Political extremists?

[britishboy]

Is it right to ban them from being elected? Or ban their groups? For example Communists and Nazis. While both are terrible I think we should honor freedom more than one's own opinions.

[Vlerchan]

I don't even know where to start with this, honestly.

Like, where is this even coming from? You're tired of some individuals holding opinions that you can't quite wrap your head around and as such feel their banning is entirely justified. Though what I'm actually amused by is not the blatant short-sightedness of such a move, but rather the fact he's proposing banning an individuals freedom to hold a differing opinion to himself and dressing it up as upholding the freedom of the nation - or that's how it reads. I'll also add now: there's a huge number of Libertarian Communist variants - it's not all authoritarianism as you like to make out.

(Note: When you write something substantial justifying the motion I'll give a comprehensive response. This really isn't worth my time as it is.)

[HistoricWrath]

I don't think it's right to ban them, I just hope no one is ever stupid enough to elect them. I don't know how things are run there in the United Kingdom/ Republic of Ireland, but here in the US anyone has the right to run for political office even if they have no experience. Since our government is supposed to be comprised of the people I don't think it's right to stop people from practicing their right to run for office if they want to, but people need to be careful and educated about who they vote for.

[britishboy]

I don't even know where to start with this, honestly.

Like, where is this even coming from? You're tired of some individuals holding opinions that you can't quite wrap your head around and as such feel their banning is entirely justified. Though what I'm actually amused by is not the blatant short-sightedness of such a move, but rather the fact he's proposing banning an individuals freedom to hold a differing opinion to himself and dressing it up as upholding the freedom of the nation - or that's how it reads. I'll also add now: there's a huge number of Libertarian Communist variants - it's not all authoritarianism as you like to make out.

(Note: When you write something substantial justifying the motion I'll give a comprehensive response. This really isn't worth my time as it is.)

in the cold war communist groups was banned in the us and naxis in Germany

I don't think it's right to ban them, I just hope no one is ever stupid enough to elect them.

I agree

[LouBerry]

Of course not, if that was true, we should go ahead and ban strong conservative Christians and Liberals as well.

[Vlerchan]

in the cold war communist groups was banned in the us and naxis in Germany
That doesn't make it any more right? On the contrary it's awful that democratic nations allowed that to happen.

Also: Extremism encompass a lot more than Stalinism/Marxist-Leninism/Trotskyism - i.e., authoritarian communism - and Nazism.

I don't know how things are run there in the [...] Republic of Ireland,Basically, we've two centre-right parties that the electorate takes turn putting into power. The other centre-right party then naturally takes up the position of opposition and 'debates' the motions. The odd time the centre-right might make a coalition with one of the centrist parties.

It's a broken system, honestly.

[Harry Smith]

in the cold war communist groups was banned in the us and naxis in Germany


The communist party was never banned in the US, they were harassed, spied on and attacked but they were never banned per say

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

I also don't understand how Marxism is 'extreme' at all... it's pretty ignorant to claim that Marxism is 'extreme', and even if you do nearly every political movements such as Socialism have been labelled extreme at some stage

[britishboy]

That doesn't make it any more right? On the contrary it's awful that democratic nations allowed that to happen.


I know it's not right that's my point, no matter how terrible the party, democracy is far more important.

The communist party was never banned in the US, they were harassed, spied on and attacked but they were never banned per say

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

I also don't understand how Marxism is 'extreme' at all... it's pretty ignorant to claim that Marxism is 'extreme', and even if you do nearly every political movements such as Socialism have been labelled extreme at some stage
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

[ksdnfkfr]

Doesn't extremist usually equal dictator?
Like they use extremist means to manipulate votes.
I read that is what Hitler did. Or like Palpatine did as
a fictional version.

[Harry Smith]

I know it's not right that's my point, no matter how terrible the party, democracy is far more important.


Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

well that does surprise me, it was always my understanding that Dewey and the rest of the republican party opposed such a ban, it just show's how crazy America went during the cold war

[britishboy]

well that does surprise me, it was always my understanding that Dewey and the rest of the republican party opposed such a ban, it just show's how crazy America went during the cold war

I know right!:P Very extreme thats what sparked me to make the thread.

