On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:16:44 GMT, Alex Russell
<alexander.russell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>While you have made some interesting points, capitalism does not demand
>that you be a greedy, uncaring dick-head.
True, but it does not to stop greedy, uncaring dick-heads. So
Capitalism is inferior.
> It is just that lots of people
>ARE greedy uncaring dick-heads and they don't need any particular
>economic system to make them that way. Under socialism they would be
>free-loaders.
There were no free-loaders in National Socialism. Everyone worked.
>
>Profit is a necessity, not a noble goal. Capitalism often generates much
>more wealth than socialist systems which means there are more resources
>to help the needy.
"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
economic order." - Adolf Hitler
Here are some quotes from Hitler's speech on January 27, 1932, at
Dusseldorf:
IF TODAY the National Socialist Movement is regarded amongst
widespread circles in Germany as being hostile to our business life, I
believe the reason for this view is to be found in the fact that we
adopted towards the events which determined the development leading to
our present position an attitude which differed from that of all the
other organizations which are of any im****tance in our public life.
Even now our outlook differs in many points from that of our
opponents....
There are indeed especially two other closely related factors which
we can time and again trace in periods of national decline: the one is
that for the conception of the value of personality there is
substituted a levelling idea of the supremacy of mere numbers -
democracy - and the other is the negation of the value of a people,
the denial of any difference in the inborn capacity, the achievement,
etc., of individual peoples. Thus both factors condition one another
or at least influence each other in the course of their development.
Internationalism and democracy are inseparable conceptions. It is but
logical that democracy, which within a people denies the special value
of the individual and puts in its place a value which represents the
sum of all individualities - a purely numerical value - should proceed
in precisely the same way in the life of peoples and should in that
sphere result in internationalism. Broadly it is maintained: peoples
have no inborn values, but, at the most, there can be admitted perhaps
tem****ary differences in education. Between Negroes, Aryans,
Mongolians, and Redskins there is no essential difference in value...
Let no one say that the picture produced as a first impression of
human civilization is the impression of its achievement as a whole.
This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all
its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the
achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its
greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of
individual God-favored geniuses, in its average accomplishment the
achievement of men of average capacity, and in its sum doubtless the
result of the use of human labor-force in order to turn to account the
creations of genius and of talent. So it is only natural that when the
capable intelligences of a nation, which are always in a minority, are
regarded only as of the same value as all the rest, then genius,
capacity, the value of personality are slowly subjected to the
majority and this process is then falsely named the rule of the
people. For this is not rule of the people, but in reality the rule of
stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of
weakness, and of inadequacy....
I may cite an example: you maintain, gentlemen, that German business
life must be constructed on a basis of private property. Now such a
conception as that of private property you can defend only if in some
way or another it appears to have a logical foundation. This
conception must deduce its ethical justification from an insight into
the necessity which Nature dictates. It cannot simply be upheld by
saying: 'It has always been so and therefore it must continue to be
so.' For in periods of great upheavals within States, of movements of
peoples and changes in thought, institutions and systems cannot remain
untouched because they have previously been preserved without change.
It is the characteristic feature of all really great revolutionary
epochs in the history of mankind that they pay astoni****ngly little
regard for forms which are hallowed only by age or which are
apparently only so consecrated. It is thus necessary to give such
foundations to traditional forms which are to be preserved that they
can be regarded as absolutely essential, as logical and right. And
then I am bound to say that private property can be morally and
ethically justified only if I admit that men's achievements are
different. Only on that basis can I assert: since men's achievements
are different, the results of those achievements are also different.
But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is
reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a
corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the
administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with
a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a
community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the
achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the
result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the
economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal
value or of equal im****tance. And once this is admitted it is madness
to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in
value, but that is not true in the political sphere. IT IS ABSURD TO
BUILD UP ECONOMIC LIFE ON THE CONCEPTIONS OF ACHIEVEMENT, OF THE VALUE
OF PERSONALITY, AND THEREFORE IN PRACTICE ON THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY, BUT IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE TO DENY THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY AND TO THRUST INTO ITS PLACE THE LAW OF THE GREATER NUMBER
- DEMOCRACY. In that case there must slowly arise a cleavage between
the economic and the political point of view, and to bridge that
cleavage an attempt will be made to assimilate the former to the
latter - indeed the attempt has been made, for this cleavage has not
remained bare, pale theory. The conception of the equality of values
has already, not only in politics but in economics also, been raised
to a system, and that not merely in abstract theory: no! this economic
system is alive in gigantic organizations and it has already today
inspired a State which rules over immense areas.
But I cannot regard it as possible that the life of a people should in
the long run be based upon two fundamental conceptions. If the view is
right that there are differences in human achievement, then it must
also be true that the value of men in respect of the production of
certain achievements is different It is then absurd to allow this
principle to hold good only In one sphere - the sphere of economic
life and its leader****p - and to refuse to acknowledge its validity in
the sphere of the whole life-struggle of a people - the sphere of
politics. Rather the logical course is that if I recognize without
qualification in the economic sphere the fact of special achievements
as forming the condition of all higher culture, then in the same way I
should recognize special achievement in the sphere of politics, and
that means that I am bound to put in the forefront the authority of
personality. If, on the contrary, it is asserted - and that, too, by
those engaged in business - that in the political sphere special
capacities are not necessary but that here an absolute equality in
achievement reigns, then one day this same theory will be transferred
from politics and applied to economic life. But in the economic sphere
communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere. We find
ourselves today in a period in which these two fundamental principles
are at grips in all spheres which come into contact with each other;
already they are invading economics.
To take an example: Life in practical activity is founded on the
im****tance of personality: but now gradually it is threatened by the
supremacy of mere numbers. But in the State there is an organization -
the army - which cannot in any way be democratized without
surrendering its very existence. But if a Weltanschauung cannot be
applied to every sphere of a people's life, that fact in itself is
sufficient proof of its weakness. In other words: the army can exist
only if it maintains the absolutely undemocratic principle of
unconditional authority proceeding downwards and absolute
responsibility proceeding upwards, while, in contradistinction to
this, democracy means in practice complete dependence proceeding
downwards and authority proceeding upwards. But the result is that in
a State in which the whole political life - beginning with the parish
and ending with the Reichstag - is built up on the conception of
democracy, the army is bound gradually to become an alien body and an
alien body which must necessarily be felt to be such...
To sum up the argument: I see two diametrically opposed principles:
the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical
effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the
authority of personality which I would call the principle of
achievement, because whatever man in the past has achieved - all human
civilizations - is conceivable only if the supremacy of this principle
is admitted.
>
>You mention laws to help prevent people from getting 'ripped off'. Many
>of these laws wouldn't be needed if people were a little smarter
They should not be ripped off even if they are very stupid.
>(actually read and understood contracts before they sign - don't just
>trust the smiling salesman),
Contracts are too long and much too boring. People should not have to
read them. We should have laws to ensure people don't get ripped off.
> and stood up for themselves. Lots of people
>are sheep. That is why they need unions to cajole them into not
>accepting unfair working conditions.
People should not be ripped off in any case. Unions are run by the
wrong kind of people and should be replaced by a better system.
>
>Some form of capitalism (even the USA has a mixed economy) has proven in
>practice to work best at generating wealth, and that it why it is so
>popular. Mixed forms are popular because of the issues you brought up.
>
One form of socialism was proven much better than your ways.
http://www.ihr.org/
http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org
http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
