Today in Labor History

[Dennis S]

May 2, 1933

In Germany, Adolph Hitler issues an edict abolishing all labor unions, part of his effort to ban any political opposition.

http://www.unionist.com/today-in-labor-history

[rjmacs]

It's ironic and sad that as this happened, the communists and unionists more or less capitulated, assuming that the revolution was coming and fascism was doomed to fail out of historical material necessity. They were sent to the camps along with Jews, homosexuals, and other undesirables.

[Mac1337]

What was the status of gun ownership in Hitler's Germany? And what are we to make of this?

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacc...zi_Germany

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
What was the status of gun ownership in Hitler's Germany? And what are we to make of this?

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacc...zi_Germany

Dakota,

In Nazi Germany, as in the Weimar Republic that preceded it, there were gun registration laws that restricted ownership of military weapons (as distinct from hunting weapons), and required government licensure for weapons dealing.

I have to say, i truly don't understand your point about Nazi Germany and tobacco.

[cbelt3]

It's nice to finally have a thread that invokes Godwin's right off the bat. I'm thinking Weinerschnitzel for dinner tonight...

Obligatory webcomic posting.

[Lux Interior]

Godwin's law not applicable.

15 yard penalty and loss of down.

[$tevie]

Dakota's point is that the Nazis were bleeding heart liberals so we must all support the banning of unions. 8-)

[Mac1337]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
What was the status of gun ownership in Hitler's Germany? And what are we to make of this?

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacc...zi_Germany

Dakota,

In Nazi Germany, as in the Weimar Republic that preceded it, there were gun registration laws that restricted ownership of military weapons (as distinct from hunting weapons), and required government licensure for weapons dealing.

I have to say, i truly don't understand your point about Nazi Germany and tobacco.
Easy. This thread tries to establish that since Nazi Germany banned unions, anyone who opposes unions must be like Nazis. OK, who is at the forefront of smoking ban? The entire spectrum on the left is. So I am throwing the same logic at them by saying that Nazis were at the forefront of smoking ban too so they too are Nazi-likes.

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Dakota]
What was the status of gun ownership in Hitler's Germany? And what are we to make of this?

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacc...zi_Germany

Dakota,

In Nazi Germany, as in the Weimar Republic that preceded it, there were gun registration laws that restricted ownership of military weapons (as distinct from hunting weapons), and required government licensure for weapons dealing.

I have to say, i truly don't understand your point about Nazi Germany and tobacco.
Easy. This thread tries to establish that since Nazi Germany banned unions, anyone who opposes unions must be like Nazis. OK, who is at the forefront of smoking ban? The entire spectrum on the left is. So I am throwing the same logic at them by saying that Nazis were at the forefront of smoking ban too so they too are Nazi-likes.
Oh, okay. Thanks, Dakota - i can be a little slow sometimes.

I suppose there was a political undercurrent in the OP; i took it a little more at face value. In other words, that it's regrettable and risky when political power is wielded by one group specifically to disempower another group. Of course, it's pretty impossible to invoke Hitler without raising hackles.

I think that democracy works best when all groups are able to represent their interests and positions, and struggle with (preferably with than against) other groups in the task of self-government. As a result, i think that no matter how unpalatable their positions are, both unions and the Tea Party are good things. Eliminating voices from the democratic process is really destructive. Even though it makes the conversations more difficult and complex, democracy thrives when everyone gets to take part in the struggle.

One thing that an open democracy guarantees is that a lot of people will be unhappy, and since they are free, you're going to hear about it! To that end, i hope we can all work on being un-Nazi-like, keeping in mind that the horrors that they perpetrated were possible in large part because they silenced dissenters so absolutely.

[Mac1337]

rj, I am not against unions. At work I could join a union but I choose not to. I don't want to live by collective decisions of a group. My problem with the unions is that they have a corrupt relationship with elected officials. Union dues->campaign donations->union contracts->campaign donations etc.There is not an equivalent model in the business world. Businesses donate almost evenly, mostly as a protection fee.