It's a little odd, since 99% of the time it's really just a euphemism for a particular kind of neo-nazi.
I generally vote for the Labour party, but that doesn't mean I and my fellow Labour voters (Corbyn aside) support Mao/Chavez/PolPot-style murdering of our enemies.
The Alt Right ideology relies on the principle that White culture is the "true" culture of the nation, and that other contributions simply do not count. They cast an illegitimacy to the history of minorities in the US.
The debate about protecting the culture is irrelevant because they do not want to protect the nation's culture. They want to protect White culture.
Want to preserve Oakland or the Mission as is? That's fine.
Don't like seeing women forced to walk around in burkas and girls having their genitals cut (I live in London where these re both issues)? That's racist. Obviously Islam isn't a race, and this makes no sense, but it's something people still claim.
Either preserving existing cultures is OK or it isn't.
One of the reasons FGM goes on in the UK is precisely that people don't want to be seen as judging a culture, even for something which is statistically more likely to happen in a culture: ie, the problem could be addressed with medical inspections in schools but this won't happen for fear of being called Islamophobic (oddly enough I learnt most of this from reading Bridget Christie's book, and she's pretty damn left). A similar situation occurred in the systemic rape cases in Rotherham.
And yes, of course people can voluntarily submit to something, it doesn't change that others are forced.
I'm not even sure if Mao should be directly compared to Pol Pot. Probably not.
Second, the Labour party has been social democratic for at least 30 years. It cannot be compared to communist parties at all.
Edit: you edited your post to add:
> "Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp."
...after I added multiple sources showing Chavez using torture and other forms violence. Nobody claims Chavez was as violent as the others - in fact, I specifically claimed the opposite in my reply before you edited your post. Merely that he used violence including torture.
edit: I did not edit my post after you provided any sources! From the start it contained "Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp."
I have actually made an effort and checked, for example Amnesty International for the time that Chavez was in power. I don't find evidence that he tortured most of his opponents, sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Venezuela#2000...
and read up this from Amnesty https://web.archive.org/web/20070922230635/http://web.amnest... :
> The security forces have reportedly used excessive force, and detained large numbers of opposition supporters, during nationwide street protests against the government of President Hugo Chavez. At least nine people have died and scores of others have been injured, including a number of police officers. Amnesty International is concerned that there may be further politically motivated violence, and disproportionate police response.
or http://www.weeklystandard.com/horror-in-venezuela/article/34... (I haven't heard of Weekly Standard before though)
> At the hospital he was detained by the DISIP, Chavez's secret police, and taken to their headquarters for questioning.
> During his interrogation, fingernails in his left hand were torn out. After being further tortured and injected with drugs, the secret police took him into the bowels of the building and placed him in a cell.
Or this from the BBC (I have heard of these):
> Venezuela troops 'used torture'
> Troops are accused of beating and kicking detainees Venezuelan ombudsman German Mundarain has said security forces tortured some protesters who were detained during recent anti-government demonstrations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3571383.stm
Are you seriously claiming Chavez isn't a well known human rights abuser or are you debating what constitututes 'most' or 'an opponent' like whether that changes my point that Chavez used violence just as Mao and Pol Pot did and that most normal humans think that's a bad thing?
Reports about occasional police violence (can even happen in the US) and single cases of torture (not from a reputable source) are not enough for such a broad claim.
Are you saying that Chavez isn't a torturer or that the BBC isn't a reliable source? If so I think I'll end this conversation here.
The Black Panthers are also racist, but I would not call them alt-right or neo-nazis.
You're a programmer, right?
NewNewClass ...