Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Hitler as a Leader


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Hitler as a Leader Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 7/3/2005 1:15:13 PM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for clarifying the illusion comment. if I understand you correctly, you mean not that there are no democracies - but rather, real choice within democracy is an illusion? Democracy sells itself as providing discrete choices, but really there is only one choice?

As to the relative succes of democracy, sure, some nations retreat from democracy, but on a global level, democracy has been the only net gainer.

Aristcracy and monarchy have gone from being common forms of government to extinct.

The collecticvist experiment of the 20th centurt (fascist and communist states) reached a high water mark in the middle fo the century and are nearly all gone. The one significant state left is China, which has transitioned away from collectivism (yayy China!).

Liberal democracies with universal suffrage have gone from zero percent to 6#% of the world's nations in the last 105 years (electoral democracies).

Look at the map of democracies. I would say that if one political system has gone from none to the majority market share, that system is succesful.

BTW, who said anything about democracy offering lots of values choices?




(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/22/2007 8:34:05 PM   
JohnSteed1967


Posts: 304
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Let's be honest, Adolf would be a far superior leader. Now before you jump down my throat. Let's look at what he did do.

He took a country that had been assfucked after world war one and he unified it, brought it back from the brink of Chaos. The took that country and took it on to be a world power.

Sure he made mistakes but what leader hasn't. Clinton got caught with his pants down. Bush couldn't find his ass with a flash light, a map and a tour guide.

Hitler, Attacked Russia in winter

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/22/2007 8:52:42 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

So how has [Hitler's] leadership been different than that of the current administration?


Now, I can bash Bush with the best of them, but I do see some major differences between Nazi Germany and the current administration:

-- We haven't set up death camps to exterminate millions of people.

-- Folks can march in front of the White House with signs calling Bush the worst President ever and live to tell the tale.

-- We have a free (if, yes, imperfect) press.

-- We haven't enacted a host of anti-Semitic laws.

-- We had the opportunity to vote Bush out of office.

-- The party in power lost both houses of Congress in the last election and abided by the election results.

You get the idea.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/22/2007 8:56:16 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

While I like the democratic process, I don't think that it necesarially picks the -best- of the candidates.


I think it was Churchill who said, wisely imho, that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to perverseangelic)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/22/2007 10:02:03 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		This is a jump through but I had to do it.

"Hitler was a piss-poor leader because:
He misled his people
Used Terror tactics to enforce discipline
Drove his country into ruin economically and socially
He had more faith in his Occult specialists than his Battlefield Commanders
Committed atrocities for which Germany is still paying for
Was blinded by his desire to make the world Aryan
Waged war to stimulate economic growth
Surrounded himself with lunatics as advisors "

Hitler did not start WW1. The reparations that wrtecked the economy were brought on by the Kaiser.

Hitler believed he was right, he never misled the People.

When the country was at war he used terror to quell insurrection, but there really was not alot of that. He was supported by the People.

He basically took the country when it was already in financial ruin. He did not cause it, and he did not start WW1 which caused it. Stop watching that fucking TV, that is a bunch of bullshit.

And the Occult, he studied it a bit, but was a devout Christian. He believed that he was indeed the hand of God.

Atrocities ? Well they blame the Katyn Forest massacre on him, but anyone who knows someone old from Poland knows that the Nazis did not do it. I wonder what else the Russians did that was blamed on Germany.

And he never set his sights on the whole world. He wanted the Austria-Hungarian empire reunited as one force to be reckoned with. If it hadn't been for the Bolshevics, he might've gotten it done.

And you can't wage war to stimulate economic growth. The People must produce before you go to war. When you need a wheelbarrel full of money to buy a postage stasmp, as was the state of affairs before Hitler took power, you are not ready to attack anyone. He inspired the people and got them to new heights in production. In no way did he do anything negative to Germany's economy, and some of his work still stands and has a positive effect on Germany's economy to this day.

Lunatics as advisors, I can't rebut that one. Some of his generals were Prussian, whatever, but they were mad, yes. But they came up with the blitzkrieg tactic. Something that won them a couple of countries. He started to get rid of the worst ones a bit later, but they were excellent logisticians.

The thing was timing. If the Bolshevics hadn't taken Russia, we might have seen a unified part of Europe back then. Hitler was not stupid, and would not repress the people, that much contrary to popular opinion.

