To the Tea Party: Keep Your Hands Off of German History

[Shwa]

Castro is a dictator. Stalin was a dictator. I challenge you to find someone who DOESN'T argue that.

Humour me Nicky: which camp do you fall in to, since you called them dictators?

The people that do are usually people that have a soft place for socialism and statist ideology and attempt to distance the brutalities of those leaders from their favoured ideology. Others that label them dictators just think of the definition of dictator despite political ideology.

So you are either a part of the socialist movement, or part of everyone else. Which one is it Nicky?

Edited October 30, 2010 by Shwa

[nicky10013]

That is your opinion, but I have demonstrated that elements of those ideologies do exist, and work well, for certain powerful groups.

No, you really haven't. You said they exist but haven't backed it up with any proof.

If you think it can't/ won't happen overnight, you've been fooled again. I did not live in Montreal in October 1970.

Ah, so all those people in 1970 were disappeared. Got it.

[nicky10013]

Humour me Nicky: which camp do you fall in to, since you called them dictators?

So you are either a part of the socialist movement, or part of everyone else. Which one is it Nicky?

Hahahahahahahaha...are you serious? I have to be a socialist because I've called a spade a spade? Wow.

Stalin and Castro were dictators because people were generally afraid enough or inspired enough by these people to not question anything they said. Literally, every request these people made, along with Hitler, became law. That simply doesn't exist in some authoritarian regimes. Case in Point, latter Soviet Union. The leaders had to round up support of the politburo in order to implement their policies.

So, no, I'm certainly not a socialist. I just use common sense definitions of what things actually are, as opposed to almost everyone else on here. Nice smear attempt, though.

[Sir Bandelot]

No, you really haven't. You said they exist but haven't backed it up with any proof.

Yes I have. Read the post once again. For hard "prof" I would have to copy paste many news articles, not interested in going that far.

Ah, so all those people in 1970 were disappeared. Got it.

That's not what you asked about, and you asked the question twice. Over 400 people were rounded up in the night, put in detention without charges or bail. This was in Canada, not long ago. If you want to play semantics at least get it right.

[nicky10013]

Yes I have. Read the post once again. For hard "prof" I would have to copy paste many news articles, not interested in going that far.

I have, it's all bunk. Vague statements with no proof. The fact that you don't want to actually back it up says it all.

That's not what you asked about, and you asked the question twice. Over 400 people were rounded up in the night, put in detention without charges or bail. This was in Canada, not long ago. If you want to play semantics at least get it right.

Yeah and they were all released. There's a difference between being detained and being arrested and executed in a shitty basement or sent to a concentration camp. It wasn't a good moment, but the difference between the two are gigantic.

[Sir Bandelot]

I have, it's all bunk. Vague statements with no proof. The fact that you don't want to actually back it up says it all.

All it says is, I'm not interested in playing games like pissing-match to prove what I believe. I've made my points and that's all I need.

Yeah and they were all released. There's a difference between being detained and being arrested and executed in a shitty basement or sent to a concentration camp. It wasn't a good moment, but the difference between the two are gigantic.

That does not matter, in light of your insistence that I answer your question. I have done that.

[nicky10013]

All it says is, I'm not interested in playing games like pissing-match to prove what I believe. I've made my points and that's all I need.

Don't expect to be taken seriously then. I've never thought of proving my argument to be a pissing match, then again, I've always been able to back up the things that I've been arguing. Since you can't, I suppose it's a little different.

That does not matter, in light of your insistence that I answer your question. I have done that.

I specifically asked if you were afraid of being rounded up and thrown in a concentration camp. If your answer is yes, well, like I said above, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Edited October 30, 2010 by nicky10013

[ToadBrother]

There's nice sounding ideology of how it oughta be, and then there's practical reality. Rule of law sounds very noble, and it is, in theory. In practice, when there are many millions of people each having opinions and clamoring for attention to their idea of rule of law, only the most practical of things can be done. Who shall get listened to most easily? The one who is able to get attention, through use of media to spread a message. In real terms, sorry for the politically negative tone but it's propaganda. Who can spread the propaganda most effectively? In a capitalist society, those who have the money.

You call it propaganda, I call it everyone having a basic right to free speech.

