The poor understanding is on your side. That may be the reason why you support the Syndicalists. Let me explain:
Let's say merchant A buys item L for 5 Reichsmark and sells it for 10 thus making a profit of 5 Reichsmark. But now a new merchant named B offers the worker to buy item L for 6 Reichsmark and will sell it for 10 for a profit of only 4. Who will the worker sell his item to? Merchant A for 5 Reichsmark or merchant B for 6? Of course the one paying him more. Now merchant B may be making less profit than merchant A before, but now he is making a profit instead of A, so he has got a reason to do this, because he wants to increase his personal wealth.
The other way works exactly like that: If you have merchant C offering to sell his product at 9 Reichsmark and merchant D offering to sell at 10 RM, who will people be buying from? The reason the merchants will do this is exactly the same as above: Personal gain.
No, the poor understanding is most definitely on your side.
You still have not explained
why any merchant would pay above the equilibrium price for the farmer's wares, without increasing his own price. Merchants do not care for the farmer's welfare; they care only about getting the highest amount of products for the lowest price. There is simply no reason why any merchant would pay more for his wares than his competitor.
Oh yes, because a german unification without incorporating the german nations into the Reich would totally be a unification
Oh yes, because when the Roman Empire invaded Gaul, they were obviously "unifying" the Gallic tribes, not "conquering" them.
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.
Yet these are there people who the Prussian Conservative Party eulogises and praises. Bismarck is a 'hero', apparantly, not a militaristic Machiavellian back-stabber. The Prussians claim it was the Kaiser that who is responsible for Germany's glory, when history has shown that it was the monarchs who were the greatest obstacle to any form of German unification.
The same logic is applied if you condemn all leftist movements by saying that one leading person of one movement is an extremist.
Which has been done,
repeatedly, throughout this discussion.
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?
I already have, several times, but perhaps if I use a lovely colourful font you may be able to understand:
The capitalists purport that people are motivated by self-interest.
Labour provides society with goods and services.
Therefore, it is in the interests of the people to work.
So even if we are to follow the egoism of capitalism, our social model is still enabled.
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.
Which was why I was directly comparing the Armed Forces of Germany and France
in that time period.
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.
And so you would condemn the government instead of those who fail to abide by the laws of a democratically-elected government?
Again, if the LCP wins the election and implements their policies, causing the Iron Fist Party to respond with an uprising, you say that your sympathies would lie with the Fascists, since the former had 'antagonised' them with their policies?
For the third time: self-serving and fallacious.
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 do you think that "moderation" would have allowed the French Revolution to be successful?
Would you have sat down with the French King and have a jovial conversation about how you wanted to strip him of all his power, before begging for him to say yes?
Would you have convened a meeting to discuss what was to be done, stretching on for months on end as you endlessly debated every avenue?
If so, it would be you - not the monarchy - who would have ended up under a guillotine. Your supporters would be massacred by the Army. Your party would be forcefully disbanded. Your revolution would be crushed.
It was not the "moderates" who stormed the Bastille. It was the revolutionaries; those willing to fight and die for freedom, equality and liberty. Without the revolutionaries, there would have been no revolution and by extension, there would be no Germany and there would be no liberalism or democracy.
Just to say, we'd never [revolt against the government] unless the Kaiser willed it.
And behold, as the Fascists clearly display their contempt for democracy.
