What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@cicerone imposter,

I studied and got the right answers. Try it, ci.

@okie,

You sure don't prove it now! Doesn't matter what happened in the past; we don't care about that. We only know how you make claims without so much as a tiny bit of proof, and think your diversions from our questions is acceptable. It's not.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You see, "top" means uppermost part.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=top&x=26&y=10
Main Entry: 1top
...
1 a (1) : the highest point, level, or part of something : the upper end, edge, or extremity

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=salutatorian&x=28&y=9
Main Entry: sa·lu·ta·to·ri·an
...
Function: noun
...
: the graduating student who is usually second highest in rank and who in some institutions pronounces the salutatory oration -- compare VALEDICTORIAN

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=valedictorian&x=24&y=8
Main Entry: 1val·e·dic·to·ri·an
...
Function: noun
...
: the student usually of the highest rank in a graduating class who delivers the valedictory oration at the commencement exercises

0 Replies

Who said the following:

"This too is a task of our movement; even now it must herald a day which will give to the individual what he needs for living, but uphold the principle that man does not live exclusively for the sake of material pleasures. This must some day find its expression in a wisely limited gradation of earnings which in any event will give every decent working man an honest, regular existence as a national citizen and a man."

1 Reply

@okie,

Who said ""chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot.""?

I don't know of any politician that has run successfully on limiting voters to less than subsistence living., do you okie?

1 Reply

@parados,

Connected to Hoover I think.

So to my question, you don't have a guess?

2 Replies

@okie,

So Hoover was a ruthless dictator?

0 Replies

@okie,

Do you honestly think a socialist would provide for a graduated income scale for the working man? Isn't the idea that all are equal under socialism?

2 Replies

@parados,

I don't think that even socialists believe a ditch digger should make as much as a rocket scientist, do you?

3 Replies

@okie,

Who said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, How exactly does that relate to our economy in the US? How many practicing socialists do you really know? Do you really understand what "socialism" means? You understand very little of reality.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I don't think that even socialists believe a ditch digger should make as much as a rocket scientist, do you?

oh? That seems to fly in your other statements about socialism.

0 Replies

Who said, from each according to his ability, to each according to his accomplishments?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Do you honestly think a socialist would provide for a graduated income scale for the working man? Isn't the idea that all are equal under socialism?

Not exactly. Here is what the Soviets were doing, under a communistic system, which would be theoretically more equal than socialism. The central planners had their ideas about what work was most valuable to society, etc. etc., and so pay was not exactly equal. In fact it was a form of a graduated income scale.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404101472.html

"WAGES, SOVIET
Wages in the Soviet Union were supposed to conform to Marx's notion of the lower stage of communist society in which workers would be paid according to their contributions to the social product and on the basis of equal rewards for equal work. Factors taken into account in the assignment of wage levels typically included the arduousness and dangerousness of work, skill levels or necessary qualifications, and the degree of responsibility. Occupations in which women predominated, such as teaching, medicine, infant care, cleaning, and clerical and sales work, invariably were graded below male-dominated occupations.

In early 1918 Lenin advocated the use of piece-work as opposed to time-based wages as an appropriate system to stimulate labor discipline and productivity. He also grudgingly acknowledged the necessity of paying specialists (e.g., managers and engineers) more than ordinary workers. Although these policies were opposed by the Left Communist faction and many rank-and-file Bolsheviks, they were incorporated into the wage scales constructed by respective trade unions. During the years of war communism, labor was in effect an obligatory service to the embattled state, which in turn assumed the responsibility to provide work and at least a caloric minimum in the form of employee rations. Payment in kind was ubiquitous, and no sooner did workers receive their wage than they repaired to the black market to barter it for other goods.

......"

So again, okie here, to repeat my question of the earlier post, I am asking can anyone identify who said the following:

"This too is a task of our movement; even now it must herald a day which will give to the individual what he needs for living, but uphold the principle that man does not live exclusively for the sake of material pleasures. This must some day find its expression in a wisely limited gradation of earnings which in any event will give every decent working man an honest, regular existence as a national citizen and a man."

3 Replies

@okie,

Are you really going to argue that Hitler wanted to follow Marx and the Marxists?

You did read the entire chapter you quoted from, didn't you?

