One snapshot from the growing Nazi-scene in Germany

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-570229,00.html


Using Democracy's Tools to Get Rid of Democracy

well, at least this is a tacttic shared by marching Islam as well. There are reasons why I see both so close to each other. It is like physics: the same let's say aerodynamical problem will always trigger comparable solutions.

At the same time we see long-lasting oingoing trends of turning away from democracy, not only in the east, but with growing pace in theWest as well. It will be a trend as long as more and more people turn out to become the losers of the current social trends and economic competition.

Also:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-557204,00.html


what is needed, are realistic and humane perpsectoves for a future worth to be lived. But "woher nehmen und nicht stehlen?" (where to take from without stealing?)

[nikimcbee]

Can I get a working definition of the difference between communism and socialism?

[Letum]

Can I get a working definition of the difference between
communism and socialism?

Communism is an interpretation of history as a class struggle with several
distinct and inevitable phases in an attempt to predict, and then bring about,
(via a revolution) the next stage in the class struggle in which a loosely
structured, decentralized collective government oversees universal economic
goals rather than conflicting competitive corporations.
In practice this fails to achieve it's goals and ends up in authoritarian
dictatorships because the idea of historical prophecy is deeply floored. In the
words of K.Popper, "We have become makers of our fate [only] when we
have ceased to pose as its prophets".

Socialism is a little harder to pin down as it refers to a very, very broad range
of ideas. So, to speak broadly, socialism can be used to describe any system
in which the distribution of wealth or the means of production of wealth is to
some extent influenced by society. This usually takes the form of state
property, worker ownership of companies, unions, cooperatives and
consortium, central or non-central tax and spending etc.

Communist ideals (although not so much the actual outcome of communist
revolutions!) rely very heavily on economic structures that are socialist in
nature.

And the differences? Well....
Socialism is not:
an interpretation of history as a class struggle with several distinct and
inevitable phases in an attempt to predict, and then bring about, (via a
revolution) the next stage in the class struggle in which a loosely structured,
decentralized collective government oversees universal economic goals rather
than conflicting competitive corporations.
Communism is not:
any system in which the distribution of wealth or the means of
production of wealth is to some extent influenced by society. This usually
takes the form of state property, worker ownership of companies, unions,
cooperatives and consortium, central or non-central tax and spending
etc.

There are no real similarities. Communist ideals (although not so much the
actual outcome of communist revolutions!) rely very heavily on economic
structures that are socialist in nature, but to say something is used or is a part
of something else is not to say that they are similar in the same way that beds
are not similar to bedrooms, even tho there is usually a bed in every
bedroom.

[kurtz]

I don't think I've ever seen a rhetorical question answered quite so well:D

Edit Just read the article; It seems these women are members of a perfectly legal party recieving state funding, but lose their jobs because of it. Also this does seem to be the result of a witchunt by the left wing, who seem to be defending free speech by making sure that people can't hold thier beliefs without a genuine fear of persecution.

[Skybird]

<p>I don't think I've ever seen a rhetorical question answered quite so well<img src="images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Grin" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg" /></p>

Indeed, I think it was a bait, and letum fell for it. But hijacking threads is a general sports, so why not. So I fall next and would add to Letum that socialism often is described as a premature phase before communism, while this has been a popular view in Eastgerman schoolbooks, it is also a view others bitterly fight against, for they do want to be socialists, but not communists.

Even more important: communism is a society without social classes, socialism still accepts social classes, but wants their mutual relation based on justice and equal rights. Also, communism rejects private property, socialism does not, but accepts it.

I like Marx as an analytical observer - in that he was hard to beat. However, whule his assumptiopns on how the capital destroys itself can be seen in actio0n today, his prpojections of how communism takes over are queer, and without economical reason. Maybe no wonder for a man who was unable all his life to come along with his money, always was in debts, and lend money from others at whose costs he lived. There is a grain of truth in that this personal deficit from his biography is reflected in his ideas about communistic economical functions as well. The abswence of economic realism and ignorration of human nature is breathtaking.

I myself refuse communism and socialism, both suffer from the same irrational attitude and self-deception about human nature like capitalism and it's utopia of free, liberal market governing it itself for the better of all - it does not, but creates monopoles for the worse of communities and the better of only the few. As long as you are not the last living thing on earth, you have a social responsibility that starts to limit your freedom where you start to limit the freedom of others, and the ethical glue that keeps groups and communities together in a human context is solidarity (which I do not see as unlimited, though). These are man-made and arbitrary rules we more or less agree to follow by. the term "justice" has no content in this part od the discussion. It is not an issue of justice or an issue of some natural law to follow these rules. We follow these rules because they reflect pur ethical self-understanding (hopefully, egoists may disagree).

