Ableton Forum

rote fahne wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part.

The exit poll interviews were held by people with large wooden clubs.

That makes 4 great posts in a row. Someone stop this man before he wins the internet!

rote fahne wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part.

The exit poll interviews were held by people with large wooden clubs.

That image would be the voting poll for Austria, famously you were right in the case of the "vote" there, but it doesn't say much about the majority that voted for Adolf in the German general election...

Machinesworking wrote:

rote fahne wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part.

The exit poll interviews were held by people with large wooden clubs.

That image would be the voting poll for Austria, famously you were right in the case of the "vote" there, but it doesn't say much about the majority that voted for Adolf in the German general election...

WWI veterans already beaten the commies in 1919 in Munich, Rathenau was killed in 1922, so it obviously took years of violence to get the power.

rote fahne wrote: WWI veterans already beaten the commies in 1919 in Munich, Rathenau was killed in 1922, so it obviously took years of violence to get the power.

OK. but what does that have to do with the fact that fascists can be voted in?

I seriously wonder why people are so quick to write this off? It's as if we want to ignore the fact that fascism for the most part had far less violent revolutions that put it into power than dictatorial communism? Guided in most cases by the "democratic process".The only thing close was Spain. IMO fascism at a period in the early century was en vogue among industrialists, and promoted. I don't think you would argue that.

Also, let's be honest here, the nazis were immensely popular among average germans after they took power. This sort of all or nothing attitude runs deep in people, as evidenced by the sectarian arguments waged in this thread. It is, the one downside to democracy.

That's why we have impeachment in the U.S. but I understand where you are coming from. Tyranny of the majority. It's a very valid concern. Which is why I always end up at prevention methods rather than treatment. There has to be more incentive for people who become leaders to do the right thing so that even if they are sociopaths they see more worth in doing what is good for people rather than what serves them or buckling to fears and influence from other... entities. As it stands politics is a rigged game. David Stockman, a republican cited earlier in this thread, recently advocated that all election campaigns be publicly funded. Seems like a no-brainer. Doesn't solve everything, maybe even encourages more back room dealing, but it's a decent idea.

Machinesworking wrote:

rote fahne wrote: WWI veterans already beaten the commies in 1919 in Munich, Rathenau was killed in 1922, so it obviously took years of violence to get the power.

OK. but what does that have to do with the fact that fascists can be voted in?

I seriously wonder why people are so quick to write this off? It's as if we want to ignore the fact that fascism for the most part had far less violent revolutions that put it into power than dictatorial communism? Guided in most cases by the "democratic process".The only thing close was Spain. IMO fascism at a period in the early century was en vogue among industrialists, and promoted. I don't think you would argue that.

Also, let's be honest here, the nazis were immensely popular among average germans after they took power. This sort of all or nothing attitude runs deep in people, as evidenced by the sectarian arguments waged in this thread. It is, the one downside to democracy.

Ah, I now see the point you wanted to make, didnt understand your remark.

Think you have to see it in the historical perspective of that time, and that place. Today we can look back at that ugly period in history and say that we can hardly understand that people ever voted for a guy like Hitler.

But at the time Germany must have been very frustrated, they lost the war (ww1), there was a huge crisis, poverty, unemployment, and by the time he was elected most of his opposition was already killed or silenced.

Also keep in mind that the first concentration camps date from 1933 and where innitially intended for communists and a-socials. Later they sent Jews there.

And yep, democracy can fail.

I think main reason for democracies to fail is economical crisi, and they, in their turn, could be intentionally created by the huge private banking sectors.

rote fahne wrote: Think you have to see it in the historical perspective of that time, and that place. Today we can look back at that ugly period in history and say that we can hardly understand that people ever voted for a guy like Hitler.

Honestly I think if we give up to the fact that racism wasn't seen as that big of a deal at that time, then it's very very easy to see why people voted for him.
We (mankind) vote all the time for hawks, in fact it's rare to vote for people with compassion. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were pretty much ignored based primarily on their anti war stances here in the states. I think the socialists like Trotsky etc. would have said that it's a natural part of living in a "free" society with a huge disparity of wealth, that we all are fine with violence towards perceived "others" if it means security or power for ourselves. Fascism and Capitalism work because they tap into primal reactionary emotional urges. Communism subsequently doesn't work because it ignores the will to power.

Machinesworking wrote:

rote fahne wrote: Think you have to see it in the historical perspective of that time, and that place. Today we can look back at that ugly period in history and say that we can hardly understand that people ever voted for a guy like Hitler.

Honestly I think if we give up to the fact that racism wasn't seen as that big of a deal at that time, then it's very very easy to see why people voted for him.
We (mankind) vote all the time for hawks, in fact it's rare to vote for people with compassion. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were pretty much ignored based primarily on their anti war stances here in the states. I think the socialists like Trotsky etc. would have said that it's a natural part of living in a "free" society with a huge disparity of wealth, that we all are fine with violence towards perceived "others" if it means security or power for ourselves. Fascism and Capitalism work because they tap into primal reactionary emotional urges. Communism subsequently doesn't work because it ignores the will to power.

