Ah, so instead of maybe explaining why the concept of supply and demand is not working to set prices you attack my person by saying that I'm not intelligent enough to understand what an analogy is. How very mature of you.How about learning something about the concept of an analogy before railling against it?
See above.
Now you are combining two wars into one. The French-Prussian war that led to the unification of Germany and the Austro-Prussian war that determined Prussian leadership in Germany. While the Austro-Prussian war was part of the unification process by forcing the Hohenzollerns to accept that they could no longer deny german unification the German states were not forced to become part of the Empire in 1871.Clearly you have little knowledge of the Austro-Prussian War.
Bavaria was indeed invaded - by Prussian troops. And the reason why Austria was excluded from the new Germany was that Prussia did not want Habsburgs challenging them for control of the German nations. It was not a unification war - it was the final subjugation of the German states under the Prussian autocracy.
You obviously did not understand my point: You said that everyone who did not work would not be able to feed their family. Where did your welfare go?My apologies - I forget that the Free Market System magically creates goods and services without any need for human labour.
Now you are again mixing up the points of my argument. I was comparing our army to the armies of the Entente at that time not to the military concepts that have been developed during the last years.Follow your own advice.
Our command structure was "flexible" in the same way that a steel girder is flexible.
You again fail to see my point. If your party seizes power, do you really believe that the evil capitalists and their minions will just leave the country and will let you do as you desire? No! With your extremistic plans you will spark a civil war because those that you wish to rob of their gains will fight for their property and for their way of life. Thats what I meant when I said that you will cause a civil war.How can the ruling party launch a revolution against itself?
Your ilk keep parroting this line - that, if elected, the UGSA will start a bloody revolt which will cause Germany to be destroyed from within, etc. Standard fear-mongering and right-wing propaganda. But how is it a revolution if we are democratically elected into office?
And you are so stubbornly focused on revolutionary progress that you fail to see the price that this progress will cost you in the long term. If I have the choice whether I want instant progress bought at the cost of countless lives and the prosperity of a whole nation or if I want moderate progress over a longer time, I'm with moderate progress. But that point is obviously lost on you.You are so rigid and inflexible that you view any change that actually bears significance to be frightening beyond imagination.
Ah, so instead of maybe accepting the fact that you wholly misunderstood my point and failed to see the analogy you instead try and spin your failure onto a malicious attack on my part. How very mature of you.Ah, so instead of maybe explaining why the concept of supply and demand is not working to set prices you attack my person by saying that I'm not intelligent enough to understand what an analogy is. How very mature of you.
But the German states north of the Rhine were placed into the North German Confederation, headed by Prussia, while the German states south of the Rhine were forced into pledging allegiance to Prussia. The Austro-Prussian War united the German states de facto, if not de jure.Now you are combining two wars into one. The French-Prussian war that led to the unification of Germany and the Austro-Prussian war that determined Prussian leadership in Germany. While the Austro-Prussian war was part of the unification process by forcing the Hohenzollerns to accept that they could no longer deny german unification the German states were not forced to become part of the Empire in 1871.
In keeping with your ideology, you think in small, individualist terms. Workers need to work in order produce goods and services for society as a whole. The proletarians will work because they know that their labour benefits them, as it makes products available.You obviously did not understand my point: You said that everyone who did not work would not be able to feed their family. Where did your welfare go?
Being 'comparatively' better is meaningless; after all, a rotten tomato makes 'comparatively' better eating than a plank of wood.I was comparing our army to the armies of the Entente at that time not to the military concepts that have been developed during the last years.
So because the capitalists and the industrialists will fail to abide by the result of a democratic election, using military force to resist us, it is our fault that a civil war will occur?If your party seizes power, do you really believe that the evil capitalists and their minions will just leave the country and will let you do as you desire? No! With your extremistic plans you will spark a civil war because those that you wish to rob of their gains will fight for their property and for their way of life. Thats what I meant when I said that you will cause a civil war.
Moderate progress is political speak for years of delays and pointless bickering, with the capitalists dragging their heels over every insignificant point.If I have the choice whether I want instant progress bought at the cost of countless lives and the prosperity of a whole nation or if I want moderate progress over a longer time, I'm with moderate progress.
So you complain about the Socialists not acting, before proceeding to advocate not giving them the opportunity to act?The commies can only talk and write much but when they must act they do nothing!!!
If you vote on the commies they will just destroy our Germany!
Ok, maybe I failed to see your point. What I understood from your analogy is that all merchants only exploit the farmer by buying his wares at too low a price and then selling these same goods at a way higher price and thus robbing the farmer of his possible profit. So I answered to you with the concept of supply and demand: If a merchant does as you describe another merchant will inevitably show up and will be either paying the farmer higher prices for his goods and sell it at the same price as the former merchant (thus making less profit than former merchant but improving the situation of the farmer) or he will be buying at the same price (always provided the farmer is willing to sell at this price, a choice he would not have if his farm was nationalized) and selling at a lower price than the other merchant and by this he is improving conditions for his buyers. So please tell me where I failed to grasp your analogy.Ah, so instead of maybe accepting the fact that you wholly misunderstood my point and failed to see the analogy you instead try and spin your failure onto a malicious attack on my part. How very mature of you.
Oh yeah I still remember these large revolts against Prussian oppression. Some horrible massacres had to be conducted to force all these ingrates into this horrible scheme. [/irony]But the German states north of the Rhine were placed into the North German Confederation, headed by Prussia, while the German states south of the Rhine were forced into pledging allegiance to Prussia. The Austro-Prussian War united the German states de facto, if not de jure.
May that be as it may, even if Bismarck was only the power-hungry, back-stabbing opportunist you want to paint him as, he still achieved German unification, something that was impossible for over a century and was the will of the people.If you honestly believe that Prussian opposition to Austria stemmed from some great desire to unite Germany, you are sadly mistaken. Bismarck was an opportunist who sought to exploit any situation which would diminish Austrian power and promote Prussian strength. Unification was only one of these opportunities.
In my opinion your outlook on the human nature is that of a idealist. While I like that personally it is nothing you build a society on. Once people don't have to work for their survival alone, they work because they want to have more than their peers, they want to be able to show off. That may be a sad view on the world as you will surely notice, it's the sad truth that can't be changed just by Nationalizing all factories or driving out the capitalists.In keeping with your ideology, you think in small, individualist terms. Workers need to work in order produce goods and services for society as a whole. The proletarians will work because they know that their labour benefits them, as it makes products available.
I don't see your point. You said our armed forces had crappy leadership in the Weltkrieg. I was saying that our armed forces were better than you tried to paint them. You said they were worse in the Weltkrieg than they are now. I said that I was not comparing them to our forces now but to the enemy forces during the Weltkrieg. You say that this comparison is moot. To which army do you want to compare them? You wanted to compare an army from 20 years ago to an army today, of course they are inferior they had nearly no tanks, no planes, no aircraft carriers and so on.Being 'comparatively' better is meaningless; after all, a rotten tomato makes 'comparatively' better eating than a plank of wood.
I was not talking of the elections, I was talking of the policies you will be implementing once electing. And of course they won't be overjoyed to be stripped of their factories, houses, money and so on. And thats why I am placing the responsibility on you. If you ignore the consequences of your actions you are as much to blame as the ones who are starting a civil war, as you are forcing them to react in this way.So because the capitalists and the industrialists will fail to abide by the result of a democratic election, using military force to resist us, it is our fault that a civil war will occur?
Well I may have missed a few revolutions in the Kaiserreich lately, but last time I looked the increasing strength of democratic institutions was not caused by revolutionaries but by Moderates that worked within the system and did not try to break it apart and build it up from scratch.Moderate progress is political speak for years of delays and pointless bickering, with the capitalists dragging their heels over every insignificant point.
Tell me, who was responsible for the downfall of the era of autocracy and the advent of liberalism - the 'moderates' or the revolutionaries?
fixed
Plese recheck my reply, cause the word SUND doesnt mean anything.
Well Sund has a meaning as it means a strait like the Öresund, but I bet this is not what he intended to post
Well Sund has a meaning as it means a strait like the Öresund, but I bet this is not what he intended to post
You sure? I cant recall any meaning to the word, the comarison you gave is the same as if I would write geSUND (Healthy) or sUNDE (Sin- Yes i know that S has to be big and U lacks an umlaut).
Then why did you tell me to put sund?Plese recheck my reply, cause the word SUND doesnt mean anything.
And why would a merchant do either of these actions?Ok, maybe I failed to see your point. What I understood from your analogy is that all merchants only exploit the farmer by buying his wares at too low a price and then selling these same goods at a way higher price and thus robbing the farmer of his possible profit. So I answered to you with the concept of supply and demand: If a merchant does as you describe another merchant will inevitably show up and will be either paying the farmer higher prices for his goods and sell it at the same price as the former merchant (thus making less profit than former merchant but improving the situation of the farmer) or he will be buying at the same price (always provided the farmer is willing to sell at this price, a choice he would not have if his farm was nationalized) and selling at a lower price than the other merchant and by this he is improving conditions for his buyers. So please tell me where I failed to grasp your analogy.
Except for Hannover. Could this possibly be due to the fact that Prussia annexed Hannover following the Austro-Prussian War?The northern states picked their allies and all of them supported Prussia (except for Hanover) They knew what they were supporting.
Oh yes; if you ignore the nations who were annexed or disbanded by Prussia, and the nations who had just been invaded, it was all totally voluntary.And the south was never forced into anything. They did not join by force in 1867 and they voluntarily allied themselves to Prussia against the French in 1870.
German unification had been achieved in 1849 with the creation of the Constituent Assembly; King William I of Prussia was even offered the title of German Emperor, which he turned down. Prussia then colluded with Austria to disband the parliament, delaying German unification by decades.May that be as it may, even if Bismarck was only the power-hungry, back-stabbing opportunist you want to paint him as, he still achieved German unification, something that was impossible for over a century and was the will of the people.
Better sufficient resources for all rather than extravagant wealth for the few and horrific poverty for the rest.In my opinion your outlook on the human nature is that of a idealist. While I like that personally it is nothing you build a society on. Once people don't have to work for their survival alone, they work because they want to have more than their peers, they want to be able to show off. That may be a sad view on the world as you will surely notice, it's the sad truth that can't be changed just by Nationalizing all factories or driving out the capitalists.
Wrong.I said that I was not comparing them to our forces now but to the enemy forces during the Weltkrieg. You say that this comparison is moot.
As I said: "That is self-serving and fallacious."I was not talking of the elections, I was talking of the policies you will be implementing once electing. And of course they won't be overjoyed to be stripped of their factories, houses, money and so on. And thats why I am placing the responsibility on you. If you ignore the consequences of your actions you are as much to blame as the ones who are starting a civil war, as you are forcing them to react in this way.
And who even gave you this system in the first place?Well I may have missed a few revolutions in the Kaiserreich lately, but last time I looked the increasing strength of democratic institutions was not caused by revolutionaries but by Moderates that worked within the system and did not try to break it apart and build it up from scratch.
The poor understanding is on your side. That may be the reason why you support the Syndicalists. Let me explain:And why would a merchant do either of these actions?
Capitalists are dedicated soley to maximising their profits and minimising their costs - neither of which would be achieved by paying more for their wares than their competitors and selling them at the same price, or paying the same cost for his wares and selling them at a lower price.
For some who claims to subscribe to the laws of demand and supply, you seem to have a poor grasp of economics.
Oh yes, because a german unification without incorporating the german nations into the Reich would totally be a unificationExcept for Hannover. Could this possibly be due to the fact that Prussia annexed Hannover following the Austro-Prussian War?
Oh yes; if you ignore the nations who were annexed or disbanded by Prussia, and the nations who had just been invaded, it was all totally voluntary.
Maybe you should blame individual kings or persons instead of noncorporeal identities. There is no Prussia that can actually do anything. There may be a Prussian king or a chancellor but you can't just blame a whole nation for a choice one person made. The same logic is applied if you condemn all leftist movements by saying that one leading person of one movement is an extremist.German unification had been achieved in 1849 with the creation of the Constituent Assembly; King William I of Prussia was even offered the title of German Emperor, which he turned down. Prussia then colluded with Austria to disband the parliament, delaying German unification by decades.
I fail to see the relevance of this statement in response to me saying that people are motivated by greed if they are well fed and clothed. Can't you rebuke my argument?Better sufficient resources for all rather than extravagant wealth for the few and horrific poverty for the rest.
In that logic you can't compare the Army of Napoleon and the Prussian army of that time because from modern view they are equally inflexible and archaic. You can't apply modern standards of knowledge and military tactics to a comparison between armed forces of the same time because it would, as you pointed out make the comparison moot, that's why it's never done.Wrong.
I say that claiming our Armed Forces during the Weltkrieg were comparatively better than that of our enemies is a moot point, since they were equally inflexible and archaic.
Please read my post before you reply to it. I saidAs I said: "That is self-serving and fallacious."
If the capitalists and industrialists value their wealth more than the democratically-elected government or the State, than they are traitors to Germany itself. If they cannot abide by the majority decision of the people, they are not republicans, nor are they democratic. By resorting to violence, they have undermined the liberalism on which Germany has prided itself.
If the LCP won the election and the Iron Fist Party responded to this by attempting a coup d'etat, would you then support the latter, claiming that it is the former's fault because they allowed themselves to be elected?
I AM talking of your policies of nationalization and stripping the nobility of their rights. If you think that these measures will NOT cause a reaction from said groups you are living in a dream world.sheep-dodger said:I was not talking of the elections
But even the french revolutionaries had moderates and extremists, when the latter gained power they started the Reign of Terror. This is why I'm calling for moderation and not extremism.And who even gave you this system in the first place?
If it was not for the revolutionaries in France, liberalism would not even exist; we would all still be shackled under absolute monarchs. It is the revolutionaries - the extremists, as you like to call them - that have given you the ability to be able to speak your mind without fear of punishment, to freely follow your beliefs, to vote in parliament, to decide the leaders of your nation.
If the LCP won the election and the Iron Fist Party responded to this by attempting a coup d'etat
Why would one wish to excel, when no reward is given for excelling?