On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:18:09 -0700 (PDT), jetgraphics
<jetgraphics@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>JG: You do not comprehend the definition.
>Please re-read the definition for PRIVATE PROPERTY, and then note that
>communism ABOLISHES private property owner****p.
I am not a Communist.
>
>NOW, if YOU can absolutely own yourself, your labor and the fruits of
>your labor, is that NOT a recognition of your VALUE as a human being?
No
>And a government that pledges to help secure said rights is in harmony
>with capitalism?
>
>
>JG: No, capitalism is based on absolute owner****p.
"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 confuse money tokenism with capitalism.
>Putting a price, denominated in money, upon all things is not part of
>the definition for capitalism.
>Capitalism can exist with or without money.
Money is needed to exchange goods and services efficiently.
>JG: You confuse limited liability cor****ations involved with usury,
>and assume they are "capitalists".
>Go back and read where it says in anything about scheming to take the
>private property of another, in the definition for capitalism.
We should stop greed.
>
>JG: You are confusing arguments from the Communist Manifesto (which
>attacks the private owner****p of all things) and denouncing
>capitalism, while using an example of usury.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.
>JG: There you go, confusing money tokenism (all things have a price,
>and you need money to acquire them).
>
>
>> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
>> people should be helped by charity.
>
>JG: Voluntary charity is a blessing. Involuntary Charity is a curse.
We should all pay our fair share for the orphans and other needy
people. That is a blessing.
>
>If you prefer to be compelled to give charity, and have no right to
>own yourself, your labors and the fruits of your labor, then you
>certainly will HATE capitalism.
I do hate capitalism. And I should be compelled to pay my fair
share. After that I may give voluntarily. But most needs will already
be met if everyone else is also paying their fair share.
>
>But I doubt that is what you really believe.
>If you wanted to spend your life working for the benefit of others,
>there are many charitable organizations and religious orders that
>would welcome you.
You are wrong. I do want to pay my fair share. But I also want
everyone else to pay their fair share.
>
>What I suspect, is that you are truly a pirate socialist, seeking to
>take the private property of others, and share the booty among the
>socialist crewmen on the ****p of State.
You are full of crap.
>But do not be surprised when your victims rebel and make you walk the
>plank.
Capitalists should walk the plank or change their greedy ways.
http://www.ihr.org/
http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org
http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