And answer me this. How come after all these years we never heard about German soldiers raping the captives ? Russians did it all day long. In the German army if you waste your "seed" that way, it was the death penalty.

Huitler fucked up, he lost. There were a few good years, but all war years. From a nation dragged down and beaten in WW1 he inspired a national sense of patriotism. People didn't join the Lufftwaffe for college money like here, they joined to help fight the fight and take back what he made them believe they deserve.

You have been fed a slanted view of history, but that is not the point. Hitler lost, and he bears that responsibility, of that there is no doubt.

But now compare him to Bush.

Case closed. Nuff said. Hitler did not kill his country like Bush is doing to us. Hitler thought he was doing right. You may say Hitler was a madman, the anti-Christ, whatever, but you are not qualified to do so until you read Mien Kompf.

The victors write history, and if you don't understand that, I do not know what to tell you. And what do you think they are going to write ? They were perfect and the enemy was evil. Get real.

And they talk about all the dead Jews, and if they ever get around to it maybe the Polacks, Italians, French. But somehow the allies won the war with killing a single German. That is what they would have you believe. No shit. Do you believe it ? Why did they carpet bomb Germany after the surrender ? And they have the nerve to say shit now.

I would fully support the German government taking over the US, they can't be any worse than what we have now. Nothing could be. It was not that way some time ago, but it is now. The politicians see us as tools, tools to be abused. I wish their children could get drafted. They might stop and think.

T



(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/23/2007 1:01:44 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

1. How can you call a leader "effective" if he utterly ruined the nation he was leading? Many people THOUGHT he was going to be effective, but, as I stated on the other thread (the one that started this offshoot), he failed by his own standards--and by just about anyone else's, too.



Faramir made a valid point.  Germany was forced to play a rigged game after World War 1, and Hitler was effective in getting them out of it.  That is effective leadership.

What ruined Hitler and Germany was his inability to not bite off more than he could chew, and in doing so he dragged Germany into it's demise.  That is not effective leadership.

Regarding your comments about being saddled in trillions of dollars in debt from Hitler, the same thing could be said about Bush.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/23/2007 7:56:13 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Hitler by any standards has to be one of the most extraordinary "leaders" ever to gain political power. The fact that his leadership led to wicked genocide and national ruin does NOT gainsay that fact.

He did not have a wealthy or well connected upbringing.
He did not latch on to an existing established political apparatus and climb the greasy pole to leadership.
He virtually created the political party , moulded it to his aims and led Germany back on a path to economic recovery and hence a political World power.

He was also a murderous homicidal lunatic; but a great leader nevertheless.
Unless greatness includes "sugary sweet" in its definition.


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/23/2007 8:00:59 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

So how has [Hitler's] leadership been different than that of the current administration?


Now, I can bash Bush with the best of them, but I do see some major differences between Nazi Germany and the current administration:


But the similarities outweigh them:

Hitler used fear and propaganda to con the Democratic Germans to give up Due Process and Equal Protections.

Bush used fear and propaganda to con the Democratic Americans to give up Due Process and Equal Protections.

To the person who is deprived of an arraignment on charges within 72 hours, access to competent counsel, being tortured, etc, does it matter if the end result is an extermination camp or incarceration in a cell with the lights on 24/7, forever, without a trial, without a lawyer, without contact with your family and friends?

Is that why the prisoners in Cuba are trying to starve themselves, and need to be strapped down, and fed by a tube forced down their throats?

If the prisoners are choosing suicide, over our custody, what does that say about our custody?


< Message edited by farglebargle -- 5/23/2007 8:02:12 AM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/23/2007 9:32:38 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

Why then has democracy displaced both monarchy and collectivism as the most succesful political system*? If democracy were inneficient, I would have expected democracy to be displaced by competing systems - not the reverse.

Wasn't it Churchill who staid that democracy was the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others.


_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 1:43:50 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Arp, it was the Founding Fathers of the US who said that, along with a few others.

And just so you know, Hitler HAD to attack Russia, it was well thought out, because if not, Russia was coming in. The Bolshevics did not like him at all.

The only way he could've won is to hold the territory he gained, got nice and co-opted the support of the conquered, their REAL support. This can take up to two generations and they just didn't have the time.

