Political Crossfire Forums

[Magorion]

BobbyO wrote: Quote: the social democrats were the Nazi's only true opposition in Germany. May have argued that their structural problems would be inept in the path of the Nazi's centralized message .

The Social Democrats and the National Socialists were frequently on the same side of the debate during the 20s. The SPD folded up their tents quite easily and quickly after 1933. The reason is simple- they could scarcely argue against the National Socialist program without impeaching their own. The debate in the Reichtag after Hitler's election amply demonstrated this. The SPD were not a "true" opposition to the National Socialists. They paved the way for the nazis. They dug the graves. The nazis filled them.

No no no! The SDP voted against the Enabling Act, and after the NSDAP vote at the Reichstag in 1933, the SDP was barred from any further political activities, just like the KDP, and its members were persecuted for voting against the Patriot Act-like EA.

[BobbyO]

Magorion wrote: BobbyO wrote: Quote: the social democrats were the Nazi's only true opposition in Germany. May have argued that their structural problems would be inept in the path of the Nazi's centralized message .

The Social Democrats and the National Socialists were frequently on the same side of the debate during the 20s. The SPD folded up their tents quite easily and quickly after 1933. The reason is simple- they could scarcely argue against the National Socialist program without impeaching their own. The debate in the Reichtag after Hitler's election amply demonstrated this. The SPD were not a "true" opposition to the National Socialists. They paved the way for the nazis. They dug the graves. The nazis filled them.

No no no! The SDP voted against the Enabling Act, and after the NSDAP vote at the Reichstag in 1933, the SDP was barred from any further political activities, just like the KDP, and its members were persecuted for voting against the Patriot Act-like EA.

The Enabling Act was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution, which the SPD wrote, my friend. The SPD gave the Reichtag the authority to ban political parties. What principled objection could the SPD make now that they themselves were being banned?

[bob.appleyard]

BobbyO wrote: The Enabling Act was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution, which the SPD wrote, my friend. The SPD gave the Reichtag the authority to ban political parties. What principled objection could the SPD make now that they themselves were being banned?

The Enabling Act went beyond Article 48.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: In that case, assuming the US government was simply turned off tomorrow, why couldn't a free market and a communist society coexist?

um... i don't think i understand the question...

[Raskolnikov]

bobbyo wrote: ]Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

are you honestly suggesting that socialists are fascists incognito?.. if so, can i get your dealer's number?

[cap'n queasy]

I think he is telling you both are collectivists.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: I think he is telling you both are collectivists.

and what pray tell is a 'collectivist'? (sounds like another american word for 'evil'.)

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals.[1] The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are often related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

[Raskolnikov]

aah.. another randian term. yuck.

alright cap'n, may i ask you a personal question? are you a family man?

[BobbyO]

Raskolnikov wrote: bobbyo wrote: ]Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

are you honestly suggesting that socialists are fascists incognito?.. if so, can i get your dealer's number?

I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

[BobbyO]

bob.appleyard wrote: BobbyO wrote: The Enabling Act was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution, which the SPD wrote, my friend. The SPD gave the Reichtag the authority to ban political parties. What principled objection could the SPD make now that they themselves were being banned?

The Enabling Act went beyond Article 48.

The Constitution allowed for the suppression of liberties in times of crisis.

[bob.appleyard]

BobbyO wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: BobbyO wrote: The Enabling Act was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution, which the SPD wrote, my friend. The SPD gave the Reichtag the authority to ban political parties. What principled objection could the SPD make now that they themselves were being banned?

The Enabling Act went beyond Article 48.

The Constitution allowed for the suppression of liberties in times of crisis.

Yes, this is contained in Article 48:

Quote: Article 48
If a state (8) does not fulfil the obligations laid upon it by the Reich constitution or the Reich laws, the Reich President may use armed force to cause it to oblige.
In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the Reich President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend the civil rights described in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 154, partially or entirely.
The Reich President has to inform Reichstag immediately about all measures undertaken which are based on paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article. The measures have to be suspended immediately if Reichstag demands so.
If danger is imminent, the state government may, for their specific territory, implement steps as described in paragraph 2. These steps have to be suspended if so demanded by the Reich President or the Reichstag. Further details are provided by Reich law.

http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

You can see that civil liberties could be suspended by presidential decree. This is what happened.

As can be seen below, the Enabling Act went beyond this.

Quote: Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

It dispensed with democratic oversight and legislative coherency with the constitution.

So your claim that it "was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution" is false.

[Magorion]

BobbyO wrote: Magorion wrote: BobbyO wrote: Quote: the social democrats were the Nazi's only true opposition in Germany. May have argued that their structural problems would be inept in the path of the Nazi's centralized message .

The Social Democrats and the National Socialists were frequently on the same side of the debate during the 20s. The SPD folded up their tents quite easily and quickly after 1933. The reason is simple- they could scarcely argue against the National Socialist program without impeaching their own. The debate in the Reichtag after Hitler's election amply demonstrated this. The SPD were not a "true" opposition to the National Socialists. They paved the way for the nazis. They dug the graves. The nazis filled them.

No no no! The SDP voted against the Enabling Act, and after the NSDAP vote at the Reichstag in 1933, the SDP was barred from any further political activities, just like the KDP, and its members were persecuted for voting against the Patriot Act-like EA.

The Enabling Act was the enactment of a clause in the Weimar Constitution, which the SPD wrote, my friend. The SPD gave the Reichtag the authority to ban political parties. What principled objection could the SPD make now that they themselves were being banned?

They voted against the EA, and then they got banned.

[Magorion]

BobbyO wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: bobbyo wrote: ]Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

are you honestly suggesting that socialists are fascists incognito?.. if so, can i get your dealer's number?

I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

Then you are ignoring the fact that fascism is regarded as right-wing and far from socialism.

[mendosan]

Magorion wrote: BobbyO wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: bobbyo wrote: ]Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

are you honestly suggesting that socialists are fascists incognito?.. if so, can i get your dealer's number?

I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

Then you are ignoring the fact that fascism is regarded as right-wing and far from socialism.

But your ignoring the fact that they have things in common, of course there not the same that's a ridiculous idea, on a simple level both believe in planned economies.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Raskolnikov wrote: aah.. another randian term. yuck.

alright cap'n, may i ask you a personal question? are you a family man?

Its not a randian term, its a catergory of poltical philosophy.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Magorion wrote: BobbyO wrote: Raskolnikov wrote: bobbyo wrote: ]Au contraire. The Fascists of Italy were swept into power because the workers abandoned the communists. Even in the contemporary times, the "neo fascist" parties of which much handwringing occurs over, tend to have the base of their support in areas where other socialist parties have their base as well.

are you honestly suggesting that socialists are fascists incognito?.. if so, can i get your dealer's number?

I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

Then you are ignoring the fact that fascism is regarded as right-wing and far from socialism.

Right and left has no meaning what so ever, not since the onset of totalitarianism.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

what's the basis for this belief exactly?

[Raskolnikov]

Quote: Right and left has no meaning what so ever, not since the onset of totalitarianism.

the onset of totalitarianism? so, since the beginning of human civilization?

[cap'n queasy]

Raskolnikov wrote: Quote: I'm suggesting fascism is a form of socialism.

what's the basis for this belief exactly?

Well, let's take a look at what Mussolini, the former editor of a socialist newspaper and labor agitator who created Fascism, had to say on the subject.

From his 1919 "Fascist Manifesto"
Quote: * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
* A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
* The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
* The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
* A minimum wage.
* The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

It is pretty hard to argue that Fascism is not a merger of the state with the means of production, which is exactly the definition of Socialism.