I certainly wouldn't say communism ignores the will to dominate. It's precisely against that! It's up to people to enforce it if it's going to work though. That's why it is almost always considered revolutionary. There doesn't seem to be an "easy way" to draw power back into the hands of the people once it's been taken away. One thing that can be said about communism is that it does not encourage complete subjugation in the way that dominant market capitalism does.

Funk N. Furter wrote: I was watching a great film the other night on telly, with Denzil Washington playing a bodyguard trying to protect a little girl from kidnap in Mexico. He carried a gun. Kidnap was not uncommon and this family was a well known wealthy one. Many of the police were crooked. Are you telling me that him carrying a gun to protect the kid is immoral? When they tried to kidnap her, he shot 4 of them including 2 bent police. Are you saying that was a bad thing to do? He risked his life to try to save the girl from bad guys.

Carrying a gun to protect the kid should someone else initiate force is, in and of itself, not an initiation of force, is it?

Logic is hard.

Oh, and for those other readers following this debate, the question (which I don't believe FunkyArmpits here will ever get around to answering as it would require too much intellectual honesty on his part) was as follows:

Do you believe that the initiation or threat of force is immoral?

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Bean Machine wrote:
And you can stop trying to blame everything on capitalism. Force is exclusively initiated by capitalists? That schtick is beyond laughable.

read a history book and get real

ay yo foo' i alwayz on da muthafuckin' rizzeal, nuhmsayin'? you's crazy trippin, dogg

Funk N. Furter wrote: All this is just too stupid to 'debate'. Nobody agrees with you except Cocky. This includes historians, socialists, conservatives, fascists, reformists, economists. Nobody. Because what you are saying is absurd. Hitler laughed at the suggestion of this kind of thing, and he hated it. The Nazi Party started out with some pseudo-left phraseology in it's 'principles' because all the workers in Germany supported socialist parties at the time. Fascists have always pretended to be taking a stand against big business. It's bullshit. They know it. Everyone knows it. Stop wasting time with this absurd nonsense. Do some actual research is you are not convinced, but don't blindly cling to this crazy idea. It's like believing in Santa after you saw your dad leave the presents.

Please go and research the topic with at least an open mind before continuing this absurd argument.

No, it's not too stupid to debate. You're just too stupid to defend your side of the argument. Why can't you provide a straight answer to a simple question: how many of the 25 planks of the NSDAP platform are right-wing?

You refuse to answer because you know that to do so would reveal the intellectual paucity of your position.

You then try to cover up your evasion with several appeals to authority, and yet another conflation of big government and big business -- under Fascism, National Socialism or any other form of corporatism such a distinction largely disappears due to the two elements working hand-in-glove together.

It's quite obvious at this point that you simply don't have a leg to stand on here. May I suggest slinking away with your tail between your legs might be the best course of action for you at this point?

And who's to say Santa doesn't exist? My dad simply might have been filling in for him while he was on sick leave.

SuburbanThug wrote:He's actually trying to argue that U.S. initiation of force against Nazi Germany was immoral. Farcical.

Given that the U.S. government had to initiate force against many of its own citizens in order to do so (by drafting them into the army), I would indeed argue this point.

SuburbanThug wrote:There comes a point when failure to use force is immoral. Your argument, Bean Machine, that any use of force is immoral is a False Dichotomy. Look it up.

Okay, since you're so desperate for my attention, I'll play nice and humour you.

Question time!

At what precise point does failure to use force become immoral?
Upon what objective scale may this point be observed and measured?
And by what moral metric does failure to use force when this point is attained become immoral?

I expect answers for each of these questions, no less than 500 words in length each and in your own handwriting, on my desk tomorrow by 8:30 am. Get cracking.

SuburbanThug wrote:::FACEPALM::

Bean Machine is arguing from a predominantly libertarian capitalist viewpoint. Libertarian capitalists are by and large against initiation of force. This is explained by the non-aggression principle employed, by and large, by libertarian capitalists. When Bean Machine asserts this question it is "loaded" because he wishes everyone to believe that it is already well accepted in this discussion that initiation of force by a state is immoral.

Bean Machine asserts that this discussion cannot go on unless this question is answered and implies that it's answer also implies that Funken is a tyrant. This is a fallacious argument that he hopes will make all of his assertions appear correct.

Really? If it's a fallacious argument, why does FunkySpunk do everything he can to avoid answering the question? Could it be because he knows his position (that he, like you, favours the initiation of force under certain circumstances) is blatantly immoral and that to answer my question directly would reveal this fact? Could it be that Funken is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest little coward?

Given his stubborn insistance on ducking this question along with the one about the 25 planks of the Nazi party, I have little choice but to go with 'yes', at this point. Sorry scuzz, but them's the breaks.

Funk N. Furter wrote: We demand:

The unity of all German-speaking peoples.
Fascist

No, nationalist, of which Fascism is only one flavour (and a left-wing one at that.) Of course, nationalism can also be right-wing. However, the notion of forced collectivization is something that the communists very much agreed with, so... this leans left more than it does right.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

The abolition of the Treaty of Versailles.
This was the core Nazi policy

Look, if you're going to try pick apart the platform, you could at least quote it correctly. Here:

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

As above, the notion of collective rights and involuntary national identity leans more left than it does right. The latter half of the plank is irrelevant to either the left or right.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

Land and colonies to feed Germany’s population.

