Any GSP friends here? Any GSP opponents? Have you read their viewpoints? Thread for opinions, pdfs and the like.
GegenStandpunkt / Opposing Viewpoint
Other urls found in this thread:
Petit-bourg autists. I mean this quite literally. I had the "pleasure" to listen to some lecture by one of these unbearable fagots (I speak German). He went on and on about how it is WRONG and CAPITALISM and EVERYTHING TERRIBLE ABOUT THIS WORLD when people say "I think" or "I believe" and that they NEVER should do that. I don't have the impression that they directly interact with anybody outside of (former) student groups.
What am I looking at?
I don't know, I know that the Verfassungsschutz (German secret politicial police) smears them all the time as extremist conspirators, which is probably a sign that they are legit.
If you are a leftist in Germany and not surveilled by the Verfassungsschutz, you are doing something wrong.
Looks like an RPG named uuh Captain Supermarket(?), based on the movie Army of Darkness, starring Bruce Campbell as Ash, a dude who normally works in a super-market (hence the visual pun with the Campbell soup-cans) who got send into the medieval world to fight monsters and shit.
By that standard, 1/3 of Germany is legit revolutionary: DIE LINKE, left youth Solid, SDAJ, the Kurds…
I don't know, their assessment on them is pretty fucking harsh:
This sounds quite different from what they say about DieLinke, their criticism there is that there are some members who are in contact with "terror organizations" in Turkey or Palestine, or that they have contacts to the Cuban government in organizations like Cuba Sí. Here they are saying that the entire aim of this group is to smash capitalism - which is unconstitutional according to German law, the German constitution outlaws any form of a planned economy.
For realz? Got an English source on that?
What do you expect, it's the Verfassungsschutz, and the Bavarian section at that. That doesn't mean shit. "Radicals" who don't put up their texts for free can all yiff in hell as far as I'm concerned.
i didn't even know they had one
is it as bad as the american one? do they allow for freedom of speech and allowing citizens to defend themselves?
It's the Japanese poster of Army of Darkness.
Sadly no, here an essay from the president of our constitutional court hosted on the offical government institution for political education:
This is undisputed amongst the German jurisprudence. One argument is, to paraphrase it, that wage negotiations are guaranteed part of the freedom of labor. A planned economy does not have wage negotiations (which is a bit weird to say because there were negotions between the All-Union Council and the Gosplan in the USSR), therefore it's unconstitutional.
They are actively seeking new members by targeting and infiltrating student discussion groups in German universities. The lectures are shit, but they have some fine knowledge on capitalism.
There are some things which are better than in the American one, like a welfare state is somewhat guaranteed to stabilize social peace. Like, the government couldn't go ahead an privatize healthcare.
Other things are worse. Freedom of speech is restricted through several hate speech laws, that's why the police can raid your apartment when you do as much as posting a Y.P.G. flag on Facebook:
Right to bear arms is heavily regulated, the constitution doesn't say anything about it. By the way, you hit a spot there by saying you didn't that Germany had one, because the Grundgesetz was originally designed as a transitory quasi-constitution that was supposed to be replaced by a proper constitution passed by a national assembly once Germany is reunificated. But when the FRG annexed the GDR and the 2+4 treaty declared Germany an unoccupied, independent country, they didn't do anything and made some legal gymnastics to remove that section. This is why you get some retarded LARPers in Germany calling themselves ''Reichsbürger" who believe the current German state is illegitimate and that the German Empire still exists. They elect their own imperial ministers and hand out their passports. Technically they aren't even that wrong, the German Empire still exists as a legal entity but is represented by the current German state.
Is there even a single country without a constitution?
Britain doesn't have a constitution, for example.
We don't have one in the strict sense, instead we have the Grundgesetz. Its first article is about human dignity, rights about free speech or defending yourself are way down the list. This results in rulings against you should you hurt the feelings of a police officer or hurt an attacker too badly while defending yourself/your stuff. I'm pretty jealous of the US constitution in that regard.
thanks for that
where it is known as "Captain Supermarket"
Not want to be pedantic but this is to a degree incorrect. Self-defense knows no limits according to the StGB, you can defend yourself with everything you got, you can literally shot somebody dead when he tries to steal your purse, the only restriction is that if you have more mild means available with the same efficiency to deter the attack, you are obliged to used it. This means a farmer can not shot a bunch of kids sitting on his appletree.
You are correct about self-defense not being allowed against cops, only when you think that the cops aren't cops you can do stuff.
It may be just me, but I think they are pretty unspooked, even if they don't mention Stirner anywhere and don't use the work spook.
Oh ok, thanks, didn't know that.
(Regarding feelings of police officers: I was thinking of the case where an officer sued because a motorist said to him "Herr Oberförster, zum Wald geht es da lang!" (and it luckily didn't get to a real trial. Still, just the fact the officer tried and it got even that far…
I think our laws regarding insults/causing offense are a bit nuts, but then I may be equally misinformed like I was about self defense.)
There is actually no law whatsoever for insulting state officials and cops, except for the Bundespräsident. Therefore, insults to cops are not punished any differently than an insults to other people, this is mostly theory though: In practice, nobody ever files a criminal case when insulted because it's way easier to just get compensation via private law through § 823 BGB, however when you insult a state official, the case is in the "public interest" and you get persecuted either way, even if the "victim" doesn't want that. So you are likely to get in conflict with criminal law when insulting a cop whereas you are getting practically never in trouble with it when you insult a private person.
Also, there is a bit of a bias regarding that, and the law is broadly interpreted which is something that's actually quite unorthodox in criminal law. For example, showing the middle finger to a security cam is interpreted as indirectly showing the finger to a guy in the future who might be watching it, and I could guarantee you this shit wouldn't fly if the security officer was a private employee. So yeah, they can be cunts.
Sidenote if you are interested: One of the few paragraphs in criminal law which has to be interpreted in an unorthodox way is coercion, § 240 StGB, and there is a funny backstory to it. The jurisprudence was reevaluating their interpretation of it in the 60s or something, and stated that we can only apply the paragraph in a very restricted way because technically capitalism is coercion all the time, which I find an interesting admission and shows how utterly stupid and fringe the AnCap concept of the NAP is.
SDAJ is based tho
and not in any way reformists