Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
I think what we are getting into here is a question of semantics over the word "labor". Lincoln seems to use it as a verb whereas Marxism tend to use it as a noun.
Lincoln championed the idea that "labor" (v) meant work with rewards that could be accumulated to create capitol. i.e. -- people had the ability and freedom through hard work to advance.
The Marxists saw "labor" (n) as a static social class. In essence, while extolling the "nobility" of labor (n) as a class, Marxists looked down on labor (n) as helpless, unchanging and by definition, exploited, while Lincoln saw labor(v) as a necessary step in moving up the social ladder --- class mobility.
They both could say that labor comes before capital, but they meant very different things.
There's no support for that in the record.
Walt
Not likely.
At any rate, every time I mention Hell, it shuts up your nonsense rant for a time and that is a positive good.
Walt
Well, the holiday is "Kwanzaa", not Kwanzai.
Rhymns with Banzai; get it?
Walt
Walt
Are you just being dense?
From 1939 right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor Hitler forbade his U-boats to attack U.S. ships. The problem was that FDR had the U.S. Navy attacking them after about September, 1941.
Hitler had no plans whatever to attack the United States. His ambitions were strictlky European. His outlook was very opportunist. If he could have gotten the USA on the cheap, that would have been great. But he wasn't planning on getting it, ever.
The Japs and Germans were allies in name only. They shared neither intelligence or assets. It was strictly an affair of convenience and propaganda. It was all "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Walt
German aid to the Japanese consisted of one Tiger tank.
Walt
Well, that is just false.
Hitler saw the Brits as aryan, but he sought a peace with them, not unification. You can look at German policies in every occupied country. If extermination is unification, you may have a point. Hitler didn't seek to "unify" with the Czechs, or Poles or anybody. He sought to use them like beasts.
Walt
Could I have your opinion on Walts statement here?
Whew! Agrandis, what are you doing? 'Nuff time wasted here!
Well, that is just false. (walt)
Uh, Walt. There was a little thing that happened a few decades back called World War II. It had to do with Hitler expanding to unite the Germanic people and to take over the world. Ever heard of it?
Hitler saw the Brits as aryan, but he sought a peace with them, not unification.
Uh, Walt. Back in that little thing called World War II there was a massive continuous air raid over London by Hitler. It's called the Battle of Britain and wasn't peaceful in any reasonable way. Ever heard of it?
If extermination is unification
In simplified terms, that's more or less how Hitler saw it.
Hitler didn't seek to "unify" with the Czechs, or Poles or anybody.
Last I checked, the Czechs and Poles were not Germanic. They were Czech are Polish.
I think you're right about Lincoln's not thinking of "labor" as a social class, but as human activity. If you want to understand Lincoln's economic views, you have to consider his belief in promoting inventions through patents. There is something Emersonian about Lincoln's belief in what the individual can achieve through work and ingenuity. It is that faith in the individual bettering his lot through activity, ambition and inventiveness, not any utopianism or working class politics or envy that drew Lincoln to the "labor theory of value."
If the kind of disciples a thinker attracts is a reflection on the thinker and his thought, Mises cuts a very poor figure. Refuting the labor theory of value was good work (though I doubt it was Mises himself who did this). But smearing and reviling everyone who came before this refutation because they didn't know what they couldn't know, is pretty low.
Suit yourself.
Lincoln was a socialist, a soul-brother of Karl Marx, based on your "extensive" reading of him.
If that is your conclusion you are free to make it. It's not my conclusion after reading Lincoln nor did I ever purport it to be. But if that's what you get from it and that's what you want to argue, by all means go for it.
The Civil War was the result of a tax that affected a tiny part of the southern economy
The economic figures I've seen suggest that around 1860 some 3/4ths of the United States' total export came from the south. If you had even the slightest degree of familiarity with trade theory, you would know that imports and exports are fundamentally interelated and that large tariffs tend to severely shift the economic factors at play in international trade. It is difficult to consider 3/4ths of the entire United States export product a "tiny part" of a regional economy, making your assertion all the more absurd.
Economic Inquiry is a top flight journal.
That's a matter of subjective preference, but if you want to make it, by all means go for it. It sure beats simply calling what you don't like names, as was your previous treatment of that particular accredited journal.
I'll remind the search committee of that that the next time we have a candidate who has published in EI, but not JEH or AHR. I'm sure they'll agree, because, hey, you said so.
They make hiring decisions now at community colleges based on subjectively chosen journal publication? Interesting and curious.
And I shoot my mouth off because I've published in the field
I have no doubt, though about what I must wonder. Based on my observation of your postings here I am inclined to believe the printing standards were just stellar...and who said the Six Toe Gazette takes anything from anybody???
and you apparently haven't.