For these reasons i accept the need to act with socially motivated self-restraint at times, and social responsibility and investement at others, but I do not like the concept of socialism and communism. A social consciousness that separates us from the law of the strongest and waging constant war inside the jungle. that some people abuse structures born from social standards, does not falsify the principle truth in these assessmeent - it just illustrates that abuse takes place, not more and not less it shows.

[Skybird]

I don't think I've ever seen a rhetorical question answered quite so well:D

Edit Just read the article; It seems these women are members of a perfectly legal party recieving state funding, but lose their jobs because of it. Also this does seem to be the result of a witchunt by the left wing, who seem to be defending free speech by making sure that people can't hold thier beliefs without a genuine fear of persecution.

Parties on the ground of Nazi ideology and reference to the NSDAP are forbidden in Germany. It has been a hot debated issue since long wether or not the NPD must be forbidden or not. It was tried, but at that time the attempt failed at court for formal reasons, since the office for protection of the constitution had several agents inside the party that had infiltrated it. This prevented the judges to allow the party being banned, for formal reasons.

I have nbo doubt that by ideologx and content the NPD, and some other groups as well, should and could be banned. the formal way to achcieve that is just tricky, and after the desaster last time, politicians are shy to risk a failure again. i am perfectly okay with banning members from Nazi groups and parties from service in public offices, and especially education and social issues, like i am also okay with banning scientologists from any socially or economically influential job position.

[Letum]

I don't like socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism or any other all
encompassing structure. Changes to government, the economy and society
should be made in a piecemeal fashion. Make small changes, see if they work
and continue developing step by small step always ensuring that we can turn
back on any mistakes made as no doubt they will be.

We should progress as if we where in a dark room, not as if we are running to
the goal at the other end because the future can not be seen and it is foolish to
run in the dark or pretend we can where we are going to end up.


i am perfectly okay with banning members from Nazi groups and
parties from service in public offices, and especially education and social issues,
like i am also okay with banning scientologists from any socially or economically
influential job position.

You have gotta admit that is it risky to say that people can ban whoever they strongly disagree with.
there is a fine line somewhere there.

[kurtz]

I think I diluted my message by saying they were a legal party, I can't see that democracy is served by banning any party as long it is not directly advocating criminal acts. I mean why do it if they have many members it's undemocratic to ban them and if they have few there is no point in banning them. Now if we could ban religions that would help.

[AntEater]

Actually, legally its a bit more difficult. You cannot ban an ideology in a democracy.
The NSDAP is banned, and any attempted successor organisation.
But national socialism as a way of thinking can not be banned. Of course holocaust denial is now a punishable offense (which I think is rubbish). Not that I deny the Holocaust, only its like banning flat earth society.
As I allready posted, a party can be banned when it is actively pursuing the overthrow of the present constitutional order.
There are a bunch of fringe parties with a dozen members on the average on both ends of the political spectrum that are monarchist, national-socialist but not Hitlerite (Strasser faction), or on the other end stalinist, maoist or even a small bunch of followers of north korean Juche ideology :D
Not to mention radical ecologists, Yogis, radical feminists and a strange "Anti-Green" party founded by Lydon LaRouche (and the CIA) that employs Scientology-like methods.
These groups are all legally registered parties because they either try to fulfill their goals within the system or because they're too small to matter.
With associations ("Vereine") the law is not that strict, they can be banned if violating principles like the peace of the land, democracy and the likes.
But if you're a party, you're on the safe side and can get away with stuff a normal association wouldn't. Associations also can be banned by administrative act (which can be attacked in court) while a Party ban is only possible by order of the federal constitutional court.
Sofar, only two parties have been banned: The "classic" communist party KPD in 1956 and the socialist Reich party in 1957.
The SRP was simply too obviously aping the NSDAP while the KPD ban was just Cold War. Adenauer leaned heavily on the judges and the legality of that verdict is very questionable. A new KPD was just never founded because the socialists were too fractured.
The right-wing FAP was banned in the 1980s but the court ruled that it was not a party, so it was simply banned by administrative act.
I think I allready posted what went wrong with the NPD, but here it is again:
The NPD party head consisted mostly of moles. Practically everyone in any leading position in the NPD was on the payroll of some intelligence service. Since the intelligence community in german is very fractured due to federalism, some agencies didn't know about the activities of the other and some NPD members "spied" for serveral agencies without those knowing of the others.
So the defense simply made the case that it cannot be ruled out that the revolutionary tendencies were deliberately planted by the government through these moles in order to get the party banned.
Since "in dubio pro reo" applies here as well, the court had to follow the defense.

