# Do you find Communistic symbols offensive?



## linuxares (Oct 1, 2021)

Hi!

I got inspired by the thread https://gbatemp.net/threads/do-you-find-nazi-imagery-offensive.600543/

After all, the Communistic countries is still around and keep killing people.
After religion, Communism have caused more deaths in our world.

So I'm really curious what you people feel about it?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 1, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Communism have caused more deaths in our world.



I think you might get some push back there that it was the dictators themselves more than anything.

To answer though, no I don't have any emotional reaction to symbols in general.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 1, 2021)

Was the creation of this thread only a retaliation to the Nazi thread? 

People don't find communist symbols as offensive as Nazi ones.


----------



## MORSHU8KRTXON (Oct 1, 2021)

What's wrong with communism?


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 1, 2021)

Sharing (the hatred) is caring


----------



## linuxares (Oct 1, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Was the creation of this thread only a retaliation to the Nazi thread?


Nope, generally curious since I feel both are disgusting. I just find it a bit weird that one extreme is fine but the other isn't.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 1, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Nope, generally curious since I feel both are disgusting. I just find it a bit weird that one extreme is fine but the other isn't.


You are asking for consistency basically


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 1, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Hi!
> 
> I got inspired by the thread https://gbatemp.net/threads/do-you-find-nazi-imagery-offensive.600543/
> 
> ...


The trouble with communism is fairly obvious to me; government claims full ownership of all production and resource, yet is incapable of producing resource. This results in a skew in the production/consumption dynamic, and eventually creates an irrecoverable class separation.
Free enterprise is successful because the consumer ultimately dictate's the market: what is produced, how much is produced, and the cost. Naturally, the consumer is in the best position to decide what will enhance their quality of life. Communism has always been sold as a "fair and equal" approach to governance, but history shows it is a way to maintain class separation for people holding power. 
Oh, I realize I didn't actually answer the question. I don't find any image offensive, simply because it is a *symbol*, therefore open to interpretation. Symbols are also dynamic, as the meaning is changing with time (the swastika, for instance). Finally, taking offense to something is just not proactive; in fact, I would argue that it is the path to complacency.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 2, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> The trouble with communism is fairly obvious to me; government claims full ownership of all production and resource, yet is incapable of producing resource. This results in a skew in the production/consumption dynamic, and eventually creates an irrecoverable class separation.
> Free enterprise is successful because the consumer ultimately dictate's the market: what is produced, how much is produced, and the cost. Naturally, the consumer is in the best position to decide what will enhance their quality of life. Communism has always been sold as a "fair and equal" approach to governance, but history shows it is a way to maintain class separation for people holding power.
> Oh, I realize I didn't actually answer the question. I don't find any image offensive, simply because it is a *symbol*, therefore open to interpretation. Symbols are also dynamic, as the meaning is changing with time (the swastika, for instance). Finally, taking offense to something is just not proactive; in fact, I would argue that it is the path to complacency.


I... um... what? Does "Planned Economy" mean nothing to you? I don't care for a lot of Chinese political decisions, but its kind of hard to deny the power of communism in generating value.

On the flip side, free enterprise is not the best for the consumer because monopolies form without regulation and then quality and decision are eliminated from the process as consolidation and elimination drive out alternatives. Even with the meager anti-monopoly laws we have in the states presently, several companies have figured out the trick of forming alliances, where major decisions regarding quality of service and pricing are agreed upon between competitors. Airline travel, supermarket stock, broadband and cell phone service, only handfuls of companies exist at the top of the markets and whenever one bumps up cost or cuts corners, just about everyone else in the competitive chain does too.

As a full blown socialist kitty, I can look at communism as more than just the corrupt USSR and understand its merits. I can also point out the fact that, unlike the sister thread to this one, communist parties in the USA aren't a threat to the masses, the democratic process, or minority groups. Power to the people, and all that fine jazz~


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 2, 2021)

When you have people that just throw the word "communism" at anything they don't like so often, it is hard not to just be dismissive than offended. As stated, we are mad at the people, not the concept. Like how we are mad at the people that are destructive even under capitalism. 

That said, the concept of communism is just going be more outdated as technology moves forward anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

They should be considered as equal to Nazi symbolism - it’s just another failed ideology from the past that was entirely based on hate and led to untold suffering. I don’t necessarily find them offensive since hardly anything is “offensive” to me - I’m a free speech absolutist. People can follow whatever ideologies they want, it doesn’t bother me - we’ll only have a problem if they show up on my doorstep to enact their nonsense. In fact, the act of displaying such iconography allows me to quickly identify people who are not worth associating with. Self-identifying with the ideals of communism is innately tied with several character flaws, so it’s nice that they give us a dead giveaway instead of pretending that they’re not silly.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 2, 2021)

linuxares said:


> I just find it a bit weird that one extreme is fine but the other isn't.


Communism is everyone working together for the common good of everyone.

Being a Nazi is being a racist piece of shit.

They're polar opposites of one-another.


----------



## smf (Oct 2, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> Free enterprise is successful because the consumer ultimately dictate's the market: what is produced, how much is produced, and the cost.


It depends on how you measure success.

It's been great at getting poor people to work in terrible conditions making goods that they could never afford while polluting the planet.

It's probably better than the feudal system that it replaced, but thinking any system is perfect and can't (or shouldn't) be replaced is terribly flawed thinking.


----------



## Tigran (Oct 2, 2021)

smf said:


> It depends on how you measure success.
> 
> It's been great at getting poor people to work in terrible conditions making goods that they could never afford while polluting the planet.



Are you talking about Communism or Capitalism? And I'm not even joking at this point. I'm honestly not sure which one you are referring to here.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 2, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Are you talking about Communism or Capitalism? And I'm not even joking at this point. I'm honestly not sure which one you are referring to here.


Only capitalism has a free enterprise market, so...


----------



## Xzi (Oct 2, 2021)

Insofar as the hammer and sickle represent the working class (tools of the trade), no I don't find that symbology offensive.  Neither Stalin nor Mao nor any other dictator can claim ownership over it, as they never lived up to the blueprint created by Marx.  Redistribution of wealth and the means of production is not an optional step in implementing socialism or communism; keeping ownership of all that in the hands of a few government elites is nothing but oligarchy/monarchy with a bit of window dressing.

By that definition, communism is effectively dead in the modern world outside of perhaps a few untouched indigenous tribes.  China's been sucking at the tit of capitalism ever since Nixon introduced them to it.  And the problem with capitalism is of course that it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of the few *by design*, rather than by the overly-zealous ambitions of bad faith actors. The US was never meant to be strictly capitalist, either, but instead take all the best components of several economic systems and mix them. Which is precisely why all of the country's most prosperous decades came on the heels of FDR's New Deal, and why we need a second expanded bill of worker's rights if we are to ever enter another golden age.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> China's been sucking at the tit of capitalism ever since Nixon introduced them to it.  And the problem with capitalism is of course that it concentrates wealth and power into the hands of the few *by design*, rather than by the overly-zealous ambitions of bad faith actors. The US was never meant to be strictly capitalist, either, but instead take all the best components of several economic systems and mix them. Which is precisely why all of the country's most prosperous decades came on the heels of FDR's New Deal, and why we need a second expanded bill of worker's rights if we are to ever enter another golden age.


That’s hilarious considering FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by approximately 7 years. As for China, the only reason why the Chinese are not starving while trying to share a grain of rice among everybody in the village is specifically because they’ve embraced some (not all) principles of the free market. You could argue that they’ve embraced them better than some western countries, which explains their rapid economic development from a poverty stricken hell hole into an unquestionable superpower and an industry titan. Alas, this is not a thread about the economy, I think all of those points were already touched upon in the infamous “Communism vs. Capitalism” rollercoaster.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s hilarious considering FDR’s New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by approximately 7 years.


That's one take on it, another is that the Great Depression might've lasted decades longer if not for the focus put on building the working class back up to a better state than they were in before it hit.  Boomers were only able to accumulate the wealth and land they own now because of the New Deal (and subsequently pull the prosperity ladder up behind them in the 70s/80s).



Foxi4 said:


> As for China, the only reason why the Chinese are not starving while trying to share a grain of rice among everybody in the village is specifically because they’ve embraced some (not all) principles of the free market.


I'd attribute that more to the one child policy, but that of course comes with more than its fair share of problems as well, not all of which are made obvious in the short term.



Foxi4 said:


> You could argue that they’ve embraced them better than some western countries, which explains their rapid economic development from a poverty stricken hell hole into an unquestionable superpower and an industry titan.


Again, the vast majority of that power and wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few oligarchs, and far too much of it is outright blood money.  Work safety standards in China are non-existent, and that's for the population that the government supposedly cares about.  They obviously couldn't give a damn about the people in slave labor camps or prison labor camps rapidly dying off.  It's not that they're "better" at capitalism than America, they learned these tactics from us after all, it's just that they've got so many more bodies to throw on the pile than we ever did.


----------



## smf (Oct 2, 2021)

Tigran said:


> Are you talking about Communism or Capitalism? And I'm not even joking at this point. I'm honestly not sure which one you are referring to here.



capitalism obviously, because I was replying to a comment about capitalism.

I don't know whether you can't follow a thread, or whether it was just some kind of passive aggressive nonsense.

I'm not keen on communism as it was applied by russia for example.

https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences

But because communism (as it was applied) is bad, then that doesn't mean capitalism (as it is applied) is good.

I don't have a problem with nazi symbols, I have a problem with people using nazi symbols because they want to show unity with people who share nazi ideology. I don't see that so much with communist symbols.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Oct 2, 2021)

Glorification of the ussr and ccp are pretty cringe. Believing in commie ideologies is fine but I just don't like people who support the actions of those regimes.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> On the flip side, free enterprise is not the best for the consumer because monopolies form without regulation and then quality and decision are eliminated from the process as consolidation and elimination drive out alternatives. Even with the meager anti-monopoly laws we have in the states presently, several companies have figured out the trick of forming alliances, where major decisions regarding quality of service and pricing are agreed upon between competitors. Airline travel, supermarket stock, broadband and cell phone service, only handfuls of companies exist at the top of the markets and whenever one bumps up cost or cuts corners, just about everyone else in the competitive chain does too.


The lawsuit against many CRT makers is an example of this.

CRT makers like Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips all banded together to price fix CRT's from 1995-2007 about 12 years. Charging customers more then what they should cost. They had secret meetings called glass meetings. And they all agreed to restrict supply to artificially raise prices.


There was a lawsuit that just settled with a payout to consumers but it took about over 15 years of fighting. And the payout is around about $50. $50 for over 15 years of fighting is not even worth it.



> According to the lawsuit, conspirators split the glass meetings into three tiers: “top meetings” for high-level company executives, “management meetings” for mid-level managers, and “working-level meetings” for lower-level sales and marketing employees.





https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-re...ks-way-consumers-over-crt-price-fixing-scheme



Free Market providing natural checks and balances to prevent this from happening and keep prices low my ass.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 2, 2021)

smf said:


> It depends on how you measure success.


In the case of economics: size of the middle class, quality of life, opportunity to generate wealth are good measures of success


smf said:


> It's been great at getting poor people to work in terrible conditions making goods that they could never afford while polluting the planet.


I feel as if we have been over this before? Private industry and private investors are the ones fueling the current advancements in alternative energy. Unless you believe government diplomats are solving the problem?


smf said:


> but thinking any system is perfect


Don't see anywhere that I mention a "perfect" system. Of course that would be silly.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> because monopolies form without regulation


You have it backwards: Often regulation is the _cause_ of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.


SG854 said:


> The lawsuit against many CRT makers is an example of this.
> 
> CRT makers like Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips all banded together to price fix CRT's from 1995-2007 about 12 years. Charging customers more then what they should cost. They had secret meetings called glass meetings. And they all agreed to restrict supply to artificially raise prices.
> 
> ...


We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> You have it backwards: Often regulation is the _cause_ of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.
> 
> We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).


It is almost impossible to form a monopoly without government assistance since anybody can step in and compete in the same space. The ISP market in America is a prime example of this - ISP’s were paid big dollar to “expand” Internet and Cellular infrastructure in an industry sector that has 90%+ profit margin. Not only that, the country was effectively divided into zones in which each of the big players operates primarily. They didn’t need to meet in secret and fix prices - the FCC did it for them, and imposed further regulation that effectively prevents smaller players from cornering the market in any meaningful way. That’s all besides the point though since monopolies aren’t inherently negative - a company can become a monopoly simply by providing a service so good that it can’t be competed with. It’s the government that prevents that from happening, not the players. Communism bravely faces this problem by generating it in the first place through establishing a state-sponsored monopoly on goods and services. Anybody foolish enough to support that hasn’t been at the DMV in recent years. Not surprising considering the fact that communists usually have a poor grasp of how money works and are poor as a result, so they don’t drive. :V


----------



## SG854 (Oct 2, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> You have it backwards: Often regulation is the _cause_ of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.
> 
> We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).


My comment wasn't about the government protecting us because I don't expect them too. Just the the free market isn't flawless. 

Too many times many companies ban together to artificial raise prices. And they see benefit in this overall. It requires all companies to participate. So there are times where companies don't keep their promises and short hand their rivals. But sometimes they successfully do it. In the CRT case they did it for 12 years. That's a long time. 

Normally how it's suppose to go Free Market competition is what drives prices down and prevents prices from artificially being raised by companies screwing you over. Companies trying to out compete each other to offer better value either by innovation or by selling the same product but cheaper by refining efficient production process. 

But this isn't always the case as shown in the CRT example I gave. Companies conspire. And can ban together and many times have done so to screw over the customer. Too many times in fact as @Dakitten pointed out.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It is almost impossible to form a monopoly without government assistance since anybody can step in and compete in the same space. The ISP market in America is a prime example of this - ISP’s were paid big dollar to “expand” Internet and Cellular infrastructure in an industry sector that has 90%+ profit margin. Not only that, the country was effectively divided into zones in which each of the big players operates primarily. They didn’t need to meet in secret and fix prices - the FCC did it for them, and imposed further regulation that effectively prevents smaller players from cornering the market in any meaningful way. That’s all besides the point though since monopolies aren’t inherently negative - a company can become a monopoly simply by providing a service so good that it can’t be competed with. It’s the government that prevents that from happening, not the players. Communism bravely faces this problem by generating it in the first place through establishing a state-sponsored monopoly on goods and services. Anybody foolish enough to support that hasn’t been at the DMV in recent years. Not surprising considering the fact that communists usually have a poor grasp of how money works and are poor as a result, so they don’t drive. :V


Ooh hey, Foxy with the flames! Very cute! Love the point too, since in many US markets we can obviously choose from several high quality ISPs, like Comcast and... oh, or Charter and... oh wait, wait no, even South Park has made this joke. Thank goodness the FCC hasn't been run by individuals who have ties to major communication companies and thus might have conflicts of interest! ¬.¬

Monopolies also don't tend to exist because a product is JUST SO DANG GOOD! They usually tend to exist because supply chains get bought up, marketplaces get flooded with only one product, and when some small competition is introduced somewhere that can exist independent of resource procurement, they can still get overwhelmed by the power of ADVERTISEMENTS which totally don't exist to overhype products so people buy things they don't need. In other words... those who have the most money going in tend to win, and then everything floats up to the top and stays there.

I'm always a bit sad when people are so anti-communist for no good reason, they can't even look objectively at reality...
Oh, but your jab at the DMV is good quality stuff, you should do showbiz!




0x3000027E said:


> You have it backwards: Often regulation is the _cause_ of monopolies/trusts. This is precisely why companies lobby congress.
> 
> We always get a few of these "Hey look, the government performed their obligatory role in protecting the consumer" references in these discussions. While nice to see, I wish it was more common. (Unfortunately, consumer protection is *not* the reason politicians spend millions of dollars campaigning for office).



Uh, no, I really don't. Regulation is built to prevent monopolies, companies lobby congress so that they can adjust or supersede the rules for their own benefit, otherwise they wouldn't need to even bother. For an example, the very post you replied to was about how the government was coaxed into a worthless settlement for the people who were taken advantage of. This isn't because of there being too many regulations, its because all the big companies had their way and our representatives were sympathetic to their money making. Were the regulations greater and enforced better, the outcome would have been far worse for the companies and better for the consumers.

Lastly, since Foxy put forward some silly lame video, I'll put one up too for the lulz~


----------



## SG854 (Oct 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Ooh hey, Foxy with the flames! Very cute! Love the point too, since in many US markets we can obviously choose from several high quality ISPs, like Comcast and... oh, or Charter and... oh wait, wait no, even South Park has made this joke. Thank goodness the FCC hasn't been run by individuals who have ties to major communication companies and thus might have conflicts of interest! ¬.¬
> 
> Monopolies also don't tend to exist because a product is JUST SO DANG GOOD! They usually tend to exist because supply chains get bought up, marketplaces get flooded with only one product, and when some small competition is introduced somewhere that can exist independent of resource procurement, they can still get overwhelmed by the power of ADVERTISEMENTS which totally don't exist to overhype products so people buy things they don't need. In other words... those who have the most money going in tend to win, and then everything floats up to the top and stays there.
> 
> ...



There is laws in place for illegal conspiracy. Just like laws against killing but you can't 100% prevent either. There is little the gov can do at that front.

But my comment was more for how the Free Market doesn't always prevent artificially raised prices and being overcharged. Many times where the free market failed at preventing this. The belief is that the free market will lead to better innovation, better prices and more efficient production of products because of the competition in place and companies trying to outperform each other to be the dominant seller and to take all the money for themselves.

But what about the times when companies choose not to compete against each other and join together to conspire against consumer. Because the overall benefit of artificial raised prices will benefit them in the long run and a win win for all companies involved.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I'm always a bit sad when people are so anti-communist for no good reason, they can't even look objectively at reality...


No good reason at all.

None whatsoever.

I don’t know what the big deal is.

I always wonder what it’s like to not acknowledge the direct and inevitable consequences of the policies you support. This time it’ll work, surely.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 2, 2021)

If your point is to equate communism with tragedy and horror, you would be wise to understand that communism in itself is nothing more than a badly abused economic system. We could literally spend all day here posting examples of American atrocities and attribute it to capitalism, but I'm sure that wouldn't be fair, would it? I mean, one prime example along your method of thinking would be the Triangle Waist company going up in flames and killing all those women because the owners of the company locked the doors and ignored numerous warning signs and safety violations in an attempt to keep the workers there to make them more money. 

While communism in itself is inherently flawed, blame should be put on the people controlling the idea of it, just as the companies that abuse capitalism should also be held accountable. China has seen an economic boom in recent years because, economically speaking, it has embraced capitalist ideals alongside a base economy. America would be in a similar position if it started giving out those monthly paychecks as had been proposed every few years, similar to what we have with stimulus checks now, except everytime US citizens get free money the standard of living costs go up to match it so corporations can retain their bottom dollar.