0 Replies

@okie,

Congratulations. In your neverending quest to demonstrate how the policies of Obama and Hitler are virtually identical, you have now established that the Soviets were not really Communists, but that instead a capitalistic system of labour compensation existed under Lenin, just as it did under Hitler or Reagan.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

It was the Jew, Karl Marx, who was able to draw the extreme inference from those false conceptions and views concerning the nature and purpose of a state:

And from the previous chapter

Quote:

Though at present a part of the Marxists shrewdly try to pretend that they are inseparably linked with the principles of democracy, do not forget if you please that in the critical hour these gentlemen didn't care a damn about a majority decision in the Western democratic sense!

Quote:

The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extermination. If today they came to the conviction that from the witches' cauldron of our parliamentary democracy a majority could be brewed, which - and even if only on the basis of its legislating majority - would seriously attack Marxism, the parliamentary jugglery would come to an end at once. The banner-bearers of the Red International would then, instead of addressing an appeal to the democratic conscience, emit a fiery call to the proletarian masses, and their struggle at one stroke would be removed from the stuffy air of our parliamentary meeting halls to the factories and the streets. Democracy would be done for immediately; what the mental dexterity of those people's apostles in the parliaments had failed to do, the crowbar and sledgehammer of incited proletarian masses would instantly succeed in doing, as in the fall of 1918: they would drive it home to the bourgeois world how insane it is to imagine that they can oppose Jewish world domination with the methods of Western democracy.

No, I think Hitler's words clearly say he is not a Marxist.

Quote:

Victories are not gained by such feeble weapons! Not until the international world view- politically led by organized Marxism - is confronted by a folkish world view, organized and led with equal unity, will success, supposing the fighting energy to be equal on both sides, fall to the side of eternal truth.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Apparently you got the right answer, it was Hitler, although I did change the word "comrade" to "citizen." It was quoted from Mein Kampf.

I have read most of Mein Kampf more than once, and as I said once before, Hitler was one mixed up dude, so his writing is not very good, in my opinion. He is wordy and writes convoluted sentences.

My interpretation of his philosophy was that he did study and learn a great deal of Marxism, and even had some admiration of it, but differed in that he thought Marxism was going toward internationalism, with the Jews in charge of it all. I think he borrowed some of the ideas, such as a hatred of "capitalism" and "greed," but he wanted to tailor his utopia to a perfect race of people, the "folks" in Germany instead of the Jews, etc.

I believe Hitler clearly believed the State should be the arbitor of fairness, not the free market, and so he clearly was a leftist in this regard, a socialist, to put it bluntly. Socially, the folks, as a nation, as a whole, or the COMMON GOOD was to be the primary measure of fairness, as determined by the state, not free markets or freedom. The evidence for this is abundant and clear, not only in the writings of Mein Kampf, but in the Nazi 25 points. And Hitler clearly believed those 25 points were not to be watered down, they were to be defended and believed even if it meant fighting to the death to do it.

Basically, I think he had a form of nationalistic socialism, where the state was all powerful, to enforce his vision of fairness and greatness.

Actually, Obama is trying to adopt a few fascist ideas into this country. He sees the State as the ultimate arbitor of lots more things than previous presidents could even imagine, what wages we should make, what profits are appropriate for individuals, for doctors, for businesses, what medical care we should receive, what kind of car we should drive, what fuel we should use, what we should learn in school, what kind of organizations we should volunteer for, the list is endless. Look for it, forced volunteerism. Obama is appointing czars left and right, it is in fact very troubling how much control Obama thinks he should have over every facet of everybody's life, to institute a society he envisions as more fair than the one we have now.

2 Replies

@okie,

So you equate Obama to Hitler. You're incorrigible.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I am drawing comparisons of Obama's policies to fascism, yes. Obama is clearly a leftist and socialist, with Marxist ideas repackaged into a form of fascism, if he is allowed to build a government according to his liking. If he is viciously opposed, we hopefully can stop him, I think we can. He is I think a bitter man that learned well from his friend, the Reverend Wright, that preached Black Liberation Theology, which has some Marxist ideas at the foundation of it, but is racist and has alot of hatred intertwined. Remember Wright railing against the Jews, whites, and capitalists? Obama thinks America is unfair, with a past that needs to be apologized for, and that is what all of his change was about, he wants to remake America into a totally different place, according to what he envisions. It will take a strong state, and if you would pay attention to his efforts now, we are only seeing the beginning of what he would ultimately like to do.

I do not compare Obama to Hitler as a person, I don't think there will ever be another Hitler, I hope not. There will be bad people, and evil ones, count on that, but they will have to stand on their own, not to be compared with Hitler.

ci, if you haven't read Mein Kampf, I recommend it, it is an eye opener.

1 Reply

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know