NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a great article about the fight against right-wing extremism in Germany. I noticed over the past few months that that sort of neonazi thinking has popped up on NSG as well, so I'm thinking this is quite relevant.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451838,00.html
Living with the Extremist Plague

Germany's parliament is currently debating whether to ban the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD). But such a step may prove to be neither feasible nor advisable. In fact proponents of democracy in Germany would be better off focusing on their strengths and trying to make the NPD irrelevant.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,751359,00.jpg

Holger Apfel is a short, heavyset man with a rosy face that doesn't lend itself to concealing emotions. Apfel smiles a lot. He smiles when he is asked a question, and he smiles when he responds. At the moment life is good for Apfel, very good, and that is difficult to stomach.

Apfel is the deputy chairman of Germany's far right National Democratic Party (NPD) and head of the NPD parliamentary group in the state parliament in the eastern state of Saxony. He is sitting in a leather armchair thinking about the first three things he would do if he ever became chancellor. His face erupts into a broad smile. He is enormously pleased that he is being interviewed by someone from SPIEGEL, and by the fact that he is in demand and attracting attention.

The three measures Apfel mentions are all tinged with racism. He mocks the other parties, and he is delighted to say that the pictures hanging in his office have nothing to do with Nazi aesthetics, even though that is precisely the case when it comes to the creepy warrior kitsch on his walls.

A visit with Apfel is torture. The last thing one wants to do is shake his hand, ask him questions and listen to his responses. But interviewing Apfel is a necessity, because Germans are once again at odds over whether their democracy should have to tolerate someone like Apfel -- or whether the NPD ought to be outlawed.

The German parliament, the Bundestag, is currently debating the issue. Leading politicians, especially Social Democrats including Deputy Chancellor Franz Müntefering and chairman of the SPD parliamentary group Peter Struck, recently expressed a desire to review policies regarding the NPD. The more skeptical arguments are coming from the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), especially from Chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

There is no disagreement among democrats that the NPD is an unconstitutional party. Indeed, it is a party that wants to abolish the German constitution, pays homage to a Hitler-worshipping ideology and is motivated by racism and anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, the Federal Constitutional Court already rebuffed an attempt to ban the party in 2003, dealing a serious setback to those in German who support democracy.

Since then right-wing extremists have been successful in several elections and have even captured seats in state parliaments in the eastern states of Saxony and Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, as well as in a few municipal parliaments. Apfel has good reason to feel pleased with himself, because he now collects a government salary and is attracting a great deal of attention. His favorite argument is that those democrats who seek to ban him, a democratically elected representative of the people, from Germany's democratic institutions are acting undemocratically. He positively glows when he says this.

It's easy to point out the contradictions of a democracy that seeks to defend itself. One of the noblest features of the democratic state is that it attempts to treat everyone equally. But when it comes time to defending itself, the state must abandon at least a fraction of this moral position without betraying itself.

This is a difficult tightrope to walk, and this is why a democracy's condition becomes especially evident when it spars with its enemies. How are German politicians handling the new challenges of dealing with the NPD in Saxony, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Berlin? Do they have the necessary skills to combat right-wing extremism? Is banning the NPD helpful or harmful to their cause?

Johannes Lichdi, a Green Party member of Saxony's state parliament, has decided that, as far as he is concerned, the NPD's members of parliament don't exist -- at least not physically, only as disembodied voices. Lichdi refuses to greet them or shake hands with them, and when he encounters one in a hallway, he simply keeps walking as if they were made of air. He considers them "racist pigs," and when Lichdi expresses this sentiment, he breaks out into a hate-filled rage that is difficult to reconcile with the German constitution on several levels.

He apologizes for his behavior. He talks about the Holocaust, the war and the millions who died, and about these men who sit there in parliament playing their cynical game of portraying themselves as close to national socialism and distanced from him. Lichdi's words highlight the contradictions democrats sometimes have to tolerate. By insisting that he only wants to fight the haters, he descends into hatred himself -- to the delight of the haters, who promptly liken Lichdi to themselves. In dealing with the NPD, Lichdi is forced to not only tolerate their evil, but also a touch of evil within himself.

-continues-

What can civilised people do? I'm not sure banning stuff is the way to go - it's just gonna drive these feelings and tendencies underground.

"Talking to people rationally" isn't going to work either. The people in question don't listen to rational arguments, and they don't accept reasonable propositions. These are people from some village in the countryside who've hardly even seen an immigrant, but still think they take all the jobs, rape the women and destroy the country. They are people who don't see democracy as special, but just as one of many alternatives for running a government.

So how can they be dealt with?

right wingers are people too.

does anyone else think discriminating against nazis is hypocritical? we should put them all on an island. it would be grand.

This is a great article about the fight against right-wing extremism in Germany. I noticed over the past few months that that sort of neonazi thinking has popped up on NSG as well, so I'm thinking this is quite relevant.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451838,00.html


What can civilised people do? I'm not sure banning stuff is the way to go - it's just gonna drive these feelings and tendencies underground.

"Talking to people rationally" isn't going to work either. The people in question don't listen to rational arguments, and they don't accept reasonable propositions. These are people from some village in the countryside who've hardly even seen an immigrant, but still think they take all the jobs, rape the women and destroy the country. They are people who don't see democracy as special, but just as one of many alternatives for running a government.

So how can they be dealt with?
The same way they're trying to deal with you - by winning elections.

If you're wed to a free democracy, you have to let these people participate. If they win over the hearts and minds of the people, you must accept that as the legitimate democratic will.

The way Europe reacted when Austria elected Jörg Haider clearly demonstrates that Europe doesn't particularly care for democracy.

Not everyone who is right wing is Nazi. Most right wing people (some who might be past the Nazis on the scale) are against the Nazi policies of racism and government over all.

Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.

If you're wed to a free democracy, you have to let these people participate. If they win over the hearts and minds of the people, you must accept that as the legitimate democratic will.
Even if that democratic will includes mass deportations and authoritarianism?

I might be a relativist, but I'm not that far gone that I would tolerate such a thing.

Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.
I'm talking authoritarian nationalists. The NPD in Germany clearly are Nazis, but you can include Pym Fortune's guys, Le Pen in France, the SVP in Switzerland and various "People's Parties" in Scandinavia.

They are people who don't see democracy as special, but just as one of many alternatives for running a government.
Well, it is, so I guess you can chalk up a point for them.
So how can they be dealt with?
Deal with them the way that FDR dealt with the various populist rabbles that rose during his administration: figure out what it is that the people voting NPD like about them, and the proceed to steal the issue by proposing a sane plan of action.
And Lichdi seems to have the right idea about how to handle the people leading the movement, they'll come around or be destroyed when their supporters are handled successfully.

Even if that democratic will includes mass deportations and authoritarianism?
Yes. If your government structure allows the people (through their democractic representatives) to make those sorts of decisions, then clearly you wanted them to be able to do so.

Either you support the freedom of the people to choose the government they want or you don't. There's no middle ground here.

Elect them! Best way to get rid of them is to give them a certain percentage in a municipal parliament where they quickly foul up so much that they won't EVER get elected again... worked already in some cities...

Well, it is, so I guess you can chalk up a point for them.
That's absolutely correct. Democracy has no value in and of itself. If Neu Leonstein thinks it does, he'll need to make that case himself.

Yes. If your government structure allows the people (through their democractic representatives) to make those sorts of decisions, then clearly you wanted them to be able to do so.
It wouldn't. It would require a change to the basic law.

Either you support the freedom of the people to choose the government they want or you don't. There's no middle ground here.
Except that "the people" is not the same thing as "the majority of voters on the day of the election".

Not everyone who is right wing is Nazi. Most right wing people (some who might be past the Nazis on the scale) are against the Nazi policies of racism and government over all.

Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.

Exactly right! I consider myself a conservative, but NOT so far right-wing as to be considered a Nazi.

For one thing, I am very strongly PRO-Semitic; the Nazis were ANTI-Semitic.

Also, I do not advocate treatment of gays as criminals just because they're gay; the Nazis KILLED gays right along with the Jews.
I don't agree with, approve of, or condone the lifestyle; I think it's unnatural, and a sin against God; I don't think they should get special favors and privileges just because they're gay; but I don't believe in killing them for being gay.

Furthermore, "Nazi" meant the National Socialist Party; I am NOT a socialist.

That's absolutely correct. Democracy has no value in and of itself. If Neu Leonstein thinks it does, he'll need to make that case himself.
Which wouldn't change anything. Suffice to say that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones we tried. Especially in Germany.

It wouldn't. It would require a change to the basic law.
Well then there's no danger, is there? Why are you worried?
Except that "the people" is not the same thing as "the majority of voters on the day of the election".
Representative democracy assumes it is.

Which wouldn't change anything. Suffice to say that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones we tried. Especially in Germany.
And if it's good, it's good because it produces outcomes you like. Not just because it's "democracy".

But if your beloved democractic system produces the NPD, either soemthing's wrong with the system (which you insist isn't possible) or something's wrong with your rejection of the NPD as a valid democratic selection.

Well then there's no danger, is there? Why are you worried?
Because the Weimar Constitution didn't allow for the Holocaust either.

Representative democracy assumes it is.
Not really. If there is a parliament and a constitution, that's an acknowledgement that dictatorship by the majority is not what the system aspires to.

Not really. If there is a parliament and a constitution, that's an acknowledgement that dictatorship by the majority is not what the system aspires to.
We're back where we started. If the constitution places sufficient limits on the majority that they cannot choose to do what you fear, then why are we worried?

Well, I definitely would not say banning them is the way to go. They tried that in Spain with Batasuna, we tried that in Britain with an extremist Islamic group whose name I forget, and they...drumrole...changed their names. There's a kind of similar situation in Britain right now; the far-right British National Party recently won a court case accusing them of inciting racial hatred, giving them oodles of free publicity, and now the government is talking about changing the law so the prosecuters can try again. Personally, I think that kind of illiberalism is completely counter-productive - the only way to defeat them is to solve the social problems that give them support and win the argument.

Some contries appear to be trying to solve the problem by importing enough immigrants that the nationalists are outnumbered.

And if it's good, it's good because it produces outcomes you like. Not just because it's "democracy".
You mean to say I enjoy an outcome where doctors have to go on public strike to get the government to make their working conditions worthy of human beings?

The outcome I like is one where the majority cannot grossly violate the choices of the minority.

And the statement in the OP might have been worded unclearly. I believe that constitutional parliamentary democracy is special because it is the best system that has actually worked. These people however come from the GDR for the most part, which was a one-party dictatorship. And so they see the whole thing differently, partly because they mix up the dictatorship with the 'positive' things there may have been in the GDR (like "everyone had a job" and "there were no immigrants").

Which means that arguments in defense of democracy are going to fall on deaf ears for the most part, because they are unwilling to accept that an authoritarian police state is worse than one that protects basic rights of its citizens.

But if your beloved democractic system produces the NPD, either soemthing's wrong with the system (which you insist isn't possible) or something's wrong with your rejection of the NPD as a valid democratic selection.
Who says I insist that the system can't be improved? Of course it can.

I wouldn't reject an anti-constitutional party that seeks to limit government further, for example, at least not outright. I do reject a party that seeks to destroy the basic law to make government bigger and violate things I see as basic rights of human beings.