I find the symbols only mean something if you give them meaning. The swastika, for example, I know and understand, but am generally not bothered by it because I'm not a victim, nor do I have anyone close to me that's been a victim. However, that doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to those who are bothered by that and similar symbols


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> If your point is to equate communism with tragedy and horror, you would be wise to understand that communism in itself is nothing more than a badly abused economic system. We could literally spend all day here posting examples of American atrocities and attribute it to capitalism, but I'm sure that wouldn't be fair, would it? I mean, one prime example along your method of thinking would be the Triangle Waist company going up in flames and killing all those women because the owners of the company locked the doors and ignored numerous warning signs and safety violations in an attempt to keep the workers there to make them more money.
> 
> While communism in itself is inherently flawed, blame should be put on the people controlling the idea of it, just as the companies that abuse capitalism should also be held accountable. China has seen an economic boom in recent years because, economically speaking, it has embraced capitalist ideals alongside a base economy. America would be in a similar position if it started giving out those monthly paychecks as had been proposed every few years, similar to what we have with stimulus checks now, except everytime US citizens get free money the standard of living costs go up to match it so corporations can retain their bottom dollar.
> 
> I find the symbols only mean something if you give them meaning. The swastika, for example, I know and understand, but am generally not bothered by it because I'm not a victim, nor do I have anyone close to me that's been a victim. However, that doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to those who are bothered by that and similar symbols


My country and its people have been under this “badly abused economic system” for 42 years, I can equate it to whatever I want. People are just people, they wake up every morning, they eat and they sleep all the same. They do the same things when they’re hurt, or when the state takes away their loved ones, or when they hunger, or when they’re forcibly resettled, or coerced, or spied on by their own neighbours, or when they can’t make ends meet. One thing always leads to another, and the consequences of this particular system of governance, as well as the economic setup, are well-known because they were the same wherever and whenever they were tried. Push anyone hard enough and they’ll all do the same thing - anything it takes to survive, including collaborating with people in charge of a “badly abused economic system”. First there are lofty ideas, then there’s resistance, resistance is met with force, then there’s shortages and finally the inevitable collapse, unless you take the China route and introduce a splash of free market into the bitter concoction. It’s always the same, and it will always be the same, it’s just a question of how quickly it deteriorates into chaos.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> My country and its people have been under this “badly abused economic system” for 42 years, I can equate it to whatever I want. People are just people, they wake up every morning, they eat and they sleep all the same. They do the same things when they’re hurt, or when the state takes away their loved ones, or when they hunger, or when they’re forcibly resettled, or coerced, or spied on by their own neighbours, or when they can’t make ends meet. One thing always leads to another, and the consequences of this particular system of governance, as well as the economic setup, are well-known because they were the same wherever and whenever they were tried. Push anyone hard enough and they’ll all do the same thing - anything it takes to survive, including collaborating with people in charge of a “badly abused economic system”. First there are lofty ideas, then there’s resistance, resistance is met with force, then there’s shortages and finally the inevitable collapse, unless you take the China route and introduce a splash of free market into the bitter concoction. It’s always the same, and it will always be the same, it’s just a question of how quickly it deteriorates into chaos.


While it sounds absolutely horrid, and I sympathetize with you greatly, you can't blame the tool when it's clearly being abused by those who handle it, especially when you praise capitalism despite its glaring flaws. No economic system is perfect, but no economic system can get better without an equally progressive political system alongside it. The idea behind communism could be extremely beneficial if it hadn't become synonymous with dictatorships, monarchies, so on and so forth, just as capitalism would be a lot better if it wasn't formed alongside a traditionalist political system that's evolved into something closer to that of an oligarchy. 

I guess my point is, blame should be put on the proper authority, not uselessly put onto a system that isn't going to get anything done


----------



## smf (Oct 2, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> In the case of economics: size of the middle class, quality of life, opportunity to generate wealth are good measures of success


That seems to be a poor measure of success, because you're going to end up with an inherently unfair system. Like capitalism

All you've got is down to luck.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> While it sounds absolutely horrid, and I sympathetize with you greatly, you can't blame the tool when it's clearly being abused by those who handle it, especially when you praise capitalism despite its glaring flaws. No economic system is perfect, but no economic system can get better without an equally progressive political system alongside it. The idea behind communism could be extremely beneficial if it hadn't become synonymous with dictatorships, monarchies, so on and so forth, just as capitalism would be a lot better if it wasn't formed alongside a traditionalist political system that's evolved into something closer to that of an oligarchy.
> 
> I guess my point is, blame should be put on the proper authority, not uselessly put onto a system that isn't going to get anything done


You seem to miss the point. In this case it is the tool, and the method of how it operates, that affects the operator. The system itself is built on top of humanity’s worst vices, it rewards compliance and incentivises things you wouldn’t normally do to your fellow man, thus creating a feedback loop. In the specific case we are talking about, it wasn’t the Kremlin that came down from on high to persecute Poles, it was us. As Sophia Nałkowska says in her book “Medallions”, “people prepared this fate for other people” (excellent book about concentration camps by the way, highly recommended and an integral part of the Polish canon). The system wasn’t “abused”, it worked precisely as intended - it eliminated dissidents. That’s what it was always meant to do. In similar fashion, the people of Germany didn’t wake up one day and thought “we hate the Jews now”, these things are gradual, and they are a consequence of the set of rules laid out in the system one finds themselves in. Nobody’s “responsible” for that, per se - human nature makes it so. If you make everyone equal by cutting the tall at the hamstrings, you don’t end up with equality, you end up with a bunch of blood on the floor. Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.


Nazism is an inherently hateful and exclusionary ideology.  There's nothing like that inherent to communism.  It's just that some individuals are less inclined to give up wealth and power once it's in their hands than others.  Capitalism has this exact same problem, with far too many of the rich unwilling to do even their most basic civic duty by paying taxes.  The only way to fix this in any given economic system is heavy regulation and/or severe criminal penalties for those who act solely out of greed and narcissism.  Else totaltarianism and authoritarianism become inevitable as the rich and powerful continue to manipulate our laws and justice system to their favor.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 2, 2021)

Symbols? No.

People? Aw yeah.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 2, 2021)

Not really. Communism is not a bad idea at its core. It's just the way countries do it that doesn't work. Because it can't work, not until we make robots to do all the work for us.
I blame the countries, not communism itself.
But one thing is for sure. Capitalism doesn't work either. The rich only get richer, they have far more wealth than they could ever find a use for while others are struggling to get by. Redistributing the wealth would be a good idea. So communism has some good ideas.
The way I see it, the rich are essentially taking wealth away from the world, locked away never to be used, making the world poorer as a result.


----------



## Viri (Oct 2, 2021)

I get more offended when some Commies act like Stalin did nothing wrong. He was a mass murdering psychopathy.


----------



## Deleted member 569431 (Oct 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You seem to miss the point. In this case it is the tool, and the method of how it operates, that affects the operator. The system itself is built on top of humanity’s worst vices, it rewards compliance and incentivises things you wouldn’t normally do to your fellow man, thus creating a feedback loop. In the specific case we are talking about, it wasn’t the Kremlin that came down from on high to persecute Poles, it was us. As Sophia Nałkowska says in her book “Medallions”, “people prepared this fate for other people” (excellent book about concentration camps by the way, highly recommended and an integral part of the Polish canon). The system wasn’t “abused”, it worked precisely as intended - it eliminated dissidents. That’s what it was always meant to do. In similar fashion, the people of Germany didn’t wake up one day and thought “we hate the Jews now”, these things are gradual, and they are a consequence of the set of rules laid out in the system one finds themselves in. Nobody’s “responsible” for that, per se - human nature makes it so. If you make everyone equal by cutting the tall at the hamstrings, you don’t end up with equality, you end up with a bunch of blood on the floor. Nazis and communists are two different fruits off the same poisonous, totalitarian tree - they just hate others for different reasons, either based on race or based on class. They dress their hate up a little differently, but ultimately they’re just a bundle of character flaws and insecurity - I pay them no mind.


My last answer from the Nazi thread. Im waiting on the account to be deleted but while Im waiting, Ill leave it here too: 
*********************************************************************************************
In terms of atrocities etc the major difference between the Nazis and every other thing before it is that theirs was the first (and so far only) act of genocide carried out for PURELY ideological reasons: to kill every Jewish person. Thats why the imagery is much more offensive then anything else. Theres ones with higher body counts etc but thats why theirs is the most disgusting of all. Every single act of genocide before it might have had some element of ideology but also other factors came into it (economics, nationalism etc). That was the case in Bosnia for example, Rwanda was concerned about property IIRC. In terms of Stalin, mass industrialization to compete with the West as well as sustaining his regime (with the Gulag system, they would round up random people off the street if they were running short of workers). I dont think Stalin had very much to do with ideology, it was more like a gangster regime. Communism and Sovietisation were just labels. With Hitler and the Nazi's though, all other considerations were secondary to that aim of murdering every Jew in Europe and beyond. There was a case in Greece on the island of Kos if I remember where they were rounding up the Jewish communities there and it turned out they missed on elderly man who had been away on another island. They turned the whole load of boats around to get this one person who would have been dead soon anyway. Eichmann was still running the trains as the Eastern Front was collapsing etc.
*********************************************************************************************
If you take one thing from the two threads its this: There is absolutely no equivalence between the Nazi regime and its crimes with anything else before it be it Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo or anything today or has ever been committed before. All of those things are horrific but the Holocaust was so far beyond them. Attempts to equate it with anything else diminishes and leaves the door open to ultimately deny the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust.  Not saying at all thats what you are intending, but thats why that comparison started to be made in relatively recent times by certain US commentators. Holocaust diminishment is a form of denial and that argument is the slippery slope to it. For your own sake, stop doing it. Debating the merits or otherwise between Capitalism, Communism or any other? Work away.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 3, 2021)

smf said:


> That seems to be a poor measure of success, because you're going to end up with an inherently unfair system. Like capitalism
> 
> All you've got is down to luck.



I have more respect for you then this poor reference you have provided. Please don't use lazy, low-effort approach with our discussions, thank you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

williamrubin69 said:


> My last answer from the Nazi thread. Im waiting on the account to be deleted but while Im waiting, Ill leave it here too:
> *********************************************************************************************
> In terms of atrocities etc the major difference between the Nazis and every other thing before it is that theirs was the first (and so far only) act of genocide carried out for PURELY ideological reasons: to kill every Jewish person. Thats why the imagery is much more offensive then anything else. Theres ones with higher body counts etc but thats why theirs is the most disgusting of all. Every single act of genocide before it might have had some element of ideology but also other factors came into it (economics, nationalism etc). That was the case in Bosnia for example, Rwanda was concerned about property IIRC. In terms of Stalin, mass industrialization to compete with the West as well as sustaining his regime (with the Gulag system, they would round up random people off the street if they were running short of workers). I dont think Stalin had very much to do with ideology, it was more like a gangster regime. Communism and Sovietisation were just labels. With Hitler and the Nazi's though, all other considerations were secondary to that aim of murdering every Jew in Europe and beyond. There was a case in Greece on the island of Kos if I remember where they were rounding up the Jewish communities there and it turned out they missed on elderly man who had been away on another island. They turned the whole load of boats around to get this one person who would have been dead soon anyway. Eichmann was still running the trains as the Eastern Front was collapsing etc.
> *********************************************************************************************
> If you take one thing from the two threads its this: There is absolutely no equivalence between the Nazi regime and its crimes with anything else before it be it Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Bosnia, the Belgian Congo or anything today or has ever been committed before. All of those things are horrific but the Holocaust was so far beyond them. Attempts to equate it with anything else diminishes and leaves the door open to ultimately deny the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust.  Not saying at all thats what you are intending, but thats why that comparison started to be made in relatively recent times by certain US commentators. Holocaust diminishment is a form of denial and that argument is the slippery slope to it. For your own sake, stop doing it. Debating the merits or otherwise between Capitalism, Communism or any other? Work away.


Acknowledging what the followers of one system did on ideological grounds in no way diminishes or denies the atrocities committed by the followers of another regime, that’s completely illogical. If anything, you’re the one guilty of denialism - denialism of all the crimes against humanity associated with communism. I used to live about an hour or two away from a concentration camp, I won’t be taking lessons on decorum from someone who doesn’t. To most westerners these are just things that happened in the past and they’ve read about them in a book - my family lived through them, and the evidence of those events are still standing. With some care they will be standing forever, so that we all remember them. I can look at two awful regimes and state that they’re both awful without any issues, if you can’t hold both of those ideas in your head simultaneously then that’s a “you” problem. We could sit here all day talking about all the instances of systemic extermination of people at the behest of communist regimes, on a variety of grounds, from ethnic to political - Katyn massacre, The Killing Fields, Holodomor, the list never ends. Hey, did you know that during the Cambodian genocide the Khmer Rouge used to swing babies against a tree to smash their heads in? They called it “the killing tree”, apparently that was the most cost-efficient way of killing them.




There’s almost 20,000 mass graves in Cambodia alone, containing the remains of over a million people who were systemically exterminated. Don’t tell me what I can or cannot say about that.


Xzi said:


> Nazism is an inherently hateful and exclusionary ideology.  There's nothing like that inherent to communism.  It's just that some individuals are less inclined to give up wealth and power once it's in their hands than others.  Capitalism has this exact same problem, with far too many of the rich unwilling to do even their most basic civic duty by paying taxes.  The only way to fix this in any given economic system is heavy regulation and/or severe criminal penalties for those who act solely out of greed and narcissism.  Else totaltarianism and authoritarianism become inevitable as the rich and powerful continue to manipulate our laws and justice system to their favor.


Oh please, one of the slogans is “eat the rich”, and communists take that very literally. It’s just jealousy and envy - the have-nots taking out their anger and frustration against those who do have some wealth, regardless of whether it’s earned or not. Pretending that it’s the victim’s fault because they didn’t willingly give away their belongings to the first bully knocking on their door is asinine - “collectivisation” is just another way of saying “robbery”. It’s even better when you send that formerly “rich” person off to the gulag - no similarities there.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh please, one of the slogans is “eat the rich”, and communists take that very literally. It’s just jealousy and envy - the have-nots taking out their anger and frustration against those who do have some wealth, regardless of whether it’s earned or not.


The issue is that _nobody_ "earns" thousands of dollars a minute. Blatant immorality and exploitation of the working class is the only means by which to get so insanely rich in a capitalist economy, making it an inherently flawed system. Practically the polar opposite of a meritocracy.



Foxi4 said:


> Pretending that it’s the victim’s fault because they didn’t willingly give away their belongings to the first bully knocking on their door is asinine - “collectivisation” is just another way of saying “robbery”.


Taxation without representation is robbery, and in that sense only the middle/lower classes are actually being robbed. The rich get an overabundance of representation in government, even when they manage to circumvent paying any of their taxes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The issue is that _nobody_ "earns" thousands of dollars a minute. Blatant immorality and exploitation of the working class is the only means by which to get so insanely rich in a capitalist economy, making it an inherently flawed system. Practically the polar opposite of a meritocracy.
> 
> 
> Taxation without representation is robbery, and in that sense only the middle/lower classes are actually being robbed. The rich get an overabundance of representation in government, even when they manage to circumvent paying any of their taxes.


Correction - you don’t. Not that it matters - when things got really bad, people started dying over owning one too many cows. When you need a boogeyman, the level of what’s considered “rich” greatly diminishes.


----------



## WG481 (Oct 3, 2021)

I find nothing about Communist symbols offensive.
Communism itself is a joke until someone does it right.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Correction - you don’t. Not that it matters - when things got really bad, people started dying over owning one too many cows. When you need a boogeyman, the level of what’s considered “rich” greatly diminishes.


In other words, when the wealth and income gaps become too large and the "haves" are too few and far between, the "have nots" start turning on each other.  Not exactly a shocking revelation.  It's also a peek into the future of America when natural disasters fueled by climate change start causing mass migration and extreme resource shortages.  Capitalism forsakes long-term stability for short-term gain (which primarily goes to a few oligarchs).


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In other words, when the wealth and income gaps become too large and the "haves" are too few and far between, the "have nots" start turning on each other.  Not exactly a shocking revelation.  It's also a peek into the future of America when natural disasters fueled by climate change start causing mass migration and extreme resource shortages.  Capitalism forsakes long-term stability for short-term gain (which primarily goes to a few oligarchs).


Today I learned: communist countries are “paragons of long-term stability”. 

You guys really are a riot. Thankfully a harmless one, no danger of modern communists “taking over” anything.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Today I learned: communist countries are “paragons of long-term stability”.
> 
> You guys really are a riot. Thankfully a harmless one, no danger of modern communists “taking over” anything.


A country run by its working class would undoubtedly make fewer bad decisions where long-term stability is concerned.  Instead this country is speeding toward a cliff at the behest of a few rich and powerful dumbasses, much the same way Stalin and Hitler caused the collapse of their respective nations.  Oligarchy and authoritarianism are a constant threat to all peoples of the world, and unchecked capitalism is _especially_ inviting to those concepts.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Oct 3, 2021)

Communist ideology isn't about getting rid of people that aren't like you because you feel superior.  It's just putting everything in common. *It doesn't mean it succeeded*, but If you want a fair comparison compare it to capitalism, or a more extreme form of socialism.

Nazism is something else altogether, it's driven by hatred toward a category of people.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2021)

I am an ancom, so I do use some Communist symbols from time to time. I don't ever support the dictators in the past as those fucks were rather terrible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A country run by its working class would undoubtedly make fewer bad decisions where long-term stability is concerned.  Instead this country is speeding toward a cliff at the behest of a few rich and powerful dumbasses, much the same way Stalin and Hitler caused the collapse of their respective nations.  Oligarchy and authoritarianism are a constant threat to all peoples of the world, and unchecked capitalism is _especially_ inviting to those concepts.


Airplanes work better when all the passengers are holding the stick, as opposed to two qualified pilots.


deinonychus71 said:


> Communist ideology isn't about getting rid of people that aren't like you because you feel superior.  It's just putting everything in common. *It doesn't mean it succeeded*, but If you want a fair comparison compare it to capitalism, or a more extreme form of socialism.
> 
> Nazism is something else altogether, it's driven by hatred toward a category of people.


That’s the stated goal, not the actual result. The actual result is known. Past attempts only failed in the sense that it became unsustainable - the actual cogs turned precisely as expected.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Airplanes work better when all the passengers are holding the stick, as opposed to two qualified pilots.


We've already established that capitalism is not the same as a meritocracy, so there's no guarantee those pilots are anything more than the town drunkards.  Your argument could also be interpreted as being in favor of dictatorship.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> We've already established that capitalism is not the same as a meritocracy, so there's no guarantee those pilots are anything more than the town drunkards.  Your argument could also be interpreted as being in favor of dictatorship.


We haven’t established that - you just said that and supported it with nothing. Inb4 inheritance is theft. Not really a worthwhile argument to have considering I wouldn’t put a communist or socialist in charge of anything unless I intended for it to collapse, I would sooner choose a monkey, and I have mathematical evidence to prove that this is in fact the better choice. If I sit a monkey in front of two buttons, one that turns on a banana dispenser and one that kills a random person, the monkey will be initially correct 50% of the time and its accuracy will increase over time as it observes a pattern. A socialist on the other hand is always wrong, and in spite of observing a century of patterns, will starve to death in front of the terminal.


----------



## rantex92 (Oct 3, 2021)

Like the great Johny hobo once said:

"But I swear to f*ck;
That a brick through a broken Starbucks window means more.
And I swear to f*ck;
That we fight more systems when we're passed out on the floor.
Than the words of Kropotkin ever could.
And all the works of Karl Marx ever f*cking could."


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We haven’t established that - you just said that and supported it with nothing.


Pick basically any major event in the last twenty years of American history.  9/11?  Preventable.  The 2008 economic collapse?  Preventable.  Quagmires in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Preventable.  Our lack of preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic?  Preventable.  We simply had the wrong people with the wrong priorities in charge during all of it.



Foxi4 said:


> Not really a worthwhile argument to have considering I wouldn’t put a communist or socialist in charge of anything unless I intended for it to collapse, I would sooner choose a monkey, and I have mathematical evidence to prove that this is in fact the better choice.


Basically: you'd rather let some yuppie who's never worked a day in his life choose his cokehead buddies as pilots instead of allowing them to be chosen by a pilot's union.  That's anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell for ya.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Pick basically any major event in the last twenty years of American history.  9/11?  Preventable.  The 2008 economic collapse?  Preventable.  Quagmires in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Preventable.  Our lack of preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic?  Preventable.  We simply had the wrong people with the wrong priorities in charge during all of it.
> 
> 
> Basically: you'd rather let some yuppie who's never worked a day in his life choose his cokehead buddies as pilots instead of allowing them to be chosen by a pilot's union.  That's anarcho-capitalism in a nutshell for ya.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


These are just more things you are saying without any supporting evidence. Moreover, none of those things have anything to do with the concept of meritocracy, or even the capitalist economic system.

You’re the passenger in the plane, which is my private property - I sure as shit am going to select who pilots it, you don’t have to board *my* plane. The exchange here is very simple - you give me my money and I ensure that you get from point A to point B in a flying metal tube operated by an expert in the field. This service has a certain operating cost which includes the cost of plane maintenance, crew salaries etc., in addition to my profit margin which I take as remuneration for creating this system and making the entire trip happen. If you don’t like it, start your own company - I’m not holding you back. At no point are you entitled to pilot *my* planes which I own and purchased as an investment into my business. I bear all the liability, you bear sour grapes.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> These are just more things you are saying without any supporting evidence. Moreover, none of those things have anything to do with the concept of meritocracy, or even the capitalist economic system.


