A Quote by Franz von Papen

Party domination and State leadership are concepts incompatible with one another. — © Franz von Papen
Party domination and State leadership are concepts incompatible with one another.
If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable - and this is why we are the enemies of the State.
Domination is not that solid and global kind of domination that one person exercises over others, or one group over another, but the manifold forms of domination that can be exercised within society.
The story of the Republican Party is of a far-right that has moved from the fringes of the party to a complete domination of the party. The moderate, mainstream and pragmatic leaders of the party have been pushed out or died off.
If the Soviet Union let another political party come into existence, they would still be a one-party state, because everybody would join the other party.
If elected, I would not be the mere president of a party - I would endeavor to act independent of party domination and should feel bound to administer the government untrammeled by party schemes.
U.P. is a big state. I don't have enough leadership experience for such a big state. I requested the party for two experienced associates to help me and work with me.
All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.
Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination - people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.
There are no ideas in the Republican Party right now in the Congress. They're the party of no. They desperately need some intellectual leadership. And whatever you think of Newt Gingrich, he can supply intellectual leadership. So I hope he does run.
The principle of collective leadership is elementary for a proletarian party and for a party of the Lenin type. Nevertheless, we must emphasize this old truth, because for about 20 years we have had practically no collective leadership; there flourished the cult of the individual which was condemned first by Marx and then by Lenin. And this, of course, could not but reflect negatively on the position of the party and its work.
The leadership class of the Republican Party is a conservative Christian loony bin. The leadership of the Republican Party are a bunch of sociopathic maniacs who have their lips super-glued to the ass of the conservative right.
Actually, I don't ever think there will be a men-only team of leadership in the Labour party again. People would look at it and say, 'What? Are there no women in the party to be part of the leadership? Do men want to do it all themselves?' It just won't happen again.
Leadership does not mean domination.
The Soviet Union was a one-party state. In such states, enemies of the party become enemies of the state, and the state can punish with full weight of prosecution.
Dave Stark has taken the best of recent marketplace management concepts and married them to timeless biblical principles of leadership, translating business jargon into ministry language. The combination is an encouraging and practical guide to Christ-centered ministry leadership. This book will be helpful to anyone involved in leading a church or serious about modeling servant leadership.
The Republican Party is the Grand Old Party. It's made enormous contributions to the success of our country. And it is a party that has embraced its leadership role when it has had the majority or the White House.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!