Dragonclaw on 31/3/2002 at 11:24
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
That it did, ah well :)
I'd still prefer if you read and replied to what I read :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
You sure? I've studied a few C20th history courses, particularily the 2 wars, and as I recall he was not elected but appointed. The Nazis were a minority, but using their coercive power they managed to get Hitler appointed...
I admit, I put it misleading, and you read it wrong.
Hitler was appointed by the NSDAP (Nazi party, if you can say that this way at all)
BUT the NSDAP was elected.
I dug up some results of the votings from that time, here they go...
(The DNVP was together with the NSDAP, like an alliance)
(all % (besides year :cheeky: ))
Year NSDAP DNVP together
1928 2,63 14,25 16.68
1930 18.33 7.03 25.86
1932/I 37.36 5.93 43.29
1932/II 33.09 8.83 41.92
1933 43.91 7.97 51.88
(and here Hitler is appointed by Bismarck, as the candidate from the NSDAP who is in the majority!)
If you're interested in those numbers, and the other parties:
(
http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/Uebersicht_RTW.html)
(If you want to read more, either get it translated somewhere, or learn german ;) )
(And no, I won't translate it all ;) )
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Munich is in Germany I believe ;)
OK, you're right, my mistake. I thought that had been in Austria, no idea where I got that from...
But also here some background info on that:
What is not well known, (didn't know it, too, by the way) is, that Hitler wasn't the first one to try to seize the power.
There was resistance against the governemt, France had just invaded the Ruhr, after Germany had not been able to pay some minor reparation-bill. This was of course a direct hit in Germanys face. The government was unable to control the situation, and they put the state of emergency up. The communist party (KPD), advised by Moscow, tried to use that like the Russion October revolution, an armed attempt seizing the power.
They built up armed militia in Sachsen (Saxony). The governemt told them to quit those troops, but they ignored. They put up the Reichsexekution over Saxony (Not sure, what that means, but I think, the Saxon government was put down, and the German government took control there) On October 23, 23 Army tropps march into Saxony.
The communists gave up later, only in Hamburg were some uprisings with casualties.
Many parties (especially right-wing) marched to Berlin, in order to protest against the governemt, and demand their step-down. Hitler, however, was not allowed to march with his followers there! As you can imagine, that wasn't quite a nice way to treat him, he should be put into political outer limits. So he organized an armed uprise in Bavaria, and declared the bavarian and German government not longer in control.
However, this attempt was very poorly designed, and he failed miserably. He was therefor senteced to jail for 5 years.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Indeed. Clemenceu was foolish to force so much out of the Treaty. It left your nation, basically, under an unlimitted debt.
Yes. And, as already stated above, when Germany couldn't pay it all (how surprising!), France invaded and annexed a part of Germany.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Indeed, they were difficult times. However, the option you did not mention was choosing the moderate view. Few did; the people did not choose what was then the best route. They chose a path they knew was violent as it was more attractive. We aren't perfect.
Yes, I did not talk about them much, and for good reason. The moderate view (or middle, as you'd say) was not well taken. As you can see by the numbers yourself (look up the link), the main things were right and left, the only major middle party was the Zentrum (center). But the center was responsible for the current government, and as seen above, that was not well doing.
Imagine the people back then. (not only mistreated by the french, also slowly craving to
pay them back their behaviour)
In Emperor's times, everything had been easy and quite well. He said: Do this, and it was done. He said: Don't do this, and it wasn't done. Easy, simple government, efficient.
Now the Weimarer republic. Parties, LOTS of parties (12 known ones BESIDES 'other')
All they do is talk, discuss, blabla. Nothing is done, the people see nothing happening. (Feel similar today? I do) Of course they're not happy how it is, of course they're easy prey for outer wings, be it Communists talking about joinin into Russia, be it Nationalists, talking about a New, proud Germany. With the happenings in Russia in mind, that was not a hard decision for most. (and also if you assume, that establishing your own country will always be judged worth more than joining another country)
They were looking for another time, when they were said what to do, when it would be simple and efficient again, when politicans would DO something besides talking.
And the NSDAP promised that, later with Hitler.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I'd agree; I'm glad you've been able to destroy the notions that the "Why Our Way Is The Best Religion" class instilled in me about him ;)
Glad to be of service ;)
About some other posts (not all, that would be too much):
I'd rather be shot then shoot someone. It's different, when a friend was to be shot, and I could shot his murderer first, though. But if to decide between me and someone else, I'd almost always pick me. (Hopefully)
About the steal thing, I'm not sure there. You can ask first, you can try get food yourself, if all fails... I don't know. I'm really not sure. But I guess hunger would either drive me away from people so I can't steal, or it would drive me to steal, and feel bad for it afterwards. Both not to happy looks...
