Anarchy Sticker outside Bricklane Bikes

Posted on
Page
of 3
First Prev
/ 3
  • tommy, you seem to have a poor grasp of the words that you are using, and quite who you are arguing with. What Oliver has said is not "partisan", he is not supporting any group or cause. Perhaps you meant to use biased? Also, the link that you gave for a "nirvana fallacy" does not support your use of it, in what way is Oliver comparing "actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives"? He's not comparing anything, nor is he a "failed political movement". He's stating a fact, which you believe to be incorrect.

    These are all minor points though, have you actually searched for his post or do you have any evidence for your claim that more than a third of the population voted for Hitler? I do not believe Oliver to be the kind of person who would gloss over the unsavoury elements in his country's history.

  • If I called Oliver 'biased' It would both suggest I fully understood his political motivations and just appear rude, 'Partisan' allows me to both patronizing and condescending.

    I've not made any claims about 'third of the population voted for Hitler'.

    Nor would I, as I believe most peoples concept of a democracy invovles simply some kind of representational electoral through majority. Mob rule in otherwords, and mobs aren't particularly swayed by fractions, times tables or any other math requiring a basic secondary school education.

  • Yeah sorry I did appear a bit of a cock! Projecting my bad day...

  • Shut up, Tommy...

  • Mob rule in otherwords, and mobs aren't particularly swayed by fractions, times tables or any other math requiring a basic secondary school education.

    Democracy was invented to stop the mob. Pseudo-communism in the Eastern Europe was a mob rule.
    Iran. Sudan. North Korea. What BNP would want if most normal people stay at home during the elections.

  • Much better Oliver on many different levels. Where is it from? Your own design? (You've probably answered those questions already somewhere so apologies for asking and not searching)

    No, not mine at all--I found it on the web at some point and liked it. I'm afraid I can't remember where.

  • pwned

    No, certainly not. To be 'pwned' requires a fairly obvious way in which someone's post is shown up to be false or self-contradicts. ;)

  • We can all respect Oliver's partisan defence of his mother land but this is classic logical Nivanaland fallacy, a favourite of failed political movements.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

    Back in the real world - Hitler was an elected leader, was a vegetarian and was a Christian (yes not a perfect one)

    Paul, I'm not quite sure how you can arrive at this conclusion when you clearly know very little about what I think. You're also missing a trick here in saying 'motherland' when it should surely have been 'fatherland'. ;)

    Nor would I, as I believe most peoples concept of a democracy invovles simply some kind of representational electoral through majority. Mob rule in otherwords, and mobs aren't particularly swayed by fractions, times tables or any other math requiring a basic secondary school education.

    You may want to apply such a simple definition (and I notice that you don't particularly endorse democracy), but in appealing to 'most people's concept' you appear to be siding with the mob in forming your definition. ;) You forget a couple of important things in this--e.g., freedom (of speech, or of voting, for instance), a reliable mechanism of forming a government, etc. I know that you probably take these as read, but this is important, as some of these failed in the Weimarean Republic.

    In my original reply ...

    Hitler never attracted more than about a third of the vote in Germany in a free and democratic election. I've posted something quite long on that somewhere, can't remember where. Please don't perpetuate this myth. The reasons why he came to power are very complex and actually mostly have to do with undemocratic processes.

    I was merely pointing out that your statement ...

    But the main highlight of this great system at work must be when the Germany - voted in a bloke called hilter who decided to try and wipe a few million jews,

    ... perpetuates a myth about Hitler's ascension to power. It seems to suggest that Hitler was voted in in a straightforward democratic expression of the will of the people. He was not. It is true that in 1932 the NSDAP commanded the greatest share of the vote of any party, but it never had a majority of the vote in Germany, and the willingness to involve it in a coalition government was essentially the work of one man, Franz von Papen, through a succession of backroom deals, more or less passively aided and abetted by a weak president, von Hindenburg. The NSDAP's highest share of the vote was 37.6% on 31st July 1932, reduced to 33.1% on 6th November 1932. The next 'election', on 5th March 1933, was no longer free, but even with massive voter intimidation by the SA and terror against other parties, the NSDAP 'only' received 43.9%. There were to be no further elections, just sham exercises in which the NSDAP was the only party.

