Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Capitalists committed genocide on the Native Americans. The body count was only limited by the initial population limitations.
You seriously believe the actions were motivated by Capitalism? The atrocities I mentioned were consequences of Communism. Every capitalist state does not propagate genocide. Every communist state without exception commits atrocities against their own people, and anyone they can get under their thumb too.

Not that Capitalism is be-all end-all, but Communism really is that bad.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
What is capitalism but the goal of extracting as many resources for yourself as possible?
Actually, one of the tenets of capitalism is what enables the service-based economy - IE, that generation of wealth is not a zero sum game, and does not require "extracting" resources.
 
Actually, one of the tenets of capitalism is what enables the service-based economy - IE, that generation of wealth is not a zero sum game, and does not require "extracting" resources.
And one of the tenants of communism is that people shouldn't be intentionally starved to death. If you give the least-charitable possible interpretation of one, I give the least charitable possible interpretation of the other.
 
Nope. Noooo. Bad Blots. You can argue that marxism had some good ideas but Communism is something that has failed over and over again. Millions upon millions of people have died because of Communism. It really is that destructive.

Edit: Also, people quite literally died of starvation under communism. Famine was a thing.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And one of the tenants of communism is that people shouldn't be intentionally starved to death. If you give the least-charitable possible interpretation of one, I give the least charitable possible interpretation of the other.
The difference is, capitalism DOES actually generate wealth in a non-zero-sum method, but communism DOES actually starve people to death.

Capitalism usually works, but yes, has problems.

Communism has failed every single time.
 
I'd argue that "works" is subjective. Some people certainly had good lives in the Soviet Union.

Hell, china was a communist country that committed atrocities. Now they're capitalist and still commit atrocities.
 
I for one, am glad that I don't live in a country that has a select few that are living lives of absurd luxury while a growing number of people can barely afford to live.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Listen, capitalism sucks right now but it is fixable if people banded together and got the right people elected and the laws change preventing corporations from having such great control over people and politicians while compelling them to make suitable social contributions.

Communism is a shit show. It usually starts off okay, sure, but things quickly go down hill as people realize their work means nothing. That no matter how much they put in they'll see so little return that its, well, useless. The rich will remain rich, the poor will remain poor, and the middle class get poorer. Noone is allowed to improve their station under communism.

I mean, I get it. North American capitalism is not ideal but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater and replace it with a god damn turd.
 
"Walper says that unless stock markets tumble this year, the growth in millionaire households is likely to continue."

Narrator: The markets tumbled.
 
And since my original point seems to have gotten lost: please explain to me how this means Joseph McCarthy was doing the right thing.
 
Communism is basically the left version of fascism. I see them as mostly the same thing, as they both always go to the ideal of "one party must lead and destroy all opposition to control us for the greater good". Mussolini was a die-hard socialist till he pissed them off and they kicked him out of the party, at which point he went on to basically start fascism.

McCarthyism was never about stopping "communism" though, it was about using communism as a dog whistle to basically subvert political opposition (you know, leaning back to that whole fascism thing).
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Some of the methods used for McCarthism were bad. The end goal however is laudable:
This statement is closer to "The ends justify the means," than the Cohen questioning is to McCarthyism. That we're even talking about communism right now is absurd.

The Mueller investigation, and the Congressional questioning of Michael Cohen are both parts of criminal investigation, being conducted by duly appointed government officials. It's normal for investigators to ask a suspect (and in this case a confessed criminal) for sources of information. Asking "Well, who might know where the money went?" is not fishing for victims. We know crimes were committed, and it's normal to ask questions about who was involved and what they knew. Why is this being treated as such a crazy concept?
 
Preeetty sure he says the opposite, actually. He says both that Communism is bad and McCarthyism is bad.
He said "some". He basically agreed that keeping communists barred from politics and imprisoned in the US was legitimate. That was the whole reason he wrote that reply to AshburnerX, because he didn't agree with the (Illegitimate) comment in regard to actual communists.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Preeetty sure he says the opposite, actually. He says both that Communism is bad and McCarthyism is bad.
Actually, he said that some of the methods used by McCarthyism were bad, his comments seem to indicate that he approved of the movement as a whole. Where he draws the line between stopping communism and protecting free speech (which I assume he does support on some level) remains to be seen.
 
Capitalists committed genocide on the Native Americans. The body count was only limited by the initial population limitations.
Considering Capitalism is directly responsible for the spread of untold diseases into the Americas, with a death count upwards of 90% long before Spain, England, or America began their campaigns against the native peoples, I'd argue that it's body count would have been even greater had population levels in the Americas been where they were during Stalin's infamous purges and Mao's idiotic, self-caused famines.

Really though, my argument was that is was improper to ban government service on the front of political or personal ideology, which was a core tenet of McCarthyism. We don't even ban Nazis from seeking office and not only do they consistently propose policy that is inherently harmful to vast sums of the population, they have actually instituted said policy in the past to actively eliminate millions of people. But as @ScytheRexx stated, it was never actually about stopping the spread of the ideology... it was simply a power grab by McCarthy.

The Mueller investigation isn't a power grab. It's a criminal investigation, where in all accused have rights and protections that McCarthy's victims never had.