About the demonstrants against police:
I admit, I'm not perfectly informed about the happenings at most marches and such.
There are bad boys here and there, also. It's not that the police is evil, and demonstrants are saints, and neither the other way round. They're both just humans.
Hm, however, I can imagine policemen and -women being aggressive.
There's an enormous pressure on police. They are there to protect the law, the peace of the city. They have to stop brawls, keep demonstrants where they are allowed to be, imprison troublemakers. They are insulted by protestors (did I say protestants somewhere before? :weird: I hope not :sweat:) anyway. They're called murderers, like you call them, Anarkos. If there's a problem, the public calls them unable. And there's usually a problem when there's violence flashing up. So they're under fire by both sides.
And, in addition, they are usually on those marches up on their feet long, and, -> caused by an idea they most probably don't support <- That may explain (for me, it does), why they may be rather quick to judge demonstrants by what few did, and to use more force then had been necessary. I don't want to excuse the black ones, they are happy to smash. For the same reasons, I don't call you, as you are a demonstrant as you sound, a troublemaker or looking for a brawl with police.
Dragonclaw on 31/3/2002 at 11:26
That last paragraph may sometimes sound out of context, but it said: "Too many images", and the example I had given was as well long as the part of my post I was willing to cut first ;)
Anarkos on 31/3/2002 at 21:54
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I'd still prefer if you read and replied to what I read :)Hehe, yeah, I was going to but I got sidetracked.....I'll try and reply to that essay today, but...too much to do....you know how it is, I'm sure...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I admit, I put it misleading, and you read it wrong.
Hitler was appointed by the NSDAP (Nazi party, if you can say that this way at all)
BUT the NSDAP was elected.
I dug up some results of the votings from that time, here they go...
(The DNVP was together with the NSDAP, like an alliance)
(all % (besides year :cheeky: ))
Year NSDAP DNVP together
1928 2,63 14,25 16.68
1930 18.33 7.03 25.86
1932/I 37.36 5.93 43.29
1932/II 33.09 8.83 41.92
1933 43.91 7.97 51.88
(and here Hitler is appointed by Bismarck, as the candidate from the NSDAP who is in the majority!)
If you're interested in those numbers, and the other parties:
(http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/Uebersicht_RTW.html)
(If you want to read more, either get it translated somewhere, or learn german ;) )
(And no, I won't translate it all ;) )
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
[See, I'm not a sore loser :D]
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw OK, you're right, my mistake.
[Nor are you :D]
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I thought that had been in Austria, no idea where I got that from...
But also here some background info on that:
What is not well known, (didn't know it, too, by the way) is, that Hitler wasn't the first one to try to seize the power.I knew about the French occupatation of the Rhineland/Saar [I think...], but not the Communists. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw There was resistance against the governemt, France had just invaded the Ruhr, after Germany had not been able to pay some minor reparation-bill. This was of course a direct hit in Germanys face. The government was unable to control the situation, and they put the state of emergency up. The communist party (KPD), advised by Moscow, tried to use that like the Russion October revolution, an armed attempt seizing the power.
As I understood it, the French did not consider it a "minor" reperation. O'course, we must remember that after WW1 Europe was pretty much bankrupt, which was why the Dawes Plan became so important, and why the American Stock Market Crash had a run on effect throughout Europe, causing the Depression. As the American loans were not yet coming in, cash from Germany was important to France.
In addition, technically, much of what they occupied was officially under League of Nations control, although historically Germany.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw They built up armed militia in Sachsen (Saxony). The governemt told them to quit those troops, but they ignored. They put up the Reichsexekution over Saxony (Not sure, what that means, but I think, the Saxon government was put down, and the German government took control there) On October 23, 23 Army tropps march into Saxony.
The communists gave up later, only in Hamburg were some uprisings with casualties.
Many parties (especially right-wing) marched to Berlin, in order to protest against the governemt, and demand their step-down. Hitler, however, was not allowed to march with his followers there! As you can imagine, that wasn't quite a nice way to treat him, he should be put into political outer limits. So he organized an armed uprise in Bavaria, and declared the bavarian and German government not longer in control.
However, this attempt was very poorly designed, and he failed miserably. He was therefor senteced to jail for 5 years....during which he wrote Mein Kamph (apologies for my spelling of German).