...another peculiar assertion from an individual who knows nothing of me or what I've done, written, or not written. He's definately shooting his mouth off if nothing else. Go figure.
Most likely it has something to do with Calhoun's tangible role in American government compared to Fitzhugh, who was little more than a ranting crank.
In addition and contrary to your own implications of similarity, Calhoun as viewed by history in general was not the fringe ranter extremist that Fitzhugh was. Calhoun represented one extreme of the mainstream spectrum of southern political thought. But by comparison Fitzhugh was out in left field.
That never happened.
"After the conquest of Poland, and the division of the spoils with Russia, Hitler made a bid for peace with the Western Powers. When he was rebuffed he began to feel afraid of what he had started-- and of his temporary partner [Russia]. He expressed the view that a long drawn-out war of attrition with Britain and France would gradually exhaust Germany's limited resources, and expose her to a fatal attack from behind by Russia. "By no treaty or pact can Russia's lasting neutrality be ensured," he told his generals. His fear urged him to force peace on France by an offensive in the West. He hoped that if the French were defeated, the British would see reason and come to terms. He reckoned that time was working against him on every count.
Hitler did not dare to risk playing a waiting game, to see whether the French grew tired of war. He believed that for the moment he had the strength and equipment to beat France. "In certain arms, the decisive arms, Germany today possesses clear, indisputable superiority of weapons." Hitler felt that he must strike as soon as possible, before it was too late. His order was: "The attack is to be launched, if conditiom an at all possible, this autumn."
Hitler's reckoning, and these instructions were set out in a long memorandum of October 9th, 1939. His analysis of the military factors in the situation was masterly, but he left out of account a vital political factor—the "bulldoggedness" of the British people when aroused.
His generals shared his long-term fears, but did not share his short-term confidence. They did not think that the German Army was strong enough to beat France. All the top ones to whom I talked, including Rundstedt and his chief planner, Blumentritt, admitted that they were full of doubt about taking the offensive in the West. As Blumentritt remarked: "Hitler alone believed that a decisive victory was possible."
General Siewert, who had been Brauchitsch's personal assistant from 1939 to 1941, said that no plan for an offensive in the West had even been considered until after the Polish campaign, and that Brauchitsch was dismayed when, early in October, he received Hitler's directive to prepare such a plan.
"Field-Marshal von Brauchitsch was dead against it. All the documents relating to this plan will be available in the archives wherever they are, and they will show that he advised the Fiihrer against invading the West."
--"The German Generals Talk" B.H. Liddell Hart, pp. 107-108
Hitler had no plans for world conquest. That is nonsense.
Walt
Laughably false, like almost everything you post.
"On November 5, 1937, an event occurred that was soon destined to disrupt the productive cooperation of the General Staff and the General Army Office. On that day Hitler announced to five of his chief subordinates his plans for a dramatic expansion of Germany over the next few years. The five officials attending that meeting were Foreign Minister Baron Konstantin von Neurath, Defense Minister Blomberg, and the three service Commanders in Chief, Colonel General von Fritsch of the Army, General Admiral Raeder of the Navy, and Colonel General Goering of the Air Force. These were the senior officials who would have to carry out these plans. Hitler still held to the program he had laid down in Mein Kampf many years earlier.
The expanding German population must have Lebensraum in central and eastern Europe. He seems not to have specifically mentioned either Poland or Russia, but his listeners had no doubt that these were the ultimate targets. First, however, Austria and Czechoslovakia must be occupied to secure better strategic frontiers for Germany and to bring more Germans into the Reich.
Force would obviously have to be used, and at some stage it was possible that France and Britain would intervene and have to be dealt with. The period 1943-1945 was the latest time Hitler gave for the carrying out of his program. But he said the armed forces must be prepared before then because opportunities allowing attack on Austria could arise during 1938, just two months away.
--A Genius for War; the German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945 Col. T.N. Dupuy USA ret, pp245-246
I can't believe you are spouting this absolute nonsense. Hitler --never-- had plans for world conquest.
Walt
You did.
I did not.
Walt
Uh, Walt. There was a little thing that happened a few decades back called World War II. It had to do with Hitler expanding to unite the Germanic people and to take over the world. Ever heard of it? (me)
That never happened. (walt)
Congratulations Walt. You've finally crossed the line over into total insanity and conspiracy kookdom. Add World War II to the ever growing list of historical events that Walt pretends "never happened" on the grounds that admitted they did would also be to admit that either himself or The Lincoln had been in error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.