European and Local Elections

[bobo the clown]

It's uncomfortable truth for the left that fascism is socialisms bastard child. You only need to read Il Duces biography to understand that.

What he said! National Socialism in the 1920's and 1930's was closer to Communism than any other political ethos. Which is why they identified them as their biggest rivals and thus set out to destroy them.

The clue's in the name.

This arises from the simplistic view that political opinions fall neatly at a point on a straight line with communism on the left, fascism on the right of that line.

Each of us know, in our own personal case, that it's not that simple. We will all have views which appear contradictory.

This is because we should view political opinions, intially, as a circle ... which allows for communism & fascism to actually be very very close to each other and then, when we are ready for it, at a much higher level, to see poltical opinions as a place in a sphere. We will have different positions on different subjects. So our positions within it allow for apparently contradictory views.

To keep it simple though, the over-control, the oppression of individual thought for the greater good is the child of any society. It is the main building block of both those extremes of society ; communistic and fascistic thinking. The communists "dictatorship of the prolatariat" and the fascists "common-binding" are effectively one & the same.

The newer thinking is the oppression by the good. "To think x,y or z is plainly wrong so we will not let you think it. If you do think it we will suppress your ability to espouse it, if you do speak it we will punish you".

Society needs standards. It needs to define what is acceptable & what is not.
Clearly there are crimes which must be prevented & if committed, punished. But when these move so far as to restrict people's more ordinary thoughts on relatively basic & subjective matters we begin to lose control.

[Montreal Wanderer]

It's uncomfortable truth for the left that fascism is socialisms bastard child. You only need to read Il Duces biography to understand that.

What he said! National Socialism in the 1920's and 1930's was closer to Communism than any other political ethos. Which is why they identified them as their biggest rivals and thus set out to destroy them.

The clue's in the name.

Closer in that they were both totalitarian regimes at the opposite end of the spectrum from liberal democracies, though the philosophies and who in theory is in charge. Communism has generally required an overthrow of the state by revolution, while right wing dictatorship were often military coups. The fascists/nazis were, however, democratically elected in Germany and Italy and acquired absolute power more slowly through passing of laws.

Agreed Monty. Hence my earlier recommendation of William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

As I recall the Nazis got 44% of the seats in the Reichstag and needed a two thirds majority to change the constitution. Burn the Reichstag, blame the commies and outlaw them as a party, and voila - a two thirds majority. All very democratic. I read Shirer over forty years ago - it was well done and comprehensive for a journalistic (i.e. popular) treatment.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

That's about it.

[Lord Kangana]

Or, more simply, the world has overproduced on its quota of morons and there will be consequences.

[Prufrock]

We live in an idiot nation, in an idiot world. Meanwhile the non-idiots sit by idly as it all turns nasty.

[Hoboh]

We live in an idiot nation, in an idiot world. Meanwhile the non-idiots sit by idly as it all turns nasty.

I know sad

But I'll turn out tomorrow if the sunshines

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

We live in an idiot nation, in an idiot world. Meanwhile the non-idiots sit by idly as it all turns nasty.

Didn't Madonna sing this in the 80s?

[General Mannerheim]

So horrible seeing that BNP logo on the ballot form.

I hate them so much I put a massive "X" next to them to show my disgust!!!

[InsaneApache]

It didn't have to turn nasty though did it? If parliament had worked as it as designed to do, then the whole immigration issue would have been debated sensibly. That's the problem with all this PC groupthink. It knocks common sense on the head. Hard.

[Bruce Rioja]

I really don't believe that anyone actually went out and actively voted for the BNP that didn't actually want to cast their vote in that party's favour.

Surely if you want to show your distain then you just wouldn't bother voting, or at least vote for some hyper-friendly bunch, rather than actually take the time and the trouble to go out and vote for a party that has such strong views? No?

[Verbal]

I really don't believe that anyone actually went out and actively voted for the BNP that didn't actually want to cast their vote in that party's favour.

Surely if you want to show your distain then you just wouldn't bother voting, or at least vote for some hyper-friendly bunch, rather than actually take the time and the trouble to go out and vote for a party that has such strong views? No?

Considering the turnout for this election (in the 30% bracket), it was voter apathy which has managed to sneak the BNP b*stards in. Ironically, the number of votes they've got is down on last time.

[Lord Kangana]

I refer the honourable members to my previous comment.

[William the White]

It's uncomfortable truth for the left that fascism is socialisms bastard child. You only need to read Il Duces biography to understand that.

What he said! National Socialism in the 1920's and 1930's was closer to Communism than any other political ethos. Which is why they identified them as their biggest rivals and thus set out to destroy them.

The clue's in the name.

Closer in that they were both totalitarian regimes at the opposite end of the spectrum from liberal democracies, though the philosophies and who in theory is in charge. Communism has generally required an overthrow of the state by revolution, while right wing dictatorship were often military coups. The fascists/nazis were, however, democratically elected in Germany and Italy and acquired absolute power more slowly through passing of laws.