But, pardon me, I'll not feel sympathetic about his unfair treatment....
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Yes. And, as already stated above, when Germany couldn't pay it all (how surprising!), France invaded and annexed a part of Germany.
Yes, I did not talk about them much, and for good reason. The moderate view (or middle, as you'd say) was not well taken. As you can see by the numbers yourself (look up the link), the main things were right and left, the only major middle party was the Zentrum (center). But the center was responsible for the current government, and as seen above, that was not well doing.
Imagine the people back then. (not only mistreated by the french, also slowly craving to
pay them back their behaviour)
In Emperor's times, everything had been easy and quite well. He said: Do this, and it was done. He said: Don't do this, and it wasn't done. Easy, simple government, efficient.
Now the Weimarer republic. Parties, LOTS of parties (12 known ones BESIDES 'other')
All they do is talk, discuss, blabla. Nothing is done, the people see nothing happening. (Feel similar today? I do) Of course they're not happy how it is, of course they're easy prey for outer wings, be it Communists talking about joinin into Russia, be it Nationalists, talking about a New, proud Germany. With the happenings in Russia in mind, that was not a hard decision for most. (and also if you assume, that establishing your own country will always be judged worth more than joining another country)
They were looking for another time, when they were said what to do, when it would be simple and efficient again, when politicans would DO something besides talking.
And the NSDAP promised that, later with Hitler.I do not disagree with any of this; however it shows us well, still, that we aren't perfect. Humanity often chooses less than ideal states.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Glad to be of service ;);)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw About some other posts (not all, that would be too much):
I'd rather be shot then shoot someone. It's different, when a friend was to be shot, and I could shot his murderer first, though. But if to decide between me and someone else, I'd almost always pick me. (Hopefully)That is a very noble and selfless view for which I must give you respect. However, I, and most people, would probably try to save their own arse.
For me, what I'd consider the moral act would depend on the situation; that is, what would be less immoral.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw About the steal thing, I'm not sure there. You can ask first, you can try get food yourself, if all fails... I don't know. I'm really not sure. But I guess hunger would either drive me away from people so I can't steal, or it would drive me to steal, and feel bad for it afterwards. Both not to happy looks...Exactly. That post, which seems to have been misunderstood, was a simple admission that some major laws I, like most, people would break. I did not mean to imply I would wish to do so or relish the experience; rather that in certain situations, I would rather that than the alternative.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw About the demonstrants against police:
I admit, I'm not perfectly informed about the happenings at most marches and such.
There are bad boys here and there, also. It's not that the police is evil, and demonstrants are saints, and neither the other way round. They're both just humans.
Hm, however, I can imagine policemen and -women being aggressive.
There's an enormous pressure on police. They are there to protect the law, the peace of the city. They have to stop brawls, keep demonstrants where they are allowed to be, imprison troublemakers. They are insulted by protestors (did I say protestants somewhere before? :weird: I hope not :sweat:) anyway. They're called murderers, like you call them, Anarkos. If there's a problem, the public calls them unable. And there's usually a problem when there's violence flashing up. So they're under fire by both sides.
And, in addition, they are usually on those marches up on their feet long, and, -> caused by an idea they most probably don't support <- That may explain (for me, it does), why they may be rather quick to judge demonstrants by what few did, and to use more force then had been necessary. I don't want to excuse the black ones, they are happy to smash. For the same reasons, I don't call you, as you are a demonstrant as you sound, a troublemaker or looking for a brawl with police. Exactly, very similar to my view. Now, damn, if only more in my movement would realise that "the damn pigs" are people to. If we could put our past mistreatment aside and attempt to subvert the police into taking a less unkind view, then we might just get somewhere.
Anarkos on 31/3/2002 at 22:36
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw No, actually not.
As far as I know, they describe the perfect society (how new). But if I want to read about the perfect society I get my bible.Damn Christian arrogance :p Anyway, one suggestion, keep an open-mind and read from sources you might not like. Read the Qur'an [after some Muslims cornerred me and explained their view on Western spellings I tend to use theirs...;)], not just the Bible.
Whether or not you agree with what it says, it will still be interesting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I know a bit (not much) about the idea of socialism, and well, it sounds nice. But when I look at the world around, I really don't think any society like that could be established for long.
But I know about the fate of some states, that tried Socialism (with some crimes, but still): DDR, Soviet Union, for example.
Have the people there been rich?
