One snapshot from the growing Nazi-scene in Germany
 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...570229,00.html

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/...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?)

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:
Communism is not:
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.

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.

<p></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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Letum. Baiting is for Fishing.;)