I don't know how to spell it out for you much clearer than that.  The leaders in charge of all these failures were given power simply because they were born rich, not because they did anything to earn their positions in government.  Worship of wealthy, incompetent individuals is a feature of capitalism rather than a bug.



Foxi4 said:


> The exchange here is very simple - you give me my money and I ensure that you get from point A to point B in a flying metal tube operated by an expert in the field.


The only thing capitalism ensures is that my pilot will be overworked and more tired than they should be, possibly under-trained as well.  Cutting corners to save a few bucks here and there is the name of the game.



Foxi4 said:


> I bear all the liability


Annnd there goes any realism where this analogy is concerned.  Nixon faced no consequences for his crimes, nor did GWB or Cheney.  Same immunity applies to anybody on top of the corporate ladder, just look at Kotick and the recent scandals at Blizzard for evidence of that.  Hell, I recall even Boeing corpos giving themselves raises in the midst of their poorly-engineered planes falling out of the sky one after another.  It all circles back to the same point I made before: allowing greed and narcissism to run rampant without criminal penalties is the fastest way to cause a nation's collapse, regardless of its economic system.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Oct 3, 2021)

Nazism is antisemitic at its core. Communism is an economic idea.
These two things are not the same.

No, I'm not offended in the slightest by people being Communist or most Communist imagery.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I don't know how to spell it out for you much clearer than that.  The leaders in charge of all these failures were given power simply because they were born rich, not because they did anything to earn their positions in government.  Worship of wealthy, incompetent individuals is a feature of capitalism rather than a bug.
> 
> 
> The only thing capitalism ensures is that my pilot will be overworked and more tired than they should be, possibly under-trained as well.  Cutting corners to save a few bucks here and there is the name of the game.
> ...


Can you support that claim, or are you just making a statement? How do you, Xzi, know that? Do you have evidence of any nepotism taking place in any of the cases listed, yes or no? If yes, you haven’t presented any - I don’t know how to make that clearer for you.

Go do a better job yourself then and run me out of business. You can do that under capitalism, you can’t do that under communism.

The Blizzard case is a hilarious mention considering they’re under active investigation as we speak. Boeing executives can give themselves whatever raises they want - they’re responsible to shareholders, not to you. They’re also not an airline, so I don’t know how that even remotely fits the analogy. I won’t even address the other tripe since you’re talking about “crimes” that are unevidenced and never proven in the court of law. As a side note, your claim that the current path is necessarily one that leads to societal collapse is going to be hard to prove considering the U.S. continues to exist while its communist adversaries either collapsed (USSR), converted in part to a more capitalist setup (China) or are barely holding on to dear life (Cuba, North Korea). It appears that the opposite is true - the more their ideas are propagated (and they’re propagated a lot these days) the less social cohesion we see in day to day life.

I’ve lost all track of what we were even initially talking about - I think we left off at you doing an apology tour for a system that’s responsible for around 100 million deaths across the globe and me pointing out that that’s a little cringe, but I may have hallucinated that since it’s so ridiculous. On the bright side, the conversation has become slightly boring, and perhaps better-suited for the Capitalism vs. Communism thread. This one’s about being offended about symbolism, which I’m not because it’s just a bunch of pictures. If people want to wear t-shirts with mass murderers like Che on them, or display their various emblems, I don’t have a problem with that - it looks pretty stupid, but one can’t account for taste, or more accurately, the lack of good taste.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> There is laws in place for illegal conspiracy. Just like laws against killing but you can't 100% prevent either. There is little the gov can do at that front.
> 
> But my comment was more for how the Free Market doesn't prevent artificially raised prices and being overcharged. The belief is that the free market will lead to better innovation, better prices and more efficient production of products because of the competition in place companies trying to outperform each other to be the dominant product and to take all the money for themselves.
> 
> But what about the times when companies choose not to compete against each other and join together to conspire against consumer. Because the overall benefit of artificial raised prices will benefit them in the long run and a win win for all companies involved.


I would certainly LOVE to see white collars go to jail with the same consistency as murderers, but the difference is that desperate people tend to commit murder, and as such are usually desperate in part due to being poor. Companies conspiring to make money isn't actually illegal unless they traipse into the muddy waters of fraud, environmental abuse, unethical workplace practices, etc. Creating a monopoly is technically illegal, and several actions of corporations have questionable legality, but like I was saying in my last post, this is why they lobby politicians to change or issue exceptions to laws. The government COULD do much more to prevent monopolies, they just don't have a motivation to since profit isn't gained from service to the public so much as service to the millionaire-class.

Your statement about the free market is quite accurate, however, and shows one of the big faults of unregulated capitalism. Thankfully, you're in a thread about Communism, a demonized alternative with a different view about how governments should handle the means of production~ At the end of the day, governments are made up of public servants, ideally placed there democratically to represent the will of their supporters. Giving the means of production up to the government means that, all things working as intended, the shareholders are the populous at large. Everyone prospers when the government prospers, anyone can serve the government when they want to see a change, and government staff don't have to answer to corporations because they wouldn't exist. Corporations are largely parasites that stifle innovation and prosperity, since rapid change can be costly and worker prosperity takes away from profit, and removing them as middle men just makes good sense. Anybody can work for the government as a public servant and push for change (or even just vote), but it is much more difficult to be a board member at a company.



Foxi4 said:


> My country and its people have been under this “badly abused economic system” for 42 years, I can equate it to whatever I want. People are just people, they wake up every morning, they eat and they sleep all the same. They do the same things when they’re hurt, or when the state takes away their loved ones, or when they hunger, or when they’re forcibly resettled, or coerced, or spied on by their own neighbours, or when they can’t make ends meet. One thing always leads to another, and the consequences of this particular system of governance, as well as the economic setup, are well-known because they were the same wherever and whenever they were tried. Push anyone hard enough and they’ll all do the same thing - anything it takes to survive, including collaborating with people in charge of a “badly abused economic system”. First there are lofty ideas, then there’s resistance, resistance is met with force, then there’s shortages and finally the inevitable collapse, unless you take the China route and introduce a splash of free market into the bitter concoction. It’s always the same, and it will always be the same, it’s just a question of how quickly it deteriorates into chaos.



Hey hey, its time for a fun game I like to call "Can you spot the USA causing suffering to a communist country via the CIA and economics?!" Seriously, this was during the cold war, and while the USSR was a corrupt group of motherflockers, Poland was literally caught between these two powers. Your own links even pretty clearly sum up how the western countries bled Poland dry financially and encouraged regime change while the east was mercilessly putting it down via similar tactics. I'm not a blind tanky, the USSR was amazingly corrupt and totalitarian, but they were only half of the equation.

I don't think any socialist worth their salt would praise the USSR as the best representation of their values, and a certain global superpower has been hell-bent on making sure that any other communist countries get embargoed to oblivion or worse, driven into coups and assassinations until nobody can see straight and huge bodycounts pile up. It's kind of hard to hear all this nonsense about communist murders when the capital of capitalism has done so much bloodshed on its own, and suffers such terrible afflictions compared to countries with more socialist leanings. 

In other words... Foxy is full of beans~ He can keep preaching from atop his high horse, but he obviously refuses to face reality in the fear that it might look harshly back at him.



Foxi4 said:


> Go do a better job yourself then and run me out of business. You can do that under capitalism, you can’t do that under communism.



Because anyone can come up with the tens of thousands of dollars to start up competition, the hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay in the game over a long period of setup, hiring, and stabilizing, and weather being adversary to established businesses with hundreds to hundreds of thousands of time your wealth. Sounds absolutely legit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Hey hey, its time for a fun game I like to call "Can you spot the USA causing suffering to a communist country via the CIA and economics?!" Seriously, this was during the cold war, and while the USSR was a corrupt group of motherflockers, Poland was literally caught between these two powers. Your own links even pretty clearly sum up how the western countries bled Poland dry financially and encouraged regime change while the east was mercilessly putting it down via similar tactics. I'm not a blind tanky, the USSR was amazingly corrupt and totalitarian, but they were only half of the equation.
> 
> I don't think any socialist worth their salt would praise the USSR as the best representation of their values, and a certain global superpower has been hell-bent on making sure that any other communist countries get embargoed to oblivion or worse, driven into coups and assassinations until nobody can see straight and huge bodycounts pile up. It's kind of hard to hear all this nonsense about communist murders when the capital of capitalism has done so much bloodshed on its own, and suffers such terrible afflictions compared to countries with more socialist leanings.
> 
> ...


Thank god they did - after selling our country off to Stalin and his goons in Yalta at the tail end of the World War that’s the least I’d expect of them. Communist countries are not particularly productive, so simply not trading with them is a sure fire way to put them out of commission. Good riddance, too! Thanks for telling me about my own heritage though, I’m sure your version of events is more accurate than that of my dad who was literally there when it all unfolded.

Anyone can take out a business loan and start small. Costs are exorbitant specifically due to excessive regulation, which you guys love so much. You’re the ones sustaining monopolies by preventing new players from cornering small sections of markets, don’t put this on me.

Besides, my closing statement is already enclosed in the post above, somebody has to reign the discussion back on track, may as well be me.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank god they did - after selling our country off to Stalin and his goons in Yalta at the tail end of the World War that’s the least I’d expect of them. Communist countries are not particularly productive, so simply not trading with them is a sure fire way to put them out of commission. Good riddance, too! Thanks for telling me about my own heritage though, I’m sure your version of events is more accurate than that of my dad who was literally there when it all unfolded.
> 
> Anyone can take out a business loan and start small. Costs are exorbitant specifically due to excessive regulation, which you guys love so much. You’re the ones sustaining monopolies by preventing new players from cornering small sections of markets, don’t put this on me.
> 
> Besides, my closing statement is already enclosed in the post above, somebody has to reign the discussion back on track, may as well be me.


But not everyone can take out a business loan, and even when the market wasn't so tight, an excess of loans drove the economy into a historic tailspin that bankrupted hundreds of thousands of individuals and enriched a precious few at the top. The game plays at milking the middle for the top, until the middle is squeezed so dry there's nothing left.

I won't presume to know what your father has told you, I just know that you keep showing that you've got a myopic view of the world that suits you and doesn't seem open to challenge, and that your obviously long-felt hatred towards a tragedy has blinded you from any sort of meaningful discourse about this topic. It obviously colours your world view to the point where you can't ever seem to find compromise or empathy, and honestly it is quite depressing to watch. You seem like an intelligent individual, but the way certain topics are pettifogged out of control when things don't suit a narrative you like shows a clear break between your ability to view things critically and your need to keep offensively pounding out your cozy position that doesn't require self reflection. It is a sad trap that grabs a lot of folks, but I believe you can find clarity if you look past your irrational hatred of the concept of communism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> But not everyone can take out a business loan, and even when the market wasn't so tight, an excess of loans drove the economy into a historic tailspin that bankrupted hundreds of thousands of individuals and enriched a precious few at the top. The game plays at milking the middle for the top, until the middle is squeezed so dry there's nothing left.
> 
> I won't presume to know what your father has told you, I just know that you keep showing that you've got a myopic view of the world that suits you and doesn't seem open to challenge, and that your obviously long-felt hatred towards a tragedy has blinded you from any sort of meaningful discourse about this topic. It obviously colours your world view to the point where you can't ever seem to find compromise or empathy, and honestly it is quite depressing to watch. You seem like an intelligent individual, but the way certain topics are pettifogged out of control when things don't suit a narrative you like shows a clear break between your ability to view things critically and your need to keep offensively pounding out your cozy position that doesn't require self reflection. It is a sad trap that grabs a lot of folks, but I believe you can find clarity if you look past your irrational hatred of the concept of communism.


You act as if there were no Poles who actually miss those days - there are, sadly. We call them co-conspirators and collaborators, but they do exist, since as a merciful nation we didn’t execute any once the system was dismantled and they stood trial. In hindsight perhaps we should’ve. As for the latter part of your post, there can be no compromise with communists. There can be no freedom for the enemies of freedom. When in doubt, liberty is the answer - that’s a good sentiment to live by in my book. I’m not “blinded” by anything, I am very sober and very aware that we had two pretty shitty neighbours in the past, but it’s in the past. I won’t blame individual people since they were merely cogs in a hateful system - it is the system that’s at fault, it caused precisely what it was designed to cause, and it caused it every single time it was implemented regardless of social or territorial differences. No system of government in the world has a worse track record than communism, and I’m not saying that the ideas within aren’t “lofty” (although in truth it is amoral by design since redistribution is simply a different way of saying stealing from one and giving to another, usually oneself), what I’m saying is that it always devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship because that’s the only way to effectively enact the principles you hold so dear. That’s just the truth, and whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. We’ve learned our lesson, so the next time someone tries to take away our liberties “for the greater good”, we know where that leads and how to respond.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Can you support that claim, or are you just making a statement?


Can I support the claim that these leaders were all incompetent failures without merit?  Absolutely.  Not that I should have to, you know I'm right about that.  We have data after the fact proving that GWB didn't even win the 2000 presidential election, but capitalist greed took precedent over the democratic will of the people anyway.



Foxi4 said:


> Go do a better job yourself then and run me out of business.


"Go start your own airline."  Talk about a lazy response, we both know that's an unfeasible solution to the problems plaguing that industry.



Foxi4 said:


> The Blizzard case is a hilarious mention considering they’re under active investigation as we speak.


And Kotick will face no consequences despite being at the very center of the scandal.  That's not even a guess, I'm just stating it outright as a fact.  Money insulates people from consequences in capitalist America, the rich have made sure of that over the decades.



Foxi4 said:


> As a side note, your claim that the current path is necessarily one that leads to societal collapse is going to be hard to prove considering the U.S. continues to exist while its communist adversaries either collapsed (USSR), converted in part to a more capitalist setup (China) or are barely holding on to dear life (Cuba, North Korea). It appears that the opposite is true - the more their ideas are propagated (and they’re propagated a lot these days) the less social cohesion we see in day to day life.


It's looking more and more like the US will barely beat the average lifespan of a developed nation.  If authoritarianism and oligarchy don't sink us (much the same way they sunk the USSR), our inability to address threats like climate change and domestic terrorism will.



Foxi4 said:


> I’ve lost all track of what we were even initially talking about - I think we left off at you doing an apology tour for a system that’s responsible for around 100 million deaths across the globe and me pointing out that that’s a little cringe, but I may have hallucinated that since it’s so ridiculous.


Yeah you must have hallucinated that, as I've only ever made statements condemning the likes of Stalin and Mao.  Their failures to give the working class a controlling stake in their countries also mean they never implemented anything that could be considered proper socialism or communism, however.  Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the estimate of 100 million deaths caused by communism, so long as you're willing to accept that capitalism is responsible for more than 222 million deaths so far.  Here's a breakdown of the numbers:



Spoiler



222,500,000+ Deaths due to certain events:

100,000,000: Extermination of native Americans (1492–1890)
15,000,000: Atlantic slave trade (1500–1870)
150,000: French repression of Haiti slave revolt (1792–1803)
300,000: French conquest of Algeria (1830–1847)
50,000: Opium Wars (1839–1842 & 1856–1860)
1,000,000: Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849)
100,000: British supression of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858)
20,000: Paris Commune Massacre (1871)
29,000,000: Famine in British Colonized India (1876–1879 & 1897–1902)
3,445: Black people lynched in the US (1882–1964)
10,000,000: Belgian Congo Atrocities: (1885–1908)
250,000: US conquest of the Philipines (1898–1913)
28,000: British concentration camps in South Africa (1899–1902)
800,000: French exploitation of Equitorial Africans (1900–1940)
65,000: German genocide of the Herero and Namaqua (1904–1907)
10,000,000: First World War (1914–1918)
100,000: White army pogroms against Jews (1917–1920)
600,000: Fascist Italian conquest in Africa (1922–1943)
10,000,000: Japanese Imperialism in East Asia (1931–1945)
200,000: White Terror in Spain (1936–1945)
25,000,000: Nazi oppression in Europe: (1938–1945)
30,000: Kuomintang Massacre in Taiwan (1947)
80,000: French suppression of Madagascar revolt (1947)
30,000: Israeli colonization of Palastine (1948-present)
100,000: South Korean Massacres (1948–1950)
50,000: British suppression of the Mau-Mau revolt (1952-1960)
16,000: Shah of Iran regime (1953–1979)
1,000,000: Algerian war of independence (1954–1962)
200,000: Juntas in Guatemala (1954–1962)
50,000: Papa & Baby Doc regimes in Haiti (1957–1971)
3,000,000: Vietnamese killed by US military (1963–1975)
1,000,000: Indonesian mass killings (1965–1966)
1,000,000: Biafran War (1967–1970)
400: Tlatelolco massacre (1968)
700,000: US bombing of Laos & Cambodia (1967–1973)
50,000: Somoza regime in Nicaragua (1972–1979)
3,200: Pinochet regime in Chile: (1973–1990)
1,500,000: Angola Civil War (1974–1992)
200,000: East Timor massacre (1975–1998)
1,000,000: Mozambique Civil War (1975–1990)
30,000: US-backed state terrorism in Argentina (1975–1990)
70,000: El Salvador military dictatorships (1977–1991)
30,000: Contra proxy war in Nicaragua: (1979–1990)
16,000: Bhopal Carbide disaster (1984)
3,000: US invasion of Panama (1989)
1,000,000: US embargo on Iraq (1991–2003)
400,000: Mujahideen faction conflict in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
200,000: Destruction of Yugoslavia (1992–1995)
6,000,000: Congolese Civil War (1997–2008)
30,000: NATO occupation of Afghanistan (2001-present)


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Can I support the claim that these leaders were all incompetent failures without merit?  Absolutely.  Not that I should have to, you know I'm right about that.  We have data after the fact proving that GWB didn't even win the 2000 presidential election, but capitalist greed took precedent over the democratic will of the people anyway.
> 
> "Go start your own airline."  Talk about a lazy response, we both know that's an unfeasible solution to the problems plaguing that industry.
> 
> ...


Not in particular, since half of that list dates back to before capitalism even took hold (early 19th century) and the remainder seems to be a list of various civil wars or military dictatorships that are in no way connected to capitalism as an economic system. For the record, it is not encumbent on western capitalists to solve racial tension problems in Mozambique. Cute infographic though, I hope she liked it (if you’re trying to impress a chick - I know how it is). We are not talking about “preventing death”, which is a nebulous concept anyway since you have no way of measuring what can or cannot be prevented, we are talking about causing death. Communist regimes *cause* death, capitalist economies are at worst ambivalent, which is kind of the whole point of the market being free.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Cute infographic though, I hope she liked it (if you’re trying to impress a chick - I know how it is).


I didn't make it, though it is quite handy given that it backs the data up with sources.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I didn't make it, though it is quite handy given that it backs the data up with sources.


It backs itself up with a straw man. There’s a difference between causing and not preventing. If I see a road accident and I don’t stop to help the victim, that’s a possibly preventable death, but I have not caused it. If I hit a pedestrian, deliberately, that’s murder, or at the very least vehicular manslaughter if I lie my way out of premeditation. This should be fairly simple to grasp - rounding up a bunch of farmers and sending them off to a winter camp in Siberia with no food is murder, not giving a beggar a blanket on a cold night is just being an asshole.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We are not talking about “preventing death”, which is a nebulous concept anyway since you have no way of measuring what can or cannot be prevented, we are talking about causing death. Communist regimes *cause* death, capitalist economies are at worst ambivalent, which is kind of the whole point of the market being free.