Have they been happy? (Depends on measurement of happiness, but taken the "I know I'll survive the next year"-one)
Do these countries still exist?
No. No. And, surprise, no.
And, mind if I ask if you have taken some courses in economics, majorly international economics (dunno how it's called). This might change your view just as much as you think Marx would change mine...Some, not University level yet sadly. I'm aiming to, however, when I can get the cash or a scholarship; conjoint Law/Economics is my goal.
Now, to me the problems with the so-called "Socialist" systems were not their economic system, but their political system.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Then I guess you have NO money, NO house, NO computer, and such?
Because, actually, the money that is there, on rather private property (uh-oh), could also be used to lower the hunger in, for example, Africa. (lower? Not sure, but I can't think of a better word right now)
Note: I'm not telling you to sell all your stuff, and give all your money to the poor, that would be much of a Hypocrit. But if you say, that property is immoral (as I think is said in socialism), then you will have to let me ask: Why do you own?That is partially correct, and a point I believe I've already coverred.
Depending on exactly how extreme your views are, that can be correct - the Proudhonian statement "property is theft" comes to mind - however, in more moderate forms of Socialism private ownership exists.
Now, why do I own an unequal amount? As I'm not perfect. I'm a hypocrite I'm afraid. I don't like it, but the fact is to survive and get where I want to be in life I need some property most in this world can't get. Hopefully, if I succeed in my goals that will eventually change.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw No, I don't find that ironical. I actually do the same sometimes, with movies. DL, watching, if it's worth it, I buy the DVD.Hey, I ain't alone, great :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Hm, well, that's another major difference between us. You are a socialist by heart, I guess, and I'm rather sceptical towards socialism.
But, as you said, property is immoral: Then you have no right telling the other to leave, if he comes to your house and lives there, even if he is bugging you. It's his house as much as yours. And if you are to be driven away, then I guess you wold have to accept it partially.That is an extreme view, and not one I necessarily agree with; humans are territorial animals, and we do need a "manor" as most such animals do. I do not think calling all private property immoral is possible or desirable. We need our privacy to remain sane.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw For me, it's ok to share stuff, and I would let people live in my house with me. IF they were invited. If someone sneaks into the house, and lives there, without at least asking me, he'll be given the boot rather quick, I guess. If someone comes to my door, and asks me for a place to stay, then he has a good chance of staying there some days (or longer).
That sums my view up fairly well, although I may be a bit more lenient.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I see now, due to the socialism, you don't care about losing much money.
But you could have given those 10,000 also to the poor, not to the printers and such.
Taken that you had given the money from sales to those in need.
So, who profits from your money, I'd say it are the writers, and the people who have your book, but not the poor, who you originally wanted to help.
Still the same opinion?Another has made monetary profit off my book then - and I don't like it. I consider the sale of pirated CDs likewise immoral.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw To me, fair means, that everyone gets that amount of money, proportional to what he did to create the product, also taking into account giving money, and the risks.
The factory worker may do a bigger part for the ACTUAL product (let's stick to shoes ;) ), but without him, another could do his work. And if the factory closed down, he could look for a new job rather easily.
The people who set aside money for the factory beared the risk of losing their money, and therefor get interest on it. And the supported the owner, when he had not much more than an idea, and needed help, and I think that is to be rewarded.
The owner put aside money, he had the idea, gave it a shape, and bears the complete risk of the company running bancrupt. Usually, if a company goes down (smaller and mediate companies), the owners are left with nothing, as they are to pay for the debts of the company. So, it's a large step to open up a company, you risk everything, and have no guarantee for living safely in the future. This risk is paid by the profits that are given to the owner.
True, however that is part of a Capitalist system. Most of the secondary roles are what I call parasitic; they work solely with market and money manipulation not good/service creation/distribution.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Then how would markets take place?
I give you something, you give me nothing?
Sounds nice ;) ....but demands universal altruism.
Their are many ideas for that, which I'm afraid I'm too busy* [*lazy :p] to explain here. I suggest you read up on Anarcho-Syndicalism, for one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw If I don't get a profit out of a trade, there's no need to trade, and I won't do. Trade costs time, time I can as well spend reading a good book, or sitting in the sun.
Yup.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But profit does not have to be monetary, either. My profit can just be: to save space, to make something easier, or, the simplest: To get what I need. This is the customer's profit in today's trade: I pay 20 bucks, I get a pair of shoes. My profit: A pair of new shoes, or rather, what a üpair of new shoes is worth to me, minus those 20.
