hughito napísal:Prečo potom kapitalisti, keď im tieklo do topánok, podporili Hitlera a nie napr. komunistov? Vieš vysvetliť tento rozpor?

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[45][46]

The United States delivered to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.[24] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.

Solo_Kamen napísal:Na rôznych socialistických kolektivistických/socialistických myšlienkových prúdoch je najzaujmavejšie to, že stačia malé rozdiely v názore na ideálne fungovanie spoločnosti na to aby sa začali vyťahovať povrazy a samopaly.

-AA- napísal:No práve!

Kapitalisti podporovali aj samotnú "Ruskú" revolúciu, ktorá komunistov dostala k moci post2235116.html#p2235116

Časť v zápase o Nemecko vsádzala na Hitlera, ale rozhodujúcou a určujúcou sa ukázala až vojna, kde sa tí zlí kapitalisti v USA a v Británii nespojili so zlým Hitlerom, ale naopak, enormným zásobovaním držali pri živote bolševikov a tým pomohli udržať najväčšiu krajinu na svete v komunistických rukách.

hughito napísal:Pripomeňme si aj to, že nacisti najprv udreli nie na židov či iné skupiny, ale rozbili odbory a pozatvárali komunistov, socialistov, ľavičiarov a odborárov.

Social Policy in the New Germany

ROBERT LEY
Leader of the National Labour Front
...
Germany found herself in the midst of such a crisis when Herr Hitler took over the Government of the country. Labour disputes had become a chronic feature. The Government’s arbitration boards were either too weak or too much under the influence of the politicians to bring order into the growing chaos. The trades unions that were swayed by Marxist teaching did not want social peace. They calculated that their chances of acquiring political power would improve with the growing dissatisfaction of the workers.
...
One of the first necessities with which the Hitler Government found itself faced was that of dissolving the organisations that kept alive the antagonism between employers and employees. They were replaced by the German Labour Front – a body comprising employers as well as employees.
...
The National Socialist Government has dissolved the trades-unions and the federations of employers. It will oppose anyone and anything tending to divide the people into groups. Every factory and every undertaking constitutes a unit, and nothing must be done to interfere with its unity. Works’ leaders and employees must decide for themselves, as far as this is possible, how matters are to be arranged. They must find their way to one another, must look upon themselves as an inseparable community, and must cultivate the spirit of comradeship. Their destinies are in their own hands.
...
The National Socialist principle of the solidarity of all persons working for their living finds its chief expression in its application to the individual works or factories. They are the nuclei of all social and economic life. The object aimed at is clearly set forth in Article 1 of the Act, according to which employers and employees are required “to collaborate with one another in order to promote the objects for which the undertaking has been founded and for the common benefit of the people and the State.” The same principle of solidarity is given expression in Article 2, where it says that the employer – described as the “leader” of the undertaking – is required to promote the welfare of the employees, whilst the latter are asked to show that spirit of loyalty towards the employer which is founded upon their joint interest in the undertaking.
...
Our paramount duty is of an educational nature, and our ultimate aim is to establish true national solidarity. Socialism is neither a gift nor a message. It is not a lifeless object manifesting itself in dead paragraphs. Socialism is justice. The workmen in the new Germany know that they do not belong to the great mass of those who, despite the heavy and burdensome work they do, are merely able to earn a scanty livelihood, whilst a small number of more privileged persons can indulge in all the pleasures of life. They know that their welfare is being constantly looked after, that this world and all the things it has to offer exist for their benefit also, and that they are not mere outsiders to all that. It was certainly no easy task to convert convinced Communists and Social Democrats into wholehearted supporters of the principle of national solidarity. Fine words alone were no use – they had to be supplemented by deeds.
...
It follows from the foregoing brief outline of Germany’s new labour legislation that there can be no question of “the creation of a new kind of white slavery,” as had been asserted by hostile critics abroad during the first few years after Herr Hitler’s assumption of government. The truth, indeed, is that the liberty promised to the German workers by the preceding regimes but never really granted has now become a reality. The worker has been made a partner of the works community on a footing of equality. He has received increased protection from dismissal, and his social honour is safeguarded by a special code which has no equal anywhere. The stigma of proletarianism has been removed from him. It is self-evident, of course, that there can be no fruitful collaboration between the employer and his employees unless all are animated by the National Socialist spirit of solidarity. To cultivate that spirit, is the special task allotted to the German Labour Front. The tribunals of social honour see to it that decency, comradeship and loyalty are more than mere words when applied to the private intercourse between all members of the works. Anyone whose actions conflict with the essence of the spirit of solidarity or with the duties incumbent upon him as part of the works community, has to face severe penalties, such as his removal from the undertaking at which he was employed or his disqualification for the office of a works’ leader or for membership of the confidential council, all of which are equivalent to his elimination from the social sphere. Such penalties have already been inflicted in a number of instances and have been given full publicity.
...
https://nseuropa.wordpress.com/2018/08/ ... germany-2/