[Skybird]

You have gotta admit that is it risky to say that people can ban whoever they strongly disagree with.
there is a fine line somewhere there.

Nobody in Germany can be banned just because somebody disagrees with him. But you can eventually ban them on the basis of laws, criminal persecution, and rulings by the constitution. In this way I want it understood when saying that Nazi-parties and scientology should be confronted, and banned. Our laws and our constitution are in confomrity with that, regarding the two example candidates, while both are object to police research, legal cases, and observation by intelligence services.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You have gotta admit that is it risky to say that people can ban whoever they strongly disagree with.
there is a fine line somewhere there.

Nobody in Germany can be banned just because somebody disagrees with him. But you can eventually ban them on the basis of laws, criminal persecution, and rulings by the constitution. In this way I want it understood when saying that Nazi-parties and scientology should be confronted, and banned. Our laws and our constitution are in confomrity with that, regarding the two example candidates, while both are object to police research, legal cases, and observation by intelligence services.


I have to chime in here, given the nature of the situation:D

I think Letum is right, and you are agreeing with him, sky. He's not saying that people can be banned just because someone disagrees with them, he's saying that if the majority of the populace can go through proper channels to ban an ideology or religion or whatever, it can be a dangerous thing.

Consider the public's lack of discretion when the chips are down. America has many examples of people being oppressed through perfectly legal means. The only protection for these people is if it is not legal to ban anyone.

Tyranny of the masses.......I think you said.

[FIREWALL]

I see them both as very simular.

A small group call all the shots and live like Kings.

While the majority live like peasants and do all the work.

[Letum]

I see them both as very simular.

A small group call all the shots and live like Kings.

While the majority live like peasants and do all the work.



...care to elaborate?

[Skybird]

A small group call all the shots and live like Kings.

While the majority live like peasants and do all the work.


Yes, bonzes and capitalistic bosses are a real plague, aren't they.

[FIREWALL]

I see them both as very simular.

A small group call all the shots and live like Kings.

While the majority live like peasants and do all the work.



...care to elaborate?



Letum. Baiting is for Fishing.;)

[Letum]

I see them both as very simular.

A small group call all the shots and live like Kings.

While the majority live like peasants and do all the work.


...care to elaborate?


Letum. Baiting is for Fishing.;)

Baiting?

I just want to know how you came to such a conclusion.
Is that baiting?

[Sailor Steve]

Using Democracy's Tools to Get Rid of Democracy

That's the biggest problem with Democracy: if you're going to have true freedom, you have to allow everyone to speak his mind, even if he advocates taking away your freedoms.

Can I get a working definition of the difference between communism and socialism?
com·mu·nism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.communalism.

True communism is to be found in definitions 1 and 4, and would be a great way to live if people were perfect. Unfortunately...

Americans usually take 'Communism' to be definition 2, which can cause confusion if you're having a philosophical discussion and the other guy is having a political one.

so·cial·ism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

By these definitions communism and socialism are indeed very similar. On the other hand, most Americans, especially the right wing, don't interpret 'socialism' that way. They take it to mean using government power (as opposed to just government money - an oxymoron in itself) to force programs that the opposition claims "is for the good of all". They see this as tending toward 'CommuSocialism' as practiced by the USSR, which follows 'socialism' definition 3, but in a perverted sort of way.

This is why I disagree with Firewall's observation: it shows the problem of addressing a commonly accepted definition while ignoring the true definition. Nothing wrong with that, but it does lead to some interesting discussions.

Addendum: True democracy and true communism are flip sides of the same coin, one being the political side and the other being the social. But, as James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

[nikimcbee]

Thanks Letum and Sailor Steve for the definitions. My short definition is this: Communism is the jackbooted version of socialism. Economically they are the same, one is heavy-handed, one isn't.

So I couldn't help but laught at that creature carrying the sign: " I don't want capitalism" I don't want "Communism" I want " National Socialism.":rotfl:

That's the part I've never understood, it's practically the same thing (from an economic point of view). Is it the ethnic/racial purity beliefs that people are attracted to? If that is the case, they need to change their name then, because it has nothing to do with ecomnomics.



