Page 1 of 2
#1
I don't actually believe that America is on the verge of fascism but there are similarities to the situation in Germany in 1933.
Although Adolf Hitler had the support of certain sections of the German population he never gained an elected majority. The best the NSDAP could do in a election was 37.3 per cent of the vote they gained in July 1932. When Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag.

Soon after Adolf Hitler became chancellor he announced new elections. Hermann Goering called a meeting of important industrialists where he told them that the 1933 General Election could be the last in Germany for a very long time. Goering added that the NSDAP would need a considerable amount of of money to ensure victory. Those present responded by donating 3 million Reichmarks. As Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary after the meeting: "Radio and press are at our disposal. Even money is not lacking this time."

Behind the scenes Goering, who was minister of the interior in Hitler's government, was busily sacking senior police officers and replacing them with Nazi supporters. These men were later to become known as the Gestapo. Goering also recruited 50,000 members of the Sturm Abteilung (SA) to work as police auxiliaries.

Hermann Goering then raided the headquarters of the Communist Party (KPD) in Berlin and claimed that he had uncovered a plot to overthrow the government. Leaders of the KPD were arrested but no evidence was ever produced to support Goering's accusations. He also announced he had discovered a communist plot to poison German milk supplies.

Just before the election was due to take place someone set fire to the Reichstag. A young man from the Netherlands, Marianus van der Lubbe, was arrested and eventually executed for the crime. As a teenager Lubbe had been a communist and Goering used this information to claim that the Reichstag Fire was part of a KPD plot to overthrow the government.

Hitler gave orders that all leaders of the German Communist Party should "be hanged that very night." Paul von Hindenburg vetoed this decision but did agree that Hitler should take "dictatorial powers". KPD candidates in the election were arrested and Hermann Goering announced that the Nazi Party planned "to exterminate" German communists.

Thousands of members of the Social Democrat Party and Communist Party were arrested and sent to recently opened to concentration camp. They were called this because they "concentrated" the enemy into a restricted area. Hitler named these camps after those used by the British during the Boer War.

Left-wing election meetings were broken up by the Sturm Abteilung (SA) and several candidates were murdered. Newspapers that supported these political parties were closed down during the 1933 General Election.

Although it was extremely difficult for the opposition parties to campaign properly, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party still failed to win an overall victory in the election on 5th March, 1933. The NSDAP received 43.9% of the vote and only 288 seats out of the available 647. The increase in the Nazi vote had mainly come from the Catholic rural areas who feared the possibility of an atheistic Communist government.

Result of the General Election in Germany in 1933:

Communist Party (KPD) 81
Social Democratic Party (SDP) 120
Catholic Centre Party (BVP) 93
Nationalist Party (DNVP) 52
Nazi Party (NSDAP) 288
Other Parties 23


After the election Hitler proposed an Enabling Bill that would give him dictatorial powers. Such an act needed three-quarters of the members of the Reichstag to vote in its favour.

Most members of the Communist Party, were in concentration camps, in hiding, or had left the country (an estimated 60,000 people left Germany during the first few weeks after the election). This was also true of most of the leaders of the other left-wing party, Social Democrat Party (SDP). However, Hitler still needed the support of the Catholic Centre Party (BVP) to pass this legislation. Hitler therefore offered the BVP a deal: vote for the bill and the Nazi government would guarantee the rights of the Catholic Church. The BVP agreed and the Enabling Bill was passed.

Hitler was now dictator of Germany. His first move was to take over the trade unions. Its leaders were sent to concentration camps and the organization was put under the control of the Nazi Party. The trade union movement now became known as the Labour Front.

Soon afterwards the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested. A month later Hitler announced that the Catholic Centre Party, the Nationalist Party and all other political parties other than the NSDAP were illegal, and by the end of 1933 over 150,000 political prisoners were in concentration camps. Hitler was aware that people have a great fear of the unknown, and if prisoners were released, they were warned that if they told anyone of their experiences they would be sent back to the camp.

It was not only left-wing politicians and trade union activists who were sent to concentration camp. The Gestapo also began arresting beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who was incapable of working. Although some inmates were tortured, the only people killed during this period were prisoners who tried to escape and those classed as "incurably insane".

9/11 could be compared with the Reichstag Fire. The treatment of Communists and Socialists in Germany with the way Muslim fundamentalists are being dealt with in CIA’s prisons. In other words, the SS Concentration Camps with the CIA’s Guantanamo Bay. The decision by the Senate to give President Bush extra power to detain and try prisoners in the so-called war on terror could be compared to Hitler’s Enabling Bill.
Not that Bush will ban other political parties that resist him. Unlike Hitler he does not need to do this. The Republican and Democratic parties seem keen not to challenge Bush. Maybe the major difference between the two countries is that in 1933 Germany was still a representative democracy. I am not sure you can say this about the USA in 2006.
#3


Please have something to do with a time machine in your next post TS
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#4
Obama may be a right-wing corporate pawn but he's not a fascist.

EDIT: Wait, you're talking about bush? Where the hell have you been living for the past year and a half?!?!

