Better militarists than Bolsheviks.
Better elitist thugs than the working class, you mean.
On a subsistence level, yes. Barely above poverty, yes. Without an access to markets to sell his surplus wares, he will have little money to spend on other necessities and wants. It's a shame that you want to put us back in the medieval era.
Oh, yes; because the merchant buying up the farmer's crops for a ludicrously low rate and then jacking up the prices has
really enabled the peasants escape poverty.
I'm going to borrow one of your phrases. It would seem my colleague has been in a comatose state since the 1870s. Get a map, look at central Europe. What's there? Oh, right, Germany.
So when one nation conquers other nations, incorporates them into their empire, forces them to adopt their monarch as their Head of State, makes their national bank the national bank of the new empire and makes their currency the national currency of the new empire, this is what you call "German unification"?
How can any nation which does not incorporate Austria be called "Germany"?
More use of a term that you obviously do not comprehend.
Right. Which is exactly why he was a driving force behind the creation of our dear Reichstag.
You mean the Reichstag that predated Bismarck as Chancellor?
Or the Reichstag he circumvented and ignored during the 1863 taxation issue.
You are aware that your analogy was pretty much worthless, correct?
You are aware that your opinion is clearly not subjective and thus counts for nothing, correct?
It's a strawman only if it takes a position and blows it our of proportion.
...
That's not what the phrase "strawman argument" means.
A strawman argument is when you refute an argument that your opponent was not making; which you were, with your "You claimed we don't have healthcare!" fluff.
And you are getting your information from where? The Syndicalist Handbook?
Because anything that does not support your weak-willed ideology is clearly Syndicalist propaganda.
I'm going to use one of your lines. Wanton strawman argument.
And you will once again use it without understanding what it actually means
No, it doesn't prove that.
What an excellent debating strategy.
Putting people with no experience in management capacity is a bad idea that only works in Utopian novels.
On the contrary, if there are no single group of managers, efficiency will increase, as all those with managerial abilities who were previously ignored because of their social standing and upbringing will be able to come to the fore.
With no arbitrary hierarchy, we shall have absolute social and economical mobility.
Again, how are you going to manage incentive and discipline? No authority means no one is required to follow a command
People will work because, if they do not, they will not be able to use their goods or feed their families.
Furthermore, if you go as far as to prohibit them from that task, you are then creating a class divide between people that are and aren't allowed to do things.
1. That is not what a class divide is.
2. Jobs and employment will be socially distributed to those most capable of the task through natural selection.
And your facts are from where?
Are you telling me that a majority of those occupying non-officer and non-commissioned ranks
weren't from the lower class?
If so, your delusion is clearly more advanced than I previously thought.
Coincidentally, that is how the current military rank system is set up. Soldiers have a say provided they follow their chain of command.
So basically, the soldiers are allowed to offer their opinion, which the Generals will instantly ignore in favour of their own.
What an excellent democratic process!
Wait....this sounds familiar. If I go to your party platform, I find this...
"Military Doctrine
The people will be at the for front of the Revolution, we have no need for petty machines. The people will be what brings the Revolution and the people will be who brings the new age of Far Leftist Freedom. Mass Conscription Acts will be put in place so everyone will have a chance to fight against the Capitalist and Authoritarian demons."
The Weltkrieg tactics that you so despise and lambaste are the exact same tactics your party follows!!! The irony!!! Legion after legion of workers being mowed down? That is exactly what your party platform calls for!
Wow.
Congratulations, you have clearly proved I am a hypocrite.
If it was not for the fact that the excerpt you have posted is from the stance of a different party, not the UGSA.
Clearly you are a debater of integrity and impecal observation.
Again, you are making things out to be worse than what they are. You'd only be satisfied with a complete overturning of social and political order. Anything less than that is utter evil to you.
We would be satisfied with a society that acted as it claimed to be - meritocratic.
Vested interest only goes so far. You need motivation, otherwise you won't get good results.
And vested interest is not motivation?
If your system is so flawless, where such kinds of things aren't needed, it would be in existence already, before the Weltkreig. But it's not, and there's a reason for that. It does not work.
That is a logical fallacy.
By your same logic, if democracy is so great, why did we live as an autocracy for centuries?
I find it interesting how the Syndicalist glosses over exactly which third war 'Prussian aggression' started.
I find it interesting how you make a cheap crack at the Syndicalists instead of attempting to refute my point.