Communists favour world revolution by conquest if necessary; the rationale for invading one's neighbours is different but the policy is the same. Libertarians of course would be utterly opposed to the notion, believing war to be justified only in self defense.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

Only Germans can be citizens. No Jew can be a German citizen.
Fascist

It's certainly not Fascist. Aren't you aware the Mussolini allowed Jews into the positions of government under his watch? Not to mention that Fascist Italy was a safe haven for many of Europe's Jews until the Nazis forced them to hand them over? Anyhow, this once again reeks of forced collectivism, so...

Verdict: LEFT-WING

People in Germany who are not citizens must obey special laws for foreigners.
right wing/fascist

Nationalist, which can be either left or right wing.

In other words: NEUTRAL

Only German citizens can vote, be employed or hold public office.Right wing

NEUTRAL

Citizens are entitled to a job and a decent standard of living.
Taking the piss

LEFT-WING, obviously.

If this cannot be achieved, foreigners (with no rights as citizens) should be expelled.
Right wing

Nope, NEUTRAL.

No further immigration of non-German must be allowed. All foreigners who have come to Germany since 1914 must be expelled.
Right wing policy

Not necessarily, given that communists also tend to be very wary of who they let in their borders.

NEUTRAL

All citizens have equal rights and duties.

Equal rights can be both left-wing or right-wing (depending largely on whether the rights in question are positive or negative.) Equal duties, however, suggests that all citizens are ultimately subordinate to the will of the state.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

The first duty of a citizen is to work.
Code for slave labour camps

You've clearly never heard of the gulags, my quixotic little friend.

Verdict: as LEFT-WING as it gets

All payments to unemployed people should end.

Another instance of you failing to quote the source material correctly. What it actually says is, all unearned income should be abolished. Unearned income includes things like rent earned (on property you own) and interest earned on investments etc., but doesn't include unemployment benefits.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

All profits made by profiteers during the war must be shared.
with the Nazis

Sharing of profits? Sounds pretty LEFT-WING to me!

Nationalisation of public industries*
This did not happen, as I say, the Nazis carried out privatisation

Privatisation in name only, moron. Corporations still had to be ultimately subservient to the will of the state.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

Large companies must share their profits
Never happened

LEFT-WING

Pensions must be improved
This was bullshit designed to attract voters. The opposite happened in practice

LEFT-WING

Help for small shops and businesses; The fascists power base was the German petty-bourgeois

LEFT-WING -- the right-wing position of course would be to leave the shops and businesses to sink or swim on their own merits.

large department stores** must be closed down.
because department stores were mostly run by Jews. Fascist.

Nice try at twisting this one around, you dopey twat. Of course this is LEFT-WING.

Property reform to give small farmers their land.

No, if you bothered to quote the source material with any degree of accuracy, you would have said: land reform suitable to our national requirements.

Once again, this ties in very closely with the communists desire to seize all land for the greater good.

Verdict: LEFT-WING

An all-out battle against criminals, profiteers, etc., who must be punished by death.

Yeah, this one's pretty NEUTRAL.

Reform of the law to make it more German.Fascist

Nationalist, actually. The Fascists were Italian, remember? NEUTRAL.

Improve education so that all Germans can get a job.

LEFT-WING, obviously.

Improve people’s health by making a law for people to do sport.

Smacks of Sovietism, this one. LEFT-WING.

Abolition of the Army, and a new People’s Army in its place.
They did not create a people's army they created a fascist-run

Quoting incorrectly again, eh? Here's the correct quote:

22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.

Abolition of decentralized pockets of troops in favor of a large, centralized military power? Guess what this can only be?

LEFT-WING!

German newspapers must be free of foreign influence.
Far right

To steal a line from the Communist Manifesto:

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Sound familiar? LEFT-WING

Freedom of religion.
Well killing all the Jews fitted nicely into that one

Yeah, too bad freedom of religion is far more a libertarian concept than anything else. Marx hated religion. And look at the religious intolerance leveled against Christians in places like the Soviet Union and North Korea.

Verdict: RIGHT-WING

Strong central government with unrestricted authority.
This is a basic fascist policy

Yeah, and the policy of every other form of totalitarian socialism too.

LEFT-WING

Red = left, blue = right, black = both/neither. I only spent 2 minutes on this

Yeah, I can tell.

Fact is they sent out mixed messages. What they put into practice however was an ultra-right wing nationalist programme including war.

Which clearly proves that they were right wing, as nationalism and war are two things that the Soviets absolutely never engaged in.

Bean Machine wrote: You refuse to answer because you know that to do so would reveal the intellectual paucity of your position.

see above

Oh, I have.

pmsl! Really, I'm being gentle with you. Plus I'm kinda busy. Plus it's kinda boring, this low-level internet libertarian/conspiracy theory type stuff. I just can't take it seriously, sorry.

In that case, feel free to carry on pissing yourself. Tootles!