Double Edit: 2006?? WTF?
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Dec 1, 2009,
#7
Ok, that link was tenuous to begin with, given that it's years irrelevant also is the icing on the waste-of-time cake.

Oh, and copy-pasta, I suspects it.
#9
I hope you realize that the differences are HUGE and it is just plain stupid to compare these two systems. Although there may be some (very slim) similarities, the differences outstrip by far the similarities. And I won't even bother giving examples.
#10
Quote by Floods_Solo
SPOILER: Hitler dies


arrrr man come on, I hadn't got to that part yet ... thanks a lot asshole
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#11
nice copypasta. would've been better three years ago.
Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
#12
this thread makes me facepalm myself, this isn't accurate and the TS just wants to see similarities with the third Reich....


I just say BOOO!!!
#14
Quote by jfreyvogel
Verge of Socialism, not Fascism.


Oh please, America is so far away from the verge, it doesn't know where the verge is.
Quote by Zero-Hartman
Damn you, bodyheatseeker

Quote by Paramore.
bodyheatseeker, I will NEVER forgive you.

Last edited by bodyheatseeker at Dec 1, 2009,
#15
Quote by bodyheatseeker
Oh please, America is so far away from the verge, it doesn't know where it is.


I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?
#16
This is retarded. And you stole this from somewhere else.

Protip: don't learn history from the internet. If it hasn't been published, it's for a ****ing reason.
Last edited by Pagan-Pie at Dec 1, 2009,
#17
Want a cookie? Too bad your post sucked.

And more importantly I don't have any cookies.
The B-52 Bombers Group!
Own a B-52 amp? Join the club!

Quote by nashawa
He may be a troll, but he's an incredibly successful troll. So kudos on that.
#18
Quote by jfreyvogel
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?



OH WOW STALIN IS TAKIN OVER LETS SHOOT H1M WITH OUR GUNNSSS
#19
No TS, just no. People like you should just be taken out of society. People like you are the ones that are so stupid they form a threat for the world. You should lose your right to vote, to post on this forum, every right should be taken from you. From this moment on I am not speaking to you anymore.

Goodbye!
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#20
Quote by jfreyvogel
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?


Yes, you like the rest of the american right have conflated capitalism with the free market and socialism with european welfare capitalism. I advise educating yourself better politically.
.
#21
Quote by Nietsche
Yes, you like the rest of the american right have conflated capitalism with the free market and socialism with european welfare capitalism. I advise educating yourself better politically.



Don't use big words, you'll just confuse him.
#22
Quote by jfreyvogel
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?


Capitalist or not ... that's pretty funny.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#23
Quote by jfreyvogel
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?


idiot.

You only pay more tax for the extra money you earn. So you will earn more net. just less then if you wouldn't enter the new tax bracket.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#24
Quote by jfreyvogel
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?


To expand on how unbelievably stupid this post is I just found out how workplaces are unionised in america thanks to a particularly good Rich Seymour post.

Apparently the process starts with the union sending blank cards out to the workers. Once 30% of the workforce have signed they can present the signatures to their employer. This is were things get shitty. Their employer can now request a ballot from the National Labour Relations Board. During the time that this buys them they can engage in legal (and sometimes illegal) action against the union including firing the more militant unionists. Socialist? I think not.

Rich's post did a great job of explaining how infected with capitalism most americans are:

"The model of business unionism that persisted and still persists involves the acceptance of capitalism not just de facto but in explicit ideological terms - the language of class politics is specifically eschewed. It involves reliance on the Democratic Party which is, both in terms of its outlook and leading personnel, a capitalist party, not even a reformist party akin to European social democracy. It involves bureaucratic top-down methods of organising and growth in which the latter is the preserve of 'professionals', long-term sweetheart deals, no-strike agreements, and the exclusion of would-be members if they do not belong to existing bargaining units.

The effect of this depoliticised, professionalised model of unionism is not only to forestall struggles but to substantially weaken them where they arise. Moody gave the example of auto-workers striking at a BMW plant who met with European trade union delegates. They explained that they were not against the company - they liked the company - but they just wanted a voice, a seat at the table. The delegates said 'they're going to get beaten', and of course they were beaten, because they didn't understand that it was a class conflict not a family quarrel."


- http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/12/where-is-american-working-class.html
.
#25
Quote by Nietsche
Yes, you like the rest of the american right have conflated capitalism with the free market and socialism with european welfare capitalism. I advise educating yourself better politically.


No, when I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism. Not Free Market Socialism, or Utilitarianism, or Restricted Free Market Fascism, or any of the other sub-systems. I mean the purest form (of which no one has ever had anywhere), with no other tags or additions. The same when I talk about Socialism.


Also - Unions are almost the opposite of Capitalist.
Last edited by jfreyvogel at Dec 1, 2009,
#26
Quote by jfreyvogel
No, when I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism. Not Free Market Socialism, or Utilitarianism, or Restricted Free Market Fascism, or any of the other sub-systems. I mean the purest form (of which no one has ever had anywhere), with no other tags or additions. The same when I talk about Socialism.


Capitalism - The rule of capital over labour. A system under which people who own capital (Capitalists) hire out wage-labourers to work for them.