I don't want apple pie! I want a pie with apples!

[nikimcbee]

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,779796,00.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

For what it's worth, here "socialists" are the left (25% at the first round of the 2007 pres election) , and "communists" are the far left (5 small parties of mixed tendancies, worth around 8%). Pretty much different from the US "political landscape", socialist isn't an insult around here

I totally agree. Socialism can be a good thing. You just have to be responsible about it.

I know how easy it is.... you get some nations together and decide to go out for a little socialism. A little welfare here and there never hurt anyone. But then everyone is having a good time and it gets easy to get a little carried away. People start doing 5-year plans or find themselves dancing on the constitution clad only in their economic ideals. When you run out of money to pay for more socialism, you start a tab and figure you'll worry about it later. Some people get a little socialism in them and pick fights with non-socialist countries that just stopped in for a bit of justice reform or to use the Worldbank. Things get out of control in a hurry.

Next thing you know you wake up in bed with a country like North Korea, and can't remember where you parked your economy.


Please use socialism responsibly :know: :up:

[nikimcbee]

For what it's worth, here "socialists" are the left (25% at the first round of the 2007 pres election) , and "communists" are the far left (5 small parties of mixed tendancies, worth around 8%). Pretty much different from the US "political landscape", socialist isn't an insult around here

I totally agree. Socialism can be a good thing. You just have to be responsible about it.

I know how easy it is.... you get some nations together and decide to go out for a little socialism. A little welfare here and there never hurt anyone. But then everyone is having a good time and it gets easy to get a little carried away. People start doing 5-year plans or find themselves dancing on the constitution clad only in their economic ideals. When you run out of money to pay for more socialism, you start a tab and figure you'll worry about it later. Some people get a little socialism in them and pick fights with non-socialist countries that just stopped in for a bit of justice reform or to use the Worldbank. Things get out of control in a hurry.

Next thing you know you wake up in bed with a country like North Korea, and can't remember where you parked your economy.


Please use socialism responsibly :know: :up:

As a hard working individual, I 'm opposed to the concept. I think socialism is nice on paper but doesn't work too good in reality. Ask the original pilgrims to the US, it worked out great for them.:up: :dead:

[AntEater]

Lol, is this thread about Socialism or the NPD?
As a closet socialist, I have to chime in, but all I could say was allready said.
Problem is, the end of communism was not the end of ideologies.
I always find it funny how the current crisis is always explained by "single faults" instead of questioning why these single faults came to be.
A current banker often sounds uncannily similar to a communist in 1990....
Actually the west german "great consensus" (which is pretty similar to what FDR did in the US) was maybe the way to go, but this model is gone and buried and the only living proponents of it are actually Skybirds dreaded leftist party.
Btw, at University I was a member of the leftist party group, but the main reason for that was chicks... (I can show some photos).
In real life (outside campus), I am still a SPD member, even though I've sworn a thousand times that I leave this party. Hell, my whole family was in it, one of my grand uncles went into concentration camp for it, you can't throw away your whole political family backround for day to day politics.
Also, the SPD has survived the Nazis, it will survive Wolfgang Clement (may he rot in hell)....

But regarding Skybirds original post: Maybe its a generation thing, but I'm against banning everyone. If there's one thing that really puts the US ahead of us (now that we're level in banning Kinder surprise) is that the US political system takes freedom of speech seriously. Every rightist in germany talks about how great the US is.
They mean the wrong thing (stock market, nuclear weapons, the military).
What is really great about the US is not economic, but personal freedom.
We still have to learn a lot from the US there, but sadly we only take over the bad aspects of the US while forgetting our own strenghts.
If somebody is a Nazi, you can't convert him into a democrat by banning his party.
Actually, I think this whole "wehrhafte Demokratie" BS has had its days.
When our politicians were Wily Brandt or Hellmut Schmidt or Walter Scheel, it made sense to let these people limit our freedom of speech for the sake of common good, especially since many original Nazis were still alive and kicking.
Nowadays our politicians are the worst bunch of morons imaginable and they still claim the same rights these real men like Schmidt did.
I'm simply not in the mood to let somebody whose whole archivement in life is based on corruption and careerism dictate me or my countrymen what we are allowed to do or believe in.
If somebody wants to be a Nazi or a Scientologist or a follower of Kim Yong Il, let him. Problem is, that would require our current ruling rabble to get their act together and actually govern this country instead of just earning money for doing nothing.

