Current Events > Norways Prime Minister claims neo-Nazis and far left have much in common.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg has come in for sharp criticism after being quoted as saying the Nazis and the extreme left had “much in common”.

The comments by Solberg were published by the Dagbladet newspaper on August 11th in response to a neo-Nazi demonstration in Kristiansand – not to last weekend’s events in Charlottesville, USA in which a woman was killed by a far right demonstrator.

US President Donald Trump was widely criticised by both Democrats and members of the Republican party for seeking to draw a parallel between Nazi demonstrators in Charlottesville and left wing counter protesters including the Antifa group.

Taken in the overall context of the Dagbladet article, Solberg’s comments are intended to support her position that the government would fight all kinds of extremism. “Right wing extremists and neo-Nazis have a lot in common with the extreme left or religious extremism. They seek to whip up hate, division and conflict within Norwegian society,” Solberg wrote.

The comments have been strongly criticised by some of Norway’s left-wing politicians. Snorre Valen of the Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) called Solberg’s comments “completely irresponsible and amateur” in a post on Twitter. The PM should condemn Nazism clearly, Valen wrote.

“When uniformed Nazis are marching in our streets, Norwegian Jews and gay people are *actually* threatened. This is not an academic debate,” the MP wrote.

Valen cited the response by Republicans to Trump’s statements on the US extreme right in his criticism of Solberg.

“We need you to say ‘we’ve fought Nazism before and we’ll fight it again’, not weak distractions like ‘the others are also bad’," he wrote. In a tweet posted in response to Valen, Solberg cited violence by protesters at July’s G20 summit in Hamburg as an example of left wing extremism

Bjørnar Moxnes, leader of the far-left Red Party, which does not hold any seats in parliament, said Solberg should apologise for her comments.

“This is bringing Trump rhetoric into the Norwegian election campaign. Being extreme against racism is not the same as wanting to wipe out minorities. I think it is harsh, provocative and disappointing that Solberg makes this kind of comparison,” Moxnes told NRK.

“It should be quite easy to condemn terror by neo-Nazis and jihadists without bringing up us on the far left,” he added.

The Red leader said that his party “naturally rejects terror of any kind”.

Solberg’s Høyre (Conservative) party colleague Henrik Asheim called the parallels drawn by the opposition parties a “nadir”.

“It’s disappointing that otherwise sincere politicians such as Snorre Valen are bringing themselves down to this level in the election campaign. It is completely uncontroversial to point out common characteristics between right wing extremists and left wing radicals in this context,” he said to NRK.

“I think that the Red Party, the Socialist Left and voters can all see that it is weak to compare Erna Solberg, who is running an election campaign from Bergen, with Donald Trump in the USA,” he added.

Full Article: https://www.thelocal.no/20170818/norways-pm-criticised-for-comparing-neo-nazis-to-far-left



It's interesting that European politicians use Trump being compared to Trump politics as an insult.

You'd think that would be bad for relations. It's hard to imagine France going "We don't need that Obama Rhetoric here!" 7 years ago.
---

It's because they do
---

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis
---

the scale is super far right is nazis
super far left is communists

and communists and nazi both round up people to kill them in mass

so yes, if that is what is implied, they are very similar
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did
---

"far" anything = wanker
---

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

I'm sure that's the narrative conservatives would like to spread since they believe it means people can't criticize the GOP for being flagrant nazi sympathizers. People who live in the real world know this isn't true. Relativism is a conservative tactic to try and diminish the crimes of conservatives, while inflating the crimes of liberals.
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did

Because he was communist, or because he was a shitty person?
---

she's fat
---

---

Samurontai posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did

Because he was communist, or because he was a shitty person?

that's a good question.
a question i am, unfortunately, not well informed enough to answer properly.
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

Samurontai posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did

Because he was communist, or because he was a shitty person?

that's a good question.
a question i am, unfortunately, not well informed enough to answer properly.

It was a rhetorical question because it answered itself
---

Consider the following. How many other communist systems murdered many of their own people and kept them under thumb
---

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?
---

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

First page
---

RE_expert44 posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

First page

Wrong?
---

Samurontai posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

Samurontai posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did

Because he was communist, or because he was a shitty person?

that's a good question.
a question i am, unfortunately, not well informed enough to answer properly.

It was a rhetorical question because it answered itself

does it answer itself?
it's not like he's the only one.
it seems to be a common theme in many nations where Communism sets in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

---

Samurontai posted...