We're back where we started. If the constitution places sufficient limits on the majority that they cannot choose to do what you fear, then why are we worried?
Because a constitution is just a piece of paper. It's value is contingent on its acceptance by the people with the physical power to enforce it.

The outcome I like is one where the majority cannot grossly violate the choices of the minority.
I support that too, but that's antithetical to democracy. As are most safeguards of individual freedom.
I wouldn't reject an anti-constitutional party that seeks to limit government further, for example, at least not outright. I do reject a party that seeks to destroy the basic law to make government bigger and violate things I see as basic rights of human beings.
For that osition to make any sense there needs to be a difference in kind between those two parties. What about the the second party makes you think it shouldn't be allowed to exist? Why are its policies something the people shouldn't be allowed to choose, compared to the policies of the first party (I'm sure some socialists would clearly oppose the first party)?

For that osition to make any sense there needs to be a difference in kind between those two parties. What about the the second party makes you think it shouldn't be allowed to exist? Why are its policies something the people shouldn't be allowed to choose, compared to the policies of the first party (I'm sure some socialists would clearly oppose the first party)?
You're taking this discussion in a direction away from reality and towards the usual diet of theoretical arguments between liberals and socialists, which isn't what the topic is about.

So all I will say about it: One favours the limitation of government control on individual behaviour, the other seeks to expand it.

So now we may return to the real world.

Because a constitution is just a piece of paper. It's value is contingent on its acceptance by the people with the physical power to enforce it.
Then increase that power. Make an agreement with a neighbouring nation to enforce your constitution if you can't.

Then increase that power. Make an agreement with a neighbouring nation to enforce your constitution if you can't.
The 2+4 treaty and membership in the EU and NATO probably guarantee as much.
But that's hardly a reason to sit back and wait until armed mobs march through the streets hunting down brown people screaming "we are the people".

One favours the limitation of government control on individual behaviour, the other seeks to expand it.
Great. But will you stand by that distinction in all cases?

Imagine a minarchist state where there are very strict controls on what the government can do. Would a party that seeks to loosen those controls be a danger to that democracy? If not, then your distinction fails.

The 2+4 treaty and membership in the EU and NATO probably guarantee as much.
But that's hardly a reason to sit back and wait until armed mobs march through the streets hunting down brown people screaming "we are the people".
You can still work against them within the system, but to go beyond that breaks the system, and it sounds like you like the system.

You can't have it both ways. Either the people are allowed to make bad decisions, or they're not allowed to make decisions at all.

Because the Weimar Constitution didn't allow for the Holocaust either.

but i thought that constitutions were magical cloaks of invincibility!?

If not, then your distinction fails.
A minarchist state is good insofar that it doesn't require (and is limited in the possibilities to force) people to live a certain way.

If there was a bunch of socialists wishing to live in a commune, they could do so in such a minarchist state, and the government could not stop them.

However, if those socialists wanted to loosen controls on the government, thus allowing them to force other people to also live in a commune, then I indeed see that as a bad thing and a danger to that democracy. So I wouldn't be in favour of such loosening.

There is an ideal amount of government, but it would be small. Big enough to allow people to make the choices they want to make, small enough to prevent them from imposing their choices on others. It depends on the details, I guess.

Also, I do not advocate treatment of gays as criminals just because they're gay; the Nazis KILLED gays right along with the Jews.
I don't agree with, approve of, or condone the lifestyle; I think it's unnatural, and a sin against God; I don't think they should get special favors and privileges just because they're gay; but I don't believe in killing them for being gay.
:rolleyes:
a) It's not a lifestyle. It's a sexual orientation. You wouldn't call heterosexuality a lifestyle. Bisexuality, homosexualilty, and transgenderism aren't lifestyles either. It's natural, it's been observed in nature, it is not a sin (Find a commandment that says "Thou shalt not be a fag". Are any of the Deadly Sins entitled "Being not straight"?)

b) You're making my life harder, not just by being against my orientation, but by giving all the good, progressive people of this forum a reason to hate my religious beliefs.

c) Those are the same words that all conservatives use when talking about LGBTs and not wanting to lose all credibility by outright admitting that you hate us. If you were in Germany in the 1930s, I would be very, [I]very surprised if you didn't join the Nazi party.

d) We're not asking for special priveleges (and, I, personally, am not asking for any). How 'bout just the same ones you have?

*sigh*





For all you other people out there, what are the views of you all on the Battle of Cable Street? I'm just curious...
(Some info on it if you don't already know what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street)

For all you other people out there, what are the views of you all on the Battle of Cable Street? I'm just curious...
(Some info on it if you don't already know what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street)

Battle of Cable Street makes me proud to be A) British and B) a Londoner. To see Londoners standing proudly up to fascism and racism is heartwarming......

I only hope that if something similar happened today there would be a similar reaction....

Elect them into power, so that the USA can step in when you guys invade another country and start gassing the minorities. We'll install a nice stable democratic government again. Just like we did in Iraq!

Banning them only makes martyrs of them and makes them look like Robin Hood types to the dispossessed.

Engaging them in reasonable discourse is not the way to go, either. It would be like having a conversation with a barking dog.

Lidchi's approach is the one I favor. Sure, these nazi scum have the right to spew their shit in public. But that doesn't mean it's not shit, and it doesn't mean they are not scum. Free speech guarantees the right to speak. It does not guarantee an audience, nor does it guarantee a polite reception. They have the right to speak their minds, and so do we.

So, remember two things:

1) Honesty is the best policy. Do not pretend to respect people you don't really respect. If you think they are nazi-loser-scumbags, say so and explain why, enthusiastically, with pictures.

2) To defeat those who would like ultimately to take away our rights, we must exercise those rights -- loudly -- in public -- every day.

Elect them into power, so that the USA can step in when you guys invade another country and start gassing the minorities. We'll install a nice stable democratic government again. Just like we did in Iraq!
Hey to be fair it seems to have worked there last time.

