also tends to reject folkish / racist sentiments - both of which were entirely central to the Nazi ideology. Failure to look beneath the surface, beyond the label, all too often leads to a complete misunderstanding of what something is; as is clear from the quote above. All The Best Yeah, yada, yada. So the National Socialists hated the Marxists. Well of course they did: They were political rivals and the left, to this day, hate anyone that's not exactly the same brand of left that they are. But that doesn't make them right wing. The National Socialists were antisemitic socialists, exactly like the current Labour Party. So does that make our current government right wing? I think not. But you're right when you say it's about how they function, and the left seldom tell the truth. Except that I can't think of a single right wing function that the Nazis exhibited. Can you? The error you make is looking for something exclusively Right-Wing. Nationalism is more often Right Wing than Left. Extreme Authoritarianism is more often Right Wing than Left. Of course, if the Nazis were actually socialist it would have been strange for them to arrest and inter in concentration camps the prominent members of both the Communist and Social Democratic Parties. When Hitler murdered Gregor Strasser during the Night Of The Long Knives (30/06/34) he expunged the last remnants of Socialism in the Nazi Pary. Its journey to a Far Right Authoritarian Party was complete. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 30, 2024 10:32:20 GMT
Except it doesn't. The ultimate arbiter of which laws are enacted, when Parliament is dissolved, who can form a new Parliament, all lay with The Monarch. Now if they lay with the Monarch but the Monarch never exercised them you would be right, on function alone we would be a Democracy. However, the Monarch DOES exercise those privileges, even if only perfunctorily. As long as the Monarch continues to exercise those privileges, that is those privileges still FUNCTION, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best Now you've changed your tune. Previously, you disagreed when I said that we were a dictatorship. A Hereditary Monarchy is NOT the same as a Dictatorship. Anyone with even the briefest acquaintance with actual historical learning would know this. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 30, 2024 10:34:00 GMT
When Hitler was still seeking votes at the ballot box, he campaigned on left wing issues. His right hand man Ernst Rohm (whom he later had murdered), was as left wing as they come. Their top competitors, Communists, so, they campaigned on left wing issues, work, bread, jobs, nationalisation, profit sharing etc. Very true, but all of that was done, dusted and dead by the time of the Night Of The Long Knives. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jul 30, 2024 10:39:26 GMT
By the same token, that means by legislation and convention Britain functions as a democracy. Contrary to what you said. Except it doesn't. The ultimate arbiter of which laws are enacted, when Parliament is dissolved, who can form a new Parliament, all lay with The Monarch. Now if they lay with the Monarch but the Monarch never exercised them you would be right, on function alone we would be a Democracy. However, the Monarch DOES exercise those privileges, even if only perfunctorily. As long as the Monarch continues to exercise those privileges, that is those privileges still FUNCTION, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best Sorry, you wrote this: What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is The UK functions as a parliamentary democracy. No ifs or buts. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 30, 2024 10:53:12 GMT
When Hitler was still seeking votes at the ballot box, he campaigned on left wing issues. His right hand man Ernst Rohm (whom he later had murdered), was as left wing as they come. Their top competitors, Communists, so, they campaigned on left wing issues, work, bread, jobs, nationalisation, profit sharing etc. Very true, but all of that was done, dusted and dead by the time of the Night Of The Long Knives. All The Best It doesn't change the reasons so many joined in the hope of left wing politics. And for that matter loads joined Labour in Blair's early days in the hope of left wing politics, but he didn't nationalise anything. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 30, 2024 11:10:27 GMT
The error you make is looking for something exclusively Right-Wing. Oh, exclusively right wing. LOL! So you can't acttually name anything de-facto right wing, then. Nationalism is more often Right Wing than Left. Is it? Other than according to a random lefty on Wikipedia without any evidential basis. Authoritarianism is more often Right Wing than Left... LOL! Never heard of the USSR or the PRC, Nulla? ...if the Nazis were actually socialist it would have been strange for them to arrest and inter in concentration camps the prominent members of both the Communist and Social Democratic Parties... Never heard of the Gulags, Nulla? The Soviets disappeared hundreds of thousands of their left wing opponents in similar ways. So sorry but your post is almost wholly subjective left wing nonsense. So I'll ask again: What did the National Socialists do that was actually, objectively right wing? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 30, 2024 11:30:00 GMT
Very true, but all of that was done, dusted and dead by the time of the Night Of The Long Knives. All The Best It doesn't change the reasons so many joined in the hope of left wing politics. And for that matter loads joined Labour in Blair's early days in the hope of left wing politics, but he didn't nationalise anything. The jettisoning of Clause 4 should have forewarned them. The Labour Party was a means for Blair to ascend to power and not as a means to fix the ills of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 30, 2024 11:34:32 GMT
So I'll ask again: What did the National Socialists do that was actually, objectively right wing? I would be interested in this reply as RW and far right are thrown around so often as to have lost much meaning and when asked people seem singularly unable to supply any clear definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 30, 2024 11:34:50 GMT
There's a reason the Labour vote tumbled whilst Blair was in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 30, 2024 11:51:48 GMT
Except it doesn't. The ultimate arbiter of which laws are enacted, when Parliament is dissolved, who can form a new Parliament, all lay with The Monarch. Now if they lay with the Monarch but the Monarch never exercised them you would be right, on function alone we would be a Democracy. However, the Monarch DOES exercise those privileges, even if only perfunctorily. As long as the Monarch continues to exercise those privileges, that is those privileges still FUNCTION, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best Sorry, you wrote this: What something is called is 100% wholly irrelevant; what it DOES, HOW it FUNCTIONS determines what it actually is The UK functions as a parliamentary democracy. No ifs or buts. But it doesn't. The Monarch still has to sign acts into law, the Monarch still has to dissolve Parliament, the Monarch still has the right to deny an elected party the right to form a new government. That you are can't, or won't, see that does not make me wrong. All The Best |
|
