Communism - should it be banned??

[Peregrin Toker]

The ban on Nazi-propaganda is only a small part of it. The bigger part of it is the general agreement that freedom of speech only goes so far as long it isn't infringing on your personal rights. That's why calling someone tosser is not protected by free speech.

However, the ban on Nazi symbols seems to backfiring - the Nazis might not be able to use their iconography, but that hasn't stopped their activities.

[Axis Kast]

However, the ban on Nazi symbols seems to backfiring - the Nazis might not be able to use their iconography, but that hasn't stopped their activities.

It's been relegated to a worthless spectre of what it once was. Nazis are in many places no longer permitted to publish or gather in public; it's helped create a "stigma" that, when backed by the example of Adolf Hitler, more or less discredits them thoroughly.

While some fear an upsurge in Communism if banned, I think we'd be in time able to make the same kind of progress we've made vis a vie Nazism. Make it illegal and you prevent its easy spread through legitimate - and thus the most heavily-accessed - channels.

[Dahak]

The ban on Nazi-propaganda is only a small part of it. The bigger part of it is the general agreement that freedom of speech only goes so far as long it isn't infringing on your personal rights. That's why calling someone tosser is not protected by free speech.

However, the ban on Nazi symbols seems to backfiring - the Nazis might not be able to use their iconography, but that hasn't stopped their activities.

The numbers of people organized in Neonazi structures is negligible. They are more numerous in Eastern Germany, though.
Occasionally, a neonazi party manages to jump over the 5%-hurdle in election due to protest electors (again, especially in Eastern Germany), but after the 4-year period they almost never get re-elected because they are totally unfit to survive in parliament. Sometimes it's even fun to watch.

The real problem is that such people can easily avoid German jurisdiction and re-locate their webs to the USA or other states with lax laws, where they can be sure to be protected by the freedom of speech and continue to rant about their wretched world view...

[Tom_Aurum]

<Sighs for a moment.>

First, even given the fact that neo-nazi groups are pretty violent, it really does make no sense to ban them without previous links to criminal activity. Both politically, and logically. Then again, with militant rightist groups openly practicing their activities and having public offices we'd have... Japan?

Anyways, about communism, and the history of it as far as I know it:

First, we have the paris commune. An actually successful experiment in the concept that more or less stabilized a city that had come to the point of total anarchy. This experiment was ended, however, when the military came back into town and killed a whole lot of people involved and/or responsible.

Afterwards political theorists (such as Karl Marx) wrote on the subject. Many of them thought that since a military is what ended the Paris Commune in the first place, a strong military and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is what could stabilize a long-term communism. Big Mistake.

Anyways, somewhere around the end of the first world war Lenin managed to organize a revolution in Russia against what was beggining to become an constitutional monarchy. This made Russia the subject of what was a (comparatively) benevolent dictator until he died. Then Stalin took over. Stalin, most agree, was a psychopath. He wasn't aided by the fact that Lenin agreed with Marx, and therefore Russia had a strong military with which to bully, slaughter, and terrorize the population.

Where was the mistake? Having a military. Or at least, having a strong, centralized military. A lot of modern-day "communists" are very much not about having a strong centralized military, but are rather about having a peaceful, cooperative, hippie-like environment. Not to mention most modern-day communists don't go around killing or beating up Jews, such as modern day Nazi groups. They do participate in civil disobedience and anti-corporate propaganda. They do take videotapes of local law-enforcement officials and decrease their effectiveness by informing citizens of their constitutional rights.

I think the thing that bothers governments the most about communist groups is simply this. They don't like the government, and will continue to be a force against most organized governments. Even worse (to them) is the fact that most of them work withing the law, or at least keep themselves to a nuisance level, never really doing anything that could overtly be considered violent or felonious. Hence your average right winger wants to do the instinctive political thing, and go over and beat up those "evil communists", or ban them, and generally make their lives miserable.
[/b]

[Dahak]

<Sighs for a moment.>

First, even given the fact that neo-nazi groups are pretty violent, it really does make no sense to ban them without previous links to criminal activity. Both politically, and logically. Then again, with militant rightist groups openly practicing their activities and having public offices we'd have... Japan?

[/b]

In Germany a party does not have to be violent or criminal to get banned. You have to show that they work against the democratic foundation of our country, which is a complicated process and only happened twice: to the Solzialistische Reichspartei and the Communist party of Germany.

[Peregrin Toker]

They don't like the government, and will continue to be a force against most organized governments. Even worse (to them) is the fact that most of them work withing the law, or at least keep themselves to a nuisance level, never really doing anything that could overtly be considered violent or felonious.

Hmm... you have a point. Banning ideologies could lead to lots of harmless people being imprisoned.

But - isn't it possible to establish a dictatorship with good intentions and ending with an oppressive regime?

[Axis Kast]

A restriction of any activity is always a restriction of democratic freedom.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to set boundaries, that the core foundation might stand unmollested.

[Tom_Aurum]

<Sighs for a moment.>

First, even given the fact that neo-nazi groups are pretty violent, it really does make no sense to ban them without previous links to criminal activity. Both politically, and logically. Then again, with militant rightist groups openly practicing their activities and having public offices we'd have... Japan?

[/b]

In Germany a party does not have to be violent or criminal to get banned. You have to show that they work against the democratic foundation of our country, which is a complicated process and only happened twice: to the Solzialistische Reichspartei and the Communist party of Germany.

Ah yes... no wonder my formerly german freind is so attracted to the activities of so called "anarchist" groups. Cute, sweet, intelligent... crazy like anyone who is sentient. But I digress.