Not to mention our Wallonian soldiers that kept reinforcements to come to Blanqui's aid.
Of course, they should not be forgotten either.
Not to mention our Wallonian soldiers that kept reinforcements to come to Blanqui's aid.
Can someone please tell me why we should extend the vote to illiterate peasants?
I didn't deny anything, I just asked where it came from and for a quote. That's all. "And you have a source, yes?" is not "That's a dirty dirty lie, you have no proof of that!" I simply asked for you to confirm where you got it. I meant no harm. I won't say anything like that again, even if the post starts saying "Anarchists are planning on reviving the Dinosaurs."You were denying the the Anarchists opposed social reforms. It is an explicit part of the anarchist platform (i.e. Tommy's election 1865 post) that the Anarchists want to cut the funding for the social reforms and start preparing to reduce the size of the state.
It's very frustrating for us when you ask us to "prove" based on quotes, statements about the STATED PLATFORM of the anarchists. It's even more frustrating because whenever we say anything about the anarchists, we seem to face demands of "quotes or STFU." It is behavior that (Out Of Character) comes across as antagonistic. When you start saying that about the explicitly stated platform, it starts to get really far out of line. We can't have a fun debate under those conditions.
I'd like to point out that earlier in this thread I was complaining about Marxists crossing the line with Anarchists, so while I may be a whiner, I am at least consistent.
Volkischer is Volkisch is the folk movement thing... whilst Volker is peoples. (omitting umlauts)
I didn't deny anything, I just asked where it came from and for a quote. That's all. "And you have a source, yes?" is not "That's a dirty dirty lie, you have no proof of that!" I simply asked for you to confirm where you got it. I meant no harm. I won't say anything like that again, even if the post starts saying "Anarchists are planning on reviving the Dinosaurs."
Entschuldigung, hab nie diese zwei Wörter so zusammen gesehen. Hab Grammatik nie gut gelernt...
Tommy, can we know how the actual real people in the game think?
What issues do they have? Not that they matter.
I could have, but so could you or anyone else. Instead of helping me out and finding it, you instead misrepresented what I was saying. The Dinosaur thing is relevent because no I know that no matter what someone says, I won't ask where it came from. That is all. I won't ask where something is anymore.Well that's the feeling people got, obviously. I mean, what else are we to assume when you start asking for sources and quotes for something that is very easy for you yourself to find? The dinosaur thing is irrelevant, because that's hardly comparable to the resistance to social reforms which, once again, you could've found yourself.
I could have, but so could you or anyone else. Instead of helping me out and finding it, you instead misrepresented what I was saying. The Dinosaur thing is relevent because no I know that no matter what someone says, I won't ask where it came from. That is all. I won't ask where something is anymore.
I second this, how can we even consider offering peasants the vote if they can't read the ballot paper?I'd like to see a whole swathe of stats. Can we get some info on the country we are in? Literacy is a must!
Voelker Beobachter seems to me to be "Monitor of the People", while Voelkischer Beobachter would be "Popular Monitor". The technically correct grammar would be "Beobachter der Voelker" if my guess as to the meaning of the actual title is correct. The difference is that "Beobachter der Voelker" has a slight Orwellian "Big Brother is watching you" tinge, while "Voelkischer Beobachter" seems like a more generic newspaper title.
And finally "Völkischer Beobachter", let us just say there are reasons why I would not use it.
I second this, how can we even consider offering peasants the vote if they can't read the ballot paper?
As I have already said the farmers can read fine. The problem is that their interests differ quite alot from the interests of the urban proletariat. I'm not sure if this will be easy to find but if you can take a look at Trotsky's scissors theory regarding this.