[Xantrokoles]

I hope there is noone mixing neo-nazi and nazi!

The Germans are going to be more proud of their country as others do.
Here is noone running arround screaming ,,Heil Hitler''!

[Letum]

Thanks Letum and Sailor Steve for the definitions. My short definition is this: Communism is the jackbooted version of socialism. Economically they are the same, one is heavy-handed, one isn't.

That really is a ridiculous oversimplification and not even an accurate one.
It is both intellectually and factually empty.

[FIREWALL]

@Letum

You must be one of the richest members on SubSim.

Cause you sure as hell got the Fertilizer Market Cornered.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Letum]

Exactly what are you objecting to with your snide innuendo?

Do I take it that you don't think it is an oversimplification?

[nikimcbee]

Exactly what are you objecting to with your snide innuendo?

Do I take it that you don't think it is an oversimplification?


You are quick! That's why I said it was my short definition. and prove me wrong, name one warm/ fuzzy communist nation.

[nikimcbee]

I'm not familiar with german laws, but isn't it illegal to display the swastika?

[JHuschke]

Communism, Nationalism, Socialism..I do not see Facism. Neo-Nazi's are just plain stupid, if they want to be one then they need to do and think what a real one did.

[Wolfehunter]

It makes me laugh when I hear people say we live in a free society. My A$$. Politics, Religion and Race are always going to be a factor in life. Is it right? No but it happens. World never changes.;)

[Letum]

Exactly what are you objecting to with your snide innuendo?

Do I take it that you don't think it is an oversimplification?

You are quick! That's why I said it was my short definition. and prove me wrong, name one warm/ fuzzy communist nation.
Name a communist nation at all!
There have never been any and never will. Any attempts at setting one up have
all ended up in authoritarian dictatorships as seen in Russia and China that are
very far from the leaderless rule by society envisaged by communism.

I'm not familiar with german laws, but isn't it illegal to display the swastika?

Yes. Apart from as a religious icon, in art, film and/or education.

[nikimcbee]

Exactly what are you objecting to with your snide innuendo?

Do I take it that you don't think it is an oversimplification?

You are quick! That's why I said it was my short definition. and prove me wrong, name one warm/ fuzzy communist nation.
Name a communist nation at all!
There have never been any and never will. Any attempts at setting one up have
all ended up in authoritarian dictatorships as seen in Russia and China that are
very far from the leaderless rule by society envisaged by communism.

I'm not familiar with german laws, but isn't it illegal to display the swastika?

Yes. Apart from as a religious icon, in art, film and/or education.

So the USSR wasn't communist then? That's news to me. Please tell me what economic model they are following then?

My whole point is that there isn't much economic difference socialism and communism.

[Wolfehunter]

Guys all these "ism" terms are only valid on paper. In reality political parties change alter and abuse there position for there own gains. Doesn't matter if you in China, US, Europe, Africa, Canada etc. Governing bodies do what they want. Citizens can try to resist or express there ideals but end up in jail, or a funny farm or dead. That is a fact.

So Capitalism, Communism, Socialism etc. means nothing in the real world. Their only words for propaganda to exploit the weak.

[Skybird]

Using Democracy's Tools to Get Rid of Democracy

That's the biggest problem with Democracy: if you're going to have true freedom, you have to allow everyone to speak his mind, even if he advocates taking away your freedoms.
."

Yes, but I do not know any constitution that allows such an unlimited freedom. Where there is community and a social order, freedom know limits short of posing a threat to the structural integrity of the community and it's survivability, or limiting the freedom of the one at the cost of the other. If it would not be like that, our Western constituons would not be any different to the law of the jungle put into nice-sounding words.

[Letum]

So the USSR wasn't communist then? That's news to me. Please tell me what economic model they are following then?
Bingo!

The USSR throughout the majority of it's time was a dictatorship. It bore very,
very minimal relationship to the Marxist (or any other pre-revolution) ideal
and never could.


My whole point is that there isn't much economic difference socialism and communism.
Communism is not primary a economic system. It is a social one.
Economics within the communist ideal are socialist in nature. However, the
fact that parts of the communist ideal are socialist does not make socialism
like communism anymore than beds are like bedrooms, despite the fact that
bedrooms contain beds. You are making a category error. Communism and
socialism are not of the same category in the way that communism, republic
and dictatorship are.

