If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
A common misconception. Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_Nazism
I said that I don't know much about this case, but my gut feeling is to support the workers. How much are the bosses and management rinsing out of public transport?
Are you saying I called him that?
whatever :rolleyes:
That isn't what Whowhere said- go and read it again.
Full employment, a fair wage and affordable housing and property- all left-wing aims and objectives. He gave Germany what it wanted- a job and a good, cheap house and car. It shouldn't be ignored in any history of Hitler, or of Nazism- it explains why he, and the doctrine, was popular.
I find it depressing if anyone cannot see the whole picture.
One of these days you might argue without acting like a tosser, not that I'm holding my breath.
Pot kettle black. I think you're girlfriend is more than capable of defending herself, mr knight in shining armour.
The point in my previous post is that gwst is being delibarately obtuse. Whowhere suggested that the Nazi's were socialists. I thought that was very ignorant and made it clear. Gwst then jumps to ww's defence, I point out that its a common misconceptin, she gets arsey, I can't be arsed with her arseyness.
Geddit?
BTW whowhere was not right at all. See my link.
Obviously they get more. They are more important.
Your own link states this:
On a general sense this appears to prove, rather than disprove, GWST's assertion that Hitler implemented some Socialist policies into his governance. Read it again- GWST is not saying Hitler was Socialist, she was stating that he implemented some Socialist policies.
Your own authority agrees that Hitler put into place some Socialist policies- even if the reasons were appeasement, the policies were still there.
Whowhere was wrong to assert that Hitler was "left-wing", because of his beliefs in elitism, but you could have corrected this misunderstanding with the article, rather than making a facetious comment.
GWST was correct to assert that Hitler implemented some Socialist policies, so you are incorrect to believe that she was stating that Hitler was a Socialist when she was not. You then go and compound this by being sarcastic when she restates her position.
You did not read what was written, and then got arsey when it was pointed out that you hadn't.
Geddit?
Edited because my UBB code was duff.
There is truth in it though- chiefs are more important than indians...
Re-read it again and again and still stand by what I say, when looking at the whole picture of Nazism and Hitler's policies will still state that they were at the expense of the other groups I mentioned.
Popular amongst sections of the German people no doubt, shame that the SA who called for a widening of those policies were wiped out in the Night of the Long Knives, shame that from 1919 onwards he was involved in the crushing of the Communists and mureder of their leaders, shame that the other democratic parties in the Reichstag were left with no choice but to support him and eventually abolished, shame about the jobs that were created when the Jews were kicked out of theirs, had their businesses stolen from them and those that couldn't leave murdered, shame that he needed the slave labour of Eastern Europeans dragged from the homelands to keep the German industries going (don't forget the Allied POWs also used), shame about the millions who died in the death camps, shame about his policies of Lebensraum, shame that the free press and opposing voices were effectively banned and replaced by Goebbels, but hey what would I know.
I could have gone but to be honest I can't be arsed.
Don't bother reply I've given up.
:banghead:
To deny it's existence is a bit silly really.
If workers of a company were left to do their jobs without CEO intererence (which in 99% of cases is prompted by greed) you would see far fewer companies running into trouble.
I think the true picture is somewhere in between. Without the brains the brawn would go nowhere, without the brawn the company dies.
In the case of Nexus, that isn't true as it is a public organisation without profits and shareholders. The bosses in that case will be paid more than a train driver- after all, it's a harder job to compile timetables and set prices than it is to press a button.
Yeah, but its part of my raisin deter (sic) to be arsey on these boards.
You love it you slags.
Well it sounds to me like you are, this is a lot like people hearing what they WANT to hear.
I'm not surprised that you completely ignore the bit underneath saying
I thought what he did to other races was lamentable, however I believe his homeland policies were fairly good ones.
Where the fuck may I ask did I mention the jews, or him being a dictator?
Blagsta, why am I ignorant? I believe, as do many others I made a fairly good point about his policies. He DID make good schools, good hospitals and full employment. Where did I say that he twisted them to his own ends? That wasn't my point at all, but as usual you read something you disagree with start being an arse about it.
As for this whole trade union thing, who cares that the bosses get more exactly? I know, I have a great idea, let's pay them the SAME as the workers, and entice yet more people to become the boss. While we're at it, we need someone to play Stalin, that can be you, and Aladdin, you can be Molotov.
These transport workers are on £26,000 a year, MORE than the national average and more than people in more important jobs, like Nurses, Police Officers, teachers and the like.
If you want to be communists and see everony get paid the same go and live in China or Cuba and wait and see how long it takes before you realise being paid the same as a street sweeper is crap.
Because Nazism is not socialism. It has nothing to do with socialism.
This is the average gross earnings for full time employees on adult rates. It's taken from the New Earnings Survey completed in April 2003.
You can find the report over at the national statistics webpage
national statistics
It's based on a survey of individual earnings and is the most accurate figure the government has available at this time.
Abstract
For the 2002-2003 tax year average gross annual pay of full-time employees in Great Britain was £25,170. Between April 2002 and April 2003 the average gross weekly pay of full-time employees in Great Britain increased by 2.4 per cent to £476.
This article presents summary results from the 2003 NES that look at overall average earnings for full-time and part-time employees as well as looking at the pay differences between men and women, and the make-up and distribution of earnings. While these figures are of interest, they can mask wide variations between different industries, occupations, regions and age groups, therefore the article also gives summary analyses for each of these factors. To conclude, the article looks at how the NES data on growth of earnings broadly compare with the Average Earnings Index.
The pay-gap between the sexes narrowed by 1.0 percentage point between April 2002 and April 2003, the gender pay gap is now at its narrowest since the NES started in 1970. Average gross hourly earnings excluding overtime of full-time women were 82.0 per cent of the equivalent average for men.
Regionally, London had by far the highest average earnings (£637 per week). The North East had the lowest average earnings (£402 per week). The South East experienced the smallest increase in average earnings (1.4 per cent). Average gross weekly earnings for all regions stand above £400 for the first time.
Which makes the metro drivers even more greedy.