That's a pathetic cop out.  The figure of 100 million deaths caused by communism undoubtedly includes deaths by starvation or lack of other essentials.  Capitalism ensures those types of deaths are a common occurrence.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You act as if there were no Poles who actually miss those days - there are, sadly. We call them co-conspirators and collaborators, but they do exist, since as a merciful nation we didn’t execute any once the system was dismantled and they stood trial. In hindsight perhaps we should’ve. As for the latter part of your post, there can be no compromise with communists. There can be no freedom for the enemies of freedom. When in doubt, liberty is the answer - that’s a good sentiment to live by in my book. I’m not “blinded” by anything, I am very sober and very aware that we had two pretty shitty neighbours in the past, but it’s in the past. I won’t blame individual people since they were merely cogs in a hateful system - it is the system that’s at fault, it caused precisely what it was designed to cause, and it caused it every single time it was implemented regardless of social or territorial differences. No system of government in the world has a worse track record than communism, and I’m not saying that the ideas within aren’t “lofty” (although in truth it is amoral by design since redistribution is simply a different way of saying stealing from one and giving to another, usually oneself), what I’m saying is that it always devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship because that’s the only way to effectively enact the principles you hold so dear. That’s just the truth, and whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. We’ve learned our lesson, so the next time someone tries to take away our liberties “for the greater good”, we know where that leads and how to respond.


Soooo... some people in your father's country miss communist rule, but they don't deserve compromise nor understanding and you wish some of them were executed. And you aren't blinded by hatred but communism is a hateful system that people in this thread are defending with discussions about equality and providing higher quality basic living standards for everyone. Yes, I can see that. Very convincing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Soooo... some people in your father's country miss communist rule, but they don't deserve compromise nor understanding and you wish some of them were executed. And you aren't blinded by hatred but communism is a hateful system that people in this thread are defending with discussions about equality and providing higher quality basic living standards for everyone. Yes, I can see that. Very convincing.


That’s correct. I am told that 7.62 NATO permanently cures treason.


Xzi said:


> That's a pathetic cop out.  The figure of 100 million deaths caused by communism undoubtedly includes deaths by starvation or lack of other essentials.  Capitalism ensures those types of deaths are a common occurrence.


I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s correct. I am told that 7.62 NATO permanently cures treason.
> 
> I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.


By that logic, it can cure stubbornness, too. Also, any fraction of the numbers Xzi offered still lends heavily towards capitalism being far from a victimless system. Why wouldn't people want to usher in something different when any number of millions of folk have suffered?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.


How is starvation any less deliberate under capitalism?  America throws out and pours bleach on metric tons of otherwise-edible food every day.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should under no circumstances be tied to the profit motive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> By that logic, it can cure stubbornness, too. Also, any fraction of the numbers Xzi offered still lends heavily towards capitalism being far from a victimless system. Why wouldn't people want to usher in something different when any number of millions of folk have suffered?


You are more than welcome to help the needy, just not with my money, and not at the point of a gun. I’m a rather charitable person myself, I simply refuse to be coerced into participating in anyone’s pipe dreams. You can play out your authoritarian fantasies on your own dime - I might chip in if I agree, or not if I disagree. That’s freedom. You telling me that I owe someone something based on nothing is coercion. Very simple stuff, really.


Xzi said:


> How is starvation any less deliberate under capitalism?  America throws out and pours bleach on metric tons of otherwise-edible food every day.
> 
> Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should under no circumstances be tied to the profit motive.


The Soviets *confiscated food from households*, numpty. They went door to door and took anything that wasn’t bolted down. People had food, and then they didn’t. They *caused* the deaths directly. I can own a pile of bread and pour bleach over it every single day - it’s my bread, I can do whatever I want with it. If *you* come in to my house and pour bleach over my pile of bread, I’m calling the police.

My happiness is encumbent on me making a profit, by the way - I want to take my capital and use it to make more capital, at my own risk. That’s none of your business since none of my things belong to you - worry about your own things.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You are more than welcome to help the needy, just not with my money, and not at the point of a gun. I’m a rather charitable person myself, I simply refuse to be coerced to participate in anyone’s pipe dreams. You can play out your authoritarian fantasies on your own dime - I might chip in if I agree, or not if I disagree. That’s freedom. You telling me that I owe someone something based on nothing is coercion. Very simple stuff, really.


How very selfish. So you acknowledge suffering and even death, but so long as it doesn't threaten your pocketbook, the guns can keep being pointed anywhere else. I'm beginning to sense a reason for disliking communism... Well, I'll continue to help the needy and work towards rallying folks to raid your house*, then! 

*That isn't a personal threat or rally cry against an individual, but a viewpoint regarding the poor stealing back from the wealthy. Nobody with any significant wealth is not a thief, so eat the rich if they won't share back~


----------



## RichardTheKing (Oct 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> After religion, Communism have caused more deaths in our world.


So Communism hasn't killed as many people as religions, yet the #1 killer is seen as socially acceptable, and even safe for kids (pffft ), whereas #2 is seen as dangerous and deadly.

Yeah, I'm far more "offended" (repulsed, sickened, disgusted, revolted, furious, lost-my-faith-in-humanity) by religion than I am Communism.
Dat  needs ta be shut down pronto, dose f*kin' cults.

I suppose religion (cults) has a better public opinion because the majority of those deaths happened centuries ago, whereas Communism (and Nazism, etc.) only happened within the last century, with people who lived through it still being alive now.
That still doesn't excuse the complete ignorance of religion's evil, but it is a possible reason.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> How very selfish. So you acknowledge suffering and even death, but so long as it doesn't threaten your pocketbook, the guns can keep being pointed anywhere else. I'm beginning to sense a reason for disliking communism... Well, I'll continue to help the needy and work towards rallying folks to raid your house*, then!
> 
> *That isn't a personal threat or rally cry against an individual, but a viewpoint regarding the poor stealing back from the wealthy. Nobody with any significant wealth is not a thief, so eat the rich if they won't share back~


That sure sounds like envy, jealousy and greed to me. Work on that. It’s hilarious that you would accuse me of pointing guns at others when it was the communists who expanded their giants on clay legs with force. They had to - since production was middling, they needed more and more nations to persecute against in order to fill their coffers. Eventually there was nothing left to conquer, and thus began the rapid decline.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That sure sounds like envy, jealousy and greed to me. Work on that.


I guess it might to somebody who doesn't have to ever starve. Equality often sounds like oppression to those with excess. Nobody celebrating socialist concepts wants to steal a yacht because they want a sweet boat party, they want to steal the yacht because it represents disgusting levels of opulence.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can own a pile of bread and pour bleach over it every single day - it’s my bread, I can do whatever I want with it. If *you* come in to my house and pour bleach over my pile of bread, I’m calling the police.


Why make this about yourself?  We're talking about deaths caused by capitalism, and obviously corporate entities fall well within that definition.  Their profits are unchanged either way, so the only reason for destroying life-sustaining nutrition like that is pure hatred/malice for the homeless and impoverished population.  Capitalism treats these people as less than human and often with more disdain than actual criminals. 

Heck, even prison provides three meals a day, thus encouraging the desperate homeless to commit criminal acts.  And that brings things full circle because it costs way more to house a prisoner than it would to simply mandate against bleaching edible food.  It's totally senseless from any perspective.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I guess it might to somebody who doesn't have to ever starve. Equality often sounds like oppression to those with excess. Nobody celebrating socialist concepts wants to steal a yacht because they want a sweet boat party, they want to steal the yacht because it represents disgusting levels of opulence.


You don’t know my life.


Xzi said:


> Why make this about yourself?  We're talking about deaths caused by capitalism, and obviously corporate entities fall well within that definition.  Their profits are unchanged either way, so the only reason for destroying life-sustaining sustenance like that is pure hatred/malice for the homeless and impoverished population.  Capitalism treats these people as less than human and often with more disdain than actual criminals.  Even prison provides three meals a day, thus encouraging the desperate homeless to commit criminal acts.


Ah, so it’s an assumption then. You’re ascribing a motive when you have no evidence of one? That’s a new one. I think we had a chat about this exact topic in another thread in the past - regulations, liability and so forth, the government can just buy all that food that’s close to its expiry date at a discounted price if it really wants to, so on and so forth. Boring, and off topic. It’s not your goods, I don’t know why you’re concerned about them. You don’t get to decide what happens with property that doesn’t belong to you anyway. What does that have to do with symbolism? While we’re on the subject of symbolism, as in the actual topic of the thread, do you find capitalist symbolism to be offensive? Like, the Coca-Cola logo, or Uncle Moneybags, anything? Now that’s a more interesting, and more humorous subject to tackle.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I think we had a chat about this exact topic in another thread in the past - regulations, liability and so forth, the government can just buy all that food that’s close to its expiry date at a discounted price if it really wants to, so on and so forth.


Correct, or they could just make it illegal to destroy/poison food that's just past its expiration, which wouldn't cost anything.  But they won't because both parties in charge of government are capitalist parties, and therefore fine with the homeless population dying due to starvation.  Impossible to attribute these deaths to anything _other_ than capitalism, really.



Foxi4 said:


> While we’re on the subject of symbolism, as in the actual topic of the thread, do you find capitalist symbolism to be offensive? Like, the Coca-Cola logo, or the Uncle Moneybags, anything? Now that’s a more interesting, and more humorous subject to tackle.


The symbols themselves?  Not particularly.  I do try to avoid certain brands because of what's associated with them or the way they choose to conduct business, though.  For example: Ford and their past association with/endorsement of the Nazis, or Nestle with their slave labor and strategy of stealing water from public sources.  It's some of the companies behind the symbols that I find offensive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Correct, or they could just make it illegal to destroy/poison food that's just past its expiration, which wouldn't cost anything.  But they won't because both parties in charge of government are capitalist parties, and therefore fine with the homeless population dying due to starvation.  Impossible to attribute these deaths to anything _other_ than capitalism, really.
> 
> 
> The symbols themselves?  Not particularly.  I do try to avoid certain brands because of what's associated with them or the way they choose to conduct business, though.  For example: Ford and their past association with/endorsement of the Nazis, or Nestle with their slave labor and strategy of stealing water from public sources.  It's some of the companies behind the symbols that I find offensive.


The first part is silly. I thought you guys liked social democracies? People can’t eat all that food, they’ll get a tummy ache!  I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that corporations *don’t* want to deal with the cost of destroying unsold stock, and it is a cost. There are certainly better solutions, and I imagine “disposing” of it with the use of homeless stomachs, perhaps with a little incentive in the form of a tax break, would do wonders - one hand washes the other. I find that people are generally more agreeable if you compensate them for their trouble, honey works better than vinegar.

The latter part is great - voting with your wallet is the way to go. Now you’re talking my language, the money language. I can get behind that - finally I got something fun out of this exchange. It’s great that we get to pick and choose what brands we support.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that corporations *don’t* want to deal with the cost of destroying unsold stock, and it is a cost.


They clearly do want to take on that cost, because bleaching the food they throw out was not always the norm.  It only started becoming common around the mid-2010s.



Foxi4 said:


> The latter part is great - voting with your wallet is the way to go. Now you’re talking my language, the money language. I can get behind that - finally I got something fun out of this exchange. It’s great that we get to pick and choose what brands we support.


I'm not about to go patting myself on the back for it, as I'm not under the delusion that my lack of patronage will be enough to put either of the megacorps I gave as examples out of business.  But sure, with capitalism you gotta take what wins you can where you can, no matter how seemingly insignificant.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 3, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I would certainly LOVE to see white collars go to jail with the same consistency as murderers, but the difference is that desperate people tend to commit murder, and as such are usually desperate in part due to being poor. Companies conspiring to make money isn't actually illegal unless they traipse into the muddy waters of fraud, environmental abuse, unethical workplace practices, etc. Creating a monopoly is technically illegal, and several actions of corporations have questionable legality, but like I was saying in my last post, this is why they lobby politicians to change or issue exceptions to laws. The government COULD do much more to prevent monopolies, they just don't have a motivation to since profit isn't gained from service to the public so much as service to the millionaire-class.
> 
> Your statement about the free market is quite accurate, however, and shows one of the big faults of unregulated capitalism. Thankfully, you're in a thread about Communism, a demonized alternative with a different view about how governments should handle the means of production~ At the end of the day, governments are made up of public servants, ideally placed there democratically to represent the will of their supporters. Giving the means of production up to the government means that, all things working as intended, the shareholders are the populous at large. Everyone prospers when the government prospers, anyone can serve the government when they want to see a change, and government staff don't have to answer to corporations because they wouldn't exist. Corporations are largely parasites that stifle innovation and prosperity, since rapid change can be costly and worker prosperity takes away from profit, and removing them as middle men just makes good sense. Anybody can work for the government as a public servant and push for change (or even just vote), but it is much more difficult to be a board member at a company.


I was saying illegal in the context of the comment I made where conspiring to price fix which is definitely illegal and crt makers lost the lawsuit because of it.


Capitalism has it's flaws but I am not fully on board with central planning. The problem is that you need to allocate finite resources to where they are needed most.

You just only have a few people in gov planning the economy and you can have all the economics degrees you want but those few people can't keep up with the ever changing supply & demand on a weekly basis for thousands and thousands of stores at thousands of locations. Thats too much to handle.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 3, 2021)

In the real world, we have the poor and homeless while the rich gets richer. This notion of you can just get a better job or pull a better business out of your hat is just not a thing for a great amount of people. Not to mention the pollution. That's with how things are now. Can't image how things would be with none or in practice no regulation or safe guards at all.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 3, 2021)

Some of the posts in this thread made me think about the KGB defector Yuri Besmenov's warning to America 29 years ago.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 3, 2021)

Viri said:


> I get more offended when some Commies act like Stalin did nothing wrong. He was a mass murdering psychopathy.


My peeve is when someone gets called a Nazi for tyrannical behavior or such when Bolshevik/Communist is way more apt.


----------



## Deleted member 569431 (Oct 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Acknowledging what the followers of one system did on ideological grounds in no way diminishes or denies the atrocities committed by the followers of another regime, that’s completely illogical. If anything, you’re the one guilty of denialism - denialism of all the crimes against humanity associated with communism. I used to live about an hour or two away from a concentration camp, I won’t be taking lessons on decorum from someone who doesn’t. To most westerners these are just things that happened in the past and they’ve read about them in a book - my family lived through them, and the evidence of those events are still standing. With some care they will be standing forever, so that we all remember them. I can look at two awful regimes and state that they’re both awful without any issues, if you can’t hold both of those ideas in your head simultaneously then that’s a “you” problem. We could sit here all day talking about all the instances of systemic extermination of people at the behest of communist regimes, on a variety of grounds, from ethnic to political - Katyn massacre, The Killing Fields, Holodomor, the list never ends. Hey, did you know that during the Cambodian genocide the Khmer Rouge used to swing babies against a tree to smash their heads in? They called it “the killing tree”, apparently that was the most cost-efficient way of killing them.
> 
> View attachment 278098
> 
> ...


This isnt about decorum and you can say what you want, I never once said you couldnt. I AM pointing out the implications of what you have said and you dont know it but Im doing you a very very big favor by coming on and doing that. Ive given you the information and its up to yourself how to deal with that. The line youre taking is very very problematic and youre going down a very slippery slope into Holocaust distortion. Im sorry for the troubles your family has been through been through, and suffering is suffering, theres no hierarchy in it and that isnt what Ive been saying just to be clear that one persons suffering is over another. It doesnt change the historical record though. The Holocaust was unprecedented above all other acts of genocide and when you promote a false equivalence, its a form of denial as to its nature. How you go forward is up to you. All the best.

PS If its Auschwitz-Birkenau youre living beside, ask one of the guides or the staff in the Memorial itself.  Ask them if what I said was correct.


----------



## Xalusc (Oct 3, 2021)

No. 
And anyone who does is, quite frankly, an idiot.


----------



## linuxares (Oct 3, 2021)

Xalusc said:


> No.
> And anyone who does is, quite frankly, an idiot.


I don't think people from example the Baltics would agree with you. I know some that got tortured and got family taken away and never seen again.

EDIT: Or being a Minority in China for example


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> EDIT: Or being a Minority in China for example


China's income and wealth inequality are second worst in the world, behind only the US.  And it's not hard to imagine where they got the idea to use prisoners for slave labor, either.  It's actions, not words, that define the reality of their economic system.  China is a capitalist oligarchy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Deleted member 569431 said:


> This isnt about decorum and you can say what you want, I never once said you couldnt. I AM pointing out the implications of what you have said and you dont know it but Im doing you a very very big favor by coming on and doing that. Ive given you the information and its up to yourself how to deal with that. The line youre taking is very very problematic and youre going down a very slippery slope into Holocaust distortion. Im sorry for the troubles your family has been through been through, and suffering is suffering, theres no hierarchy in it and that isnt what Ive been saying just to be clear that one persons suffering is over another. It doesnt change the historical record though. The Holocaust was unprecedented above all other acts of genocide and when you promote a false equivalence, its a form of denial as to its nature. How you go forward is up to you. All the best.
> 
> PS If its Auschwitz-Birkenau youre living beside, ask one of the guides or the staff in the Memorial itself.  Ask them if what I said was correct.


I don’t have to ask anyone about anything - I’ve been there, former member. Have you? I won’t be preached to on what the word “denial” is, nobody’s denying the atrocities of the Holocaust. I would’ve told you to clutch your pearls a little harder next time, but it seems that you already have and left the venue. For the record, it wasn’t only Jews that were gassed in those chambers and burned in those ovens - the Nazis weren’t very fond of gypsies, or Poles for that matter, or other Slavs. It’s not just a Jewish tragedy, it’s the world’s tragedy. I love when people from abroad tell me about the Holocaust when I could see its remnants by taking a leisurely stroll towards Kraków any time I want. The absolute gall some of you have, completely off the chart.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> For the record, it wasn’t only Jews that were gassed in those chambers and burned in those ovens - the Nazis weren’t very fond of gypsies, or Poles for that matter, or other Slavs. It’s not just a Jewish tragedy, it’s the world’s tragedy.


Don't forget _actual_ German socialists, they were some of the first executed during Hitler's rise to power.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

No, simply because the literal concept of Communism isn't the problem with the subject, but rather what happens far more often than not with it in practice.  On paper, Communism is actually a decent concept, in practice it tends to either get bastardized or corrupt to the point where when scrutinized, it isn't _really_ Communism anymore, and it tends to be in that space where Communism has made itself a bad name.  As such, no, I don't find the imagery for what Communism is meant to represent to be offensive, but I do think it's insincere for most nations that claim to truly embrace Communism to use such imagery as if they're all-in on the concept when they really aren't.


----------



## Viri (Oct 4, 2021)

Xalusc said:


> No.
> And anyone who does is, quite frankly, an idiot.


I'm sure the people in Eastern Europe who got Communism forced onto them would disagree.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Don't forget _actual_ German socialists, they were some of the first executed during Hitler's rise to power.


That’s precisely why they were executed in a slightly more dignified manner - the camps didn’t get established until much later. With that said, point taken. On the bright side, they *were* socialists, so...


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 4, 2021)

I don't because well eh
it's just a sign of upcoming  evolution


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s precisely why they were executed in a slightly more dignified manner - the camps didn’t get established until much later. With that said, point taken. On the bright side, they *were* socialists, so...


Hitler successfully removing the final roadblock to a fascist takeover and eventual attempted genocide is something you consider "on the bright side?"  In a better timeline, the socialists killed him first and there was no Holocaust.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> No, simply because the literal concept of Communism isn't the problem with the subject, but rather what happens far more often than not with it in practice.  On paper, Communism is actually a decent concept, in practice it tends to either get bastardized or corrupt to the point where when scrutinized, it isn't _really_ Communism anymore, and it tends to be in that space where Communism has made itself a bad name.  As such, no, I don't find the imagery for what Communism is meant to represent to be offensive, but I do think it's insincere for most nations that claim to truly embrace Communism to use such imagery as if they're all-in on the concept when they really aren't.