This is a great article about the fight against right-wing extremism in Germany. I noticed over the past few months that that sort of neonazi thinking has popped up on NSG as well, so I'm thinking this is quite relevant.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451838,00.html


What can civilised people do? I'm not sure banning stuff is the way to go - it's just gonna drive these feelings and tendencies underground.

"Talking to people rationally" isn't going to work either. The people in question don't listen to rational arguments, and they don't accept reasonable propositions. These are people from some village in the countryside who've hardly even seen an immigrant, but still think they take all the jobs, rape the women and destroy the country. They are people who don't see democracy as special, but just as one of many alternatives for running a government.

So how can they be dealt with?
Don't tolerate hate crimes:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040601/d040601a.htm

Banning a political party in a "democracy" isn't democracy at all.

Banning a political party in a "democracy" isn't democracy at all.

As much as I'm loath to agree with this guy he has a bit of a point.

Banning a political party in a "democracy" isn't democracy at all.
Well, to be fair, the Federal Republic has banned two parties before in its history, if I recall correctly.

The first was the direct successor to the NSDAP. Old Nazis, "war heroes" who couldn't let go and other such types basically were against the new government and wanted to get rid of it.

The second was the KPD, the communist party. The case for that was a lot more shaky, and if you ask me, it was mainly about the Cold War then.

Both of these were in the fifties or early sixties though, when democracy was still rather young in Germany.

Then they tried to outlaw the NPD a few years ago, but because the domestic intelligence agency had so many agents in that party to gather evidence, the court in the end decided that they couldn't even tell the difference anymore between what was actually NPD, and what was instigated by the agency. Which was a major embarrassment for the government, so they haven't tried since.

The provision for outlawing parties is mainly that they aren't allowed to be against the Basic Law, and that rule is inspired by the Weimar Republic, in which all sorts of antidemocratic parties were around, and one ultimately succeeded in taking power. That's a bit of a unique experience in the Western world, and that's why Germany is a bit special in that regard.

Elect them! Best way to get rid of them is to give them a certain percentage in a municipal parliament where they quickly foul up so much that they won't EVER get elected again... worked already in some cities...Not in Bremerhaven :(

As much as I'm loath to agree with this guy he has a bit of a point.Not really. If a party proves itself to be unconstitutional, as in demanding that the constitution be revoked and attempting to work at it in an illegal manner, then it is worthy of getting banned. It's happened to the original NSDAP and the communist KPD before, because they propagated a violent overthrow of the government, and the only reason it hasn't been done to the NPD is because it would require a removal of the agents reporting on them.

No matter what you do you can estinguish that small percentage of society who are bound by primal urges and irrationality instead of reason. The best way to deal with the fascists is to let them exist and crack downon them if they do anything violent or illegal. Jt worked agaisnt te Ku Klux klan who although were formerly a force in America who have now veen reduced to a tiny group of inbreds so unattractive not even hitler would touch them.

I might also remind you all that the tenet of free speech should be held dear and that any attempt to stifle it, even against extremists is tantamount to insitutional hippocrisy.

Not in Bremerhaven :(

well, it normally does... and if not... they still have the right to run and attempting to ban is not really good since it tends to radicalize and unite these people.

Banning them only makes martyrs of them and makes them look like Robin Hood types to the dispossessed.I agree. I know that I wanted to read James Joyce's Ulysses because I knew it had been banned by the government here for over 30 years. I'm sure other people are the same way when it comes to ideas that are banned.

The provision for outlawing parties is mainly that they aren't allowed to be against the Basic Law, and that rule is inspired by the Weimar Republic, in which all sorts of antidemocratic parties were around, and one ultimately succeeded in taking power. That's a bit of a unique experience in the Western world, and that's why Germany is a bit special in that regard.What exactly is the Basic Law?

What exactly is the Basic Law?

It's a constitution.

http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_22672/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasis/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law.html

As much as I'm loath to agree with this guy he has a bit of a point.

The point is rather poor.

I can claim to be for maximizing individual liberties, but I can also place reasonable restrictions on individual liberties at the same time. For instance, we do not generally consider murder to be a legitimate expression of freedom of action (for reasons which I assume are self-evident), thus we do not allow people to murder; murder is made illegal. Our making murder illegal does not mean we are anti-freedom authoritarian jackboots. All it means is that we recognize that some actions are legitimate expressions of freedom, and some are not. To claim that freedom requires allowing people to murder, rape, or steal freely is an absurdity.

Likewise, a particular state can claim to enact and defend democracy, but at the same time place reasonable restrictions on what kind of political parties are allowed to participate. The goal is to institute democracy, but this goal cannot be accomplished if we allow the rise of those political parties who seek to overthrow the democratic/constitutional order in the first place (likewise, prohibiting, preventing, and punishing murder is not a act of restricting individual freedom, as individual freedom doesn't mean much if one has been murdered). Thus prohibiting anti-constitutional or anti-democratic political parties doesn't mean we have abandoned democracy; the prohibition is necessary to defend democracy. To claim that democracy requires the right of some to seek the destruction of democracy is a self-defeating absurdity.

One may as well claim that one must provide a knife to, and be compelled to expose one's jugular to, the murderer, or one is violating said murderer's rights. A convienient conclusion for the murderer, even though it is a load of crap.

Since then right-wing extremists have been successful in several elections and have even captured seats in state parliaments in the eastern states of Saxony and Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, as well as in a few municipal parliaments.

What is it with people using the word 'extremist' as a negative?

The provision for outlawing parties is mainly that they aren't allowed to be against the Basic Law

On this rationale, had I lived in Germany and started a Libertarian party there, it would be immediately banned, since I believe the German Constitution has to be repealed and reworded entirely to include much more freedom and more restrictions on the Central government.