And now, corporations having the wealth and intent to change laws in their favour can easily do so. By lobbying politicians, by making donations during election time, these are practical methods of achieving change for their benefit. All done, by Rule Of Law. And when the law is a barrier to achieving our goals, we use these methods to change the law. That is reality. You have the freedom to vote, but only for the vetted candidates with the right connections. You have the freedom to work and use your money to purchase goods and services. But only those which are provided for you, those which again are vetted by the state/ industrial leaders. They do not need to control directly, in the garish methods of fascists of old. They do so by purely legal means set up by a framework that appears to give equal liberties to all. The state and industry gives you the legal right to try and prosper. But that does not mean, they are obligated by law to give you any meaningful influence. The new face of fascism is a smiling "brother".

Doubtless corruption to one degree or another has always been part of the system. You seem to think that corporations introduced it. That's hardly the case. There is always the risk of selling political favors, either overtly or tacitly. But corporations hardly rule the realm. The US is a big, complicated place and trying to pigeon hole one facet is ludicrous. Beyond that, the minute you start invoking conspiracy theories I really kind of lose the thread. The problem isn't corporations controlling people, the problem is ideologies, as they always have, blinding groups to rational discourse.

At the end of the day corporations do not cast ballots. Only the citizen can. Don't like the way the government works, vote someone else in. The problem so far as I can tell is not that the government doesn't do what people want, it just doesn't do what everyone wants. In a free society, a government is necessarily limited in a number of different ways, and in the United States the First Amendment enshrines some of the key values of the United States, and laws attempting to limit special interests; corporate, union or otherwise, clearly fall afoul of that sentiment. To try to override that with tails of corporate slavery and backdoor fascism is simply trying to win the argument by redefining the terms.

[Shwa]

Hahahahahahahaha...are you serious? I have to be a socialist because I've called a spade a spade? Wow.

Stalin and Castro were dictators because people were generally afraid enough or inspired enough by these people to not question anything they said. Literally, every request these people made, along with Hitler, became law. That simply doesn't exist in some authoritarian regimes. Case in Point, latter Soviet Union. The leaders had to round up support of the politburo in order to implement their policies.

So, no, I'm certainly not a socialist. I just use common sense definitions of what things actually are, as opposed to almost everyone else on here. Nice smear attempt, though.

"Smear attempt?" Pfffff, hardly. Let's read the defintion again, of those who would call Stalin and Casto dictators:

The people that do are usually people that have a soft place for socialism and statist ideology and attempt to distance the brutalities of those leaders from their favoured ideology. Others that label them dictators just think of the definition of dictator despite political ideology.

In other words if you label them dictators you are of one of two camps: socialist or everyone else.

Sounds like you are firmly in the 'everyone else' camp.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Shwa

[ToadBrother]

I specifically asked if you were afraid of being rounded up and thrown in a concentration camp. If your answer is yes, well, like I said above, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Pretty much my sentiment on the matter. Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush, or of Harper. I do think there is something of an authoritarian streak in both their styles of government, but no one was carting the Dixie Chicks off to concentration camps, or altering the constitution to end term limits, or limit Congress or seize control of the judiciary, or any of the things one sees in Fascist nations. In fact, such things were viewed as impossible. The President simply does not possess those powers, and it's inconceivable that even if a President came along who leaned that direction, that he could pull it off. Hell, the best a President can do to gain some influence in the Supreme Court is nominate new justices, when he gets the chance, and historically nominating like-minded people to the courts has been a mixed bag.

There's no guarantee against bad government. The whole point of democracy is that it gives a remedy for bad government. A lot of what makes up constitutional restraints is, for better and for worse, reactive, not proactive. Unless you're a mind reader or some sort of time traveler, you can't know with certainty how good or bad a guy is.

[ToadBrother]

Stalin and Castro were dictators because people were generally afraid enough or inspired enough by these people to not question anything they said. Literally, every request these people made, along with Hitler, became law. That simply doesn't exist in some authoritarian regimes. Case in Point, latter Soviet Union. The leaders had to round up support of the politburo in order to implement their policies.

It always depends on the regime. Under Stalin, the USSR was pretty much an absolute dictatorship with Stalin at the top. After his death there were no clear heirs, and what evolved, as often does in such regimes if they are to persist, was a sort of stalemate doctrine, where everyone had a gun to each others' heads. You didn't find consensus because it was an appropriate or useful form of government, you largely did it because if you didn't, you woke up one morning "retiring" to the Crimea, or in the case of the attempted coupe after Mao's death, "accidentally" not fueling up your airplane.