If a pair of shoes is less worth to me than 20, I won't buy it, if it is the same, I could do so or so, if it's worth more, I got my profit. That's one of the basics of modern economy.And that is a basis of Socialist trade; mutual profit. The buyer/seller relationship must be equal and equally satisfying.
When one states profit or property is immoral, we tend to mean unequal profit/property.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Trade is monetary, as it's easier. In the beginning of trade, it was not monetary, it was "You give me this, and I give you that". I hope you can imagine that this was as well hard, as uneffective, and in the most, usually this was what you call markets: Unfair.
I have a cow, and need a pair of shoes ( :cheeky: ). What do I do? Trade a whole cow for a simple pair of shoes? Unfair. Cut a part of the cow, to fit the shoes? Then the cow will die, and the rest may rot, not good. Or I run around, and try to trade the cow for 2 pigs. A pig for two coats, a coat for three hats, and a hat for a pair of shoes.
Granted I CAN find all the traders, and they are willing to trade with me, and I don't get pulled (see cow-shoes), I have to run about the whole market, spent probably the whole day there, and end up with a pig, a coat and two hats. Where should I put all that? I don't need it! Next time I want to trade, I have to wait for someone to want one of those, before I can trade. With money, I get my 100 for the cow, and pay 2 for the shoes. (And doesn't anyone mess in here with the average price of cows today ;) )
I have 98 left, and I can use those for my next trade, and I know, that everyone will accept it. That's the very beginning of money.
Yep, and we Socialists state that it is time we find a next step to follow after money that corrects its flaws as money corrected barters. Of course, with our unified Socialist ability to always agree, we've found a perfect solution!! [Note sarcasm. There are many ideas, but the fact that at any one meeting of Socialists half will be screaming reformist/trot/stalinist at the other....so we often don't get much done]
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw We saw before: Money is just an easier thing for property, so the logic
conclusion is: Property is immoral (therefor I think socialism opposes property, but I am really not sure there).
If property is immoral, then there's no need to work. I just get my part of what others do, so why should I work? I'll just sit in the sun, or sleep longer.
Granted, if you believe in the higher meaning of work, that it is for the community and such, then you would work. But again, that is an opinion rarely to find today.
And if you take such headings into account, then you can also say: Why socialism? Let's just live as the bible tells us: Care about your next, help the poor. This way, the world would be a happy, peaceful place, no hunger or such, except to natural disasters.
So this is even a step further than socialism, as soc. does not guarantee peace on earth (I think).
But still, the world today is not made of such mean and women (sad but true).
If we followed God's teaching, we'd be in a great society. But, like Anarchism, that demands universal altruism.
Socialism is a form of mutually enforced semi-altruistic social action.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw In this pure form not, of course, But this is the base assuming for further trade laws and economics. Everyone can get a profit off a trade (and will, else they won't trade).
Of course, this does NOT mean that one side cannot get shorthanded, but that's a dfferent story.
And where does Socialism in it's pure form exist? Can't see that either...
Yep, we are theorising a next step. So...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw If I feel short with that trade, I won't sell you. If I feel ok with it, let's trade.
You may be the only buyer, but that actually does not influence me.
Why should it? It could, if I needed the money, but if you are the only other person there, for what should I need the money?
If I think making shirts will ride me into losses, I'll stop producing them, simple as that.
I'll then look for something I can produce with gaining more. If you are always better off, then something is wrong with this 'real world', as this never occurs (in the theory, and also in real world as we know it, I think). If I don't need the money, I'll produce what I need, and don't care about you at all.
In Capitalism, the interaction between buyer and seller is rarely equal. Notably in the third world EPZs, we have sellers working to produce goods at near to unsurviveable levels and pay rates. Theoretically, they could refuse to sell. In reality, this is not so. Due to the classic rural/urban drift, more workers continually become availible. Both the rural and urban parts of this migratation are too poor to act in full knowledge of the result; rural cannot communicate with urban. The vastly more power monetarily powerfull buyer hires soldiers and thugs to break up unions and keep this lack of communication in existence.
If you cease to make shirts, you are brutalised and likely turned out of your home, to make way for new workers. The choice is homelessness and starvation, or brutal labour and near starvation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Exploitation is not a trait of Capitalism. It may occur together, but still I can say the same:
Socialism does not intend suppressing people (I hope). Still, in the countries socialism is applied, people were (or are) suppressed, tortured, treated without ANY spark of justice, and so on, and so on.
Indeed it does not.