    So, it's not remotely as simple as stating that the NSDAP was 'voted in'--the subject of the "Machtergreifung" ('seizing of power') by Hitler is pretty complex.

    I've just noticed that there's a stub English Wikipedia article on it ...

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

    ... but this is quite inadequate. The German article ...

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machtergreifung

    ... is a good summary of what happened, but of course is unfortunately only available in German.

    The key distinction that I would draw here is that while Hitler came to power legally (as part of a long-standing NSDAP strategy to use the means offered by the Weimarean constitution to come to power, but with a more or less clearly-stated aim not to respect the end), he cannot be claimed to have come to power democratically, both in the run-up to the July 1932 election that gave the NSDAP its greatest share of the vote in a reasonably free election, and certainly not afterwards.

    Even before 1932, the NSDAP engaged in many different ways of destabilising the state, e.g. in pitched street battles by the SA, its army of bullies, with the KPD (the Communist Party, who were in many ways just as guilty). This led, most significantly, to the "Preußenschlag", in which the imperial chancellor, Franz von Papen, who is one of the main villains of the piece, sacked Otto Braun's government of Prussia, Germany's largest state (by far).

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preußenschlag
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preußenschlag

    This had by all accounts been a stable and competent government and the Preußenschlag, with Braun through illness being unable to act, is one of the greatest tragedies of democracy in history.

    From 1929 to 1932, Germany (although not Prussia so much) was in a state of perpetual crisis and there were several minority governments--a stable majority in the centre of the political spectrum was made impossible by extremist parties on both the left and the right. in July 1932, the Communist Party and the NSDAP together held 52% of the vote, and 50% in November 1932. There's a table of election results on this page:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahl

    During its period of crisis, Germany was effectively governed by a small, rattled oligarchy trying to stabilise the state through so-called 'presidential cabinets' ("Präsidialkabinette")--minority governments appointed by the president. For a long time, there was concerted resistance to involving the NSDAP in government, but this was undermined by Franz von Papen's poor political judgement. The president, von Hindenburg, also long resisted but was eventually prevailed upon by von Papen and the decision to appoint Hitler as chancellor of a coalition government was taken. Some commentators consider it one of the greatest tragedies that this happened when to all intents and purposes the NSDAP's star was already on the wane.

    As I said, much of this was legal under the Weimarean constitution, but as has often been commented, it merely showed up undemocratic weaknesses of the constitution, (which otherwise was a good constitution): The president was too powerful (he had the potential to deploy dictator-like powers, which Hitler then soon used to dismantle the state), and there were too many loopholes such as the one that led to the Preußenschlag.

    None of this involves any trace of a 'Nirvana' fantasy. The above are firmly-established historical facts. It is absolutely essential to guard against simplistic ideas about this period.

    But do they arrest other party member MPs before passing a law that would make him able to pass other laws without a democratic vote like Hitler did with the Enabling Act of 1933?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

    As Pascal points out, after Hitler was appointed chancellor, any veneer of democracy was soon stripped away. The Enabling Act was only the beginning.


    If you knew me better, you'd realise how strongly I feel about this and that I have absolutely no interest in defending my 'motherland'. What happened after 1933 is the worst tragedy in living memory, and quite possibly the worst period of all human history, and I am of the considered opinion that a very large part of the population of Germany were involved in guilt.

    How much, or how many, or who, or whether collectively or individually, has been the biggest debate in post-war Germany and is forever inconclusive. Of course, if you had perfect knowledge of what happened and you could actually break everything down into its inevitable thousands of constituent acts of cruelty, racism, betrayal, murder, violence, and the apparently much smaller number of just actions, against the backdrop of cowering impotence in the face of terror that many felt, you might arrive at a verdict, but this is impossible. Suffice to say that I probably take a much stronger view of the extent of the guilt than most.