ROBANN_88 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

and Stalin killed as many (or more) civilians than Hitler did

Because he was communist, or because he was a shitty person?

well if we look at Communist China, Communist North Korea, Communist Cuba, and on and on

we know the answer

can you admit what that answer is?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

well if we look at Communist China, Communist North Korea, Communist Cuba, and on and on

we know the answer

can you admit what that answer is?

I don't think those 3 countries an Russia are all that comparable. They are all super different....

Not sure what your point here is unless it's just "communism is bad"
---

This is one of the dumbest topics I've entered on Gamefaqs.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

After killing far more people in the name of their totalitarianist nationalism.
---

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.
---

Twinmold posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

I'm sure that's the narrative conservatives would like to spread since they believe it means people can't criticize the GOP for being flagrant nazi sympathizers. People who live in the real world know this isn't true. Relativism is a conservative tactic to try and diminish the crimes of conservatives, while inflating the crimes of liberals.

And liberals literally believe that only white people can be racist.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

Edit:

darkjedilink posted...

Twinmold posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

I'm sure that's the narrative conservatives would like to spread since they believe it means people can't criticize the GOP for being flagrant nazi sympathizers. People who live in the real world know this isn't true. Relativism is a conservative tactic to try and diminish the crimes of conservatives, while inflating the crimes of liberals.

And liberals literally believe that only white people can be racist.

Edit: oh, you're a troll
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

RE_expert44 posted...

It's because they do

Interesting because the far left Russians fought the Nazis

How does that change anything? Two sides of the same coin.
---

itachi15243 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

Lol.
---

itachi15243 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

And how does one "seize the means of production" from individuals who don't want to give it up?
---

s0nicfan posted...

itachi15243 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

And how does one "seize the means of production" from individuals who don't want to give it up?

Hugs and tolerance of course.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

the scale is super far right is nazis
super far left is communists

and communists and nazi both round up people to kill them in mass

so yes, if that is what is implied, they are very similar

Nazi fascism doesn't exist on the traditional political spectrum. It's too far removed from traditional governance.
---

s0nicfan posted...

itachi15243 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

And how does one "seize the means of production" from individuals who don't want to give it up?

In an ideal world they would do it freely and for the good of all people. I'm more talking about the theory of communism rather than a communist rebellion.

But a government mandate could be passed to limit the earnings of of company to a certain amount, such as how fortune 500's we're almost limited to 5 million profit a year a while back and then the rest of the proceeds could go to the people for ubi and "free" healthcare.

In fact if we lowered our​ defence budget, put a cap on earnings and changed the tax system to a flat tax but at a lower rate to all considered the profits past 5mil being passed on to the government we could very well create a fucking Utopia with a mix of Socialist, Communist, and Capitalist ideals

In all honesty I'm more of a fan of socialism than communism.
---

s0nicfan posted...

itachi15243 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Samurontai posted...

Consider this question

Where in the communistic ideology does it state that a group of people must be destroyed because a certain race is superior?

Not a race, but a class. Tomato, tomahto.

Rich is not a protected class.

And communism doesn't call for their death, it calls for them to share all their money. Pretty big difference from Nazis killing the Jewish for being Jewish

And how does one "seize the means of production" from individuals who don't want to give it up?

The difference between Nazi fascism and communism is that the violence resulting from Nazism is inherent to the ideology, while the violence resulting from communism is due to human nature. We can't handle the selflessness and communal thinking required to make Communism truly work. That's why pretty much every "communist" society devolves into authoritarian despotism.

Which isn't a defense of Communism by any means, but that's what people are referencing when they say communism isn't like fascism.
---

itachi15243 posted...

Rich is not a protected class.

the Communist Party of Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge) in Cambodia killed people cause they were academics, or looked like they might possibly be academics or smart, like anyone who wore glasses.

"The population must, they believed, be made to work as labourers in one huge federation of collective farms. Anyone in opposition - and all intellectuals and educated people were assumed to be - must be eliminated, together with all un-communist aspects of traditional Cambodian society."
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia1.html
---

People can post horseshoes as much as they want, doesn't change the fact that "far left" protesters are still closer to the middle of the horseshoe than the end of it

are we talking about regular protestors?
i thought we were talking about genocies and whether or not you can say "isolated incident, had nothing to do with communism" or not
---

Horus_Leftfield posted...