To the man on the street, it makes little practical difference. Whether you have one master or ten, you are still a slave whose life exists to one degree or another at their whim, and they and their functionaries make you aware of that with sufficient frequency that you don't forget it.

Edited October 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

China would be described as being more of a garden variety autocracy or oligarchy where everything that happens is essentially done at the behest of a very small group of people. Thats a stark contrast to fascism where the state is re-organized based on a corporate perspective.

But the word is misused so often is doesnt really have a usefull meaning anymore. These days its used to describe states that show any sciences of corporatism or authoritarian nationalism.

Its sort of like the word "terrorism" in that regard.

[dre]

--

Edited October 30, 2010 by dre

[wyly]

I remember one year ago or so seeing on TV a woman comparing Obama's health care plan to the Holocaust. Sheer lunacy.

I've encountered a few Americans tea party types who claimed the Nazi's were socialists, why? because their name Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)...no matter that Hitler was hired to spy on/infiltrate socialist parties post ww1, no matter that he purged the socialist wing of his Nazi party in the Night of the Long Knives, no matter that socialists and communists were the first occupants of his death camps...merely because they had the word socialist in their party name they were socialist lefties...

it makes as much sense as North Korea being called democratic because of it's name Democratic People's Republic of Korea

...only in the brain of the extreme right loony fringe can this make sense...

Edited October 30, 2010 by wyly

[nicky10013]

It always depends on the regime. Under Stalin, the USSR was pretty much an absolute dictatorship with Stalin at the top. After his death there were no clear heirs, and what evolved, as often does in such regimes if they are to persist, was a sort of stalemate doctrine, where everyone had a gun to each others' heads. You didn't find consensus because it was an appropriate or useful form of government, you largely did it because if you didn't, you woke up one morning "retiring" to the Crimea, or in the case of the attempted coupe after Mao's death, "accidentally" not fueling up your airplane.

To the man on the street, it makes little practical difference. Whether you have one master or ten, you are still a slave whose life exists to one degree or another at their whim, and they and their functionaries make you aware of that with sufficient frequency that you don't forget it.

One man dictatorships are generally very much worse. If you were to ask a Russian in the 60s which leader they'd rather live under, Stalin or Khrushchev (outside of Russia, of course), without a doubt most would answer Khrushchev. After Stalin's death the Gulags shut down and millions of people were allowed to return home after being falsely arrested just for the sake of fear. Millions were worked to death. Examples are similar the world over. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Tito (to a degree), Ceaucescu.

[nicky10013]

Pretty much my sentiment on the matter. Believe me, I'm no fan of Bush, or of Harper. I do think there is something of an authoritarian streak in both their styles of government, but no one was carting the Dixie Chicks off to concentration camps, or altering the constitution to end term limits, or limit Congress or seize control of the judiciary, or any of the things one sees in Fascist nations. In fact, such things were viewed as impossible. The President simply does not possess those powers, and it's inconceivable that even if a President came along who leaned that direction, that he could pull it off. Hell, the best a President can do to gain some influence in the Supreme Court is nominate new justices, when he gets the chance, and historically nominating like-minded people to the courts has been a mixed bag.

There's no guarantee against bad government. The whole point of democracy is that it gives a remedy for bad government. A lot of what makes up constitutional restraints is, for better and for worse, reactive, not proactive. Unless you're a mind reader or some sort of time traveler, you can't know with certainty how good or bad a guy is.

Excellent post. Churchill said it himself: "Democracy is the worst form of government in history, except for all the others."

[ToadBrother]

One man dictatorships are generally very much worse. If you were to ask a Russian in the 60s which leader they'd rather live under, Stalin or Khrushchev (outside of Russia, of course), without a doubt most would answer Khrushchev. After Stalin's death the Gulags shut down and millions of people were allowed to return home after being falsely arrested just for the sake of fear. Millions were worked to death. Examples are similar the world over. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Tito (to a degree), Ceaucescu.

I can't argue with you on that point. The chief difference is that where you have a sort of group dictatorship, you suddenly reintroduce politics, even if its buried below the surface, with competing interests vying for supremacy, or at least for enactment and maintenance of their policies. I rather view China like that. Deng Xiaoping and the technocrats remade the upper strata of government in such a fashion as to assure that nothing like the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution could happen again, but intentionally creating structures that divided power and created a certain level of competition. It's more complex than that, but the basic idea even in an autocratic nation like China is that delivering absolute power into one man's hands can lead to horrifyingly bad decisions.