I never understood that - how is it “decent”? It’s amoral by definition. The communist idea of progress can be boiled down to three phases necessary for the achievement of utopia - first being revolution and total destruction of the current system, second being state totalitarianism to enforce collectivisation and exert total control over personal choice, including education, career and even marriage and finally the third phase, “utopia”, achieved when all dissent is crushed - abolition of private property, introduction of centralised banking, government-controlled education, labour, transportation, agriculture and industry, property rights confiscation, elimination of inheritance, regional planning and heavy income tax. In fact, forget about control over marriage - Marx, as well as Engels, believed that families should be abolished altogether since marriage “exploits women” or some such nonsense. The three-stage model was later replaced with a permanent revolution, commonly associated with Trotsky, and constant class warfare, or a two-stage model, depending on which red you ask. Excuse me for being brazen, but that sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare, and a literal prison. The whole ideology is riddled with contrasts - it focuses on democratising everything, but it doesn’t tolerate dissent and doesn’t ask for consent, so how democratic is it, really? If three guys enter your home and have a vote with you at the point of a gun regarding whether or not they should take all of your stuff, I have a feeling that you’re going to democratically lose that vote 3-1, but it’s still a burglary. The whole thing is romanticised and silly, especially by those who haven’t actually seen it or lived it. Modern socialists keep saying that it’s a great idea executed poorly, but that’s not true - it’s a horrific idea executed precisely as intended. The rubber meets the road the moment you meet the first person who *doesn’t* agree with this path of “progress”, what are you going to do about that? You’ll use force, obviously - that’s the only possible outcome. You’ll do it once, twice, ten times and before you know it, it becomes the norm, not the exception. Thanks, but no thanks.


Xzi said:


> Hitler successfully removing the final roadblock to a fascist takeover and eventual attempted genocide is something you consider "on the bright side?"  In a better timeline, the socialists killed him first and there was no Holocaust.


Removing is the correct term. I was worried that you were going to use the word “murder”, which wouldn’t apply since he killed communists, not people.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I never understood that - how is it “decent”? It’s amoral by definition. The communist idea of progress can be boiled down to three phases necessary for the achievement of utopia - first being revolution and total destruction of the current system, second being state totalitarianism to enforce collectivisation and exert total control over personal choice, including education, career and even marriage and finally the third phase, “utopia”, achieved when all dissent is crushed - abolition of private property, central banking, government-controlled education, labour, transportation, agriculture, industry, property rights confiscation, elimination of inheritance, regional planning and heavy income tax. In fact, forget about control over marriage - Marx, as well as Engels, believed that families should be abolished altogether since marriage “exploits women” or some such nonsense. The three-stage model was later replaced with a permanent revolution, commonly associated with Trotsky, and constant class warfare, or a two-stage model, depending on which red you ask. Excuse me for being brazen, but that sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare, and a literal prison. The whole ideology is riddled with contrasts - it focuses on democratising everything, but it doesn’t tolerate dissent and doesn’t ask for consent, so how democratic is it, really? If three guys enter your home and have a vote with you at the point of a gun regarding whether or not they should take all of your stuff, I have a feeling that you’re going to democratically lose that vote 3-1, but it’s still a burglary. The whole thing is romanticised and silly, especially those who haven’t seen it. Modern socialists keep saying that it’s a great idea executed poorly, but that’s not true - it’s a horrific idea executed precisely as intended. The rubber meets the road the moment you meet the first person who *doesn’t* agree with this path of “progress”, what are you going to do about that? You’ll use force, obviously - that’s the only possible outcome. You’ll do it once, twice, ten times and before you know it, it becomes the norm, not the exception. Thanks, but no thanks.


Ideally it's a great principle, everybody is equal.  In practice, that's never how any Communist nation has ever operated.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Ideally it's a great principle, everybody is equal.  In practice, that's never how any Communist nation has ever operated.


Some comrades are more equal than others, as it turns out. Thankfully they’re also equal in squalor, so all is well.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Some comerades are more equal than others, as it turns out. Thankfully they’re also equal in squalor, so all is well.


Exactly, hence why I say, on paper it's a great concept and one I don't disagree with.  But I've yet to see it in practice executed in such a way. So I don't find the imagery for what it is supposed to represent to be offensive, I find those that took it, bastardized it, and then claimed that's what Communism is in practice to be the offensive ones.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Exactly, hence why I say, on paper it's a great concept and one I don't disagree with.  But I've yet to see it in practice executed in such a way. So I don't find the imagery for what it is supposed to represent to be offensive, I find those that took it, bastardized it, and then claimed that's what Communism is in practice to be the offensive ones.


It’s an awful concept, both on paper and in practice. I disagree with your assessment, but I can respect difference of opinion.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s an awful concept, both on paper and in practice. I disagree with your assessment, but I can respect difference of opinion.


Disagree all you like I guess.  Should I feel offended or something?  I've never understood online debates when they get to this point.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Removing is the correct term. I was worried that you were going to use the word “murder”, which wouldn’t apply since he killed communists, not people.


It's hard not to see you as less than human yourself when you're literally choosing to align yourself with Hitler.



Foxi4 said:


> It’s an awful concept, both on paper and in practice. I disagree with your assessment, but I can respect difference of opinion.


The concept of capitalism on paper is that pencil pushers and middlemen get rewarded more for the minimal effort they put in than those working jobs that we can all agree are essential for society to continue functioning.  Democratic socialism is objectively better on paper than democratic capitalism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's hard not to see you as less than human yourself when you're literally choosing to align yourself with Hitler.
> 
> 
> The concept of capitalism on paper is that pencil pushers and middlemen get rewarded more for the minimal effort they put in than those working jobs that we can all agree are essential for society to continue functioning.  Democratic socialism is objectively better on paper than democratic capitalism.


When did I align myself with Hitler? Hold on to your horses, pardner - I don’t like either side of the conflict. If they’re actively engaged in killing each other, all I need is a bag of popcorn and a lawn chair. Maybe a cold one too, and a set of binoculars - observe the whole thing from a safe distance. Safe distance is what we lacked, sadly.

The concept of capitalism is free exchange of goods and services. What you guys ascribe to it is just a projection of your own failures to operate within a system where you need to have something marketable to offer. Capitalism promotes ingenuity, individualism and entrepreneurship, communism promotes theft.


----------



## asthepalacesburn (Oct 4, 2021)

Yes. You're a hypocrite if you allow Nazi imagery but not Communist Imagery.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> Disagree all you like I guess.  Should I feel offended or something?  I've never understood online debates when they get to this point.


I don’t really care how you feel. I’m simply making a statement of fact - your explanation is insufficient and omits crucial elements of the communist doctrine. I pointed out, in excruciating detail, which ones. You don’t really have to address that, it’s all purely theoretical since none of this drivel can ever be realised - the system is unworkable and never gets past stage 2. It’s as if it was designed by the South Park gnomes - there’s a genocide-shaped “???” gap between “bloody revolution” and “utopia”, and nobody can fill in that gap with anything that is even remotely sensible. Thing is, you gotta do a whole lot of it before you get everyone in line. Nobody’s managed it yet, but hey! Might work next time.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t really care how you feel. I’m simply making a statement of fact - your explanation is insufficient and omits crucial elements of the communist doctrine. I pointed out, in excruciating detail, which ones. You don’t really have to address that, it’s all purely theoretical since none of this drivel can ever be realised - the system is unworkable and never gets past stage 2. It’s as if it was designed by the South Park gnomes - there’s a genocide-shaped “???” gap between “bloody revolution” and “utopia”, and nobody can fill in that gap with anything that is even remotely sensible. Thing is, you gotta do a whole lot of it before you get everyone in line. Nobody’s managed it yet, but hey! Might work next time.


You know what I mean, extending a phony olive branch about how you can respect a difference of opinion.  This is not the first time I've seen that nonsnese before.  You clearly don't like my opinion, and that's fine, we don't have to find some common ground here if there genuinely isn't any.  I hate that phony shit.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> When did I align myself with Hitler?


You choose to dehumanize the socialists that opposed him, while still implicitly acknowledging the humanity of the Nazis and Hitler himself.  Perhaps the latter was just an oversight on your part, perhaps not.



Foxi4 said:


> What you guys ascribe to it is just a projection of your own failures to operate within a system where you need to have something marketable to offer.


All I'm ascribing to capitalism is exactly what has resulted from it.  Nearly 80% of all US jobs are in the service industry, yet it's that same 80% of the population who end up as "have-nots."  It's really no different or better than the caste system utilized by ancient Egyptians, only the technology has improved.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Capitalism promotes ingenuity, individualism and entrepreneurship, communism promotes theft.


Unchecked capitalism promotes exploitation, corruption, pollution, poverty, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

MikaDubbz said:


> You know what I mean, extending a phony olive branch about how you can respect a difference of opinion.  This is not the first time I've seen that nonsnese before.  You clearly don't like my opinion, and that's fine, we don't have to find some common ground here if there genuinely isn't any.  I hate that phony shit.


I respect it in the sense that you’re entitled to have it and I won’t go out of my way to change it. I merely gave you some things that you might want to think about, if you elect to do so. What you actually do or think is both beyond my control and none of my business - it’s a free country. I don’t have to like your opinion in order to respect you having it.


Xzi said:


> You choose to dehumanize the socialists that opposed him, while still implicitly acknowledging the humanity of the Nazis and Hitler himself.  Perhaps the latter was just an oversight on your part, perhaps not.
> 
> 
> All I'm ascribing to capitalism is exactly what has resulted from it.  Nearly 80% of all US jobs are in the service industry, yet it's that same 80% of the population who end up as "have-nots."  It's really no different or better than the caste system utilized by ancient Egyptians, only the technology has improved.


I don’t know what you mean by that. If you’re making a reference to my earlier statement saying that Germans didn’t randomly woke up one day and decided to exterminate people for no good reason then there seems to be crossed wires here. There were many people, I would argue the majority, who lived under a variety of communist systems through no fault of their own, much like there were many Germans, I would argue the majority, who weren’t too fond of genocide, or perhaps didn’t even know about it. They’re no less victims than anybody else - just born in the wrong place and the wrong time. Some people are forced to do evil by circumstance, others choose to do evil - a subtle, if meaningful difference.

The latter part is kind of silly considering the fact that the lowest social caste of ancient Egypt were slaves, as in literal property, with no agency of their own. Making a string of bad decisions that leads you into a low wage career, and continuing on that path later in life, is elective. Getting caught in a net by a slave driver is not. Different discussion altogether though, and likely a wasted effort, judging by our previous conversations on the subject.


Lacius said:


> Unchecked capitalism promotes exploitation, corruption, pollution, poverty, etc.


Pollution I can begrudgingly agree on (with about 15,000 caveats that would only derail the conversation, so I’ll omit them for the sake of brevity), the rest not so much. If you willingly sign a contract that is not beneficial to you, you have nobody to blame but yourself - quit. If you quitting would mean that you won’t be able to find another job appropriate for your skill set, that means you’re not being exploited - you’re just unskilled and not marketable. Consider self-improvement - sorry, but you’re paid as much as you’re worth. Corruption is prevalent in all systems of governance (and arguably inevitable due to human nature), we criminalise it for a reason. Funnily enough, it’s also more prominent in communist countries on account of scarcity, but who’s keeping score in la-la land, right? Poverty is not a consequence of capitalism - capitalism was one of the most powerful forces in alleviating poverty globally throughout the 20th and the 21st century. The tremendous technological progress and increased living standards can be in large part attributed to the adoption of capitalist market principles.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The latter part is kind of silly considering the fact that the lowest social caste of ancient Egypt were slaves, as in literal property, with no agency of their own. Making a string of bad decisions that leads you into a low wage career, and continuing on that path later in life, is elective. Getting caught in a net by a slave driver is not.


Records discovered in recent years actually disprove the notion that ancient Egyptians utilized slave labor.  OTOH: privatized prisons and mandatory minimum sentences, coupled with the 13th amendment, ensure slavery is alive and well in modern-day America, let alone throughout our history.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I respect it in the sense that you’re entitled to have it and I won’t go out of my way to change it. I merely gave you some things that you might want to think about, if you elect to do so. What you actually do or think is both beyond my control and none of my business - it’s a free country. I don’t have to like your opinion in order to respect you having it.


Oh brother, spare me.  You're as phony as they get if you're actually trying to convince anyone you believe such crap.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2021)

They claim to care about suffering, but never seem to care about the people suffering under capitalism. 


Foxi4 said:


> Capitalism promotes ingenuity, individualism and entrepreneurship, communism promotes theft.


Some say taxation is theft. If you agree with that, then you don't like any of the modern capitalistic systems.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Records discovered in recent years actually disprove the notion that ancient Egyptians utilized slave labor.  OTOH: privatized prisons and mandatory minimum sentences, coupled with the 13th amendment, ensure slavery is alive and well in modern-day America, let alone throughout our history.


Rubbish on both counts. Ancient Egyptians even had dedicated terms for specific kinds of slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

You’re probably confused due to fairly recent findings regarding the builders of the pyramids, not slaves in general. There are numerous ancient depictions of slaves being sold - it’s indisputable that slavery was commonplace in Ancient Egypt.

Felons are not slaves, they’re felons. Whether they’re imprisoned in a private or a public prison is immaterial, they’re not legally anyone’s property, which is the definition of what being a slave means. Minimum sentences have nothing to do with that either, setting minimums in regards to sentencing is an attempt at equalising and standardising sentences for common crimes, nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what your problem with the 13th is, you’d have to be more specific, but I bet it’s another projection.


MikaDubbz said:


> Oh brother, spare me.  You're as phony as they get if you're actually trying to convince anyone you believe such crap.


I’m not trying to convince anyone to believe anything - I don’t care what you think. I was pretty specific about that.


KingVamp said:


> They claim to care about suffering, but never seem to care about the people suffering under capitalism.
> 
> Some say taxation is theft. If you agree with that, then you don't like any of the modern capitalistic systems.


Some taxation is theft, particularly the income tax, which stands in direct opposition to capitalist principles and functions as a penalty on productivity. It’s the socialist-minded political wing that came up with that chestnut, not the capitalists one, so no - I don’t have a problem with capitalism on the basis of a policy that capitalism doesn’t endorse. Capitalists are perfectly fine with paying for services rendered, they’re not okay with punitive taxation. Great topic for a thread about taxation - I wonder if people realise that the income tax wasn’t introduced to fund the well-being of the citizens, but rather to fund various war efforts over the years, not to mention that historically speaking it’s a fairly recent development.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re probably confused due to fairly recent findings ragarding the builders of the pyramids, not slaves in general.


Indeed that's what I was referring to, so that's my mistake.



Foxi4 said:


> Felons are not slaves, they’re felons. Whether they’re imprisoned in a private or a public prison is immaterial, they’re not legally anyone’s property, which is the definition of what being a slave means. Minimum sentences have nothing to do with that either, setting minimums in regards to sentencing is an attempt at equalising and standardising sentences for common crimes, nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what your problem with the 13th is, you’d have to be more specific, but I bet it’s another projection.


Privatized prisons lead to judges on the take and widespread corruption of the justice system.  It's not a coincidence that America has more people in jail relative to its population than any other developed nation.  Mandatory minimum sentences had racist overtones and were designed to keep prisons filled with non-violent offenders serving ludicrous amounts of time.  Even the architects of those policies have admitted as much (Joe Biden included).

And what's my problem with the 13th amendment?  Only somebody who's never read it would ask that question.  It keeps slavery perpetually legal within the US.  The caveat that it's only legal as punishment for a crime isn't good enough, as crimes can completely differ from state to state, and entirely too many activities are considered criminal only for the poor.

Three things that must never be subject to the profit motive are: healthcare, the justice system, and education.  These correspond directly to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Three things that must never be subject to the profit motive are: healthcare, the justice system, and education.  These correspond directly to: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Forcing anyone to work regardless of profit margin through government coercion is indentured servitude, whether you’re talking about medical professionals, law enforcers or educators. What you’ve just described is closer to slavery than what you’re complaining about.


----------



## duwen (Oct 4, 2021)

Lol, these threads....
How long before you snowflakes are getting triggered by literally any iconography, symbol or logo in existence?!?


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Pollution I can begrudgingly agree on (with about 15,000 caveats that would only derail the conversation, so I’ll omit them for the sake of brevity), the rest not so much. If you willingly sign a contract that is not beneficial to you, you have nobody to blame but yourself - quit. If you quitting would mean that you won’t be able to find another job appropriate for your skill set, that means you’re not being exploited - you’re just unskilled and not marketable. Consider self-improvement - sorry, but you’re paid as much as you’re worth. Corruption is prevalent in all systems of governance (and arguably inevitable due to human nature), we criminalise it for a reason. Funnily enough, it’s also more prominent in communist countries on account of scarcity, but who’s keeping score in la-la land, right? Poverty is not a consequence of capitalism - capitalism was one of the most powerful forces in alleviating poverty globally throughout the 20th and the 21st century. The tremendous technological progress and increased living standards can be in large part attributed to the adoption of capitalist market principles.


 "Consider self-improvement - sorry, but you’re paid as much as you’re worth."

While there is a stretch yet to be made, the idea behind this does get dangerously close to the idea of eugenics, especially in today's capitalist society when most post secondary schools are for profit and trade schools are either overlooked or have flooded the job market with a pool of skilled workers and not enough work to pay them adequately. 

In a capitalist society, it's not a wrong allusion to make, people getting paid what they're worth. However, when you have companies still existing from when America was first founded that predominantly control much of our current government through lobbying and underhanded tactics, it's hard for everyone to start at the bottom and climb their way to the top to enjoy things like free enterprise and basic commodities. Look at the weed industry. How many fortune 500 companies were made from this industry, what with Marijuana being outlawed and enforced by timber companies and like? It's taken decades just to have the industry come close to being a publicly traded property, and we have capitalism to take for that. How many other companies, and the people who own them, have gone under due to monopolies and greedy corporate tactics? 

In theory, communism on paper gives everyone the same base starting point, whereas capitalism creates an environment where everyone constantly has to fight for themselves, and does not often reward solidarity. In fact, capitalism is one of the few economic systems where you actively get punished for being poor, something communism can help alleviate,  provided it's being done properly


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Forcing anyone to work regardless of profit margin through government coercion is indentured servitude, whether you’re talking about medical professionals, law enforcers or educators. What you’ve just described is closer to slavery than what you’re complaining about.


Yay, finally replaced my old failing hard drive, and I come back to pages of Foxinsanity! I was really of the hope I wouldn't need to take more of those "just murder more of your peers 'cuz you're sub human lulz" comments... Totally not a comparable attitude to the folks you hate and wrongly affiliate with a progressive movement!

Taking it from here, though, methinks your imagination runs a bit short. In order to live in a capitalist country in any capacity, people need money. No money means you will die of starvation, exposure, and being denied access to gbatemp. As such, the government is coercing you to work a job. As it presently stands, law enforcement and ALREADY draws checks from the government, since... y'know... they enforce the laws... of the government... and they don't tend to think of themselves as "enforcement slaves", however teachers are a much more interesting situation since there are several attempts from the private sector to invade and sabotage our education system, and this ties into Xzi's point! 

Education used to be a strong cornerstone of US values, but as more and more call has been made for private learning institutions (primarily aiming at religious and "conservative" values), funds have been diverted and politicians have been lobbied to strip away at the quality of the public resource. Introducing a profit motive to education has turned it into a dire battle with worse results, and now teachers are having to deal with dire issues. Even still, teaching is a noble profession and those who partake in it don't tend to call themselves "information slaves"... or at least I don't.

I'm also pretty sure that in countries where medicine is socialized, the doctors don't refer to themselves as "medicine slaves" either. And it works better for both the people who rely on them, and even the doctors themselves by and large. Thanks for bringing up one of Ben Shapiro's stupidest talking points to strengthen the idea that communism is superior to capitalism!


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Yay, finally replaced my old failing hard drive, and I come back to pages of Foxinsanity! I was really of the hope I wouldn't need to take more of those "just murder more of your peers 'cuz you're sub human lulz" comments... Totally not a comparable attitude to the folks you hate and wrongly affiliate with a progressive movement!
> 
> Taking it from here, though, methinks your imagination runs a bit short. In order to live in a capitalist country in any capacity, people need money. No money means you will die of starvation, exposure, and being denied access to gbatemp. As such, the government is coercing you to work a job. As it presently stands, law enforcement and ALREADY draws checks from the government, since... y'know... they enforce the laws... of the government... and they don't tend to think of themselves as "enforcement slaves", however teachers are a much more interesting situation since there are several attempts from the private sector to invade and sabotage our education system, and this ties into Xzi's point!
> 
> ...