Perhaps they should've built their war machine, made sure they had plenty of resources on hand and became an isolationist state for a time. Perhaps a year later. The Bolshevics would still come, but instead of being scattered all over, they would be there. There is a chance, although very slight, that Hitler could've changed the face of history in Russia. They had very aggressive expansionist policies, and what Hitler probably figured attracted them was that they were at war.

They were coming, of that there was never any doubt. The Bolshevics wanted Germany, thinking ahead that possibly in a generation or two they could reap many many benefits. Germany not only had some natural resoures, but also a workforce among the best in the world, and still does.

The olman says "They go back to their cobbler's benches for a time and cobble, but they always come back". He told me about the guns people used to make in their kitchens in Europe. Not that he had firsthand knowledge, but he did know older relatives than I before they died.

Hitler should've concentrated on England, and only England. Setup a puppet government like we do, but make it fair, at least fairer than we do. See just how many would go, with good incentive, to fight against the Bolshevics. The british were not that crazy about communism. Once some did, others would follow, if you treated them right.

But this is clearly clear hindsight. What happened happened. And what is happening now is happening now. Hitler, with the mistakes, was so far above Bush it is not funny.

Now it is really late.

T

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 4:40:32 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Termyn8tor
Hitler should've concentrated on England, and only England. Setup a puppet government like we do, but make it fair, at least fairer than we do. See just how many would go, with good incentive, to fight against the Bolshevics. The british were not that crazy about communism. Once some did, others would follow, if you treated them right.


Not necessary, we were technically defeated and fast running out of money to buy armaments and machine tools to make them.  It was suggested by some that we go for broke buy as much as we could from the US and then not pay. lol
This by the way is true !

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 5/24/2007 4:42:15 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 8:41:39 AM   
Tuomas


Posts: 242
Joined: 2/7/2007
Status: offline 		About the democracy debate, I find it frustrating how so many people don't know what democracy means. Democracy: "demos" people + "craxis" power... the source of power is from the people. Democracy existed long before the idea of voting was created (Democracy in ancient Greece, versus the invention of the ballot in seventeenth centry Britain). Voting for representative leaders is just a from of democracy, but not democracy itself. Any system where the authority of government comes from the consent of the people is a democracy, indepentant of how that power is represented or exercised.

As for the leadership of Hitler, maybe we should say he was a "skilled" leader, or was a very "able" leader. He was very capible of drawing in people with his words, and getting them to do what he wanted. We can even argue how "good" a leader he was by citing that which made him such a "horrendous" leader: that he was able to convince the population of Germany that what his government, particularly the SS branch under Himmler, was OK, and in fact a very good thing. Hitler had a wide-reaching popular support between 1933 and 1939 (despite the military's plots to assasinate him), because people percieved his actions as very beneficial. Not only in Germany, but in other parts of the world. Hitler garnered praise from such figures as Winston Churchill and Gandhi. In that sense -and period- you could say he was a "great" leader (much as I very much disagree with his socialist policies). But when the war started to drag on, economic hardship started to grow, and rumors of the concentration camps started to spread, Hitler started loosing his popularity. It wasn't from Hitler's lack of leadership, or his skills as orator, or even his figure as the Head of State, but from the conditions around him and his country that ultimately lead to his popular downfall. Unfortunately, by then people were so afraid of the Gestapo, the Kripo and other State represion agencies that they felt powerless to do anything about it. Anyone who was able to do anything about Hitler by 1943 felt that it was useless anyway, because Churchill and Roosevelt refused to deal with or even acknowledge the German resistence. It's tragic, really, because most of the deaths in concentration camps -and the strongest popular repression- occured in the final two years of the war. It could have been prevented.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 10:11:20 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir
Ok - fair enough. Why is democracy so effective then? If democracies make random (or bad choices) why don't democracies fail? Why has democracy systematically displaced every other poitical model?
Why would a shitty system win in all head to head competition throughout history?


...please define democracy. Do we mean a system where each individual vote is as meaningful as every other one? 'Cos if so, there isn't a single democracy on the planet. Electoral colleges and similar distort the value of individual votes according to the agenda of those who set them up. So, what did oppose what Faramir calls 'every other political model'? Capitalism perhaps.....monetarism maybe....but not democracy.