[Harry Smith]

I know right!:P Very extreme thats what sparked me to make the thread.

Though during that time period everyone was scared of communism and it was a vote winner for politicians to bash communists. Saying that in other examples such as Germany I can see why it would be necessary to outlaw certain parties

[Vlerchan]

I know it's not right that's my point, no matter how terrible the party, democracy is far more important.Ah. I think I just misread your OP. Considering your views on 'Freedom' I though you meant we should be honouring the freedom of the nation in the long-term as opposed to the opinions of minority extremists.

Doesn't extremist usually equal dictator?
Extremist is an incredibly subjective term. It basically encompasses everyone outside of mainstream politics, though that changes from nation to nation and from government to government, even. In our liberal democracies these groups are generally considered extremists: communists, fascists, anarchists, dominionists, etc. A good example of the changing face of extremism is the late Nelson Mandella. He would've been considered an extremist for his early involvement with Marxist and Terrorists. Reagan, in all his wisdom, labelled him such in the eighties - though he also labelled apartheid 'essential to the free-world', so yeah. It was only after he became mainstream in South Africa - and dropped the whole Marxist ideology - that individuals began to drop the 'extremist' label.

[BlueIsTheColour]

I can see why it would be necessary to outlaw certain parties

But who decides which parties to outlaw? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes :)

Usually people who want to outlaw parties are liberals, eg any self-respecting liberal would outlaw the BNP in UK

[Harry Smith]

But who decides which parties to outlaw? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes :)

Usually people who want to outlaw parties are liberals, eg any self-respecting liberal would outlaw the BNP in UK

You've misquoted me there, I said I understood in the aftermath of Germany in WW2 where Denazification happened, that's when it is necessary because you couldn't have the Nazis standing for election's 5 years after they've committed war crimes.

The BNP are pretty much outlawed in all but name

[BlueIsTheColour]

You've misquoted me there, I said I understood in the aftermath of Germany in WW2 where Denazification happened, that's when it is necessary because you couldn't have the Nazis standing for election's 5 years after they've committed war crimes.

Fair point. But then presumably the German people would have more sense than to elect a party that caused their problems in the first place. Whatever we say about the Germans they aren't stupid

The BNP are pretty much outlawed in all but name

The BNP do have seats and anyone so minded could join them/vote for them. What does "outlawed in all but name" mean exactly?

My point was who should decide when to outlaw a party. Is it on the basis of illegality or merely distasteful views?

[Harry Smith]

Fair point. But then presumably the German people would have more sense than to elect a party that caused their problems in the first place. Whatever we say about the Germans they aren't stupid



The BNP do have seats and anyone so minded could join them/vote for them. What does "outlawed in all but name" mean exactly?

My point was who should decide when to outlaw a party. Is it on the basis of illegality or merely distasteful views?

It means that if your a teacher your not allowed to be in the BNP, or if your in the armed forces you can't be a member of the BNP. Sure you can vote for them but there removed from the political scene, look what happened when they went on question time

[BlueIsTheColour]

It means that if your a teacher your not allowed to be in the BNP, or if your in the armed forces you can't be a member of the BNP. Sure you can vote for them but there removed from the political scene, look what happened when they went on question time

I agree they do themselves no favours in a debate situation. That said people do vote for them and their successor parties.

Thing is immigration might be an issue in a small country (sounds like youre UK?) so at what stage do you ban a party that people vote for?

[Vlerchan]

[...] so at what stage do you ban a party that people vote for?
Short Answer: You don't. Whilst it is bad to suppress the views and opinions of any one individual - or group of individuals - it's even worse for a democratic government to suppress the views and opinions of a group that is making a genuine bid for power. Though, once a party becomes mainstream - i.e., makes this genuine bid for power - they cease to be extremists by definition.

[BlueIsTheColour]

Short Answer: You don't. Whilst it is bad to suppress the views and opinions of any one individual - or group of individuals - it's even worse for a democratic government to suppress the views and opinions of a group that is making a genuine bid for power. Though, once a party becomes mainstream - i.e., makes this genuine bid for power - they cease to be extremists by definition.

I agree with that - nicely summarised.