If you expect a doctor to treat a patient regardless of whether or not the patient has means of payment for the services rendered, that’s indentured servitude - you expect someone to perform work without any remuneration. They can do that pro bono if they choose to do so, which is perfectly fine and common, but if you force them to do so, you’re one step removed from slavery. If you then expect me to give you a portion of my income, which is completely unrelated to this matter, in order to pay said doctor somehow with public funds, you’re appropriating my property, which is theft. Everything else is feel-good fluff. I don’t care how doctors call themselves in systems with socialised medicine - I’ve lived under two such systems at this point, the NFZ and the NHS, and so far the only things I’ve observed were inefficiency, wasteful spending and long queues. Have fun waiting four hours to see a practitioner, I’ll go privately if I ever need to and get seen to on schedule. Shame that I still have to pay for the crappier alternative anyway despite not using it. The only advantage of a public health service is accessibility, nothing more. I was always of the opinion that people who *can* afford to go see the doctor should be asked to pay at the till, any excess from those transactions should be used to fund a small, very limited service for those with no income or savings whatsoever. That’s a far more equitable and fair distribution model, with “the rich” paying “their fair share” for services rendered and the poor still being seen to. Unfortunately that solution makes too much sense, so it will never be enacted. Governments will always lean towards large molochs like the NHS instead, riddled with inefficiency, because it enables them to control every aspect of them and skim anything they can off the top. Thinking anything less is naive idealism.


SyphenFreht said:


> "Consider self-improvement - sorry, but you’re paid as much as you’re worth."
> 
> While there is a stretch yet to be made, the idea behind this does get dangerously close to the idea of eugenics, especially in today's capitalist society when most post secondary schools are for profit and trade schools are either overlooked or have flooded the job market with a pool of skilled workers and not enough work to pay them adequately.
> 
> ...


That’s some mental gymnastics. If there’s a long queue of people with your exact skill set that can easily replace you, sorry, but your services are just not in high demand. You can change that by developing other skills, but your life’s troubles are not caused by me - I didn’t make your choices for you and I shouldn’t be burdened with their consequences.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s some mental gymnastics. If there’s a long queue of people with your exact skill set that can easily replace you, sorry, but your services are just not in high demand. You can change that by developing other skills, but your life’s troubles are not caused by me - I didn’t make your choices for you and I shouldn’t be burdened with their consequences.


So, applying this example to both capitalist and communist societies, what should one do when there is no opportunity to learn said skills? Should they, in America for example, take a chance and put themselves into debt going into a college of any kind to learn a skill that's not guaranteed to get them a job? What if their local community, as if often stateside, simply does not have the resources to teach new skills en masse, nor has a readily available job pool for the skills one wants to learn? The easy answer would be to relocate, but if they're already struggling financially to the point of consideration, what chances and resources do they have to actually benefit from that commitment? 

Capitalism is an easy answer to an imminent problem, but when applied to long term issues, many of which stem from years of systemic economic abuse already in existence, it falls every time. The only way to sustain its idea is to constantly have a bottom level to exploit when supply and demand runs short


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 4, 2021)

Re learning. Self teaching is a thing. Internet has some wonderful resources for all manner of things, and many things you can learn on your own time for next to nothing and show up with at least a basic understanding when they are merely after someone with a pulse. Might be hard work but hey. The idea that you need to go to university merely means you have bought the propaganda (your parents, teachers, politicos and more lied to you, can hardly be the biggest shock if you are reading this). It is certainly useful for some things, though not necessarily what many would expect, but so many other options exist.

Anyway apologies if it is in the first few pages but something to ponder.

If we are doing the boring left-right system of political analysis then many have noted the right wing will police their wackadoodle types (whether that is historically the nazis or not we could debate, even without horseshoes, but the current set, all three of them, mostly find themselves there), the left however has seemed far more reluctant to do the same for their wackadoodle set (this would be the communists for those needing it spelled out). Might that be the source of the apparent contradiction in lack of or degree of revulsion despite both routinely being responsible for more than enough atrocities to go around?

All I know at this point is at least the utterly tame TV networks gave me the history channel that basically did wall to wall world war 2 before they went in for aliens and ghost hunting. Trying to watch history channels on youtube gets to be a right chore since they decided to try to have nobody offended by anything, ever. Mind you they are also doing it for USSR figures as well leading them to speak in code too


One example of history channels being messed with


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> So, applying this example to both capitalist and communist societies, what should one do when there is no opportunity to learn said skills? Should they, in America for example, take a chance and put themselves into debt going into a college of any kind to learn a skill that's not guaranteed to get them a job?


Yes, that’s correct, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be college either (see above). Success is based on risk, not security. If you’re not willing to take risks in life, you’re not in deservement of any rewards. Fortune favours the bold - if you don’t have the guts to put what you’ve got towards something uncertain, but possibly lucrative, you can continue coasting away on the bare minimum. Your indecision, or lack of ingenuity, entrepreneurship or research is not my problem.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Forcing anyone to work regardless of profit margin through government coercion is indentured servitude, whether you’re talking about medical professionals, law enforcers or educators. What you’ve just described is closer to slavery than what you’re complaining about.


Totally disingenous to suggest that separating these things from the profit motive is the same as not paying workers in those industries.  We underpay many of these positions in the US despite privatization anyway.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Oct 4, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Hi!
> 
> I got inspired by the thread https://gbatemp.net/threads/do-you-find-nazi-imagery-offensive.600543/
> 
> ...


Communism is the second-greatest causer of deaths in the world? Are you actually being serious?


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 4, 2021)

What the Soviet Union and China had/has is not comparable to Karl Marx's philosophy. As much as Lenin idolised Marx, he loved his own power and wealth much more


----------



## linuxares (Oct 4, 2021)

seany1990 said:


> What the Soviet Union and China had/has is not comparable to Karl Marx's philosophy. As much as Lenin idolised Marx, he loved his own power and wealth much more


Yeah that issue with communism. People


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Totally disingenous to suggest that separating these things from the profit motive is the same as not paying workers in those industries.  We underpay many of these positions in the US despite privatization anyway.


Seems to me that they’re extremely overpaid, particularly in the UK where I reside, and where all that money comes from public funds, public funds being a euphemism for my money. What’s disingenuous is you pretending that removing the possibility of choice doesn’t turn a voluntary labour into involuntary labour.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Seems to me that they’re extremely overpaid, particularly in the UK where I reside, and where all that money comes from public funds, public funds being a euphemism for my money.


Probably overestimating your contribution in taxes if you think it's enough to keep every hospital in the country afloat, lol.  It's public money (taxes), and we have to pay those in the US too, but we get a lot less in return for them.  Our doctors aren't underpaid, but our nurses and our educators are.



Foxi4 said:


> What’s disingenuous is you pretending that removing the possibility of choice doesn’t turn a voluntary labour into involuntary labour.


Pretty sure people still get to pick their own career field in your country, as well as every other country that has public healthcare/education.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you expect a doctor to treat a patient regardless of whether or not the patient has means of payment for the services rendered, that’s indentured servitude - you expect someone to perform work without any remuneration. They can do that pro bono if they choose to do so, which is perfectly fine and common, but if you force them to do so, you’re one step removed from slavery. If you then expect me to give you a portion of my income, which is completely unrelated to this matter, in order to pay said doctor somehow with public funds, you’re appropriating my property, which is theft. Everything else is feel-good fluff. I don’t care how doctors call themselves in systems with socialised medicine - I’ve lived under two such systems at this point, the NFZ and the NHS, and so far the only things I’ve observed were inefficiency, wasteful spending and long queues. Have fun waiting four hours to see a practitioner, I’ll go privately if I ever need to and get seen to on schedule. Shame that I still have to pay for the crappier alternative anyway despite not using it. The only advantage of a public health service is accessibility, nothing more. I was always of the opinion that people who *can* afford to go see the doctor should be asked to pay at the till, any excess from those transactions should be used to fund a small, very limited service for those with no income or savings whatsoever. That’s a far more equitable and fair distribution model, with “the rich” paying “their fair share” for services rendered and the poor still being seen to. Unfortunately that solution makes too much sense, so it will never be enacted. Governments will always lean towards large molochs like the NHS instead, riddled with inefficiency, because it enables them to control every aspect of them and skim anything they can off the top. Thinking anything less is naive idealism.


No, just no. Seriously, are you deliberately trolling? The idea of socialized care is that the SOCIETY pays for the care, not an individual at point of service. After this, I have to consider that you're once again unwilling to debate in good faith, or at the very least, I can no longer presume you're any measure of a decent human being if you can espouse such nonsense with a straight face. Considering your prior trolling comments, I'm really having to lean towards the former.

Just to hit the two systems you mentioned starting with the NHS, their health care has also been hit by the profit motive, as the conservative party has consistently slashed costs and even proposed switching to private health care. The NFZ has also been consistently at the bottom of the rankings list of health care outcomes in the western world, and... drumroll please... it has, what very few might argue, the most US-inspired health care in the region, offering private insurance side by side with a nationalized health care system that is quite sabotaged in their market. Once again, Xzi's point rings quite true, and all you can reply with is literal fear mongering. This is very disappointing.




Foxi4 said:


> Yes, that’s correct, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be college either (see above). Success is based on risk, not security. If you’re not willing to take risks in life, you’re not in deservement of any rewards. Fortune favours the bold - if you don’t have the guts to put what you’ve got towards something uncertain, but possibly lucrative, you can continue coasting away on the bare minimum. Your indecision, or lack of ingenuity, entrepreneurship or research is not my problem.


Easy to say, for somebody who doesn't have to lose everything in order to even have a chance at long term survival, let alone the chance to thrive. An issue with capitalism is that the risks are not the same for everyone. You can call it jealousy and envy and whatever else you want, and it isn't untrue to a point, but it also isn't without cause. Many individuals smarter than you have died at the wayside, even having taken bigger risks and even in defense of the very freedoms you take for granted where you're from. Sorry pal, I might not know your life story, but you make your privilege and ignorance easy to spot in your posts. Please, just stop.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> No, just no. Seriously, are you deliberately trolling? The idea of socialized care is that the SOCIETY pays for the care, not an individual at point of service. After this, I have to consider that you're once again unwilling to debate in good faith, or at the very least, I can no longer presume you're any measure of a decent human being if you can espouse such nonsense with a straight face. Considering your prior trolling comments, I'm really having to lean towards the former.
> 
> Just to hit the two systems you mentioned starting with the NHS, their health care has also been hit by the profit motive, as the conservative party has consistently slashed costs and even proposed switching to private health care. The NFZ has also been consistently at the bottom of the rankings list of health care outcomes in the western world, and... drumroll please... it has, what very few might argue, the most US-inspired health care in the region, offering private insurance side by side with a nationalized health care system that is quite sabotaged in their market. Once again, Xzi's point rings quite true, and all you can reply with is literal fear mongering. This is very disappointing.
> 
> Easy to say, for somebody who doesn't have to lose everything in order to even have a chance at long term survival, let alone the chance to thrive. An issue with capitalism is that the risks are not the same for everyone. You can call it jealousy and envy and whatever else you want, and it isn't untrue to a point, but it also isn't without cause. Many individuals smarter than you have died at the wayside, even having taken bigger risks and even in defense of the very freedoms you take for granted where you're from. Sorry pal, I might not know your life story, but you make your privilege and ignorance easy to spot in your posts. Please, just stop.


Of course private industry steps in when the inefficient and god awful public option sucks - what are you going to do about it, come in from on high and tell people that they *can’t* open a private practice and do a better job if they’re qualified to do so? Oh, wait, that is what you’re saying, since your side always ultimately devolves into authoritarianism. Nevermind, I shouldn’t have asked.

Quick question, is there anything else that I can send “the society” a bill for? Can “the society” pay for my McDonald’s? Jokes aside, I know what the idea is - you establish an involuntary system of labour working on the premise that you’ll be able to pay all those workers using the funds you’ve seized from everybody else through taxation. You then wish to remove the private alternative to remove the element of competition from the equation since you, for some reason, believe that healthcare is an industry exempt from all the normal rules governing the market. By doing so you effectively force all doctors to work for your public option, removing the possibility of choice, and thus their agency. That doesn’t make it any less indentured, you’re the one who’s trolling by pretending that this isn’t the case. Fast forward a couple of years when the inefficiency starts being too obvious to ignore and you’ll start talking about price and wage control, and let’s not forget about rationing. Long story short, I just boiled it down to the core components for you to demonstrate the point, and the point is valid, whether you like it or not.

We’re broadly okay with the system working in this way because, generally speaking, we don’t like seeing dead people in the streets. It works poorly, but at least it works. That doesn’t mean that the system can’t be reformed or made better, I believe that was brought up in this thread earlier, so it’s funny to see you resist the notion.

I’m sorry that not everything always works out for everybody. In fact, the gross majority of businesses close their doors within the first few years of operation. Which part of “risk” was unclear? You don’t have to take the risk, nobody’s forcing you to do so, and that’s not the point of contention. The point of contention is that the system you endorse *removes* the option of taking a risk - it abolishes private property and enterprise. If that’s not an egregious infringement of liberty, I don’t know what is.


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 4, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, that’s correct, and it doesn’t necessarily need to be college either (see above). Success is based on risk, not security. If you’re not willing to take risks in life, you’re not in deservement of any rewards. Fortune favours the bold - if you don’t have the guts to put what you’ve got towards something uncertain, but possibly lucrative, you can continue coasting away on the bare minimum. Your indecision, or lack of ingenuity, entrepreneurship or research is not my problem.



Why though? Why should life be a constant push and pull of risk taking and possible reward? I don't want to divulge into this too deeply and stray off topic, but it seems kinda terrible to enforce a system where your citizens need to, essentially, fight to the eventual death more often than not in order to just provide basic needs. It's common era Roman gladiators, if you will. 

You say bare minimum, but capitalism thrives off the exploitation of those living off bare minimum. How is that fair, or even competent? Not to mention, once the bottom class finally rises, it boosts everything above it, and considering sh*t rolls downhill, it became a never ending vicious cycle. 

You keep mentioning other peoples' inabilities aren't your problem, but the basic idea behind capitalism, and the foundation of the states, was that of solidarity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> Why though? Why should life be a constant push and pull of risk taking and possible reward? I don't want to divulge into this too deeply and stray off topic, but it seems kinda terrible to enforce a system where your citizens need to, essentially, fight to the eventual death more often than not in order to just provide basic needs. It's common era Roman gladiators, if you will.
> 
> You say bare minimum, but capitalism thrives off the exploitation of those living off bare minimum. How is that fair, or even competent? Not to mention, once the bottom class finally rises, it boosts everything above it, and considering sh*t rolls downhill, it became a never ending vicious cycle.
> 
> You keep mentioning other peoples' inabilities aren't your problem, but the basic idea behind capitalism, and the foundation of the states, was that of solidarity.


If you refuse to take risks and refuse to pursue any kind of qualifications, or do anything to improve your circumstances, you are not being exploited - you’re just not that valuable or special. Capitalism provides some of the best incentives for self-improvement. Solidarity is a great principle, but you can’t eat it. The fact that some people have more than you doesn’t mean that any kind of unfairness is taking place - they’ve enacted to take risks that you didn’t, or perhaps their family did, in the hopes that it will improve their living standards in the long run. If someone’s not willing to take risks and sacrifice in the present for the prospect of prosperity in the future, they can have porridge, I don’t see that as unfair in any shape or form. It is not my responsibility to prop strangers up, I have my own family to worry about.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you refuse to take risks and refuse to pursue any kind of qualifications, or do anything to improve your circumstances, you are not being exploited - you’re just not that valuable or special. Capitalism provides some of the best incentives for self-improvement. Solidarity is a great principle, but you can’t eat it. The fact that some people have more than you doesn’t mean that any kind of unfairness is taking place - they’ve enacted to take risks that you didn’t, or perhaps their family did, in the hopes that it will improve their living standards in the long run. If someone’s not willing to take risks and sacrifice in the present for the prospect of prosperity in the future, they can have porridge, I don’t see that as unfair in any shape or form. It is not my responsibility to prop strangers up, I have my own family to worry about.


I am awestruck by your lack of empathy, which seems to be venturing into 80s cartoon supervillain territory at this point. Still, you may have played up one of the biggest issues of capitalism, by stating that "or perhaps their family did". Generational wealth is a major part of the problem, in that those who have wealth hoard it and then pass it on to their kin, who do so again in turn. For those with nothing, your "risks" to improve their lives often are gambling against any future wealth they might ever inquire, resulting in something far closer to indentured servitude than the trumped up insanity you prattle on about. Meanwhile, those with familial wealth can risk far, far more without worrying about anything other than maybe not being able to afford another trip to Tahiti this fiscal quarter. Even if Party A in this scenario can produce something of higher quality, or perform better, or cure cancer, Party B can afford more chances, and even afford to impede Party A if they become a threat.

Should all of society work together, every single person could be housed, fed, and given ample medical care and vocational training, while still supporting a number of exceptional people as millionaires. Should things continue as they are, the planet will continue to warm and civilization could end. Folks misusing the idea of communism in the past might have done terrible things, but the path the world is on presently might end us all, and is already damaging the planet to the point where ecosystems are being ruined, lives and livelihoods are being impacted through no direct fault of their own, and species are rapidly going extinct.


----------



## Minox (Oct 5, 2021)

Offensive - no. Distasteful, yes.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 5, 2021)

Because homelessness and poverty under capitalism isn't an egregious infringement of liberty.



Foxi4 said:


> Some taxation is theft,


How do you make the distinction? What taxes are OK?



Foxi4 said:


> Some taxation is theft, particularly the income tax, which stands in direct opposition to capitalist principles and functions as a penalty on productivity. It’s the socialist-minded political wing that came up with that chestnut, not the capitalists one, so no - I don’t have a problem with capitalism on the basis of a policy that capitalism doesn’t endorse. Capitalists are perfectly fine with paying for services rendered, they’re not okay with punitive taxation.


How it is a penalty or punitive when it is going to services that you just admitted you are OK with? 



Foxi4 said:


> Great topic for a thread about taxation - I wonder if people realise that the income tax wasn’t introduced to fund the well-being of the citizens, but rather to fund various war efforts over the years, not to mention that historically speaking it’s a fairly recent development.


That just makes it more apparent to redirect some of the money into services that actual help people.


----------



## notimp (Oct 5, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> Free enterprise is successful because the consumer ultimately dictate's the market: what is produced, how much is produced, and the cost. Naturally, the consumer is in the best position to decide what will enhance their quality of life. Communism has always been sold as a "fair and equal" approach to governance, but history shows it is a way to maintain class separation for people holding power.


Ah, another example of be aware of people throwing around the world naturally. Which usually means they havent understood how stuff works, but wanna sell it to you..  (More often found in stuff like "natural cleaning solutions on water basis", but this works also..  )

Maintaining class separation never was the issue.  I mean, sure, on the PR front, maybe - but not on the system level. The issue there more often than not was misallocation of resources and central planning always working less well, than decentralized planning with a better incentive structure. (As in "if I good at something, I get filthy rich in the process, potentially".)



0x3000027E said:


> The trouble with communism is fairly obvious to me; government claims full ownership of all production and resource, yet is incapable of producing resource.


If you look at the chinese model currently, they still hold the more or less sole ownership of resources, and give rough planing goals on the regional level, then let the regions compete against each other on metrics, using capitalism. Because allocation of resources is better under capitalism. Resource flow is managed via paybacks into the political elite and to not make it that obvious, you hold an anti corruption campaign once in a while, usually aimed at internal opponents in the one party system. But you make sure, that industry titans never get ownership over resources. They only get them, if they pay the state.

State in itself then does all the longterm planning, and the social services stuff, which unlike in the US cant be financed, by always pronouncing that "if people are about to rebel" we raise the debt ceiling.  There is a certain kind of working logic to that as well.. 

In capitalism that tends to produce oligopolies the logic usually goes, at one point you cant ignore societal needs anymore, because the people will rebel, so even if you sell out power to uncontrolled power centers, people will somehow fix it through political movements. (Exchange the political elite, new elite gets bought (maybe not straight out bought, but "adviced by, without a direct exchange of money")  by a different subset of industrialists, but that produces new economic activity, and...)



KingVamp said:


> That said, the concept of communism is just going be more outdated as technology moves forward anyway.


