3 ms·

Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

tokai 2y ago
That's not the last time at all. They have banned parties regular since ww2 on the basis of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
- amiga386 2y ago
  I was imprecise in saying "the last time", I was aiming for a specific comparison. Also, I'm fairly sure Strafgesetzbuch section 86a is not what bans parties and membership of them, but censors their symbols and imagery. The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) article 21(2) is what bans parties. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._...
  - tokai 2y ago
    It was very obviously that you were going for a specific comparison. Thats usually the reason why people misrepresent things. The article literally has a list of political groups that were banned on the basis on the law.
    - amiga386 2y ago
      The article has a list of parties whose symbols were banned by that law. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a bans the symbols of "unconstitutional parties". But what bans the parties? Who decides parties are unconstitutional? That is Grundgesetz article 21(2): Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality. Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.
aniviacat 2y ago
Yeah, it was pretty bad when the Germans voted a totalitarian party into power. We should prevent that from happening again. Now... how would we go about that? By doing the same thing as last time; wait until the party takes over?
- amiga386 2y ago
  I'd suggest by tackling the issues affecting the common folk, in earnest. Let them see you have a solution for their problems and it is working. Otherwise, the loud idiots with simple-sounding solutions (that don't work) will gain power. In the case of the Weimar Republic, it was fucked over by the victors of WW1 imposing a crippling financial burden on it. So, don't wreck your enemies so hard, you might create a monster.
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    What if there is no solution? What if some problems just have to be endured for a while? This rethoric always sounds to me like "it's the big parties' fault the people are voting for extremists because the big parties didn't create a perfect world full of rainbows and sunshine". I'm not convinced that the quality of the current government(s) is the reason for extremists gaining popularity.
    - amiga386 2y ago
      Almost all problems faced by governments are social or economic ones, rarely is there "no solution"... just a range of solutions with different trade-offs, and you have to see which ones you can convince the populace to accept before they turf you out of your job. What if the Weimar Republic said "screw it, we're not paying"? It might have prompted military invasion, or further sanctions from the victors, making it a pariah state, but it might also have relieved the misery felt by ordinary citizens, and they might not have been so receptive to the big lies of the future dictator.

Remember the last time Germany banned membership of specific political parties? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

tokai 2y ago

That's not the last time at all. They have banned parties regular since ww2 on the basis of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

amiga386 2y ago
I was imprecise in saying "the last time", I was aiming for a specific comparison. Also, I'm fairly sure Strafgesetzbuch section 86a is not what bans parties and membership of them, but censors their symbols and imagery. The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) article 21(2) is what bans parties. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_v._...
- tokai 2y ago
  It was very obviously that you were going for a specific comparison. Thats usually the reason why people misrepresent things. The article literally has a list of political groups that were banned on the basis on the law.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    The article has a list of parties whose symbols were banned by that law. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a bans the symbols of "unconstitutional parties". But what bans the parties? Who decides parties are unconstitutional? That is Grundgesetz article 21(2): Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality. Parteien, die nach ihren Zielen oder nach dem Verhalten ihrer Anhänger darauf ausgehen, die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung zu beeinträchtigen oder zu beseitigen oder den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu gefährden, sind verfassungswidrig. Über die Frage der Verfassungswidrigkeit entscheidet das Bundesverfassungsgericht.

aniviacat 2y ago

Yeah, it was pretty bad when the Germans voted a totalitarian party into power. We should prevent that from happening again. Now... how would we go about that? By doing the same thing as last time; wait until the party takes over?

amiga386 2y ago
I'd suggest by tackling the issues affecting the common folk, in earnest. Let them see you have a solution for their problems and it is working. Otherwise, the loud idiots with simple-sounding solutions (that don't work) will gain power. In the case of the Weimar Republic, it was fucked over by the victors of WW1 imposing a crippling financial burden on it. So, don't wreck your enemies so hard, you might create a monster.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  What if there is no solution? What if some problems just have to be endured for a while? This rethoric always sounds to me like "it's the big parties' fault the people are voting for extremists because the big parties didn't create a perfect world full of rainbows and sunshine". I'm not convinced that the quality of the current government(s) is the reason for extremists gaining popularity.
  - amiga386 2y ago
    Almost all problems faced by governments are social or economic ones, rarely is there "no solution"... just a range of solutions with different trade-offs, and you have to see which ones you can convince the populace to accept before they turf you out of your job. What if the Weimar Republic said "screw it, we're not paying"? It might have prompted military invasion, or further sanctions from the victors, making it a pariah state, but it might also have relieved the misery felt by ordinary citizens, and they might not have been so receptive to the big lies of the future dictator.