He said "some". He basically agreed that keeping communists barred from politics and imprisoned in the US was legitimate. That was the whole reason he wrote that reply to AshburnerX, because he didn't agree with the (Illegitimate) comment in regard to actual communists.
Actually, he said that some of the methods used by McCarthyism were bad, his comments seem to indicate that he approved of the movement as a whole. Where he draws the line between stopping communism and protecting free speech (which I assume he does support on some level) remains to be seen.
Yeah, what's up with this? This is fucked up. Hundreds of people were imprisoned, 10-12 thousand lost their jobs, on the mere accusation of being Red. These people weren't even given 5th Amendment protections; claiming the 5th was considered by McCarthy to be "the most positive proof obtainable that the witness is Communist," and was often used as evidence against the accused. Violating the Constitution and ruining the lives of thousands of people was not worth catching a handful of Reds that may not have even committed any crimes other than being a Red.
 

Dave

Staff member
Every system of government or economic philosophy is great and helps everyone. Until humans get involved and they come in with greed blazing. Then every system sucks and poor & minorities get shafted.
 
Every system of government or economic philosophy is great and helps everyone. Until humans get involved and they come in with greed blazing. Then every system sucks and poor & minorities get shafted.
And that's why I always vote for the Marijuana Party.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Every system of government or economic philosophy is great and helps everyone. Until humans get involved and they come in with greed blazing. Then every system sucks and poor & minorities get shafted.
And that's why the government that governs least governs best.
 

Dave

Staff member
And that's why the government that governs least governs best.
But that doesn't work, either. Because businesses are greedier than governments. Unregulated businesses are like evil plagues of locusts that take without giving back.

The invisible hand of the market is and always has been bullshit.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But that doesn't work, either. Because businesses are greedier than governments. Unregulated businesses are like evil plagues of locusts that take without giving back.

The invisible hand of the market is and always has been bullshit.
The trick is to pit the businesses against each other. Competition always benefits everyone the most. It keeps prices low, quality high, and choices abundant. It's when competition is eliminated that capitalism breaks down - and most of our problems can easily be shown to have anticompetitive routes. That's why I always say the government's one clear acceptable "meddling" role should be to enforce competition.

And that's fairly easy to do without a government becoming a monolithic invasion of everyone's daily life.
 

Dave

Staff member
The problem is that there are too many businesses with high barriers to entry and way, way, WAAAAAY too much consolidation going on. The government just allows it with few exceptions and now a few businesses own pretty much everything.
 
Every system of government or economic philosophy is great and helps everyone. Until humans get involved and they come in with greed blazing. Then every system sucks and poor & minorities get shafted.
businesses are greedier than governments. Unregulated businesses are like evil plagues of locusts that take without giving back.
As I said previously:
corporations have no conscience nor free will of their own, they can be steered by individuals who no doubt do have their own respective agenda. While these individuals will eventually die (or even just retire, a sort of "death without actually dying") and therefore lose their influence, they will no doubt have ensured that it is the people who matter most to them who will benefit from the corporation's continued existence, and who will no doubt continue the trend, therefore playing a sort of extended, one-way-towards-the-future version of "keep-away" with the assets that the corporation controls.

Mind you, I am not saying that corporations are Evil. They are not (see my statement above about no conscience/free will of their own). They are in no way more Evil than scorpions, guns, chemicals, or explosives...it is how they are used which matters.
The problem is that there are too many businesses with high barriers to entry and way, way, WAAAAAY too much consolidation going on. The government just allows it with few exceptions and now a few businesses own pretty much everything.
Yes, one of the problems right now is that business controls too much of government. From lobbying to straight up drafting the legislation and talking points themselves. I think we can make a good case for "Business" being added as another thing that should be separated from the State, much like Religion.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The problem is that there are too many businesses with high barriers to entry and way, way, WAAAAAY too much consolidation going on. The government just allows it with few exceptions and now a few businesses own pretty much everything.
Ma Bell literally owned all telecommunication in this country for a while. It's hard to find an industry with a higher barrier to entry than telecommunications. But they got broken up. It was a bit of a headache at first, but when things shook out, now we can pick from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Boost, etc...

But yeah, there should probably be MORE breakups like that. It's not a good thing that 9 companies basically own everything we see and hear.

Geographic monopolies are still a problem, of course, but the answer there is to treat them as infrastructure. Not very libertarian of me, I know, but it's the lowest-government solution that still works.
 
Yeah, what's up with this? This is fucked up. Hundreds of people were imprisoned, 10-12 thousand lost their jobs, on the mere accusation of being Red. These people weren't even given 5th Amendment protections; claiming the 5th was considered by McCarthy to be "the most positive proof obtainable that the witness is Communist," and was often used as evidence against the accused. Violating the Constitution and ruining the lives of thousands of people was not worth catching a handful of Reds that may not have even committed any crimes other than being a Red.
This. This is exactly what I remember learning about McCarthyism. It was why Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible about the witchhunts and people being falsely accused to punish rivals and cover up indiscretions. Very little of McCarthyism was actually about any possible threat from communism and used as a bogeyman to threaten and intimidate.
 
Top