I've got bad news for you. Surveillance capitalism (not a slant against capitalism, its just the name for that kind of innovation  ), kinda good at keeping systems stable. And central planning capacity is always increasing.. 


Foxi4 said:


> As for China, the only reason why the Chinese are not starving while trying to share a grain of rice among everybody in the village is specifically because they’ve embraced some (not all) principles of the free market.


While true, you also have to look at the feedback loops. Your logic always goes exactly as far as "industrialist making money - and then lives happily ever after".  Feedback loops in capitalism are messy as heck. Take climate change as an example. What do you do to fix "misallocations". Or a crisis.

US usually prints large amounts of money ("Moonshot projects") and creates new sectors and opportunities, if needed. To be able to do so, you have to keep the output of your education system still somewhat egalitarian, and at "best minds succeed" levels).

If you cant do that (printing money) - you try to drum up buzz for new industrial sectors, via activist movements, impact investment, cofinancing startup scenes, and the education sector. But its messy.

The issue is, that whole regions under capitalism can spiral into regressive loops (self enforcing), and telling people that they are now poor for a while, until the next development comes along doesnt always work. (Again, climate change f.e.) because f.e. resources might be allocated by the market 'wrongly' f.e. (short term profit perspective, not taking limits of growth into account, not taking into account that switching planning concepts 5min before a systemic issue occurs might be too late, ...). Feedback loops.



Foxi4 said:


> They should be considered as equal to Nazi symbolism - it’s just another failed ideology from the past that was entirely based on hate and led to untold suffering.


No and yes. 

The ideology wasnt wrong. It (Karl Marx - "The capital") was probably the single most influential economic theory (also in the capitalist world) since its inception. Regardless, that it got people wrong, but so does capitalism  (rational actors).  But this is a fluffy battle around concepts and what they mean.

The political system born out of this ideology (has to do with what groups form when, and who killed/imprisoned what leader, and who held a speech when, with fluffy orange hair), very much was flawed. And failed hard. Partly because of a failure to allocate resources as efficiently, partly because of the power imbalances mentioned - but the atrocities usually always had been sufficiently covered up. 

Does this mean, that 'communism wasnt wrong and with different people at the helm, and the technology we have today and..' no, not at all.

Marx was a depressed loner looking at society from the outside (and it was a good critical view), who in a period of industrial change (moguls against aristocracy, with moguls ultimately winning) could bundle enough interest to create an ideology based political movement, which in an instance was taken over by other people ("drive for power") and ideologs (people with an opinion), and well connected people who were probably more influencial in making it a popular movement than Marx himself.

This differs from current politics, where everyone acknowledges (also an ideology btw.) that societal systems are so complex, that a simple ideology (what you tell the voter) should not drive political decision making anymore. But we still do the song and dance (feedback loops), just without the constant measuring process of "do I have correct ideology". Because the answer is always "it depends".

Next step is to look into feedback loops failing. Like f.e. "capitalism winning" against Roosevelt new deal concept (he only shifted power from one industrial elite to new growing one - he wasnt the anti capitalist devil you are painting him as, by a long shot..  ) having to do with, that trade unions were basically broken up, which also has to do with a drive towards an export oriented economy. And that if you are producing anything for america specifically at this point in time, you must be stupid...  Or the feedback loops with 'externalities' (stuff outside the corporate logic, that always thinks in 15 year cycles max.) like climate change.

So capitalism is reinventing itself many times over (Bretton Woods? We are financing your shortterm growth for a stake in your longterm growth?) Communism was as well - and yes they did it by partly embracing the free market. But then what does partly mean...


Leading into the final point I want to make which is -- talking about ideologies, and is mine truer than yours, and which one did win - and...
ultimately is useless. Talking about symbols (they are just emotionally charged "thingamajiggs") ultimately is useless, because try anticipating how the system will develop over time - and fail every time (in anticipating it..  ).

Talk about ideologies and symbols becomes important, if the PR level of politics is important to you (and sometimes rightfully so) - so if someone has told a bunch of people a nice story again, and they have created symbols, and simplified it enough, so that it could become popular -- and someone thinks, that there might be a problem with that.

Then talking about symbols becomes important.

Or on the other side of the PR spectrum. If you've got to unify people because of internal pressures and sell them hopium (not necessarily meant negatively), then talking about symbols becomes important. Usually more so in painting an enemy to "unite against".

But deducing out of symbols and ideologies, why one societal concept is better than another one - usually is done by historians. So PR people writing about the past.   (In this instance.) Usually necessity trumps ideology and ideology is good for rallying people, but not much else. But its also needed, because people need to have a vision of the future, to get to acting towards it. Or even just a feeling of something thats developing.

Communism or capitalism pretty much struggle with the same issues that both would acknowledge and in a sense (we also have national 'champions' that are too big to fail, so the state bails them out...), having competing systems isnt the worst thing that could happen. From a problem solving perspective.

Now is "China taking over" - well, yes to a certain extent. They have won the battle of minds (political ideologies) in many developing countries, but mostly because the IMF and world bank failed so hard and they were good in allocating a BUNCH of moneys (during their capitalism driven extreme growth period), they invested in said markets much like Bretton Woods did. (Instead of producing failed economies, which pretty much was the goal of the west (but everyone always, ...  ) in resource rich countries, that werent your own.  ). And suddenly those countries like the Chinese model better, because its connected to progress.

But then comes the messy part again where the US is fighting to keep world reserve currency and limited chinese growth at a period where its most inopportune for them, and they dropped all "world trading route systems" like a hot potatoes, except those "in the region" and switched their economy to internal growth (at least pro forma), because they had to. (Growth rates werent as high as before.)

Is that US and capitalism being bad for doing that? No - its entirely understandable.

Why cant the US switch to an internal growth period? Because the US 'owns' the world economy via its reserve currency, stupid. As in - the US is always profiting more from gaining rewards based on the worlds economy than on its own. Despite this kind of being the end goal, try to change that, and see how you fail. 

At which point you should have understood very distinctly how much ideology is worth.  (And symbols which stand for ideology.)
--


Very last point. Why is Nazi special and more evil than all other thingies? Well - first, because its so easy to get people hooked and active in said ideology. Three points.

1. We against them (ingroup vs outgroup), based on race. You master race, because you born right, you are better, no one can take that away from you, you just betta. Talking about hopium. People are now so flipping sure that they are better, and no one can take that away from them, that they follow leader to the end of the world. Thats very potent stuff.
(Nowadays reframed to "ultranationalism" (Amurica to the amuricans), and other stuff.)

2. Industrialists become rulers of the state. Industrialists like very much. Very compatible with capitalism and everything else.

3. All that is needed from you, grunt, is weapon power and wearing uniform. Oh, you will be loved by your girlfriends, girlfriend. Lets go - lets make our own state. And while we are at it, kill off the former intellectual elite, and then when we have growth problems start invading neighbor countries. Talking about growth potential. Oh, and who do we blame? Jewish world conspiracy?

It doesnt take much. Also its a flipping well established concept -- that ended in the worst atrocities humanity was capable of producing to this day offering entirely new perspectives on "human detachment" and "dehumanization".

(Ok, maybe the Incas were worse in terms of their blood cult, but who is writing that ranking...)

Meaning - the risk of this happening is a little higher, than you getting another Karl Marx, who convinces people on the power of egalitarianism as an ideology, which then repopularizes central planning, and then you are having a rough winter, at which point the atrocities spike through the roof, because you cant have anyone see whats really happening. (As a political system.) Kind of hard nowadays also, because - internet.
-

And to understand that all - in terms of a more educated ideology (because what are we without ideologies, really..  ) all you have to do is to watch two movies. But you have to watch both of them.

Mr. Jones (2019) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Jones_(2019_film) )
and
Office (2015) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_(2015_Hong_Kong_film) )

Both of them are propaganda to some extent, but also go a little deeper into concepts.

In the first one you see communism from the western perspective.
In the second one you see capitalism from the chinese perspective. (But that isnt enough, so maybe you have to watch a third movie -
Kaili Blues (2015) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaili_Blues ) )

And if you then just want to watch a good movie about "growing up" the human spirit and some of the drives "society" tries to contain - may I recommend Wong Kar-Weis Days of being wild (1990) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Being_Wild ).

The chinese movies might be harder to source, but they are worth it.
(And yes, you will be watching them with subtitles on.)

That should help you stop obsessing about political concepts, even if just for the moment.  You can get back to it later. 


But please dont be stuck in the state, where you dont want to hear what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism was - and that it probably has more to do with your concept of communism, than communism itself. 
Spoken as someone thats unlikely to embrace a "I for one welcome our new chinese overlords" mentality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Because homelessness and poverty under capitalism isn't an egregious infringement of liberty.
> 
> 
> How do you make the distinction? What taxes are OK?
> ...


Answering paragraph by paragraph since I can’t be arsed to slice the quote up.

Homelessness and poverty are not an infringement of liberty, they’re a consequence of poor decisions and/or unfortunate happenstance. Under capitalism you are free to make your own decisions, including bad ones which lead you to become empoverished or homeless. The same cannot be said about communism - under communism it is encumbent on the government to centrally redistribute resources, so any homelessness or poverty is a direct result of government mandate.

I already made the distinction - payment for services rendered is a fair tax. Not to look too far for an example, a portion of the cost of fuel funds the road tax. If I purchase fuel, I pay that fuel tax proportionally to my use of the road, as reflected by my consumption of fuel. With the NHS I pay regardless of whether I use it or not, and the amount of National Insurance tax (NI tax) I pay is not a reflection of my use of services, it is a reflection of my income. That is an unfair tax, by definition.

It is unfair and punitive because it increases with income bracket. It directly disincentivises climbing the income ladder as it effectively means that if I get paid more, a higher percentage of my money will be seized by the government. It is a penalty on productivity - the more I work the more I have to pay, especially across brackets. If the income tax were to exist at all, it should be a flat tax across the board, but even that is punitive since it affects low income earners the most. For all intents and purposes we should get rid of it entirely and adjust other taxes to compensate, in the interest of fairness. Let’s circle back to the tax on fuel - you know who uses a lot of it? Large mega corporations with enormous fleets of transport vehicles and other fuel-dependent machinery. You know who doesn’t? Joe Shmoe with one tank to fill every few days. We don’t *need* a tax on income - we should incentivise climbing up, not penalise it.

I have a better idea - how about redirecting my money from services that don’t help people back to me, since I’m the guy who worked for it? I can assure you that I have some great ideas on how it could be spent to improve the life of some citizens, namely me. I would *much* prefer if all that money was injected into the economy through participation in commerce than on government boondoggles.



Dakitten said:


> I am awestruck by your lack of empathy, which seems to be venturing into 80s cartoon supervillain territory at this point.


Thank you, I do my best.

As for generational wealth, I’m not working my ass off so that some thieving lot can seize the fruits of my labour and spend it on nonsense - I do it so that my family is well-off when I’m gone. I’ll be damned if I let people like you take it from my loved ones - I’d rather burn it moments before I die. What are you going to do, put a dead man in prison? Don’t think I won’t - I will. I burn money on the stock market quite regularly, at this point I’m used to it, may as well burn it for real and enjoy my time on the death bed. The scenario you’re describing is not “society working together”, it’s a bunch of boogeymen taking things that belong to me for themselves and spending my money recklessly. Sorry pumpkin, they’ll be burying me with my gold.


----------



## notimp (Oct 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Homelessness and poverty are not an infringement of liberty, they’re a consequence of poor decisions and/or unfortunate happenstance. Under capitalism you are free to make your own decisions, including bad ones which lead you to become empoverished or homeless. The same cannot be said about communism - under communism it is encumbent on the government to centrally redistribute resources, so any homelessness or poverty is a direct result of government mandate.


Lets get philosphical for a moment, and also - no.

Your position is called Randian (Ayn Rand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand ) who was a poor immigrant writer who had all the drive and ambition to jumpstart an entire political movement based on self actualization ("you are what you make of your life") got adopted by very high up establishment people who saw in it a way to pay less for society as a whole - simply because of two lousy books she wrote (overly romanticised BS, where on the next page you always saw her being taken by one of her protagonists and enjoying it), then fell in love with a husband of one of the followers she by then hosted in talk circles, ruined her life, got served, then died bitter and depressed.

But to this day, her ideology lives on. 

So yes, lets say its what you've said it is, but its also circumstance, and luck, and upbringing, and the social networks you usually were taught to accumulate, if you were in the right schools - and if you depend only on intelligence, or cleverness, chances are you arent gonna make it.

So society drummed up a bunch of systems that are supposed to make sure you can fall back onto your feet. In the US historically it has been an easy to get job, where you could find your footing again, and thats the reality of many more people than those that can tell their "from rags to riches" story -- solely out of their own volition.

And even if you arent biting there (you are missing a huge part of society, btw..  ) then you have to acknowledge, that what you learned in school, and public infrastructure are necessary for the system to exist. If you had any concept of what role a built out waterway plays (think china buying up the commercial harbors in greece), or a motorway...

And those projects are beyond the scope of any company. Largely because of investment height, but also because of the nature of the project. So lets say you spend trillions, to then get back tens of trillions over 100 years, but in general worth to others.. No self actualizing individual ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization ) will ever be fullfilled managing a waiting list at a company waiting for 100 years for the investments to recoup.

And its even worse. Companies fail at a rate of afair 50/50 at generational handovers ("founder to successor"). So lets say you build a road. And recoup investments in 100 years. Statistically your company has failed by then (two generational handovers). And your heirs will be in the middle of a legal battle over who reaps the rewards, during which your roads probably wont be very well maintained... 

Corporate logic dictates, you want to make money in your lifetime. Thats the span of time, where your investments have to pay off. And if they dont, you dont care so much... So nationwide roadnetworks? How about that?

You had that in the US. San Francisco even had public transportation. Then a hedgefund decided, that if they buy the public transportation companies, and shut them down, people would pay more for gas, where they had a higher profit margin on. 

Its not all about individual tales about making it - there is a whole ecosystem around individual success stories - and that needs to be financed.

While the first option of "making it" still needs to be an option for the people so inclined. (Thats what drives progress.)
--

This is what you are not getting. If you are at a higher income level, societies concept of you is, that you

A - are an intelligent human being and know what to do with your investments to also produce societal value - in which case you might as well pay no taxes at all. (Prop up a foundation, see what options you have.)

or

B - you are just a sociopath who got lucky, in which case you are now financing more of society than other people, thank you very much.

Its also a linear progression thing - where your logic fails. So "covering your base needs" three times over is just excess.

If you are buying and maintaining five homes, you might be thinking about your children, or about your own leisure - but the tax rate on that should be higher that the one on a person covering their base needs.

That way you get cheaper work. Which you benefit from.



So essentially the "person in the middle" that complains about "progressive tex rates" (higher taxes the more you make) is just and idiot that has no idea how the system works, but has a conservative tag line plastered into their had for no reason.

Because the wealthier people mostly lobby for tax exemptions (which makes them richer than their neighbors, which is all that counts  ) - but even they dont want to end progressive taxation.

The whole small government thing is just a play on "reducing regulation". In which case the "stronger guy" always wins.

If thats your model of society, we have a problem. Not necessarily we, but you, because the people with the pitchforks will demand higher pay, become less disposable, ultimately hurting yourself by pitchfork and in your hiring practices. As well as security costs.


There is also a linear progression fallacy in that to double your income you had to work twice as hard. Thats etirely BS. The more money you've got, the easier it becomes to make money.
So think of progressive taxation just as "taxing your work capability correctly". 
-

Also the "in soviet russia state is responsible for homelessness" analogy is wrong. So from a european perspective.

The highest "driver" of homelessness, is a negative event in your life, and things spiraling out of control. Or to put it more bluntly - if its not drugs (which is a whole separate debate), being a result, or a cause of it, a high driver of homelessness is mental illness. So people falling out of 'easy jobs' or 'state care' systems.

At which point it becomes increasingly more expensive to get them on track again.

So in europe at some point in time, we decided - wait a minute -- if capitalism inherently means "bubble and bust" (at least in some instances), and if this results in people becoming homeless, dragging down the value of other businesses in the region, and increasing their cost of societal reintegration --- how about we pay living costs for a few months in their lives, and then not have a Detroit at our hands? That said, it might also be because we have fewer large cities we can just squander, because we are funny.

Do you know the reason why there arent any railroad tramps in Scottland? You can move through the entire country in 30 minutes. (To say it with a Craig Ferguson setup.)


Here is another illustration - I googled:

What are some examples of regressive taxes?



> *Among many others, examples of a regressive tax include; sales tax, property tax, excise tax, tariffs, and government fees.*





> Sales Tax. ...
> Property Tax. ...
> Excise Tax. ...
> Tariff. ...
> Government Fees. ...



So literally anything you can do with your money to make more money (reinvest) has regresive tax rates attached to it.

Buy a thing, regressive taxes. (Boosts economy) Own more land, regressive taxes (decreases your risk of simply moving on to a different country.) Be a manufacturer, regressive taxes. Fees - lower as a percentage of your income...
src: https://boycewire.com/regressive-tax-definition/

But then they also bring the argument that more people would like to become high percieved value people, which would make them work harder, if only their taxes would be lower!

To which the answer is - nope, not true at all:
See: https://archive.ph/euUaF (Financial Times commentary)



edit:

The next step then is to ask to what extent Foxi4's ideology is true or not so lets do it:

And lets do it by being a little thorough.

1. To what extent is is true, that the more money you earn, the more money you make?







2. So because of this being progressively so, for generations, you are now more likely to inherit your wealth than to gain it (america the land of free markets and capitalism for all...).






This breaks incentive structures and thereby innovation. Meaning your societal system is kaputt.

3. Trend analysis says, that federal revenue has been consistently low:





4. US already is one of the least taxed countries in the developed world:





5. Infrastructure is crumbling:





6. The US frankly doesnt even have an effective progressive tax rate at all:






7. Effective Tax rates are almost regressive (so this is where Foxi4 does his crying hour for having to pay 5% points more than middle income americans):





8. Why do rich people dont care about progressive taxes, but taxbreaks?
Ups.






9. Not only capital gain taxes, but also business gain taxes:





10. Federal Income taxes declined since the 1970s:





11. Here are 60 Companies that didnt pay any taxes at all in 2018:





12. And here are the results of all tax cuts from 2001 to 2018:




src: https://itep.org/the-case-for-progressive-revenue-policies/

--

But nothing beats Foxi4s obsession with a foreign female philospher that can just substitute for any argument anyone brings at all - because he knows, society in the US, is alway at risk of holding him back personally - from inheriting his chances in life to his children. Who probably will be even less rhetorically versed, and not even be blessed with a gbatemp Moderators badge.

At some point you have to ask yourself --

What is the goal here societally?

And if my position is something I've copied from a philospher at the turn of the century - that died broken and depressed, who made me do that.

But then the US has an entire party that has no other stance apart from lower the taxes. And save the babies. And deport the illegal migrants.

If that, and orange hair captures peoples imaginations, hey - why not I say. This is America, for gods sake. The country of the blessed and the free.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Thank you, I do my best.
> 
> As for generational wealth, I’m not working my ass off so that some thieving lot can seize the fruits of my labour and spend it on nonsense - I do it so that my family is well-off when I’m gone. I’ll be damned if I let people like you take it from my loved ones - I’d rather burn it moments before I die. What are you going to do, put a dead man in prison? Don’t think I won’t - I will. I burn money on the stock market quite regularly, at this point I’m used to it, may as well burn it for real and enjoy my time on the death bed. The scenario you’re describing is not “society working together”, it’s a bunch of boogeymen taking things that belong to me for themselves and spending my money recklessly. Sorry pumpkin, they’ll be burying me with my gold.


Wow, okay, so you are just gonna flaunt being M. Bison then. Cool, I guess. All I can say is thank you for being honest about your destructive and parasitic dynasty building mentality, it really helps the cause... COMMUNISM! Because you can either pool resources for the greater good of humanity and the world at large, or trust some lazy jerks to burn some on random investments without care, burn some on establishing clan hierarchy, and burn some on their death bed because WINNING! @[email protected]


----------



## smf (Oct 5, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> I have more respect for you then this poor reference you have provided. Please don't use lazy, low-effort approach with our discussions, thank you.