So, opposing the German Constitution gets you banned, no matter why you oppose it?


No, I don't see how anything could go wrong with that idea.

On this rationale, had I lived in Germany and started a Libertarian party there, it would be immediately banned, since I believe the German Constitution has to be repealed and reworded entirely to include much more freedom and more restrictions on the Central government.


So, opposing the German Constitution gets you banned, no matter why you oppose it?


No, I don't see how anything could go wrong with that idea.

If one reads the actual document in question...


Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.

( http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasis/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law.html__nnn=true#doc48090bodyText3 )

...one will find that the only prohibitions are on those parties which wish to "abolish the free democratic basic order" or those who wish to "endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany." Rewording, amending, or otherwise altering a constitution does not necessarily constitute either situation. In fact, like any constitution, the Basic Law provides means for ammendment (Article 79; although altering Articles 1 and 20, which again establish the basic democratic constitutional order, appears to be forbidden; a reasonable restriction as I have already explained eariler (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12044405&postcount=44)).

(edit: Just to be absolutely clear, again, carefully note the wording. The Basic Law does not prohibit opposition to the Basic Law itself; means are provided for changing the Basic Law if the requirements for doing so are met. The Basic Law prohibits opposition to the higher concept of democratic constitutional order.)

That's still very, very vague. Unacceptably vague, I would say.

It's a constitution.

http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_22672/Webs/Breg/EN/Federal-Government/FunctionAndConstitutionalBasis/BasicLaw/ContentofBasicLaw/content-of-basic-law.htmlAh, thank you. Is that what the Germans call the German Constitution, or is it a separate one? (Such as the EU's.)

Well then there's no danger, is there? Why are you worried?


He's worried because this law is currently not being enforced. Otherwise the NPD would have been outlawed a good while back.

On this rationale, had I lived in Germany and started a Libertarian party there, it would be immediately banned, since I believe the German Constitution has to be repealed and reworded entirely to include much more freedom and more restrictions on the Central government.


So, opposing the German Constitution gets you banned, no matter why you oppose it?


No, I don't see how anything could go wrong with that idea.

You can advocate a change in the constitution, it's not set in stone. It had to be changed, for example, with the reunification of Germany.
But - and that's a very important but - you cannot reject it outright.

Ah, thank you. Is that what the Germans call the German Constitution, or is it a separate one? (Such as the EU's.)
See, you've found what perhaps is the crux of the argument...

Article 146 [Duration of validity of the Basic Law]

This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect.

The Basic Law is, strictly speaking, not a constitution. Germany doesn't have one. Some parts of the Weimar constitution have been incorporated, and most was written by a committee shortly after the war.

But they weren't sure then of whether the Basic Law would last. People weren't even sure yet what would happen with the Soviet-occupied East. So they added the distinction at the very end, and opened the option for a real constitution to be implemented.

Which is the way NPD types will generally argue when it comes to issues regarding the Basic Law.

See, you've found what perhaps is the crux of the argument...

The Basic Law is, strictly speaking, not a constitution. Germany doesn't have one. Some parts of the Weimar constitution have been incorporated, and most was written by a committee shortly after the war.

But they weren't sure then of whether the Basic Law would last. People weren't even sure yet what would happen with the Soviet-occupied East. So they added the distinction at the very end, and opened the option for a real constitution to be implemented.

Which is the way NPD types will generally argue when it comes to issues regarding the Basic Law.Oh, wow, that's interesting. It's sort of a midway point between having a constitution and not having one.

You can advocate a change in the constitution, it's not set in stone. It had to be changed, for example, with the reunification of Germany.
But - and that's a very important but - you cannot reject it outright.

Which is exactly my problem.
Well... I'm not a German. So I really don't see why I'm keeping this argument up.

Which is exactly my problem.
Well... I'm not a German. So I really don't see why I'm keeping this argument up.

That sturcture was set up deliberatley, to avoid some of the problems of the Weimar constitution. It was too easy to bypass and allowed for too much power for some people.
The Grundgesetz can only be changed with a 2/3 majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat. Some articles, especially those concerning human rights, cannot be changed at all, ever.

So, any political party openly rejecting the Grundgesetz cannot legally maintain its status as political party. You can openly argue and debate the Grundgesetz, and you can form a club that rejects it, but as a political party you have to adhere to it.

But do the NPD want to revoke the basic law? We've had this debate in Sweden too. People here (in .se) tend assume that the Nationalist Party = Nazis. If you look a little closer at their party programme it's basicly a rightwing party programme with the addition that they want to significantly cut down on immigration.

Edit: The reason people automaticly think of them as Nazis is that they have been labled that by their opponents. A very effective way of debating. If someone is branded a nazi it doesn't matter what he says, no one will listen.

germany is a mess. really. right wing =/= nazi, so stop this ridiculous discrimination.

let the fuckers be elected if the majority, would like it. and if the country get fucked up because of it, though luck. like bush.

germany is a mess. really. right wing =/= nazi, so stop this ridiculous discrimination.

In German politics, right wing refers to political right wing, which is nationalist/nazi.
There's no discrimination involved.

let the fuckers be elected if the majority, would like it. and if the country get fucked up because of it, though luck. like bush.

The problem with those fuckers is that they don't care what the majority would want. In the east of Germany, the majority gets bullied into voting for the right wing parties.

The problem with those fuckers is that they don't care what the majority would want. In the east of Germany, the majority gets bullied into voting for the right wing parties.

How do they get bullied into voting for the right wing parties, I thought Germany had secret ballot.

How do they get bullied into voting for the right wing parties, I thought Germany had secret ballot.