Socialism is not a single economic system, but a way of describing a variety of
different and separate economic structures and substructures. There is no
such thing as the as the socialist economy. Any system can be described as more or
less socialist, but there is no one socialist ideal, unlike communism.

[nikimcbee]

I don't think I've ever seen a rhetorical question answered quite so well:D

Edit Just read the article; It seems these women are members of a perfectly legal party recieving state funding, but lose their jobs because of it. Also this does seem to be the result of a witchunt by the left wing, who seem to be defending free speech by making sure that people can't hold thier beliefs without a genuine fear of persecution.

Ditto. I re-read the article and came to the same conclusion. I guess the communism/socialism debate went father than what i was looking for. I just thought her sign was funny.

On a side note, how many ligitimate political parties are there in Germany? (meaning ones that actually hold power.) Is it as crazy as Russian politics? At least in US politics, you can pretty much figure out what people stand for. I'm personally more interested in the economic side of stuff than the social.

[Skybird]

NPD - Nazis. Make a creeping but constant upward trend especially in Eastern local parliaments. In some forgotten places they have one third support.

CDU - christiandemocrats, the classical "conservative" party. currently the strongest, usually between 35-45%

CSU - a local variant of the CDU that runs only in Bavaria. local dominance, though fading.

FDP - "liberals". Always a kingmaker in the past, but minor.Today, almost unimportant if situation does not allow them to make the king (around 5-10%)

Bündnis 90/Die Grünen - Green List and former Alternative List. Kingmaker without decisive power by itself (around 5-15%)

SPD - "socialdemocrats". A deep, lasting, historic and record-heavy fall. In their worst condition ever. Has no answer to the challenge the new ultra-left party is putting up to them, and lost many key personnell and unionists to this new ultra-left group. In the past the counterpart to the CDU, around 35-45%, today just a shadow of it's former self, around 20%, still loosing, and without leadership.

Die Linke - alliance of ultra-left SPD renegades, former SED bonzes, all-out communists, DDR-sympathizers. Has strong at least communication ties to active left terror groups like FARC. The office for the protection of the constitution, a constoitutional intelligence service, has had them under surveillance and stil recommends to keep them under surveillance for anti-constitutional tendencies. they are skimming on the waves of popular dissatisfaction and social envy. Maybe on their way to become the new challenge for the conswervative CDU/CSU. Wioch would mean a catastrophe for this country. One of it's heads has been a former SPD top leader. there is a lot of hate and maximum disgust between him and the SPD. potential for everything between 15 and 35%, growing.

Die Linke unfortunately is the coming political influence of power, and already has made the other parties reacting to it by becoming more "left" themselves. I also see them as attempting to overthrow the democratic system and replace it with a left rulership. I hate them. If you remember the SED (whose follow-up PDS merged into Die Linke in full) you know what to expect of them.

There are more parties, but with the expection of a small Danish minority group in one federal state being allowed a symbolic representation under special rules avoiodng the 5% hurdle, these other parties usually do not jump beyond the 5%.

The percentages are not current voting results, I wnated to give a general impression of how influential I see them on the politicalö stage, beyond local and national elections.

[1480]

Letum, quick question. The British universal health care system, is a socialist program by definition, how is that working out? Our federal welfare system, otherwise known as social security, was a noble venture in its original genesis. It has been expanded exponentially to the point that because someone is too obese to work, gets paid out of a "socialist" fund that they never paid into. Or the drug dealer gets shot and unfortunately lives, gets a check every month. The age for people who have worked their entire lives and paid into it has increased, because the fund is being drained by, lazies, criminals and illegal aliens.


The problem with socialism is this: it's a theory that does not take into account human nature. A. People are lazy, "the 10% do 80% of the work" premise. B. It's hard to get 10 people to agree to anything, let alone 200 million. C. There is no incentive for an individual to better themselves or their situation. D. Supervision is still required to get goals accomplished, you get what Orwell said best "All animals are equal, some are more equal then others...."

Just my 2 cents....

[Skybird]

The problem why socialism does not work is the same why capiatlaism does not work.Both assume that reasons dominates in man. both assume that this automatically leads to a character willing to take responsibility, to share voluntarily, and man eveffectively being a better man indeed.

In other words, both capitalism's free market and socialism's sharing attitude fail for reasons of naivety about human nature. we are not altruistic by nature. we are egoiosts by nature. It's just that we can learn not to be like that. But some never learn, and they can spoil the match for all others.