With the obvious proviso that the party isn't advocating anything illegal

[tovaris]

We should condeme all violence! (Like that desplaied by the hervardi party, for example)

[Walter Powers]

If a communist candidate actually becomes a viable option on the American ballot, something is very, very wrong.

For now though, sure, let em run. Better yet, put them up on the debate stage and watch there ideology be torn to pieces, because communism and intellectual debate are incompatible.

[Stronk Serb]

If a communist candidate actually becomes a viable option on the American ballot, something is very, very wrong.

For now though, sure, let em run. Better yet, put them up on the debate stage and watch there ideology be torn to pieces, because communism and intellectual debate are incompatible.

It is compatible, but with a normal opponent who won't just shout "HURR DURR DEM COMMIES ARE WERY BAD BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT COMMUNISM HURR DURR!". If a communist get's elected, it's because the people want it, not some corporate fatcat. I see you want to outlaw them if they gather support.

[sqishy]

I don't even know where to start with this, honestly.

Like, where is this even coming from? You're tired of some individuals holding opinions that you can't quite wrap your head around and as such feel their banning is entirely justified. Though what I'm actually amused by is not the blatant short-sightedness of such a move, but rather the fact he's proposing banning an individuals freedom to hold a differing opinion to himself and dressing it up as upholding the freedom of the nation - or that's how it reads. I'll also add now: there's a huge number of Libertarian Communist variants - it's not all authoritarianism as you like to make out.

(Note: When you write something substantial justifying the motion I'll give a comprehensive response. This really isn't worth my time as it is.)

This ^ I agree with. Extremism is relative, and saying that communism is bad is looking at things simply and absolutely.

[Walter Powers]

It is compatible, but with a normal opponent who won't just shout "HURR DURR DEM COMMIES ARE WERY BAD BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT COMMUNISM HURR DURR!". If a communist get's elected, it's because the people want it, not some corporate fatcat. I see you want to outlaw them if they gather support.

Dude, millions of Americans have fought and died to prevent communism from coming here. We'd never in a billion years volutarilly elect an openly communist candidate.

As for outlawing them, if they ever actually did gain some real power here they'd pretty quickly been impeached for constitutional violations, I can assure you.

[Stronk Serb]

Dude, millions of Americans have fought and died to prevent communism from coming here. We'd never in a billion years volutarilly elect an openly communist candidate.

They would, when others fail.

As for outlawing them, if they ever actually did gain some real power here they'd pretty quickly been impeached for constitutional violations, I can assure you.

That is very undemocratic. That leads to tyrrany.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

[Walter Powers]

They would, when others fail.



That is very undemocratic. That leads to tyrrany.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

It's undemocratic to through somebody out of office for violating the constitution?

[Harry Smith]

Dude, millions of Americans have fought and died to prevent communism from coming here

Millions? What war are you talking about?

How many people children have the US killed in their Battle against 'communism'? How many billions of dollars earmarked for poverty and public health were spend? How many countries were invaded to stop this 'red' spread?

You make it out as if the fight against communism was some sort of heroic battle when really it was America spreading it's imperialist will against the world. There's nothing noble about the US foreign policy in the cold war.

Millions fought and died for Nazism, Millions fought and died for the Khmer rouge in loas and Cambodia, millions fought and died in the Baltics to carry out ethnic cleansing.

Just because you fight against something that doesn't mean that your opponent and their ideology is evil

[Stronk Serb]

It's undemocratic to through somebody out of office for violating the constitution?

The Constitution can be changed, if not by the politicians, it can be changed by the people.

[Walter Powers]

Millions? What war are you talking about?

How many people children have the US killed in their Battle against 'communism'? How many billions of dollars earmarked for poverty and public health were spend? How many countries were invaded to stop this 'red' spread?

You make it out as if the fight against communism was some sort of heroic battle when really it was America spreading it's imperialist will against the world. There's nothing noble about the US foreign policy in the cold war.

Millions fought and died for Nazism, Millions fought and died for the Khmer rouge in loas and Cambodia, millions fought and died in the Baltics to carry out ethnic cleansing.

Just because you fight against something that doesn't mean that your opponent and their ideology is evil

Harry, communism and socialism has killed over a hundred million people. They want to coerce people through force to do what they want. That's the definition of evil! How you can side with these people is unfathomable, and I hope that you aren't represenative of a significant portion of Britain's people.