Neu Leonstein posted a few very good articles on the climate of fear in those areas a while back... can't find the links any more. :(

The problem with those fuckers is that they don't care what the majority would want. In the east of Germany, the majority gets bullied into voting for the right wing parties.

tell it to somebody who cares, democracy has it's flaws.

tell it to somebody who cares, democracy has it's flaws.

If you don't care, why do you keep replying? :confused:

If you don't care, why do you keep replying? :confused:

post count? :D

All of us right-wingers are all racists. Just yesterday, I punted a black baby and hit a homosexual with it.

All of us right-wingers are all racists. Just yesterday, I punted a black baby and hit a homosexual with it.

You say that like we didnt know it already.

All of us right-wingers are all racists. Just yesterday, I punted a black baby and hit a homosexual with it.

Ahhhh many a true word spoken in jest huh!:p

All of us right-wingers are all racists. Just yesterday, I punted a black baby and hit a homosexual with it.

good for you, did you have a yard count?

I'm talking authoritarian nationalists. The NPD in Germany clearly are Nazis, but you can include Pym Fortune's guys, Le Pen in France, the SVP in Switzerland and various "People's Parties" in Scandinavia.
I dont think its fair to include Pim Fortuyn and his guys with the NDP, as Pim Fortuyn was not nazi at all.....the same thing goes for SVP in Schweiz and DF in Denmark.....they arnt Nazi parties, and there is a difference between a nationalist party and a nazi party....though I will admit I dont know about Le Pen in France, not sure on that.

If you are simply talking about Authoritarian tendancies, then nevermind then.:p

good for you, did you have a yard count?

No, because the head went further than the rest of the body.

No, because the head went further than the rest of the body.

ok, but thats even more reason to have a yard count.

ok, but thats even more reason to have a yard count.

Well, I was too busy choking Sihks to death with an American flag to notice.

Well, I was too busy choking Sihks to death with an American flag to notice.



HAhahahhahahah Sikhs is how it is spelt by the way you ghunda munda!:rolleyes:

HAhahahhahahah Sikhs is how it is spelt by the way you ghunda munda!:rolleyes:

I would've learned how to spell it correctly had I not been in the process of headbutting my wife for not bringing my beer to me fast enough.

So how can they be dealt with?

With patience and love.

there are no quick fixes when you are talking about deeply seated personal opinions. They are only going to listen to you if they can tell that you honestly care about them as a person, and even then they may choose not to listen.

In my experiace you can't fight fear with fear, it can only be overcome with love. Unfortuneatly some people are past feeling and there is no way to get through to them... but I believe that those people are a still a minority world wide.

I would've learned how to spell it correctly had I not been in the process of headbutting my wife for not bringing my beer to me fast enough.

Heheh I used to get that, but she's learnt her fookin' lesson now!

let the fuckers be elected if the majority, would like it. and if the country get fucked up because of it, though luck. like bush.
Yeah, electing Bush was tough luck on the US. It was tough luck on Iraq, too. How many countries got the tough luck the last time the majority of Germans decided to elect fuckers such as we're talking about here? Oh, right, yeah, it turns out there is a reason to care.

With patience and love.

there are no quick fixes when you are talking about deeply seated personal opinions. They are only going to listen to you if they can tell that you honestly care about them as a person, and even then they may choose not to listen.

In my experiace you can't fight fear with fear, it can only be overcome with love. Unfortuneatly some people are past feeling and there is no way to get through to them... but I believe that those people are a still a minority world wide.
Well...I kind of agree and I kind of don't.

On the one hand, I am a big fan of "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," which I guess is my version of "patience and love."

But on the other hand, I do not think we should ignore the destructive effect such groups can have on a society if they are not balanced by a vigorous opposition.

I think groups like the NDP are like vermin in a functional, rather than descriptive, way. You can build your house to be resistant to vermin, but that does not mean you can guarantee that termites, mice, and other pests will not get in and do their damage. No matter how well built your house is, you must always maintain it and be on the look-out for infestations. And when you see the signs of infestation, you must take action to clear it out as fast and as thoroughly as possible.

It is a waste of time to try to eradicate termites and mice from the world, because you can't, and even if you could, a new pest would come up to take their place. It is better to accept the necessary work of maintaining a balance between you and them. The vermin do what it is their nature to do, and we do what we must to keep them from harming us. It is a constant give and take between us. It requires constant work, but the balance is maintained. Termites can live, just not in our house and not at a level where they become harmful.

I guess the key is to look for that balance. And the best way to balance a point of view is with an opposing point of view. So we must not be afraid to speak up in opposition to views that offend us. Not to silence them, but to keep them in their proper perspective.

"Talking to people rationally" isn't going to work either. The people in question don't listen to rational arguments, and they don't accept reasonable propositions. These are people from some village in the countryside who've hardly even seen an immigrant, but still think they take all the jobs, rape the women and destroy the country. They are people who don't see democracy as special, but just as one of many alternatives for running a government.

So how can they be dealt with?

Everywhere the Fash go, you undermine them physically. If that means punching some sense into them then so be it. Sometimes it's the only way that works.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.png/200px-Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.png

Plenty of irrational people to go around who aren't right wing. Are you going to let them slide?

Plenty of irrational people to go around who aren't right wing. Are you going to let them slide?

Depends where they go and how much of a threat they are to the local community. Your average "the end is nigh" nutter won't be that interested in spreading racism using violence and intimidation.

but i thought that constitutions were magical cloaks of invincibility!?

I wish more people would learn that a consitution is only as good as how willing people are to fight for its protections.

Everywhere the Fash go, you undermine them physically. If that means punching some sense into them then so be it. Sometimes it's the only way that works.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.png/200px-Battle-of-Cable-Street-red-plaque.png
"I think fisticuffs are brutal."*

But I like the approach of the ancient Celtic bards who had the power to destroy kings through satire and parody, by making it impossible for anyone to take them seriously, much less follow them into battle. I really think the most effective way of keeping the Fash (I like that nickname) down is the one-two punch of having better, more effective ideas, and vicious, spot-on, much deserved ridicule of the enemy. I mean, really -- look at them and keep a straight face, I dare anyone.