People can post horseshoes as much as they want, doesn't change the fact that "far left" protesters are still closer to the middle of the horseshoe than the end of it

Only if you don't know what 'middle' means.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

the scale is super far right is nazis
super far left is communists

and communists and nazi both round up people to kill them in mass

so yes, if that is what is implied, they are very similar

Nazi fascism doesn't exist on the traditional political spectrum. It's too far removed from traditional governance.

it doesn't fit here?


https://sites.google.com/site/thelibertarianparty101/_/rsrc/1427996244971/home/political-spectrum/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-02%20at%201.36.10%20PM.png
---

Well, the far right and the far left have the word "far" in common
---

frozenshock posted...

Well, the far right and the far left have the word "far" in common

*takes off glasses*

My God
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

the scale is super far right is nazis
super far left is communists

and communists and nazi both round up people to kill them in mass

so yes, if that is what is implied, they are very similar

Nazi fascism doesn't exist on the traditional political spectrum. It's too far removed from traditional governance.

it doesn't fit here?


https://sites.google.com/site/thelibertarianparty101/_/rsrc/1427996244971/home/political-spectrum/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-02%20at%201.36.10%20PM.png

No. What does that pic even measure, exactly? How does it factor in authoritarianism? Economics?
---

The so-called political spectrum isn't exactly a science. I know they call it political "science" but anyway.

The truth is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

The far left and the far right are made out to be the furthest positions you could possibly have. And yeah, theoretically if you write down the ideological motivations then they're pretty different.

But I don't think living in a fascist country and living in a communist regime is all that much different in practice. In both cases you have an authoritarian government with absolute power and the people themselves have no rights since the individual is considered to be much less important than the collectivity.

In a way, both "far left" and "far right" are extreme collectivism. Even the fascist symbol represents how a bunch of sticks bound together are stronger than one single stick by itself. The individual must be sacrificed for the many.

For the communists it's the "proletariat." For the nazis it was the master race. Whatever. The reality is that under both of those you yourself as a human being have pretty much no rights and you can be jailed, put to death, etc., for extremely minor things.

So as far away as far left and far right are ideologically, living under them is not that different of an experience.
---

I'm more surprised in the separation of "far right extremism" with "religious extremism"...
---

@Antifar

darkjedilink posted...

And liberals literally believe that only white people can be racist.

wut
---

He's absolutely right. The far left is little different from the Nazi brownshirts.
---

well duh? so you're saying an extremist has much in common with another extremist?
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

itachi15243 posted...

Rich is not a protected class.

the Communist Party of Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge) in Cambodia killed people cause they were academics, or looked like they might possibly be academics or smart, like anyone who wore glasses.

"The population must, they believed, be made to work as labourers in one huge federation of collective farms. Anyone in opposition - and all intellectuals and educated people were assumed to be - must be eliminated, together with all un-communist aspects of traditional Cambodian society."
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia1.html

The quote in the OP seems to refer to people like Antifa etc. At least that's what I assume is the context given current events and discussions on this board. Those groups are violent, but they're quite openly violent against fascism, nazism, and so on. Comparisons to totalitarian regimes that execute any dissenter fall a little flat, I think.

It's quite tiresome to see this bickering over and over again. All violence isn't equally bad. I don't care for the Antifa or their methods, but it's quite clear to me that calling for the extermination of brown people, gay people, Jews, etc is worse. When people imply that these two fringes are equally bad, they're tilting the moral plane to favor white supremacy groups.

EDIT:
Mal_Fet posted...

He's absolutely right. The far left is little different from the Nazi brownshirts.

He's a she.

Also, Snorre is a hilarious name for a person.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

darkjedilink posted...

And liberals literally believe that only white people can be racist.

wut

This is a reference to people arguing that racism refers to more than just bigotry, that it refers to a deeper, systemic bigotry. They would usually make such a distinction; it's racist (or sexist) when the bigotry comes from the systemically favored group (i.e., whites, men) and targets an oppressed/disenfranchised group.
---

scar the 1 posted...

This is a reference to people arguing that racism refers to more than just bigotry, that it refers to a deeper, systemic bigotry. They would usually make such a distinction; it's racist (or sexist) when the bigotry comes from the systemically favored group (i.e., whites, men) and targets an oppressed/disenfranchised group.

Right, which is why asians, indians, and jews are the wealthiest and best-educated groups in the US since our systems are designed to favor them over whites, blacks, and hispanics.
---