There is no such thing as 'pure' capitalism. That's bullshit that Mises and his crew of austrianoids came up with so that they could draw attention away from the real issues and strawman Marxists.
.
#27
Quote by jfreyvogel
No, when I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism. Not Free Market Socialism, or Utilitarianism, or Restricted Free Market Fascism, or any of the other sub-systems. I mean the purest form (of which no one has ever had anywhere), with no other tags or additions. The same when I talk about Socialism.



So if nowhere has ever had "pure" Capitalism, America included, why are you complaining by saying it's becoming "Socialist" for not having the pure Capitalism which you said it has never had?

#28
Quote by Pagan-Pie
So if nowhere has ever had "pure" Capitalism, America included, why are you complaining by saying it's becoming "Socialist" for not having the pure Capitalism which you said it has never had?



Chile had something close to "pure" capitalism at one point thanks to Pinochet and the Chicago Boys. That sure turned out well.....

EDIT:
Quote by jfreyvogel
Also - Unions are almost the opposite of Capitalist.


Well done, now you know why the government is so eager to oppress them.
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Dec 1, 2009,
#29
Comparisons to Nazism: always sound logic.
Quote by dudetheman
So what? I wasted like 5 minutes watching DaddyTwoFoot's avatar.


Metalheads are the worst thing that ever happened to metal.
#30
Quote by Nietsche
Chile had something close to "pure" capitalism at one point thanks to Pinochet and the Chicago Boys. That sure turned out well.....



Perhaps close, but there's no way that "pure" Capitalism that he's talking about could exist within a State. I would say it's impossible anyway.

Which isn't really relavent anyway, since theoretical, non-existant versions of Capitalism don't even merit discussion, really.
#32
Quote by ZanasCross
Christ, I want to ban TS just for lack of intelligence. What are you, 5 years old?


Do it! Do it now!
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#33
Quote by ZanasCross
Christ, I want to ban TS just for lack of intelligence. What are you, 5 years old?



Do it!
#34
Quote by Pagan-Pie
Perhaps close, but there's no way that "pure" Capitalism that he's talking about could exist within a State. I would say it's impossible anyway.

Which isn't really relavent anyway, since theoretical, non-existant versions of Capitalism don't even merit discussion, really.


I would say that Capitalism could never last very long in the absence of a state without either a strong workers movement steering it towards anarcho-syndicalism or the corporations forming a new state to avoid the hassle of hiring private defence agencies to protect their private property.

But you're right, hypothetical stateless versions of capitalism don't warrant much talk outside of discussions on "Political systems that you'd have to be a total fucking nut to actually support or attempt to implement".
.
Last edited by Nietsche at Dec 1, 2009,
#35
Quote by jfreyvogel
No, when I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism. Not Free Market Socialism, or Utilitarianism, or Restricted Free Market Fascism, or any of the other sub-systems. I mean the purest form (of which no one has ever had anywhere), with no other tags or additions. The same when I talk about Socialism.


Also - Unions are almost the opposite of Capitalist.


yes, this guy knows what he's talking about. He dreams of him, his children and his grandparents being uneducated workers making 18 hour days 6 days a week for a combined monthly wage of 150 potayoes and 17 eggs.

also just... no TS, no
Last edited by hungryhobo741 at Dec 1, 2009,
#37
I will give an example. In 2 months I get a raise. This raise pushes me from the top of one tax bracket into the bottom of the next. As a result despite making more money per year Gross, I will be making less money Net. This means that because I make more money I will in fact be taking home less money than I am now while making less.

Does that sound Capitalist?


Right well I'm in the UK, but I'm quite sure you're going to be taxed the higher percentage on the extra money over the threshold, and whatever you pay now on the bit under. If not so then that truly is retarded, but I sincerely doubt that.
#38
Quote by ZanasCross
Right, and give The Nazi/Socialist/Capitalist/Buddhist/Muslim/Jehova's Witness Pit another reason to scream "Abuse of Power!"


Nobody has to know, except us.
I will suck your cross if you do.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#39
I have naught to say to you, but this:

Godwin's Law!

Anyway, how are we all today?
Quote by demonofthenight
If I went to a jazz club and played a Parker solo note for note I'd have my fingers cut off by a stoned, big guy named Koo' Cat.
Last edited by Bobofthedead at Dec 1, 2009,
#40
Quote by Nietsche
I would say that Capitalism could never last very long in the absence of a state without either a strong workers movement steering it towards anarcho-syndicalism or the corporations forming a new state to avoid the hassle of hiring private defence agencies to protect their private property.

But you're right, hypothetical stateless versions of capitalism don't warrant much talk outside of discussions on "Political systems that you'd have to be a total fucking nut to actually support or attempt to implement".



Yeah, I'd say that any socio-economic system based on inequality needs some kind of legal state apparatus to back itself up, and to act as a buffer between the haves and have-nots. It's been recurring theme in human civilisations, from Ancient Rome until now. And most things in between. At the risk of sounding too Marxist, I think there is an undeniable correlation between social crises and political upheaval in most societies.

/Complete digression from the point of the thread.
Page 1 of 2