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 5:23:46 PM   
Griswold


Posts: 2739
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir
I would hold Hitler as a superior political leader...


You'll be lambasted for this comment, and within, I predict....8 comments or less.

The fact is, history shows, and proves...Hitler was a phenomenally great leader.

He was also evil.

But he was indeed a superb, and exponentially "great" leader.

(in reply to Faramir)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 5:29:06 PM   
Griswold


Posts: 2739
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
Wasn't it Churchill who staid that democracy was the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others.



No...it was me (but having never been a spotlight hog...I don't much care who stole it...only that those who know me....know they stole it).

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 6:28:28 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...please define democracy. Do we mean a system where each individual vote is as meaningful as every other one? 'Cos if so, there isn't a single democracy on the planet. Electoral colleges and similar distort the value of individual votes according to the agenda of those who set them up. So, what did oppose what Faramir calls 'every other political model'? Capitalism perhaps.....monetarism maybe....but not democracy.


What he said.
thompson

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 6:39:54 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnSteed1967

Let's be honest, Adolf would be a far superior leader. Now before you jump down my throat. Let's look at what he did do.

He took a country that had been assfucked after world war one and he unified it, brought it back from the brink of Chaos.
I was under the impression that Bismark was the one who unified Germany back about 1871.

The took that country and took it on to be a world power.
Sucker punching your neighbor does not make one a world power.  When he had to deal with someone he could not sucker punch he got his ass handed to him.

Sure he made mistakes but what leader hasn't.
What did he do that was not a mistake?

Clinton got caught with his pants down. Bush couldn't find his ass with a flash light, a map and a tour guide.
When you are right you are right.

Hitler, Attacked Russia in winter
Which was his last and fatal mistake.

(in reply to JohnSteed1967)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/24/2007 7:10:14 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrThorns

I'm really not understanding the logic of the argument. How does being elected via the democratic process, create an immunity from being a bad leader? Certainly, if we ranked all of the US President, there would be someone at the top of the list and someone at the bottom. (Granted, the list would be different due to varied differences of opinion.) So then, by Faramir's logic, every leader who has been elected through a democratic process, is a good leader?

Hitler was a piss-poor leader because:
He misled his people
Used Terror tactics to enforce discipline
Drove his country into ruin economically and socially
He had more faith in his Occult specialists than his Battlefield Commanders
Committed atrocities for which Germany is still paying for
Was blinded by his desire to make the world Aryan
Waged war to stimulate economic growth
Surrounded himself with lunatics as advisors

So how has his leadership been different than that of the current administration?
Has the US leadership misled it's people?(Just watch Fox "news")
Have we not used Terror tactics to enforce discipline? (Patriot Act/Threat Levels)
Economic ruin? (Hmm...what is the defecit nowadays?)
Put huge amounts of faith in the SECDEF to the point where good commanders have retired in disgust?
Guantanamo Bay? Abu Graide? Other, non-disclosed locations?
"We must bring democracy to the middle east!" That phrase ring a bell?
Surrounded by lunatics? The GOP Ratpack. (Although I still like Colin Powell and was happy to see him get away from the white house to save his chances for becoming POTUS one day.)

As for democracy being the superior government...how so? China seems to be doing damned well for themselves right about now...and my god! They are communists! They have a huge military force and a billion+ citizens. But communism is flawed, right? They have to fail one of these days. I mean...the USSR came crashing down because communism is flawed! (Although, they certainly have a lot more poverty, crime, and drug use nowadays than they did under communism.) Although, the USSR may have developed into a grand society...but they were caught up in a well-designed arms race, and had huge economic sactions imposed upon them. What was it that the Soviets did again?

Democracy appears to be superior because it seems to be popping up around the world. Dictators, Kings, Despots are being overthrown left and right to make way for the glories of democracy. But this huge cry for democracy only comes to countries that the US has sent CIA and SpecOps to... Could it be that this is simply Imperial expansionism under a different name?

Don't get me wrong...I love my country. I have just lost faith in our system of demockery, our foreign policies, and our leadership.

~Thorns


Damn, most of that second paragraph could apply to Bush or Clinton.