  • Here's my earlier post, by the way:

    http://www.lfgss.com/post730499.html

  • Paul, I'm not quite sure how you can arrive at this conclusion when you clearly know very little about what I think. You're also missing a trick here in saying 'motherland' when it should surely have been 'fatherland'. ;)

    Dam it Oliver - Your right! although it wouldn't have any sense outside of a puerile racist slur - but it would have been funny enough to deserve use anyway! by mustard who says all germans are humourlessly procumbent.

    Lets be clear - I am certainly not debating the accuracy of your facts, figures and research regarding the election of Hilter.

    Without doubt you are a great source of knowledgeable on the events, thank you for its imparting.

    However it only serves to support my one arguments Against voting and democracy.
    As one of the major flaws of democracy its regardless of best intentions of the original initiators - representative democracies when implemented on a large scale are easily open to corruption and subversion.

    My other arguments are:

    A majority consensus does not validate or prove any argument.
    Its a completely ilogical way to make any decision.

    When the majority take actions that directly infringe on individual liberty it is immoral. The only purpose of government should be the defence of liberty and nothing else.

    However were we most probably disagree is on what alternative forms of government could be implimented in replacement of democracy.

    But That is for another thread - all I want is a sticker for my letterbox.

  • oliver did i win this argument?

  • oliver did i win this argument?

    It's not all about the winning and the losing.

  • No, by the way.

  • "If you refuse to take part in the government of your country, then you consent to being governed by your inferiors." - Plato.
    It's genuinely astonishing that an argument can run for over 2000 years and still feel fresh...

  • oliver did i win this argument?

    Which point were you intent on winning?

  • Germany winning the football reminded you tommy?!

  • Which point were you intent on winning?

    That forcing your will upon others through a representative government
    (irrespective or not of the process being linked to the murder of 6 million jews)

    Should be fought against.. by in the very least - not voting.

  • That forcing your will upon others through a representative government
    (irrespective or not of the process being linked to the murder of 6 million jews)

    Should be fought against.. by in the very least - not voting.

    No, I certainly don't concede that point/these interrelated points. Firstly, the Nazi terror régime was not a representative government in any sense of the word. Secondly, I don't believe that not voting accomplishes anything. The clue is in the word 'representative'. If a government truly is representative (which it rarely ever is, by the way, although there have been occasional examples of enlightened politics even in democracies), or more or less truly representative, those not voting will only ever be in a tiny minority. Obviously, I would support not voting in a fascist dictatorship, if I and others could somehow avoid being beaten up, jailed, or sent to a concentration camp (as very few people would incur these consequences willingly). Thirdly, a representative government would not need to impose its 'will' on its citizens--it would be elected to represent their will.

    But much of that is theory, both your point and the necessary replies. It is obviously the case that dictatorships should be acted/fought against. Whether that is practicable in each case is quite a different order of question.

    In a country governed in the way that ours is, the key to improving it is not to not vote or similar, but to act ethically in the first instance. While I don't believe that our governments are truly representative, a good deal of that is because the behaviour of its citizens fails to impose the necessary checks and balances on government. For instance, there is outrage over MPs' abuse of the parliamentary system fit to eclipse similar outrage over bankers' bonuses. At the same time, a lot of people think that it's perfectly ethical to be a billionaire and is in fact something to aspire to. If there was more agreement on such things, we'd be in a different situation. However, individual citizens of course have very little power, and the most effective action could only be taken by big politics (while it still counts for something over large corporations). I do believe in changing things from the inside, though.

  • thats a shame.. i was honestly looking forward to somthing better than the false logic of..

    "Democracy is good because fascism is bad" - oh well.. lets just get back to cycling..

    how good is the schelk vs contador battle!

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Anarchy Sticker outside Bricklane Bikes

Posted by Avatar for deleted @deleted

Actions