In the end, both ideologies breed those who think they have a right to live at the cost of the others and always taking but never giving in return. The bonze and the parasite - even when being different in total wealth, they are nevertheless of the same nature. Smack those bloodsucking insects, the bonze and the social parasite alike.

[nikimcbee]

@skybird
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't mean to distract your thread, sorry for that. I'm done debating communism and socialism for the day. I just thought that girl's sign was funny.
Are a lot of these social/ethnic tensions because of the turkish population in Germany or is it something else (East/West Germany)?

[Skybird]

It is caused in the main by unemployment, poverty, social downfall, and a tough youth without fair perspectives. In other words, it is the same like everyhwere else. take away people's future, and you make them vulnerable for extreme recipes of how to heal the world. Ignoring the Islam- and imigration content a moment, hate on "Ausländer" (foreigners) comes along that road as well. Turkish and other immigration and islam casue their own problems in germany, but they did not originally cause Nazism in Germany. But true is that some people turn into political radicals for they cannot see how to defend against Islam with moderate political structures determined to bring Islam to Europe. Also see that the former SED fans and the Nazis alike found fertile ground first in the new five federal states after the wall fell down. That is because these states do not see the ammount of same wages, employment levels and economic future, like the old western states. The peaceful german revolution turned it's back on the easterners, and many of them lost bitterly in chances and perspectives, and see the early promises given to them betrayed.

Probably no other project in europe after WWII had been so monumentally underestimated in advance like the german reunification. Even wealthy and economically strong germany (1989) was and still is shaking under the burden. equality between the old and the new federal states my generation will not see. Much of the east sees "social desertification" for that reason.

[nikimcbee]

The problem why socialism does not work is the same why capiatlaism does not work.Both assume that reasons dominates in man. both assume that this automatically leads to a character willing to take responsibility, to share voluntarily, and man eveffectively being a better man indeed.

In other words, both capitalism's free market and socialism's sharing attitude fail for reasons of naivety about human nature. we are not altruistic by nature. we are egoiosts by nature. It's just that we can learn not to be like that. But some never learn, and they can spoil the match for all others.

In the end, both ideologies breed those who think they have a right to live at the cost of the others and always taking but never giving in return. The bonze and the parasite - even when being different in total wealth, they are nevertheless of the same nature. Smack those bloodsucking insects, the bonze and the social parasite alike.

I totally agree with you. It's frustrating to see politicians (and regular people to) corrupt the system. I can't vouch for the german political system, but the blatant partisanship in the US system is frustrating at times. If there is a good idea the other side will automatically oppose it.:nope: I think too many people are putting the party first and the will of the people second. Both parties are guilty of this.

[1480]

Wow, skybird and I have found a common ground!!!!! There may be hope for you yet you socialist rascal! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Skybird]

As a matter of fact I would prefer a feudal structure, as long as the noble men are made sure to be noble indeed and the lord serves his title and does not think the title is for serving him. I cannot see democracy being the way to solve our problems - for it's structures have become integral part of the problem.

[1480]

As long as I am the noble!:up:


You make a great assertition but I would like to clarify something: when you say democracy, is it the classic sense, "one vote for all" or the perverted sense, electing someone to speak for you?

Reason being is that a representative republic, which is what we practice on the left side of the pond is set up as you posit: layers upon layers of corruption till the whole ship goes off course. The classic sense, you just hope the masses are educated enough to make a informed choice. Which as we have agreed, is highly unlikely. Though, I would love a true democracy.

[Letum]

Non representational democracy is little more than mob-rule.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As a matter of fact I would prefer a feudal structure, as long as the noble men are made sure to be noble indeed and the lord serves his title and does not think the title is for serving him. I cannot see democracy being the way to solve our problems - for it's structures have become integral part of the problem.


:rotfl: :lol: :) :-? :huh:


When I first read that, I thought you were kidding sky. Y'know, responding to people's criticism of your views on politics by oversimplifying their view of you.


You're not serious about feudalism, right?

I mean, who exactly is going to run a system like that? How do you make sure that the nobles stay "noble"?

The problem why socialism does not work is the same why capiatlaism does not work.Both assume that reasons dominates in man.

Isn't that why feudalism would work even worse? By the way, capitalism does not assume that reason is the dominating force in men. It assumes that self-interest is the dominating force. Then it attempts to harness that potential.