(*extremely obscure comedy quote.)

"I think fisticuffs are brutal."*

But I like the approach of the ancient Celtic bards who had the power to destroy kings through satire and parody, by making it impossible for anyone to take them seriously, much less follow them into battle. I really think the most effective way of keeping the Fash (I like that nickname) down is the one-two punch of having better, more effective ideas, and vicious, spot-on, much deserved ridicule of the enemy. I mean, really -- look at them and keep a straight face, I dare anyone.


(*extremely obscure comedy quote.)

Alas, the times are not as simple now as they were then. Neo Leonstein correctly observes that earnest attempts to spread anti-fascist propaganda won't make the Fash disappear. We can only use the tools they seek to assume in order to destroy them, i.e. working class militancy.

So now we may return to the real world.
This is a cop-out. Llewdor raises some good questions. Democracy's bases, if anything, are strictly theoretical. From the notion of authorship of power to the Constitution itself, theory underlies every element of a Democracy's operation. Good theory seeks to be logically consistent. Now, you are willing to allow Socialists to form their own commune in a Minarchist democracy. Fair enough. If the NDP wants to form its own community, why not allow it to? Why ban it? That may not be counter-democratic, but it would be counter-minarchist. The only thing subject to penalisation would be positive acts of discrimination, such as violence.

Everywhere the Fash go, you undermine them physically. If that means punching some sense into them then so be it. Sometimes it's the only way that works.
But then you're no better than they are for you are supressing their views with violence. You'd be acting just as facist with the only difference being political views in direct opposition to theirs.

Freedom of speech applies to all people and opinions, not just the popular ones.

But then you're no better than they are for you are supressing their views with violence. You'd be acting just as facist with the only difference being political views in direct opposition to theirs.

It's not their views that are being suppressed, it's their activity.

If the NDP wants to form its own community, why not allow it to?
That's not what they do though.

That's not what they do though.
Because they can't. But are there not pockets of NPD supporters in parts of Germany? They probably would form those enclaves given the option.

But they'll also exercise their free speech rights and try to sway other to their cause. I don't see how one can object to this (I say living in the country that bans hate speech).

That's not what they do though.
Have they been given the option to?

The National Front is a Nazi Front! Smash the National Front!

They should basically just use that, because it's super spiffing.

*edits*

And do you know what pisses me off the most?

Mecklenburg-Westpommern has the LOWEST amount of immigrants anywhere in the whole of Germany. Even less than Bayern, which is really quite conservative.

Grrr...

it had been banned by the government here for over 30 years.

Why?

Because they can't. But are there not pockets of NPD supporters in parts of Germany? They probably would form those enclaves given the option.
They could do so on their private property. What some of them are currently doing is trying to take charge of local government, and forcing those people who happen to live in these areas to either agree or leave.
And supporters of other parties at rallies have been photographed by skinheads coming to SPD functions and the like. There have even been cases of people being followed all the way home, ending up so terrified that they called the police (at which point the skinheads just left, never getting bothered by the cops again).

This link (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,438680,00.html) is in German, but the video will show you what I mean by the NPD. That is the party. They have a few public faces, but that is what they stand for.

Saying "well, just get them when they commit crimes" is like saying "just let Al Qaeda in peace and when a guy blows something up, get that guy alone".

But they'll also exercise their free speech rights and try to sway other to their cause. I don't see how one can object to this (I say living in the country that bans hate speech).
And I have no interest in seeing their types ever gaining a majority and getting into a position of abusing government power.
Again the comparison with radical Islamists...how far is too far when allowing the preaching of violence?

Have they been given the option to?
Of course. There've been plenty of "projects" for saving white people and so on. Usually the communities will be strongly opposed to them buying property for that purpose (the hotel in Delmenhorst (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,432716,00.html) is one such example), but I know of several racist communes built on private property.

I wish more people would learn that a consitution is only as good as how willing people are to fight for its protections.

QFT.

Of course. There've been plenty of "projects" for saving white people and so on. Usually the communities will be strongly opposed to them buying property for that purpose (the hotel in Delmenhorst (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,432716,00.html) is one such example), but I know of several racist communes built on private property.
I do not see what business it is of the communities what private property arrangements they try to enter or what purpose they seek to put their property to, so long as no one involved is harmed. Ideally, they should buy up some private land and form their own communities as far as it is possible. This might give them less of a reason to harass people trying to run for government.

This might give them less of a reason to harass people trying to run for government.
You're acting as if they were happy just living a life like they want to. I don't think you understand their mentality. They don't care about themselves or their own lives, they care about "peoples", "races", "cultures" and "nations".

Just living in some commune is never going to be enough if their people or their race aren't "doing as they must to survive".

You're acting as if they were happy just living a life like they want to. I don't think you understand their mentality. They don't care about themselves or their own lives, they care about "peoples", "races", "cultures" and "nations".

Just living in some commune is never going to be enough if their people or their race aren't "doing as they must to survive".
I'll put it this way - as long as they give no reason to the government to ban them, they should be able to run in elections. You made mention of a socialist commune earlier. One might say socialists (and communists) too would never be content with just that commune (for instance, those who believe it is their duty to destroy the capitalist "class") - and one might reasonably say too, that many would be greatly opposed to living under a socialist regime. However, this does not constitute a reason for banning the party. I won't disagree though if one were to say that a party using intimidation to gerner support should be banned...

-snip-
I believe I said in the OP that I don't think banning is a solution. I asked what would be.

