NationStates Jolt Archive

How should far-right movements be dealed with in a democratic society? Do we need to fight them on the streets, smash them with arguments, what? Is it self-defeating allowing an anti-democratic party win an election?
What do you think?


Poll coming shortly (be excited)

Your question doesn't include what should be done about far left/communist movements :p

"I hate Illinois Nazis" - Jake Blues

Your question doesn't include what should be done about far left/communust movements :p

Because nothing's wrong with those until they turn into bloody revolutions or politically corrupt dictatorships.

Your question doesn't include what should be done about far left/communust movements :p
It also doesnt ask what should be done about those who support the brutal system of capitalism, does it?

It also doesnt ask what should be done about those who support the brutal system of capitalism, does it?
Exactly, so why single out the fascists? I know they are terrible, the nazi sort i mean, but they are entitled to free speech.

Exactly, so why single out the fascists? I know they are terrible, the nazi sort i mean, but they are entitled to free speech.
Because their movement seeks to use violence and often does so. These people are not just a threat within government, they are a threat to anybody who isn't a member. Now while capitalism is a horrendous system, at least capitalist parties attempt to give some arguments without having to get a few muscly knuckleheads to intimidate people.

Because their movement seeks to use violence and often does so. These people are not just a threat within government, they are a threat to anybody who isn't a member. Now while capitalism is a horrendous system, at least capitalist parties attempt to give some arguments without having to get a few muscly knuckleheads to intimidate people.
You could make an argument against communism then, based on the history of communist states turning into vile dictatorships that enforce their will upon the populace. Often killing anyone who does not believe in their ideals or tries to go against the state.

I'm not sure what is meant by "show physical force." Anyone or any group that uses illegal violence should be dealt with by authorities for doing so -- regardless of (and without regard to) their ideology.

Otherwise, the right to free speech should not be infringed:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

(I know the Constitution is specific to the U.S., but the principal expressed by Justice Holmes should be universal.)

You could make an argument against communism then, based on the history of communist states turning into vile dictatorships that enforce their will upon the populace. A threat to anyone who does not believe in their ideals.

Well seeing as we have not had a trotskyist state yet then i think people cannot really pass judgement on our position. Capitalist states, on the other hand tend to have a history of, you know, fucking over the poor.

Seriously, simply make sure that fanatics don't ever gain political power. Otherwise, let them babble on.

Seriously, simply make sure that fanatics don't ever gain political power. Otherwise, let them babble on.
But if you let them babble on there is a chance that people will think that their babblings are makings sense and elect them. what then?

If people are dumb enough to let people on the extreme right or left into office they deserve what they get.

But if you let them babble on there is a chance that people will think that their babblings are makings sense and elect them. what then?
You get a communist dictatorship or a nazi one? Which one do you choose? ;)

Well seeing as we have not had a trotskyist state yet then i think people cannot really pass judgement on our position. Capitalist states, on the other hand tend to have a history of, you know, fucking over the poor.

Only some capitalist states, and anyway, why should someone who does not work hard and sponge off the state (knowing that not all or many people do that) get the same amount as me?

But if you let them babble on there is a chance that people will think that their babblings are makings sense and elect them. what then?

Sounds like Democracy.

I would vote for option three but did you really need to throw in the "we can show the public just how weak their arguments are!"? Seems a little too opinionated to me...

You could make an argument against communism then, based on the history of communist states turning into vile dictatorships that enforce their will upon the populace. Often killing anyone who does not believe in their ideals or tries to go against the state.
Communists these days are all harmless hippies. Nazis are thugs.

Only some capitalist states, and anyway, why should someone who does not work hard and sponge off the state (knowing that not all or many people do that) get the same amount as me?

Please stop hi-jacking the thread.

If you want to answer the question so it applies to the left-wing, fine.

But you are not discussing the topic.

Only some capitalist states, and anyway, why should someone who does not work hard and sponge off the state (knowing that not all or many people do that) get the same amount as me?
Have you heard the quote "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs"? That means that you get paid directly according to how skilled you are at your job and what your needs are. This does not happen in capitalism.

Sounds like Democracy.

I would vote for option three but did you really need to throw in the "we can show the public just how weak their arguments are!"? Seems a little too opinionated to me...

Ah so you think they have a strong argument then?

If people are dumb enough to let people on the extreme right or left into office they deserve what they get.

So, the Jews of Europe deserved what they got?*




* to say nothing of all those purged in China and the USSR.

Ah so you think they have a strong argument then?

Stronger then many others.

So, the Jews of Europe deserved what they got?*
* to say nothing of all those purged in China and the USSR.

I meant those who are willing to vote for those people. It would be unfortunate for everyone else who will of course be the minorities who will be used as scapegoats for the fanatics. A little forsight in people would be nice though, you didn't have to read Mein Kampf to know what Hitler had plans for. His rhetoric said it all people just didn't want to see it. Must be why Time magazine once named him Man of the Year. Disgusting.

The essence of a Democratic state is that everyone has a say. Therefore, let them speak.

Stronger then many others.
Such as...

Such as...

Personally I like the class co-operation theory of National Socialism versus the class warfare preached by Communism and usually practiced by laissez faire capitalism. Also the emphasis on clean, moralistic living. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's limitations but it does offer an interesting alternative to traditional left/right politics.

Arrest them.

You get a communist dictatorship or a nazi one? Which one do you choose? ;)

Я выбиру Коммунистический!

On either extreme it will all revert to a dictatorship. All will be totalitarian and ruthless.

Because their movement seeks to use violence and often does so. These people are not just a threat within government, they are a threat to anybody who isn't a member. Now while capitalism is a horrendous system, at least capitalist parties attempt to give some arguments without having to get a few muscly knuckleheads to intimidate people.

Crack open some American history books. The early 20th century labor movement, a time of largely unchecked capitalism, involved a lot of violence on the part of business leaders hiring goons to beat up or assassinate labor leaders, and labor squads to beating up scabs. The reason we have so few muscly knuckleheads here is because we don't have pure capitalism anymore.

Countries in which our corporations are working under governments that are too weak to control them (or too corrupt to bother) still have a great deal of violence in the name of unadulterated capitalism.

Ah so you think they have a strong argument then?

I think that perhaps there argument is a little stronger than people give them credit for. "National Socialists" know that they're working in isolation and so they come up with some pretty sophisticated arguments that are attractive to the sort of disenfranchised and disillusioned youths that are ready to be sucked in by that sort of message. It makes the Facists job that much easier if the people that they're preying on aren't able to go and talk to other people about these arguments.

For example, when Black advocacy groups accused the New Jersey highway patrol of racial profiling they said that NJHP gave statisticly disproportionate numbers of tickets to black drivers. No one even dared say "maybe blacks speed more." To say such a thing would instantly get you branded as a racist. But if someone asks the question, then the truth can be found, and all the people who are thinking it can have their misconceptions laid to rest.

That's what the term "better the devil you know than the devil you don't," means. It doesn't mean that if you're stuck with someone who sucks now you should keep him just in case the next one sucks worse.