Capitalism is hard to get right, but you can get very close by limiting government (thus preventing government-industrial complexes, and also government-sanctioned stifling of competition) and by having a as transparent marketplace. As long as entities are competing, they must be efficient or they do not survive.
In short, it takes the "people" factor out of the equation.

In the U.S., people are constantly doing things to eliminate competition. Corporate taxes and increasing startup costs in the form of licensing by agencies like OSHA and the EPA make it hard to start a business. That means less competition.

Many federal tax dollars are wasted in subsidizing large corporations and bailing ineffecient ones out of financial trouble. This policy reduces the consequences they face for failure, and hurts competition.

Furthermore, some campanies, being so much infinetely cleverer than the government, use the state's own regulations against them. Take, for example, oil companies. Some energy industry lobbyists actually supported the bans on drilling in the U.S. In the end, they won because now people are demanding that they drill locally, the government subsidizes their efforts in the name of "energy policy", and they are so large now that they can accquire all the mineral rights and easily navigate the sea of red tape surrounding oil exploitation, thus crowding out any competitors.


Another good argument for capitalism, is that everyone is stuck with it whether they like it or not. The key is how you manage it. Just ask China. They're "communist"(socialist) but they had to create "special economic zones"(places capitalism is allowed) to keep their economy afloat. What a great place, capitalism helps the few and socialism exploits the many.:roll:

Governments are capitalist too. Politicians compete for votes. Often they do unscrupulous things to get them. They also compete for campaign donations, many of which come from businesses that want them to pursue certain policies. I know you know this already, but it's for completeness' sake.

The people that fudge up everything in capitalism are the same people who fudge up everything in government. The trick is to take away their power. Force them to compete. Guarantee them no measure of safety (like terms in office). Have a true democracy, not a representative one.
So they get into business and try to screw the people once they have eliminated the competition. Easy fix. Let the public democratically call for a break-up of that corporation. With policy like that, they can be a monopoly, fine, but if they charge too much for their products or treat their employees poorly, or even if the public is just having a bad day, their monopoly is over.

Of course, the problem with democracy is that people can be stupid. That's okay too. Have a constitution that doesn't let them do things like ban other movements or create trade protection.

Actually, we did this once. Built the most powerful nation the world had ever seen with it. Then we had to go mess with it and ruined it.
Proof that capitalism and democracy work? A whole bunch of people wanted (and still want) to come here. More than ever wanted to go to Germany. More than ever wanted to go to England. More than ever wanted to go to Canada. Or anywhere else for that matter.
That's changing now, as our economy finally begins to collapse under the strain of an unsustainable welfare state.
Even illegal immigrants are beginning to leave.

So, finally, I end my argument by saying that not only is capitalism the best form of economy, it is also the only one we are ever going to get. You can call it socialism or communism or whatever you want, but in the end, people compete, and some lose. The only difference is that in a purely capitalist society(as, in, there is always competition), fewer lose.

Democracy is our best hope for getting as close to that state of "perfect" capitalism as possible. A good constitution that limits government even more than the U.S. constitution is our best hope of keeping that ideal on-track.

And seriously, feudalism?

[1480]

Non representational democracy is little more than mob-rule.

Ochlocracy, is no where close to a true democracy. It has worked in certain situations, and all of those situations had two things in common, the masses were under educated and illiterate. I think many will agree that a political system getting it's power through violence and intimidation is not a good one to have. Some may argue that all governments have been run this way, and they may have a point, but it's not prevalent, with the "whole world watching."

With the advancement in technology, true democracy is a lot more viable system. I submit that it is more difficult to set an agenda or to advance a cause but it's for the people by the people who only have themselves to blame. The other problem is regional issues, what may be a concern to people that live in a large urban area may not be a concern to rural folks. Those are the major hurdles to implement a true federal democracy. There are many more but I'll save bandwidth.

This is only hypothetical. With common sense, I could see it not working because again, we are dealing with homo sapien sapien. So, you could posit correctly that it is pointless to debate political ideologies, social theories and economic systems. I do it just to get tired enough for a good deep sleep.

I did not choose the country I was born in, but I have chosen to stay.

[Wolfehunter]

The problem with socialism is this: it's a theory that does not take into account human nature. A. People are lazy, "the 10% do 80% of the work" premise. B. It's hard to get 10 people to agree to anything, let alone 200 million. C. There is no incentive for an individual to better themselves or their situation. D. Supervision is still required to get goals accomplished, you get what Orwell said best "All animals are equal, some are more equal then others...."

Just my 2 cents....:up: