So, posting the fact you currently belong to two parties, in violation of Reichstag rules, is slander? I took that information from your party information. Unless you're saying that your own party rosters aren't good material.
Sigh.
It still seems that you are unable to differentiate between the UGSA and the ABNB. I fear your stupidity is contagious.
We are in a coalition; as such, if the ABNB comes into power, I - as the leader of the UGSA - will become part of their Cabinet.
We don't support them. We just see them as less of a danger to Germany's future than your leftist extremism. The Iron Fists have too confrontational a foreign/military policy for PCP tastes. But that's better than selling Germany out to the Syndicalists that would love to see their arch enemy dismembered.
And now see another tactic favoured by the Fascists - condemning anyone who dares to promote the interests of the working class as "traitors". You spin an elaborate plot of internal elements working to destroy the "Fatherland" - another tactic favoured by the Fascists. And just like the Fascists, your allegations are meritless, being blatant examples of fear-mongering and hysteria-whipping.
But here. Let me use your logic. According to you, PCP is selling itself out by saying Iron Fist is better than Bolsheviks. Ok, fine. Therefore, the United German Socialist Alliance is selling itself out by allying with the ABNB, which uses Weltkrieg tactics.
Not at all.
The ABNB shares the same ideology as the UGSA; we are not incompatible simply because we have different views on a specific area of policy. The Fascists, on the other hand, make no secret of their contempt of democracy - something that the PCP claims to cherish and protect.
Says someone who can't stay on point and answer the question. I've pointed out how you're a complete hypocrite, how your logical reasoning is completely flawed. It operates under the assumption that everything anyone else does is a betrayal of principle and a massive conspiracy. But when you do it, it's ok, because it's all for the liberation of the workers. Please. Stop screaming 'NO YOU.'
My God.
You've actually created a point that is part
ad hominem attack, part hypocrisy and part
tu coque fallacy.
Ad hominem because you, instead of attempting to refute my point, chose to attempt to slander me.
Tu coque fallacy because you attempt to justify your previous hypocrisy with a "But you do it too!" allegation. And all hypocrisy because you sign off your point with "Stop screaming 'NO YOU'", an action that you have just committed.
Your social bias, slanted towards protection the interests of anarchist revolutionaries over the interests of the German good, is evident.
The "German good", of course, being synonymous with "propping up the aristocracy and fat cat industrialists". Because of course, the only
true people of Germany are these two groups.
First of the person selling 100 products for 1000 Reichsmark would be hard pressed to find anyone stupid enough to buy these products which are sold at a price of 1 RM by his competitor.
You still attempted to purport this as scientific fact. There is a reason why economics is not described as an exact science.
The bottom line for any buying price is the price it can be sold at and the mechanism that I explained to you, called "the market", will take care that the workers will get the highest possible price for their wares and that consumers will get the lowest possible price when they want to buy as long as monopolies and trust are illegal, that is why the LCP supports Anti-Trust-Laws.
A wise man once said that a true politician is someone who can speak a lot but say very little - the above being a perfect example.
I like it how you act as if I do not know what a market is, having used that term in the very point you quoted. And the fact is, none of your waffle explains why, if one merchant is purchasing goods for one Mark each and selling them for five Marks, another merchant will come along and decide to purchase the same goods for three Marks each before selling them at the same price.
It makes no logical or economical sense.
If they were truly opposed to the unification they would not have taken the bribes.
And then Prussia would have crushed and conquered them all.
They were trying to at least gain some compensation for their inevitable subjugation under the Kaiser.
Then again you are doing what you were criticising, I did not use such generalizations, yet you bring them up when arguing with me.
And yet I did not attribute those claims to you.
Learn to read.
You know that natural selection is not about being the most intelligent but being the most flexible and as such being able to adapt?
Wrong.
Natural selection is about being most suited to your environment and thus thriving in it. As such, those with most adept at certain professions will inevitably assume that area of employment.
If you think that the comparison is a moot point?
Because the Armed Forces of our opponents during the Weltkrieg were inflexible and pathetic, meaning that boasting that our Armed Forces were superior than that of our enemies was a moot point - akin to an obese slob boasting that he is more agile than a dead man.
I answered your question, you just refuse my answer.
No, you have dodged around it like the coward that you truly are.
I was saying that the Iron Fist would have no reason to rebel as we would not implement extremistic policies and we would be able to compromise.
Irrelevant.
Answer the question: If the Iron Fist Party hypothetically responded to the LCP coming to power by launching a revolution, would you then be supportive of the former on the basis that it was the latter's asumption of the role of government which caused the revolution?
This is not an outlandish scenario; Alexus has explicitly stated that, if he had the permission of the Kaiser, he would overthrow the government formed of any party but his own.
That is wrong, or how do you explain that the British had a democratic system without beheading their kings? That is until the Syndicalists started a revolution and threw them out.
A democracy with limited suffrage, a government dominated by the upper classes, an endemically corrupt Police Force and an unelected Head of State.
Essentially, Feudalism.
I never said that fight without bloodshed was possible but progress without bloodshed is possible. This is a point you completely ignore.
And would the French Revolution have been successful without bloodshed?
No; it would have been crushed from its very beginning, along all the liberal and republican aspirations of society.
For you every progress has to come in the form of a revolution you just haven't learned the art of compromise.
This is what differentiates us from you; unlike the so-called moderates, we are not willing to "compromise" our principles and beliefs simply to take the easy option of appeasing the elitist industrialists.
We shall not be bribed.