And there's different types of socialists. Germany has dealt with the RAF before, those were socialists clearly bent on destroying the system rather than finding a niche for themselves.

The NPD and their types might not be blowing stuff up, so their attacks are not as publically visible as the RAF's, but I'd bet that more people get hurt because of right-wing violence than were hurt by the RAF's terror attacks.

I believe I said in the OP that I don't think banning is a solution. I asked what would be.
I am aware of this. I am more curious as to what you would think a solution to the problem would be. Fiddles made a good point in that the best way to combat these individuals is to crush the very foundations of their plans. They may not be willing to listen to reason or debate, but their potential voter-base may be.

Now, provided they play fairly, and say that people for whatever reason do vote for them, what would you have done then? Even if their agenda is to change how the government works, provided they have the level of support they require, are they not playing within the rules of the game?

Now, provided they play fairly, and say that people for whatever reason do vote for them, what would you have done then?
The problem is that the NPD doesn't appeal to actual issues. They argue from an "everything's going to shits!" basis.

One could reorganise the way immigration works, but that wouldn't matter, because there are no immigrants in NPD heartland.

One could try to provide them with jobs, but the policies necessary would be neoliberal in nature, and thus be opposed by the very people they're meant to be helping.

One could try to not make them feel as excluded from the political process - thus giving them more chance to put their dangerous views into action.

That's the issue with appeasing populists...you really can't, because they're by definition never happy about things.

Even if their agenda is to change how the government works, provided they have the level of support they require, are they not playing within the rules of the game?
If they were playing within the rules of the game, they would be. In reality they aren't, so they're not.

That's the issue with appeasing populists...you really can't, because they're by definition never happy about things.
If it is unwise to ban them and impossible to appease them my suggestion would be to simply punish them for their wrong-doings, such as intimidating people. If all they do is bring up strawmen I think the majority of the population will come to realise they are not to be taken seriously. The other option would be to actually educate the public as to what their intentions are, and point out that they lack any means of solving issues raised. As I said, if they cannot be reasoned with, at least the public can be (to a degree).

Alas, the times are not as simple now as they were then. Neo Leonstein correctly observes that earnest attempts to spread anti-fascist propaganda won't make the Fash disappear. We can only use the tools they seek to assume in order to destroy them, i.e. working class militancy.

Well, see my post #79 for my take on that. I don't think it is possible to make an idea disappear, so any movement with that goal is going to fail, ultimately.

And as I said in my first post, the more you keep them down, the more you dispossess them, the more attractive they seem to those who are already dispossesed in society. They are vying to instill militancy in the same working class audience as you are. You won't beat them just by beatin' on them because you will be essentially turning neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother.

I agree there is a place for militancy, but in the long run, they will stay on the losing end only if you can show that your ideas are better for the people than theirs. And that means that you must figure out WHY their ideas appeal and how to undermine that effect as well.

Indeed, as you say, the world is more complicated nowadays. Too complicated for a simple joke to solve the problem, and too complicated for a simple march in the street to solve it, either.

Because they can't. But are there not pockets of NPD supporters in parts of Germany? They probably would form those enclaves given the option.

But they'll also exercise their free speech rights and try to sway other to their cause. I don't see how one can object to this (I say living in the country that bans hate speech).
They would not stay in their enclaves. They are not like the Amish, just looking for a way to live their lives, apart from society. They want ultimately to rule, and they will do so by force if necessary. This is why they must be countered, before they gain more of a political foothold.

They would not stay in their enclaves. They are not like the Amish, just looking for a way to live their lives, apart from society. They want ultimately to rule, and they will do so by force if necessary. This is why they must be countered, before they gain more of a political foothold.

And how would you counter them?

It's like trying to counter any form of radicalism - if it has a place to live, and schools to teach, it's going to flourish.

And how would you counter them?

It's like trying to counter any form of radicalism - if it has a place to live, and schools to teach, it's going to flourish.
Read the thread. I have already made my arguments.

Read the thread. I have already made my arguments.

This wasn't particularly clear or helpful.

I agree there is a place for militancy, but in the long run, they will stay on the losing end only if you can show that your ideas are better for the people than theirs. And that means that you must figure out WHY their ideas appeal and how to undermine that effect as well.

So, to help us...

Tell us WHY their ideas appeal, and how to undermine that effect.

Otherwise, it's like saying, "well, in order to defeat them, we have to defeat them! Isn't that clever?"

This wasn't particularly clear or helpful.
It's more helpful that just reposting all my previous posts. Read the thread. It's not that long.

So, to help us...

Tell us WHY their ideas appeal, and how to undermine that effect.

Otherwise, it's like saying, "well, in order to defeat them, we have to defeat them! Isn't that clever?"
I never said anything that in any way implied that I know why the ideas of the NDP appeal to people. I am only stating that it is an important thing to try to learn, if we hope to win the audience they are trying to win over. Why is that such a controversial notion, in your opinion?

You are not very good at debating are you, EO? Based on the last few threads you have faced me in, it seems you never read full arguments. You only respond to cherrypicked statements taken out of context. You read things into those cherrypicked statements that are not there. You focus on irrelevancies in an attempt to redefine the debate. If you can't find an irrelevancy, you invent one. I'm starting to think you really are quite without hope.

Banning a political party in a "democracy" isn't democracy at all.

Indeed, but only when we try to impose ourselves a very strict form of democracy.

I for one am quite happy with the fact that the masses aren't able to decide upon every matter of governance. I dread to think what would happen if we gave every citizen the possibility to affect -every- state policy through the means of a referendum.

Also on a related note: A major factor of a good democracy would be the proctection it gives to it's minorities and social groups that have a weak position within a society.

Why?They thought the sex descriptions in it were too graphic. This was the 1920s through the '50s, though, so Puritanism still had a strong foothold.