Not just that, but if they were able to take away our freedom everything that every soldiar who has honorably served in our armed forces would be gone. I've got into this argument before, but that's the bottom line. Sure, some innocent civilians were killed, however that is a consequence of war. We've always offered an open arm to people who can escape tyranny before it comes to this. Not only that, but over the years we've given an inflation ajuisted equivilent of trillions of dollars in aid to enemy countries after we've defeated them and help them install more democratic governments.

Why do you always side with the dictators?

The Constitution can be changed, if not by the politicians, it can be changed by the people.

Yes it can, however that doesn't mean that any politician should be allowed to violate it until it is.

[Harry Smith]

Harry, communism and socialism has killed over a hundred million people. They want to coerce people through force to do what they want. That's the definition of evil! How you can side with these people is unfathomable, and I hope that you aren't represenative of a significant portion of Britain's people.

Not just that, but if they were able to take away our freedom everything that every soldiar who has honorably served in our armed forces would be gone. I've got into this argument before, but that's the bottom line. Sure, some innocent civilians were killed, however that is a consequence of war. We've always offered an open arm to people who can escape tyranny before it comes to this. Not only that, but over the years we've given an inflation ajuisted equivilent of trillions of dollars in aid to enemy countries after we've defeated them and help them install more democratic governments.

Why do you always side with the dictators?

The country I live in is socialism- don't lecture me about the evils of socialism. Socialism as an ideology,along with communism doesn't encourage violence at all- just because someone who claims to be communist uses violent means doesn't mean all socialism is violent. In the same way that the 'democratic' republic of North korea isn't democratic. Socialism and communism haven't killed anymore people than capitalism has because you do know that a political ideology can't kill someone- you need a person to do that

Your argument is somersort of whishy washy argument from the 1950's. You lament me for 'supporting' dictators yet you clearly ignore the hundreds of oppressive regimes that the US government have supported.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Iran, Cuba, Eygpt.

The United States government do not give a shit about democracy Walter, you know that. They've overthrown democratic governments since the 1950's, they got rid of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and replaced him with a un-elected King who ruled with an Iron fist.

The united States has been supporting dictatorships since the 1950's- don't lecture me about the great US and their support for democracy.

Your point about Britain is incorrect- we're no longer going to follow you around the world on your foreign wars. People are actually standing up for British beliefs and values- we're not the 53rd State.

Your final question is just beyond ironic-why do the United States always support dictators?

http://friendlydictators.blogspot.co.uk/2007_09_01_archive.html#7727948569939692316

[Vlerchan]

Harry, communism and socialism has killed over a hundred million people.
I have no idea how you're measuring these death tolls but I can guarantee you that capitalism has killed a lot more, regardless.

Though, Harry's correct: ideologies can't kill people.
They want to coerce people through force to do what they want. That's the definition of evil! How you can side with these people is unfathomable [...]
Coercion is a fundamental property of all states: from the most despotic and totalitarian dictatorship to the most liberated and prosperous democracy. I'm sure you support coercion on one level or another - unless I've missed your transition to anarchism; which I could have. Though, I've stated here before that in my preferred communist 'state' there would be no coercion:

That's perfectly true: nobody would make him/her work and [...] it ought to be his/her right to not engage in work. The argument here is that it would take a lot more effort to force individuals into work than their labour might contribute to the commune and in practice would also involve the adoption of highly inefficient forms of institutional organisation. [...] don't believe that most individuals would actually refuse work in the first place - the social stigma that would come with consciously and deliberately leeching off the 'state' and the sheer boredom would be deterrent enough [...]

I'll also argue again that we also don't need our entire populations engaging in work [anyway]. In today's economies a large number are either working unwillingly (the marginally employed - burger flippers; bin men; etc.) or employed merely to force these into work (management) In short: we employ way more people than we actually need in order to uphold the same productive output. The continued automation of our workforce will only further contribute towards this - in 50 - 100 years [...] Communism may in fact be the only rational alternative left to us.

Why do you always side with the dictators?
Harry's correct here, too: this is incredibly ironic.