When communists march, people usually object but don't necessarily see them as evil. My school, for instance, has a communist club. No objection. Freedom of speech, blah blah blah. They have a right to be a club. they do. But what if the Hitler Appreciation League wanted to start a club? I can't imagine what people would think. Now, let us all agree that Facism and Communism are equally, just, well, awful. Communism even killed more, but that could be because it was just more successful in terms of spreading to other countries. Yet, how come people, especially in the media, see facism as evil, but not communism? Is it some sort of post-Cold War reaction? Do people not realize how evil communism is? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to support Facism, but com ooooooonnnnnn!
The Nazis kept detailed records of their crimes. They were proud of what they did.
The communists were more interested in decieving people. Thats why. Plain and simple. Because Lenin and Che never kept many official accounts, people have a change to "wipe their slate clean."
RushFan I Am I
perhaps this author would prefer a return to the glorious period of witch hunting communists which existed in the fabulous us of a during the 50's. Perhaps this author is indeed a national socialist, just like hitler was.
Yes, I realize the anti-Communist feelnigs during the 50's. I'm talking about right now though.
RIGHT NOW, in my experience, people do hate communism. That is why it is generally regarded by people on this website as a dirty word. People do not, however, hate capitalism, which is why you can be a revolutionary just so long as you support capitalism. Don't try saying you dislike capitalism, however, or your blog will be removed from this website and your log in will be deleted. I know because it happened to a good friend of mine. Let me be clearer in what I mean by capitalism, as apparently playing the devil's advocate has resulted in my friend's blog being deleted and him being referred to as a troll. Troll means the current political system as it exists today, which is exactly what this website says it is rebelling against. My friend would like to view the comments referring to him as a troll so that he can print them out and put them on his wall as evidence that this website is financed and supported by people who secretly love the current system of government and just want to pay a bit less tax. Why pay taxes for a system you don't support, hey? Go go USA!!! If the administrator is going to delete this blog and log then is it too much to expect a courtesy e-mail explaining why, or is censorship of this nature acceptable because a pro-fascist finds it offensive. By the way I don't actually hate fascists, I just think they are a bit confused. Did I mention that my grandfather was a fascist? Or that my father supports the war on terror? Does this give my opinion more credibility?
War is Peace, Ignorance is Bliss, Freedom is Slavery, Big Brother Rules O.K.
BTW Troll takes it as a complement that his comments were too challenging and his honest questions too hard to be answered instead, ignoring the real question, name calling and deletion of blog and user ID is much simpler, isn't it????????????????????
PS Perhaps you could ask the same question (why don't people hate...) about socialism or environmentalism.
As far as name calling goes, he initiated it by referring to all capitalists as members of the KKK. The Ku Klux Klan, for those who don't know their enemy, preaches nativism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism, in addition to their message of white supremacy. Many of our members are from other countries, I'm certain a few are Jewish, and I am personally a Catholic. If he's upset he was called a Troll, then he can screw himself sideways, he deserved much worse.
He was deleted because he violated the terms and conditions of use. Pure and simple. Furthermore, if he won't cite sources for his arguments, and get facts to back them up, it's pointless to debate him, as he seems to believe that his mere assertion is enough to make something true (it's not). If he would like to engage in an intelligent debate, I'm sure we can find a forum to do it in, but not on Bureaucrash. This is a site for capitalists by capitalists, not the capitalist vs. communist debate club. We get that on campus everyday, but don't have to tolerate it here.
Plucky or Plunky or w/e his name was, the "Troll," his comments were largely without merit of any sort. He continually posited assertions and refutations of beliefs that were not suggested or implied by any member of BC in the preceding discussion. He refused to engage in any reasonably logic-oriented discussion of the terms he was using and the subsequent confusion, which was based largely on his overwhelming tendency to equivocate, itself being a logical fallacy. Merely stating that "Fascism is (or is akin to) Capitalism" doesn't make the statement true. Appealing to illegitimate authority (also a logical fallacy) on the subject (i.e., my grandfather was a fascist and other nonsense) doesn't lend any credence to your argument.
As for his suppositions about war: I think that it would be very hard to find anyone on BC who is in support of war in general, let alone the specific war to which he was referring. That being said, there does exist such thing as the "Just War Doctrine," which requires, among other things, a clearly defined objective, proportionality, a reasonable expectation of victory, and some other fancy aristotelian ideas. But I still believe that many crashers here have some moral/philosophical reservations with such a doctrine.
For an interesting take on you theory that "War is Peace," I'd suggest you read a book by a decidedly Leftist author, Gore Vidal, entitled "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace."
