One snapshot from the growing Nazi-scene in Germany

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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/...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]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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

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>

Originally Posted by kurtz

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kurtz

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

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.

[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
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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by kurtz

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

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....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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

com·mu·nism
–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 letter) 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 letter) 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
–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."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[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!