However, to me, exploitation is a trait of the free market, as suppression etc is a trait of all authoritarian systems.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw What capitalism is actually about is this: Let the market regulate itself.
Markets: (short form)
Markets are regulated by prices, those are made by supply and demand.
Everyone has complete view on the markets, and can therefor perfectly compare prices and what he gets for those. Decisions are not influenced by preferences (place, time, known people, and the like)
The theory behind capitalism is in the rough this: Don't mess with the markets. As soon as the state puts his hands into there, it will get bad (or worse).
The scheme how people act is the following: I produce as much profit as I can. I decide between what's worth more to me, and then do or get this.
Profit does not have to be monetary, again. It can be as well peace, happiness, helping others, or whatever you want.
I agree Capitalism is rare in today's world, and I guess pure Capitalism doesn't exist.
All we can see are Capitalism-parts, mixed with the usual human (mis-)behaviour, mainly such as greed, envy or corruption. We live in a mixed economy, yes. The Capitalist ideal that the market will regulate itself is absurd - it does not work.
I take it you are familiar with Rand, as she was one of that myth's greatest proponents. Her logic is flawed, her followers are cultish.
[14521 characters/15000; better stop now :p]
Dragonclaw on 1/4/2002 at 00:36
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Hehe, yeah, I was going to but I got sidetracked.....I'll try and reply to that essay today, but...too much to do....you know how it is, I'm sure...
No prob, no hurry here ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
As I understood it, the French did not consider it a "minor" reperation. O'course, we must remember that after WW1 Europe was pretty much bankrupt, which was why the Dawes Plan became so important, and why the American Stock Market Crash had a run on effect throughout Europe, causing the Depression. As the American loans were not yet coming in, cash from Germany was important to France.
In addition, technically, much of what they occupied was officially under League of Nations control, although historically Germany.
As I read it, it was a smaller lack in the coal shipments. Of course, the general economic situation made this bad for everyone, so the French wanted to make sure they got their share. They invaded part of Germany. German governemnt asks the inhabitants there for "passive resistance": Not working together with the invadors, no work of any kind.
In reaction, France (And Belgium, too) threw out 150.000 people living there into the "unoccupied" Germany. Workers striking are shot. People being out during the curfew get shot.
All not the best conditions...
But well, I guess, if anyone wants to know more about that time, read, or ask, I'll gladly answer. There's a lot interesting in that time, I saw myself :-)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
...during which he wrote Mein Kamph (apologies for my spelling of German).
But, pardon me, I'll not feel sympathetic about his unfair treatment....
Hm, yes and no.
I'm not asking for someone to feel compassionate with Hitler, I think he ruined that chance pretty well himself.
But if someone is mistreated, even if it's the biggest killer the world has seen, it's still mistreatment, and should be pointed at.
(Not that I wasn't enough human to think: "Ha, deserved it!" myself usually...)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I do not disagree with any of this; however it shows us well, still, that we aren't perfect. Humanity often chooses less than ideal states.
Hm, I'm not sure. I think humanity chooses what looks best for it (or is made look best). How it turns out in the end is a different question...
And in that situation, the Nazis obviously offered the best outlook to the future...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
That is a very noble and selfless view for which I must give you respect. However, I, and most people, would probably try to save their own arse.
For me, what I'd consider the moral act would depend on the situation; that is, what would be less immoral.
(later)
Exactly. That post, which seems to have been misunderstood, was a simple admission that some major laws I, like most, people would break. I did not mean to imply I would wish to do so or relish the experience; rather that in certain situations, I would rather that than the alternative.
Yes, that's the view most people share: Do that which causes less harm. Unfortunately, I think often that leads to not seeing some alternatives...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Exactly, very similar to my view. Now, damn, if only more in my movement would realise that "the damn pigs" are people to. If we could put our past mistreatment aside and attempt to subvert the police into taking a less unkind view, then we might just get somewhere.
Nice to see one "of you". Until now, I've come across only those you said you wanted to open the eyes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Damn Christian arrogance :p Anyway, one suggestion, keep an open-mind and read from sources you might not like. Read the Qur'an [after some Muslims cornerred me and explained their view on Western spellings I tend to use theirs...;)], not just the Bible.
Whether or not you agree with what it says, it will still be interesting.
I actually cannot see arrogance in there... because I think the bible can create a perfect world when followed? That's the idea. I didn't say other religions cannot establish that, but naturally, I'll stick to what I believe in.