The assertion that capitalism depends on war couldn't be farther from the truth - fascism may depend on war, or domination of some sort, but again we are devolving the conversation into a mess of equivocation (see above re: logical fallacy.) The idea that war is some sort of divine economic motivator is an untenable argument, at best. Subscription to such a specious argument is the commission of the Broken Window Fallacy of Economics, introduced by Frederic Bastiat. War is destruction. Of life and of property, both things being necessary for the success of any capitalistic society. The creation of war drains valuable labor and resources away from their more preferential peace-time activities.
So, feel free to make useful comments, but it's inappropriate to suggest that there is any obligation to waste bandwith on derisory arguments and unsound logic. Also, NB, "censorship" is not practiced by individuals or businesses. It is and can only be practiced by a government. Removing Troll's said post was a discretionary act involving the use and/or abuse of private property, over which the proprietor has the right to regulate. "Censorship" on the other hand, is based on an untenable argument that there is no private property, and that all is within the government's jurisdiction to regulate. This is anathema to freedom, thank you very much.
Nice try, though.
doinki¢arus for Minister of Economics
"All which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."
http://cornfedcapitalist.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, Plucky's psition didn't even resemble an argument.
I like many others am opposed to the bureacracy which governs the US and many other countries today. Particularly China and other communist countries. The US is a capitalist country, and therefore it's government is capitalist. This website is capitalist but does not support the governmental bureacracy. Perhaps describing oneself as capitalist or even libertarian capitalist is not the most ideal way to distance yourself from the bush government and it's current policies. I am not in America and libertarian sounds like capital L Liberal Party to me. I hope that does not make me guilty of indulging in this communist-capitalist debate which plagues you at campus. My objection is to war, not to capitalism. Capitalism has historically been a very powerful and progressive force.
Oh and getting back to cuttooth's original cutting point - by all means you should start a hitler appreciation society. You could use it as a cover for an anticommunist league (Joke, joyce!)
re:Doink Icarus' comment: "War is destruction. Of life and of property, both things being necessary for the success of any capitalistic society. The creation of war drains valuable labor and resources away from their more preferential peace-time activities." I could not agree with you more. War is made necessary when there is a situation of overproduction and resources need to be destroyed to avoid the reduction in demand which results in a lower price etc etc - i believe this is the link the troll should have tried to make if he is a lefto pinko commo. Perhaps another function of war is to win elections, as nationalism has a tendence to blind people to the ineptitude of bureacracies.
Surely you can't be serious: "War is made necessary when there is a situation of overproduction and resources need to be destroyed to avoid the reduction in demand which results in a lower price etc etc..." Right?
Resources never "need to be destroyed." Resources, by which I assume you mean products, are what make us wealthy. Liquidation of inventories is a much more efficient, not to mention, peaceful way of reducing unsold stock. There is no such thing as "overproduction" when prices are allowed to adjust. There is simply a failure to accurately predict the course of the market in the future. Sometimes you win, and make profits, sometimes you lose, and make losses.
I sincerely hope you were being rhetorical. I've had a long day and my bullshit/sarcasm detector is no longer working.
And another thing... "Overproduction" which is properly labelled incorrect economic forecasting, DOES NOT result in "reductions in demand." I presume you mean "relative" reductions in demand, to the stock of production. Producing more of a good is never held to cause decreased demand.
An increased stock of product, in fact, is much more likely to increase quantity demanded.
Let me know if you'd like the details of how "supply and demand" work. I'll be glad to break it down for you.
Hi Doink Sorry i thought the "i believe this is the link the troll should have tried to make if he is a lefto pinko commo" would have been sufficient to indicate that i was simplifying and being sarcastic. I do however seriously question your statement: "An increased stock of product, in fact, is much more likely to increase quantity demanded" because, as i believe you have said before, just making a statement does not make true. Are you implying that if i sell 2 t shirts per week and i up my production to 5,000,000 tshirts per week then the demand will adjust accordingly? Clearly the only thing that will adjust is their value (price i can get for them), and i will quickly go out of business if i only sell 2 per week. Liquidating the stock won't help my financial position - i believe that experiment was tried during the great depression (have you read the grapes of wrath or do you want me to explain what is likely to happen if the public finds you flushing food down the toiliet when they are starving) I thought keynsianism was a dead branch of economics for this reason. Once again i am being a bit sarcastic because you are preaching the logic of supply and demand to me. If i flood your market with cheap labour, will this demand increase or will wages simply go down? The non-sarcastic real argument i was presenting was that the war was to improve Mr Bushes chances of being re-elected, or does the allegedly democratic republican vs democrat system in your country not affect your economic system/epistomology at all???
