If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Mein Kampf is surprisingly one of the best selling books over the past year. Do you know who else liked Mein Kampf?   (gawker.com) divider line 14
    More: Obvious, Mein Kampf, Shades of Grey  
•       •       •

1567 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Jan 2014 at 1:56 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-09 04:35:04 PM
2 votes:

MadCat221: Smeggy Smurf: Therion: There's a reason why I have ^ that guy farkied as "Cretin"

For being right?  Weird

Oh, so he's a fascist today.  When is the next scheduled switch-over to labeling him a commie socialist going to be?  It's helpful to know these things.

[img.fark.net image 500x840]


You mean like how Reagan was simultaneously a doddering old fool, and an evil mastermind?

snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86fmasterbrain.phtml
2014-01-09 04:28:14 PM
2 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Therion: There's a reason why I have ^ that guy farkied as "Cretin"

For being right?  Weird


Oh, so he's a fascist today.  When is the next scheduled switch-over to labeling him a commie socialist going to be?  It's helpful to know these things.

img.fark.net
2014-01-09 04:25:52 PM
2 votes:

Earguy: And that argument about Marx wanting abolition of private property ownership?  The definition of private property has changed.  He wasn't talking about your house, he was talking about corporate ownership of businesses.  He said that the government, and therefore the citizens, should own the businesses and all benefit from its profits.


The problem then is you transfer control from one oligarchy to another.  One that doesn't have any real restraints on its power.

Say a corporation steps way out of line.  Happens all the time.  Workers can go on strike, and in extreme cases, government can (though doesn't always) step in.  People can sue the corporations, and they can (though not invariably) win painful awards that make corporations change their behavior.

Government, though, has more power than any corporation could ever hope to attain.  And if it wants, it can make things like worker strikes illegal, and it can outlaw lawsuits against itself.

So concentrating both political *AND* economic power solely in the hands of the government is a real recipe for disaster, whether or not your allowed to own, say, a house and personal effects.

I'm not saying that the separation of the two is a perfect system:  It's not.  But it's less dangerous than concentrating all that power into one entity.

Now, you'll argue that "The people can change the government through their votes!",  And that's true.  Until your job at the factory depends on you voting for the right people.  Because the government is also your employer.

Just imagine your worst nightmare of a President/Congress having complete control over all manufacturing, including the manufacturing of voting machines...
2014-01-09 04:07:08 PM
2 votes:
i2.cdn.turner.com

Is it really that surprising subby? I bet The Turner Diaries was also pretty popular.
2014-01-09 03:54:06 PM
2 votes:
I'll save you all time. Here's the key passage:

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
2014-01-09 02:37:57 PM
2 votes:
There's a reason why I have ^ that guy farkied as "Cretin"
2014-01-09 06:53:24 PM
1 votes:

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Earguy: On a slightly related topic, I read Marx's Communist Manifesto last year for the first time.

I was a bit surprised that many of the issues it addressed are still relevant today.  Unskilled labor earning nearly nothing, with skilled labor being rendered unskilled due to mechanization and automation,   Company (corporate) owners earning exorbitant amounts on the backs of the workers.

And that argument about Marx wanting abolition of private property ownership?  The definition of private property has changed.  He wasn't talking about your house, he was talking about corporate ownership of businesses.  He said that the government, and therefore the citizens, should own the businesses and all benefit from its profits.

While I agree in theory the problem is that the past century has proved that the State is no better at distributing wealth than a capitalist system and is significantly worse at producing it. The other problem is that even in a democratic system the State and the People are two separate entities with different goals. A much more workable and reasonable scenario is to have ownership of a company held directly by the employees of that company. That way they still have a vested interest in its success, they control the means of production, and you don't undermine the efficiency of the capitalist system. There are several large very successful companies in the US based on that idea.


Employee owned businesses aren't impossible in the capitalist system, it just turns out they aren't very good compared to investor owned corporations.  Google Lusty Lady San Francisco and you'll see that the employees had great setups but it was a lousy environment for the customers. UAW and the big three were doing something similar.  The UAW pensions and alot of the employees were heavily invested in the companies when they went bankrupt.  Turns out that union negotiators have an incentive to maximize the next contract and screw the long term consequences, otherwise the pensions wouldn't have been allowed to get so bad and the work rules would have been adjusted.  The other problem is that your assuming the workforce is immobile.  A mobile workforce has every bit as much incentive to profiteer today and move on as an 80's hedge fund manager.

In a lot of ways town/county governments are like employee owned businesses too.  The employees vote and donate heavily to whomever is going to give them the best labor contract and the AFSCME is huge in local elections.  Well that hasn't worked out so well as you can see in the wave of municipal bankruptcies going on.

Once something scales beyond a local family owned bakery investor owners tend to be the best at maximizing growth for the company and the society. Investor owned gives an incentive to succeed and provide products people want at prices they want to pay. Free markets mean that if the investor gets lazy or greedy competitors can form to topple them.  In this it's a self regulating system to clean out the scrub brush of the economy.
2014-01-09 04:12:37 PM
1 votes:

Earguy: On a slightly related topic, I read Marx's Communist Manifesto last year for the first time.

I was a bit surprised that many of the issues it addressed are still relevant today.  Unskilled labor earning nearly nothing, with skilled labor being rendered unskilled due to mechanization and automation,   Company (corporate) owners earning exorbitant amounts on the backs of the workers.

And that argument about Marx wanting abolition of private property ownership?  The definition of private property has changed.  He wasn't talking about your house, he was talking about corporate ownership of businesses.  He said that the government, and therefore the citizens, should own the businesses and all benefit from its profits.


While I agree in theory the problem is that the past century has proved that the State is no better at distributing wealth than a capitalist system and is significantly worse at producing it. The other problem is that even in a democratic system the State and the People are two separate entities with different goals. A much more workable and reasonable scenario is to have ownership of a company held directly by the employees of that company. That way they still have a vested interest in its success, they control the means of production, and you don't undermine the efficiency of the capitalist system. There are several large very successful companies in the US based on that idea.
2014-01-09 03:45:19 PM
1 votes:
On a slightly related topic, I read Marx's Communist Manifesto last year for the first time.

I was a bit surprised that many of the issues it addressed are still relevant today.  Unskilled labor earning nearly nothing, with skilled labor being rendered unskilled due to mechanization and automation,   Company (corporate) owners earning exorbitant amounts on the backs of the workers.

And that argument about Marx wanting abolition of private property ownership?  The definition of private property has changed.  He wasn't talking about your house, he was talking about corporate ownership of businesses.  He said that the government, and therefore the citizens, should own the businesses and all benefit from its profits.
2014-01-09 03:10:54 PM
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Therion: There's a reason why I have ^ that guy farkied as "Cretin"

For being right?  Weird


If Obama is a fascist then so was Reagan.
2014-01-09 02:45:51 PM
1 votes:
fc09.deviantart.net
/hot
2014-01-09 02:19:28 PM
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: What do you expect?  Fascism is on the rise everywhere


www.bbc.co.uk
2014-01-09 02:02:46 PM
1 votes:
Also popular:

i.imgur.com
2014-01-09 01:48:14 PM
1 votes:
"While the academic study of Mein Kampf is certainly legitimate, the spike in ebook sales likely comes from neo-Nazis and skinheads idolizing the greatest monster in history," World Jewish Congress CEO Robert Singer told ABC News.

Why would skinheads idolising Mother Theresa buy Mein Kampf?
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report