Agreed Monty. Hence my earlier recommendation of William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."

As I recall the Nazis got 44% of the seats in the Reichstag and needed a two thirds majority to change the constitution. Burn the Reichstag, blame the commies and outlaw them as a party, and voila - a two thirds majority. All very democratic. I read Shirer over forty years ago - it was well done and comprehensive for a journalistic (i.e. popular) treatment.

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

[InsaneApache]

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

Indeed.

[Prufrock]

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

Indeed.

I'm sorry, there is no definitive evidence for that. The Nazis didn't definitely use him as a stooge or set him up, but they didn't definitely not do either.

[William the White]

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

Indeed.

I'm sorry, there is no definitive evidence for that. The Nazis didn't definitely use him as a stooge or set him up, but they didn't definitely not do either.

Van der Lubbe was a committed anarchist, well known within that movement, which was still, at that time, a significant part of the european workers' movement... he hated the stalinists like poison, and the nazis even more, and what he viewed as a bourgeois regime certain to allow either to take power... he may have been terribly mistaken but he was a committed revolutionary of a different camp than bolshevism...

You will, Prufrock, as an Orwell fan, know 'Homage to catalonia' which offers a vision of anarchism a million miles from its hippy-dippy or madly violent craziness image of today...

Edit - his commitment was to left/council communism - one of the groups that opposed stalin - i was misled by the anarchists being the people most prominent in his defence...

[Lord Kangana]

And the establishment hated the idea so much that the British Navy colluded with Franco to avoid it. Apparantly being a bit better to each other is unworkable, to the point of having to kill over. A sad chapter in Europes history.

[Prufrock]

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

Indeed.

I'm sorry, there is no definitive evidence for that. The Nazis didn't definitely use him as a stooge or set him up, but they didn't definitely not do either.

Van der Lubbe was a committed anarchist, well known within that movement, which was still, at that time, a significant part of the european workers' movement... he hated the stalinists like poison, and the nazis even more, and what he viewed as a bourgeois regime certain to allow either to take power... he may have been terribly mistaken but he was a committed revolutionary of a different camp than bolshevism...

You will, Prufrock, as an Orwell fan, know 'Homage to catalonia' which offers a vision of anarchism a million miles from its hippy-dippy or madly violent craziness image of today...

Van der Lubbe also liked to present himself as a fall guy for things. By most accounts he was a lightbulb short of a picnic, so to speak. There are photographs of him setting several small fires all of which self extinguished, then there was the main fire which burnt the thing down, of which there are no photographs. It is possible Van der Lubbe wasn't the one who started it, and it is possible the Nazis were behind it. The first is almost implausible, the second improbable, though neither are impossible, which is my point.

[William the White]

I agree with a great deal of your argument - however the reichstag fire was not set by the nazis (though it was a welcome blessing for them), nor by the communists - van der Lubbe was an anarchist revolutionary naively trying to strike a blow against both totalitarians and give vent to his hostility to what he saw as a venal and repressive fake democracy...

He was wrong - but he wasn't a nazi stooge...

Indeed.

I'm sorry, there is no definitive evidence for that. The Nazis didn't definitely use him as a stooge or set him up, but they didn't definitely not do either.

Van der Lubbe was a committed anarchist, well known within that movement, which was still, at that time, a significant part of the european workers' movement... he hated the stalinists like poison, and the nazis even more, and what he viewed as a bourgeois regime certain to allow either to take power... he may have been terribly mistaken but he was a committed revolutionary of a different camp than bolshevism...

You will, Prufrock, as an Orwell fan, know 'Homage to catalonia' which offers a vision of anarchism a million miles from its hippy-dippy or madly violent craziness image of today...

Van der Lubbe also liked to present himself as a fall guy for things. By most accounts he was a lightbulb short of a picnic, so to speak. There are photographs of him setting several small fires all of which self extinguished, then there was the main fire which burnt the thing down, of which there are no photographs. It is possible Van der Lubbe wasn't the one who started it, and it is possible the Nazis were behind it. The first is almost implausible, the second improbable, though neither are impossible, which is my point.

chapter and verse please... very happy to read any links... this is a case that has interested me in the past... i feel the nazis and stalinists have conspired to villify a genuine revolutionary who hated them both...

as, indeed, I do... as an orwell fan...

[Prufrock]

Anyways, I've spent the evening shouting at the telly. Fecking Nick Griffin, he makes my blood boil. But they're arent stupid. As I was shouting, my mother, who voted UKIP, turns and says "well you can see where they are coming from", when I replied, "what holocaust denial, then holocaust denial denial, then 'voluntary repatriation' of muslims, and the idea of complete racial segregation, and the description of Islam as, quote, "a wicked and vicious faith"?" , she was surprised. They manage to keep the nastiness out of their two minute TV interviews.

It's just an excuse for thick people in pubs to snort with rage at something, anything. Somebody else to blame for why their own lives are sh*t.