(in reply to MrThorns)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/25/2007 4:54:02 AM   
Bearlee


Posts: 2311
Joined: 10/25/2004
From: South Central CO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrThorns

<snips to 2nd paragraph>

Hitler was a piss-poor leader because:
He misled his people
Used Terror tactics to enforce discipline
Drove his country into ruin economically and socially
He had more faith in his Occult specialists than his Battlefield Commanders
Committed atrocities for which Germany is still paying for
Was blinded by his desire to make the world Aryan
Waged war to stimulate economic growth
Surrounded himself with lunatics as advisors 


Damn, most of that second paragraph could apply to Bush or Clinton. 


Oh good lord.  And when you reach...you REALLY reach! sheeshhhhhhh

Personally, I think if you'd give a modicum of thought to what you put in print, you’d look less ridiculous…  Unless...    … Oh, never mind.

Foaming at the mouth is never attractive, but it is sometimes entertaining to read these threads.
B



_____________________________

Click here for GREAT discussion on living this real-time.

How to use Code on Collarme

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Hitler as a Leader - 5/25/2007 8:20:36 AM   
Faramir


Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...please define democracy. Do we mean a system where each individual vote is as meaningful as every other one? 'Cos if so, there isn't a single democracy on the planet. Electoral colleges and similar distort the value of individual votes according to the agenda of those who set them up. So, what did oppose what Faramir calls 'every other political model'? Capitalism perhaps.....monetarism maybe....but not democracy.

Thanks for your question philosophy.

As Tuomas points out, democracy is a demos kratos, where the villagers (demos) has the power (kratos), just as an aristocracy is an aristoi kratos, a single hereditary leadership system is a mono kratos, etc.  As a practice, we have typified political systems by who has power (kratos) within a given polity.

So one form of democracy is direct democracy (limited in franchise) like Attic democracy.  That's what you're talking about, but there are many variations in democracy.  Consider the Westminster system, which forces compromise (what you call "distorting" the value of individual voters) by creating party blocks.  While direct democracy doesn't work well--direct democracies were unable to compete with monoarchies and aristocracies--the Westminster system as it evolved in England was phenomenally succesful.  It allowed the greatest empire the world had ever seen to peacefully transition from an aristocracy to a democracy, and the system was so succesful that it was widely copied.  Head to head the Westminster iteration destoryed monorchy, the final battle in that clash of systems being WWI--after WWI monorachy was no longer a viable option.  The field was left open to democratic systems and the Soviet experiment in socialism.

As good as the Westminster system is, it is inferior to the US two-party iteration, which via the Electoral College forces even more compromise (what you casll distortion).  In the Westminster system, you still have single issue parties/blocks.  The two dominant parties in any Westminster nation, one of which always represents the electorate's need to redistribute ("liberal") and the other the need to grow and take risks ("conservative"), still have to constantly appease several fringe, single issue groups to maintain their majority.

The EC system excludes marginal voices, and forces ayone who hopes to win on a national level to be able to appeal to a decent number of liberal and conservative voters.  This has a bad side, in that people who are not in the mainstream, you end up very dissatisfied and powerless (Ralph Nader taps intot hat base of people every four years).  It has a good side though, in that the system forces you to at least appear to be willing to meet the two big ticket issues in any polity: the redistribution of wealh and power so as to ameliorate social tension, and the need for the electorate to allow for growth, wealth accumulation and individual risk taking and rewards.

I think you are right, in that our EC iteration of democracy distorts the value of individual votes, but since America has been steadily gorwing in relative dominance to the rest of the world, that apparently is a really effective system.

From an axiomatic approach, democracy demonstrably works.

NB. I don't classify economic systems as political forms.  Sure, it is called "political economy" for a reason, and there is a link, but the possession of capitalism isn't the same thing.  So a capitalist system (true laissez-faire) could also be an aristocracy (eg early Victorian England), a socialist system could be either an autocratic or oligarchic system (pre/post USSR).  Look at America right now: an EC variant democracy that straddles the line between capitalism and socialism.  Much of our capital is private, and yet much of our capital and production are state controlled.  We have a sort of balance between the laissez-faire "fuck you" and the socialist "Get in line Komrade."

_____________________________

True masters, true subs and slaves, X many years in the lifestyle, Old Guard this and High Protocol that--it's like a convention of D&D nerds were allowed to have sex once, and they decided to make a religion out of it.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Hitler as a Leader Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094