As far as the war being "politically expedient," perhaps that was the thinking. It has turned out to be an utter failure, however, but that's entirely beside the point. It's still no justification, and I know you're not suggesting that it was. My point here is that political expedience does not justify economic holocaust, nor does it change it to a bed of roses. Economics is what it is - regardless of politics.
You're really asking two questions: The first being - "What happens if I flood the market with product" and you're suggesting that demand will decrease. The second question you're asking is "What happens if I flood the market with (cheaper) product [in this instance, labor]?" The questions are far from being synonymous. Take an example:
General Motors could wave a magic wand, and produce a billion Corvettes tomorrow, but no economic theory that I know of holds that they would be able to sell any more of them without first lowering the price, but there is also no reason to assume (as you put it) that demand will decrease. On the contrary, if GM rolled out a bunch of Corvettes next week at half-the-usual-price, ALL economic theory suggest they will increase the quantity of corvettes sold.
ANSWER #1: If you flood the market with product, and prices are not allowed to fluctuate, it is terribly unlikely that there will be any increase in demand. But supposing there will be some decrease in quantity demanded is absurd. If you're unable to sell the stock, you need to lower your price until the market clears, lest you have a stock of unsold shirts in your warehouse. By liquidating, you will lose less money than if you refuse to sell any product below cost. Liquidation is the result of your "entrepreneurial error" in forecasting your market, and bankruptcy is the inevitable result and the only just consequence.
ANSWER #2: when you flood the market with cheap product, it's reasonable to assume that QD for that product will increase, as previously marginal uses for it are now profitable. Point being: You might not think a corvette is worth 40K, but you'd gladly spend 20-thousand on one. As for your exact question: It might not be profitable to employ an additional worker at $9/hour, but it may very well be profitable to employ an additional worker at $6.50/hour.
As far as the depression is concerned, if the Grapes of Wrath is your jumping-off-point, you don't have much. I read the grapes of wrath about 10 years ago, actually, it's a nice literary work but Steinbeck economic analysis was non-existent. The great depression is characterized by a "cluster of entrepreneurial errors," the likes of which had never been seen before. Throughout the era, retail and final goods prices declined only a little bit - whereas the values of capital investments plummetted tremendously. This is due almost entirely to inflationary credit expansion and fiscal irresponsibility on behalf of the federal reserve. Investment was pumped into capital goods, when there existed no real change in consumer preference, because of frighteningly available credit. The depression that followed was the inevitable rectification of malinvestment (NB - not overinvestment)
About the whole deal with Plucky...he posted something asking "why don't people hate capitalism" (the no-caps is original), a bunch of crashers flipped out, I said "Don't feed the troll" (message board junkies and ex-junkies will understand), and his post was deleted.
codemonkey: the troll can not take credit for using kkkapitalism to describe a bureacratic state gone haywire - he got the idea from an entry on this very site and it was not meant to imply anyone was a member of the KKK. the entry that gets the credit for first use of this term is: Submitted by cuttooth33 on Wed, 2006/05/17 - 21:31.Nice. I look forward to buying that book earned by KKKapitalism
Actually, yes it was meant to imply that we're racists, or at the very best that our economic system is, as if an economy gives a rat's ass about race. Cuttooth33 is not the originator of the term, it's used by leftists all the time. And it's always disgusting and offensive.
It's difficult to argue about the quote in context, as the content has been deleted, but i believe you are wrong. Do you mean the troll quote or the one I pasted from cuttooth?
perhaps cuttooth33 can explain his quote then - were you being disgusting and offensive in the quoted remark? Submitted by cuttooth33 on Wed, 2006/05/17 - 21:31.Nice. I look forward to buying that book earned by KKKapitalism
Please stop being antagonistic.
Do you agree with the Bureaucrash statement of principles or not antibureaucratic? -------------------------JA$ON Crasher-In-Chief
i certainly do, and am not being antagonistic. Which principle are you implying that I am violating? All i am doing is asking for clarification. I do not think that an economic system can be racist, nor do I think that libertarians or Libertarians are.
My response was in reaction to a few non-freedom lovers joining to stir things up. Welcome crasher antibureaucratic. -------------------------JA$ON Crasher-In-Chief
People wern't offended when cuttooth said that, because, if I remember, the original post was about the "evil capitalism" and he was being ironic... He "earns" the book by working in an "evil (KKK) system". It was a joke.
thanks dude. I had assumed both uses were intended as jokes. Perhaps i am wrong - it has happened before, once, some time in the 1970s