And for that reading into other religions: Guess I should do sometime, I often thought about that... but I should do so much, and I'm just plain too lazy :(
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Some, not University level yet sadly. I'm aiming to, however, when I can get the cash or a scholarship; conjoint Law/Economics is my goal.
Now, to me the problems with the so-called "Socialist" systems were not their economic system, but their political system.
Yes, the political systes were the major problems. Still, as said before, I think the flaw in communistic ( Do you mean that? As far as I know, socialism means the state has the property, and should distribute it to the people, while communism means the people (in whole) owning all the property, and the state got nothing) system is, that it assumes people to be equal, and work together for the greater meaning. While that may be true for some few volunteers, I think it may not be made possible for a whole state to establish. There will always be some that obviously, or not, work less for the greater good then others, and thereby exploit them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Now, why do I own an unequal amount? As I'm not perfect. I'm a hypocrite I'm afraid. I don't like it, but the fact is to survive and get where I want to be in life I need some property most in this world can't get. Hopefully, if I succeed in my goals that will eventually change.
Almost all of us are Hypocrits of some kind, but few are willing to accept it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
That is an extreme view, and not one I necessarily agree with; humans are territorial animals, and we do need a "manor" as most such animals do. I do not think calling all private property immoral is possible or desirable. We need our privacy to remain sane.
Agreed, but you didn't state that very clear before...
Anway, point clear, I guess.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Another has made monetary profit off my book then - and I don't like it. I consider the sale of pirated CDs likewise immoral.
Well, they made the monetary profit of publishing it, and getting money for that (publishers, printers, and the like). I think their profit is not immoral, as they had the costs, and their monetary profit may as well be 0.
The readers got the monetary profit of not having to buy your book, and getting the same result. For me, that profit is immoral. You said it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
True, however that is part of a Capitalist system. Most of the secondary roles are what I call parasitic; they work solely with market and money manipulation not good/service creation/distribution.
Well, of course, if you hate money, you cannot justify banks. But basically, they do the same: They lend those who need, and get more afterwards, a price for their services.
You can call that exploiting the needing, but on the other hand, if there were no banks, they wouldn't get the money, and be worse off.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Sounds nice ;) ....but demands universal altruism.
Their are many ideas for that, which I'm afraid I'm too busy* [*lazy :p] to explain here. I suggest you read up on Anarcho-Syndicalism, for one.
If I got the time some day ( = am bored, and have nothing better to do), I will.
Sounds interesting, but for now I cannot imagine how it should work without idealistic views.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
And that is a basis of Socialist trade; mutual profit. The buyer/seller relationship must be equal and equally satisfying.
When one states profit or property is immoral, we tend to mean unequal profit/property.
Yes, but unequal profit is a difficult thing, as you cannot measure most profit (fun, intellectual gain, and so on), while you can measure money. That often leads to false views...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Yep, and we Socialists state that it is time we find a next step to follow after money that corrects its flaws as money corrected barters. Of course, with our unified Socialist ability to always agree, we've found a perfect solution!! [Note sarcasm. There are many ideas, but the fact that at any one meeting of Socialists half will be screaming reformist/trot/stalinist at the other....so we often don't get much done]
Yes, I guessed that ;)
But I wouldn't call something bad and evil and immoral (with feeling good), if I hadn't a better solution to it...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
If we followed God's teaching, we'd be in a great society. But, like Anarchism, that demands universal altruism.
Socialism is a form of mutually enforced semi-altruistic social action.
My problem there: "enforced".
As you can call many economic crimes "the usual market happenings", you can call much suppression "enforcing or securing" fair (equal) social structures. (As was done)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
In Capitalism, the interaction between buyer and seller is rarely equal. Notably in the third world EPZs, we have sellers working to produce goods at near to unsurviveable levels and pay rates. Theoretically, they could refuse to sell. In reality, this is not so. Due to the classic rural/urban drift, more workers continually become availible. Both the rural and urban parts of this migratation are too poor to act in full knowledge of the result; rural cannot communicate with urban. The vastly more power monetarily powerfull buyer hires soldiers and thugs to break up unions and keep this lack of communication in existence.
If you cease to make shirts, you are brutalised and likely turned out of your home, to make way for new workers. The choice is homelessness and starvation, or brutal labour and near starvation.
Yes, but that is not only a problem of Capitalism alone. Most (dare I say all?) third world countries with economic problems created or worsened those theirselves. War, spending money on weapons instead of industry, your industry will not grow. If you drive farmers away, don't be surprised if the farms go down the drain. (Which lead to some of the big hunger problems in Africa).