It actually makes some good points, I could make them myself but it kinda hits home more when it's not just me saying it.

I'm enjoying all the pwning going on in this thread though (and the people doing it are probably not the ones who would like to be doing it)


----------



## silvershadow (Oct 5, 2021)

the way the world has changed is, everything is offensive and we no longer have freedom of speech any more because it may be offensive to someone somewhere. and we arent allowed to say anything that offends anyone lol.

sensitive people will even find this offensive so even i am taking a risk by saying this right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 5, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Wow, okay, so you are just gonna flaunt being M. Bison then. Cool, I guess. All I can say is thank you for being honest about your destructive and parasitic dynasty building mentality, it really helps the cause... COMMUNISM! Because you can either pool resources for the greater good of humanity and the world at large, or trust some lazy jerks to burn some on random investments without care, burn some on establishing clan hierarchy, and burn some on their death bed because WINNING! @[email protected]


I’d enjoy it, too. Wouldn’t take my last breath before the pile is all ash. For the record, my “random investments” are, among others, renewable green energy companies and EV manufacturers. My money is saving the world as we speak, you’re just yapping away.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 5, 2021)

Great thread, good discussions. Cheers!


----------



## smf (Oct 5, 2021)

silvershadow said:


> the way the world has changed is, everything is offensive and we no longer have freedom of speech any more because it may be offensive to someone somewhere. and we arent allowed to say anything that offends anyone lol.
> 
> sensitive people will even find this offensive so even i am taking a risk by saying this right now.


Well ideally you wouldn't WANT to say things that offend people.

I kinda wonder why this isn't the case?


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 5, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’d enjoy it, too. Wouldn’t take my last breath before the pile is all ash. For the record, my “random investments” are, among others, renewable green energy companies and EV manufacturers. My money is saving the world as we speak, you’re just yapping away.


Your money is merely theft from others, good sir, and your investments are not you utilizing efforts or talents into saving the world, it is using the will of actually talented others to do good for the world for your chance at profit. As I don't believe you've been elected into a position democratically for determining how programs should be financed, the proposal of others interested in actually saving the planet is to take your ill-gotten wealth and figure out how to best utilize it democratically. I understand this might be distressing, but friends don't let friends be greedy tyrants that want to burn the globe~



silvershadow said:


> the way the world has changed is, everything is offensive and we no longer have freedom of speech any more because it may be offensive to someone somewhere. and we arent allowed to say anything that offends anyone lol.
> 
> sensitive people will even find this offensive so even i am taking a risk by saying this right now.


Ah, the greatness of cowardice! What we say might have ramifications that we'd have to owe up to so we should be quiet but I'll complain about not wanting to be quiet about things that might offend others since I'd then have to explain and or defend my outburst. 



0x3000027E said:


> Great thread, good discussions. Cheers!


And thank you, dear comrade, for contributing to the discussion with passion and erudite wisdom as well!


----------



## SyphenFreht (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Ah, the greatness of cowardice! What we say might have ramifications that we'd have to owe up to so we should be quiet but I'll complain about not wanting to be quiet about things that might offend others since I'd then have to explain and or defend my outburst.


It's comments like theirs that blow my mind. No one's freedom of speech has been taken away. These people don't understand the concept that they can say what they want, that doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up and deal with it. Freedom of speech does not negate freedom from repercussion, and these days if someone has something stupid to say, chances are someone's going to utilize their freedom of speech and call them out. It's literally the same argument when it comes to vaccines and mask mandates; they have the freedom to choose not to abide, just like other people have the right to not associate with them, even in the workforce and general public. 

Where have all these entitled people come from?


----------



## silvershadow (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> Well ideally you wouldn't WANT to say things that offend people.
> 
> I kinda wonder why this isn't the case?


Yes correct. But having people go and say that the popular quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." is now offensive because "mankind" isn't gender neutral.


I think the above scenario is ridiculous but I guess that's what the world has changed to.

Not even allowed to say the phrase: "hey guys" anymore cause that leaves women out.


I know I digress from the main point of this thread. Sorry. I'll stop my nonsense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Your money is merely theft from others, good sir, and your investments are not you utilizing efforts or talents into saving the world, it is using the will of actually talented others to do good for the world for your chance at profit. As I don't believe you've been elected into a position democratically for determining how programs should be financed, the proposal of others interested in actually saving the planet is to take your ill-gotten wealth and figure out how to best utilize it democratically. I understand this might be distressing, but friends don't let friends be greedy tyrants that want to burn the globe~


Looks like the truth always hits a soft spot. The government isn’t going to save the planet - private industry is. There are literal armies of engineers who are chipping away at the world’s various issues, and they’re not working for Uncle Sam, they’re working for industry giants. My investments are investments in the future in the most literal sense, and in multiple ways - the future of the planet, the future of our species and, most importantly, my own. They will pay dividends in multiple ways also - funding the development of new technologies *and* filling my personal coffers in the supervillain fortress. Paradoxically, between the two of us, it is you who spends capital on mindless consumerism, provided none of your capital is invested in research and development, which I sincerely doubt. Someone less deluded than you is investing your retirement funds on your behalf - odds are you have some kind of retirement fund, or at least a pension. Not only that, as a former Air Force employee, your entire existence is funded by American imperialism and Uncle Sam - my money is generated through my labour, also known as “a job”, and funnelled into the economy through the stock market. The irony is palpable, albeit unrelated to the topic at hand, in the sense that this contrast is funny rather than offensive. With that being said, this exchange is also a huge waste of time as it seems to me that you’ve reached the stage of pontificating rather than making salient points.


silvershadow said:


> Yes correct. But having people go and say that the popular quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." is now offensive because "mankind" isn't gender neutral.
> 
> 
> I think the above scenario is ridiculous but I guess that's what the world has changed to.
> ...


I disagree with the notion that we should always avoid saying things that offend people. The value of truth supersedes that of someone’s fragile feelings. Not to look too far for examples, some of the most powerful tools against the world’s various ills were always comedy and satire. “A Modest Proposal” wouldn’t exist if Swift was compelled by the state to “care about people’s feelings” through legislation of speech. People’s feelings are, for the most part, unimportant. Even if a given message has no broader, hidden meaning that you’d have to ponder, you always have the option of simply looking away. Nobody is forcing anyone to ingest their written or spoken words, and we have laws against those who do - harassment for instance is very specifically defined. The obsession with how people “feel” about the way we communicate is unhealthy and wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech, and offensive speech especially, above all other speech, because that’s always the speech that confronts and questions the status quo. Of course, the First doesn’t protect you from consequences of your speech in private life, so your reluctance is perfectly understandable. Thankfully such concerns don’t apply to supervillains such as myself - I am in no danger of being called “mean”, pointing out the obvious is never a good look.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 6, 2021)

silvershadow said:


> Yes correct. But having people go and say that the popular quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." is now offensive because "mankind" isn't gender neutral.al,
> 
> 
> I think the above scenario is ridiculous but I guess that's what the world has changed to.
> ...


Language evolves, societies evolve, knowledge progresses and phrases fall out of favor. Such is life. You'll get used to it.


Foxi4 said:


> Looks like the truth always hits a soft spot. The government isn’t going to save the planet - private industry is. There are literal armies of engineers who are chipping away at the world’s various issues, and they’re not working for Uncle Sam, they’re working for industry giants. My investments are investments in the future in the most literal sense, and in multiple ways - the future of the planet, the future of our species and, most importantly, my own. They will pay dividends in multiple ways also - funding the development of new technologies *and* filling my personal coffers in the supervillain fortress. Paradoxically, between the two of us, it is you who spends capital on mindless consumerism, provided none of your capital is invested in research and development, which I sincerely doubt. Someone less deluded than you is investing your retirement funds on your behalf - odds are you have some kind of retirement fund, or at least a pension. Not only that, as a former Air Force employee, your entire existence is funded by American imperialism and Uncle Sam - my money is generated through my labour, also known as “a job”, and funnelled into the economy through the stock market. The irony is palpable, albeit unrelated to the topic at hand, in the sense that this contrast is funny rather than offensive.


Wow, you sure think a lot of yourself. Going from "I'll burn it all before I share with people any of my ill-gotten gains!" to "I'm the captain of enterprise, out to save the world! You're WELCOME, serfs!" in no time at all. Elitism overload aside, you're still swearing by the talent of others and taking credit... you must really like Elon Musk or something. It is nice that you put funds into things that might help the planet out of the cratering mess that selfish private ambitions like yours have pushed it into to begin with, but hear me out, what if we just took all of your money and gave every dime of it to the people working on those technologies in one shot, then did the same with a bunch of other investor-class folks? Rather than looking at it as a business venture that MUST GET RESULTS OR ELZE! It instead becomes moderate income for said innovators to live on while they continue their work with perhaps a bounty prize for certain accomplishment milestones, since I know incentives get capitalists all rock-hard and all. That way, the resources go directly to addressing the problem and nobody has to worry about lobbying or begging or addressing profit values in their work while they do it~ Honestly, your function in this system is literally that of a parasite looking for their own chance to further hoarde wealth and MAYBE sleep a little better by telling themselves they're the real hero.

Speaking of which, you do realize that working for the military (and then for the government as a public servant in the civilian sector) IS labour, right? Like, actual labour, for less money than in the private sector, with the aim of serving the public good. In a job. Where lives are on the line and people depend on you. I am confused that you're able to find humor in some twisted concept of irony here, even when its not ironic, and your haughty attitude is genuinely offensive, particularly since you then speak of the stock market as though trading on wares is some sort of heroic accomplishment. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, dear, but you aren't a hero because you have wealth in excess. Many of your statements make it questionable if you're even a good person. Most of your myopic viewpoints and nitpicking elsewhere even makes it seem like you're aggressively pursuing jerk-cred. I'd encourage a bit of soul searching, but honestly, you're making my case way better than I could alone, so... carry on, I guess?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Language evolves, societies evolve, knowledge progresses and phrases fall out of favor. Such is life. You'll get used to it.
> 
> Wow, you sure think a lot of yourself. Going from "I'll burn it all before I share with people any of my ill-gotten gains!" to "I'm the captain of enterprise, out to save the world! You're WELCOME, serfs!" in no time at all. Elitism overload aside, you're still swearing by the talent of others and taking credit... you must really like Elon Musk or something. It is nice that you put funds into things that might help the planet out of the cratering mess that selfish private ambitions like yours have pushed it into to begin with, but hear me out, what if we just took all of your money and gave every dime of it to the people working on those technologies in one shot, then did the same with a bunch of other investor-class folks? Rather than looking at it as a business venture that MUST GET RESULTS OR ELZE! It instead becomes moderate income for said innovators to live on while they continue their work with perhaps a bounty prize for certain accomplishment milestones, since I know incentives get capitalists all rock-hard and all. That way, the resources go directly to addressing the problem and nobody has to worry about lobbying or begging or addressing profit values in their work while they do it~ Honestly, your function in this system is literally that of a parasite looking for their own chance to further hoarde wealth and MAYBE sleep a little better by telling themselves they're the real hero.
> 
> Speaking of which, you do realize that working for the military (and then for the government as a public servant in the civilian sector) IS labour, right? Like, actual labour, for less money than in the private sector, with the aim of serving the public good. In a job. Where lives are on the line and people depend on you. I am confused that you're able to find humor in some twisted concept of irony here, even when its not ironic, and your haughty attitude is genuinely offensive, particularly since you then speak of the stock market as though trading on wares is some sort of heroic accomplishment. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, dear, but you aren't a hero because you have wealth in excess. Many of your statements make it questionable if you're even a good person. Most of your myopic viewpoints and nitpicking elsewhere even makes it seem like you're aggressively pursuing jerk-cred. I'd encourage a bit of soul searching, but honestly, you're making my case way better than I could alone, so... carry on, I guess?


I’m sorry that your international holiday playing wartime with other toy soldiers on the public dime enforcing the will of the ruling class didn’t quite work out for you, or that it stands in direct conflict with your life philosophy. Thank you for your service, unironically, since some of it protects our collective interests, even if you don’t like those interests. I don’t tell myself that I’m a hero, nor do I have to - you’re the one who keeps pinning increasingly creative medals to my jacket, which I will happily own for my own amusement. I won’t really argue about this with you since it’s grossly off-topic, all I said was that you’re the product of and you’re sustained by the system, the same one you’re railing against. In any case, anybody and their dog can start investing from a $1, and should. I strongly encourage everyone to invest in their future, as well as the future of the companies they believe will change the world. This was a fun distraction, if a humorous one - take care.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

silvershadow said:


> Yes correct. But having people go and say that the popular quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." is now offensive because "mankind" isn't gender neutral.


It's not offensive to say that neil armstrong said it & I can't think of any other circumstances when it would come up.

So what are you worried about?


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

SyphenFreht said:


> It's comments like theirs that blow my mind. No one's freedom of speech has been taken away. These people don't understand the concept that they can say what they want, that doesn't mean everyone else has to shut up and deal with it. Freedom of speech does not negate freedom from repercussion, and these days if someone has something stupid to say, chances are someone's going to utilize their freedom of speech and call them out. It's literally the same argument when it comes to vaccines and mask mandates; they have the freedom to choose not to abide, just like other people have the right to not associate with them, even in the workforce and general public.
> 
> Where have all these entitled people come from?


The difference between the left and the right is that the left want things to be fair for everyone. The right want things to be fairer for themselves. It is purely a difference between someone who cares about others and someone who is unbelievably selfish.

We've just had a fuel shortage in the UK because 30 of the 8000 filling stations closed and everyone thought it might be an idea to put fuel in their cars, so that they aren't the ones that go without. The right wing papers called it a scandal that some fuel stations put the price of fuel up, even though this is what capitalism and free market economies are for. If demand is up and supply is low then the price should increase. But not say the right wing papers, their readers want fair prices for everyone.

It's like they want communism, but where their entitled few are the ones that are equal & everyone else is beneath them.

To cure the issue the Prime Minister is calling for the UK to become a high wage society (british people don't want to be fuel delivery drivers & he thinks they can be bribed into doing it) but this is going to come to a bit of a shock to the right wing snowflakes when they realize that pay rises for everyone else means an effective pay cut for them. Again thanks to capitalism, the more money is available to buy things then the more things will cost.

We're doing a good job of turning Post brexit Britain back into 1970's Britain. I wonder how long it will take for bank of england base rate to go from 0.1% back to 14%.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 6, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry that your international holiday playing wartime with other toy soldiers on the public dime enforcing the will of the ruling class didn’t quite work out for you, or that it stands in direct conflict with your life philosophy. Thank you for your service, unironically, since some of it protects our collective interests, even if you don’t like those interests. I don’t tell myself that I’m a hero, nor do I have to - you’re the one who keeps pinning increasingly creative medals to my jacket, which I will happily own for my own amusement. I won’t really argue about this with you since it’s grossly off-topic, all I said was that you’re the product of and you’re sustained by the system, the same one you’re railing against. In any case, anybody and their dog can start investing from a $1, and should. I strongly encourage everyone to invest in their future, as well as the future of the companies they believe will change the world. This was a fun distraction, if a humorous one - take care.


Holiday playing wartime with toy soldiers? You really don't have any degree of empathy with other human beings, do you? Honestly, you kinda drift all over the place with this reply, in what I can only assume is a swerve in several directions just trying to take a dig at me from different angles with the hope that something stings, but wow, its fairly remarkable that you'd actually be so bipolar on service members.  My whole reason for slamming you on your insane capitalist appeal to your financial glory was that you don't work to change things, you work to profit and then in finding further profit you put a measured amount of resources into companies that just so happen to maybe do something beneficial for the world. That isn't noble, progressive, or admirable.

You're welcome to the fruits of the service I put forward, I share it freely with the full knowledge of why I joined and how I wanted to serve, and I invite you to consider that you can try to do good even under a banner you don't care for. As an enlisted individual, I knew that the government did things I didn't and still don't like, and I remained vocal about those things before, during, and after my time. When I got done, I found something I knew I could immediately address for the better, and began teaching and helping other veterans to transition into decent paying STEM jobs. My motivations and my views never once had to change or became compromised, and nobody judged me negatively (out loud, at least) for offering myself to the public good. I didn't invest what limited funds I had into the stock market, I DIRECTLY stimulated the change I wanted to see. If I didn't need basic income to support myself and my family, I would have done it for free, too. Gambling with money isn't working towards change, its praying you can make a profit while somebody else works on a problem while looking for profit too.

Ironically, though, the military actually runs with a lot of fairly communist concepts in place. They test your abilities, evaluate your credentials and background, and then pair you up with a list of jobs they feel you'd do well in. You can cross-train or endeavor to move up, but they find you work. Your housing and food are taken care of, as is your health and vision and dental. There are a myriad of other services available freely as needed, from legal aide to haircuts to counseling, and the primary motivation they instill is service to the state and unity with your peers. If anything, my time in the Air Force encouraged my views on life going forward~


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Holiday playing wartime with toy soldiers? You really don't have any degree of empathy with other human beings, do you? Honestly, you kinda drift all over the place with this reply, in what I can only assume is a swerve in several directions just trying to take a dig at me from different angles with the hope that something stings, but wow, its fairly remarkable that you'd actually be so bipolar on service members.  My whole reason for slamming you on your insane capitalist appeal to your financial glory was that you don't work to change things, you work to profit and then in finding further profit you put a measured amount of resources into companies that just so happen to maybe do something beneficial for the world. That isn't noble, progressive, or admirable.
> 
> You're welcome to the fruits of the service I put forward, I share it freely with the full knowledge of why I joined and how I wanted to serve, and I invite you to consider that you can try to do good even under a banner you don't care for. As an enlisted individual, I knew that the government did things I didn't and still don't like, and I remained vocal about those things before, during, and after my time. When I got done, I found something I knew I could immediately address for the better, and began teaching and helping other veterans to transition into decent paying STEM jobs. My motivations and my views never once had to change or became compromised, and nobody judged me negatively (out loud, at least) for offering myself to the public good. I didn't invest what limited funds I had into the stock market, I DIRECTLY stimulated the change I wanted to see. If I didn't need basic income to support myself and my family, I would have done it for free, too. Gambling with money isn't working towards change, its praying you can make a profit while somebody else works on a problem while looking for profit too.
> 
> Ironically, though, the military actually runs with a lot of fairly communist concepts in place. They test your abilities, evaluate your credentials and background, and then pair you up with a list of jobs they feel you'd do well in. You can cross-train or endeavor to move up, but they find you work. Your housing and food are taken care of, as is your health and vision and dental. There are a myriad of other services available freely as needed, from legal aide to haircuts to counseling, and the primary motivation they instill is service to the state and unity with your peers. If anything, my time in the Air Force encouraged my views on life going forward~


I don’t know what any of this has to do with empathy - it’s an accurate, if crass, description of what you were doing. As a rampant individualist the military lifestyle is not for me - I don’t take kindly to taking orders. Now, if I were to start a PMC, that’s a different story altogether, but in all fairness I would much rather if my career path didn’t involve deliberately killing other people - I’m perfectly fine with paying the military to do it on my behalf since it’s one of the few genuine responsibilities of the state. Paying taxes in exchange for defense from internal (law enforcement) and external (military) threats is fair taxation. As for the stock market, comparing it to gambling is a weird misnomer that you usually hear from people who don’t know how it works, but that’s fine. I’m not surprised that the Air Force covered your lodge, but I put a big question mark on comparing it to a commune considering the military as a whole is a highly stratified organisation with distinct levels of rank, the opposite of an “equal” arrangement. Still, nice to hear that you’ve innovated at work, everybody should bring their ideas to the workplace and if they make it more efficient or otherwise improve the workflow, they’re worthwhile. I’ve always been of the opinion that people should work smart, not hard.


----------



## ElSasori69 (Oct 12, 2021)

As long as the people don't actually believe on that shit, nah, I mean, oh wow, that red and yellow star looks cool, give me a sticker... "but that represents all that is bad and..." yeah,  I don't care about that, if we would ban everything that represents something bad, let's ban a lot of popular songs that talk about sex or violence and war in general, and OMG, is that song talking about talking to demons? The church should put all his efforts on banning those songs on all catholic coutries.


----------