A k tým odborom, atp., je to zložitejšia téma, zjednoduším to ale na to, že len chorý komunistický mozog si môže myslieť, že medzi zamestnancom a zamestnávateľom musí existovať večný (triedny) rozpor a protiklad.

hughito napísal:Zase sa držme v realite, tvoje antisemitské konšpirácie ma naozaj nezaujímajú.

hughito napísal:No existuje, preto je komunizmus a anarchizmus revolučný, zatiaľ čo nacizmus je len krajne reakčná forma kapitalizmu. Veď nacistické špičky si tiež "polepšili." To sa potom "podnikalo."

hughito napísal:Pre teba je príznačné to, že zatiaľ čo ja sem dávam výskumy historikov, ty len papúškuješ dobovú propagandu. Rovnako ako v téme o Slovenskom štáte.

hughito napísal:Proste suverénne tu odcituješ nejaký text alebo prejav Leya ako písmo sväté. To ako keby sme sa pýtali na problematiku židovskej otázky Tuku.

hughito napísal:A inak neviem, aká je tvoja erudícia v téme, ja som si naposledy kupoval túto publikáciu:

https://www.amazon.de/dp/3888644372/ref ... CE_3p_dp_1

hughito napísal:Tak poďme na toho Jeffa, ktorého absurdný biznis som si dovolil kritizovať a spustila sa na mňa spŕšk kritika, vraj len závidím a pod. nezmysly.

Úvodný článok:

Jeff Bezos’s $150 Billion Fortune Is a Policy Failure

Growing inequality in the United States shows that the game is rigged

https://medium.com/the-atlantic/jeff-be ... 69af2f77dc

Existujú aj články o tom, ako Amazon zneužíva svoje monopolné postavenie a rozhoduje o tom, či sa váš produkt vôbec dostane k zákazníkovi. Ďalšia vec je, že bezohľadne ničí konkurenciu. Jedného dňa dostanete "ponuku, ktorá sa nedá odmietnuť" - buď svoj biznis predáte za smiešne peniaze, alebo skrachujete, pretože Amazon začne predávať konkurenčný produkt hlboko pod cenu, len aby vás dostal na kolená.

Is Amazon Killing Jobs And Destroying Communities?

At what cost does convenience come? A new report says it’s not just jobs, but the rest of the economy as well.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3066110/is- ... ommunities

Amazon once again flashes its ability to destroy the competition

https://amp.businessinsider.com/amazon- ... art-2017-8

v podstate, kam príde Amazon, tak tam krachujú podniky a ľudia prichádzajú o prácu. Tú následne môžu získať v Amazone, ktorý však platí menej - na mzdách, aj na daniach.



https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/h ... treet/amp/

What Amazon AMZN+0.52% won’t tell us is that every job created at Amazon destroys one or two or three others.

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g ... 88D3AD0F91

No a nech sa páči, poďte sa pustiť do hughita, ktorý sa ozýva len preto, lebo červenie závisťou.