If the industry can't grow, you cannot get access to positions in which you WOULD have choices. Choices between selling to those, or to those, or not selling at all. So the countries problems is not Capitalism alone, but the politics majorly.
I agree on the situation of many workers. But that also is not caused by Capitalism itself.
That is the factory owners exploitation of the workers, and I think that's not about Capitalism. They'd abuse them anyway, they can afford armies, the politicians can be bribed there easily, and the poor got no influence. In socialism, they would force them to work without proper payment (whatever kind that may be, you said there were too many forms to name them), and not care about their social security.
Capitalism is a mere market system. During the market process, some may be baf off, but that's where the state is to kick in, and keep them alive. (Alive, NOT well-off as many think. I cannot see a reason for someone not working, and living the same or a better life than someone who works)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Indeed it does not.
However, to me, exploitation is a trait of the free market, as suppression etc is a trait of all authoritarian systems.
But please, explain to me why a free market has to create exploration. You said that it existed in today's world, but that's not really saying much...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
We live in a mixed economy, yes. The Capitalist ideal that the market will regulate itself is absurd - it does not work.
I take it you are familiar with Rand, as she was one of that myth's greatest proponents. Her logic is flawed, her followers are cultish.
Actually, I'm not familiar with her works. And to be more honest, all I know from economics is what I learned in school and university, and we didn't go into discussion of single authors much.
And it's not saying that every market regulates itself. It's saying the perfect market regulates itself, and it does. Unfortunately, a free market is only a theory. The thing that comes best to it is the stock market, and as you see, it regulates itself. Of course, you can take influenece on the market, but that is only THROUGH the market.
And, btw, ideals usually don't work in today's life, that's why they are ideals.
That's why I say the socialistic ideal of a country will also not work.
Ideals live od idealistic environments, and they are about never existent.
juveli on 4/4/2002 at 10:37
WOW! Look at the size of these replies! Jesus! :eek:
Amorpheus on 4/4/2002 at 10:52
See, this is why I kept it short and direct in the first place. :p
CHILLman on 10/4/2002 at 09:50
No kidding! Methinks some Admin should come in here and change the subject of this thread, which dissolved like three posts into it. :) Oh, and juveli, that link is f*n great! LOL :laff:
Anyway, a couple general points I take particular issue with...
Anarkos:
>I do care when people pirate, if they think it is wrong. This means they are willing to do immoral acts. Sure, what they are doing is something I condone, but it also provides a testiment to their character - it shows that they don't value right and wrong.<
Don't you realize the immense can of worms this opinion opens up?? Anyone can do anything as long as they believe it to be right? Come on now, surely you are not so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see the pure inherant danger of this. Explosions everywhere, children being molested and raped daily, Lester had an affair with Bubba's wife - next day, both Lester and Bubba's wife are mowed down by Bubba's automatic rifle. Of course, it's all perfectly okay because store managers are assholes, them little girlies are hawt seX0rs, and by golly, Bubba had every right to be angry at that slutty bitch. Anything wrong with this picture yet? There are just too many crazy heads in the world for this... "philosophy" to be at all practical.
Regarding your economic theories, do you really think it just that someone who does precisely jack+shit in life deserves to have the very same amount of assets, resources, and quality of life as someone who works their hands to the bone day and night, trying to make a better for him and his family? This is precisely why pure Socialism (of the sort that you are advocating) can never work in practice. If there are no incentives to work hard (promotion, higher wages.... PROFIT *gasp! boo, hiss*), no one works hard, nothing gets done with any amount of efficiency, and everything eventually falls apart (I've explained this in depth before, but this is the genral premise of the argument).
By the way, I hope you didn't take Deus Ex's conspiracy-laden plotline too seriously (although I bet you were nodding affirmingly to yourself throughout half the game). :p
ICEBreaker on 10/4/2002 at 14:26
CHILLman, re: your first point, that is right. People who break the law and still think what they are doing is right, are the most dangerous people in the world. As long as they think they are doing the right thing, they will never have the potential of repentence.
Dragonclaw on 10/4/2002 at 19:38
Hm, yes, partially agreed.
The problem is: You also have to take into account the laws... there are laws that are right, and if you break them, you should feel wrong. On the other hand, there are also laws that are just plain wrong... ( in some countries more than in others), and if you break those laws, there's no need to feel bad...
But let's not get into a too deep discussion about that, that may take too much place...
*looks at his former posts*
Uhm...
*whistles innocently, and walks away*
