Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[DinoDoc]

Why not? That's the way it has happened every other time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che: Nope...no reminder needed. I know the failings of capitalism. And the 50+ million deaths....I think it's safe to say that while that war revived capitalism, it was not caused by capitalism. That honor goes to a goofy looking nutjob with bad hair and a worse political agenda (who was neither capitalist, nor communist, it should be stressed).

While he himself was not a capitalist, he did the bidding of the capitalists of Germany. They needed markets, they needed the destruction of their competitors, they needed slave labor, and the little corperal provided everything they asked.

[Velociryx]

The war was caused (and started) by a Fascist with an attitude and a funny moustache. He was a loose cannon with too much power who ultimately did more to HURT his own war effort than to help it....why? Because he WASN'T controlled. Wouldn't listen to anybody. Not his own generals, and certainly not some shadow cartel of capitalist pigdogs.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Nonetheless, that's veering a bit from the topic....unless you want to finish this thread out WWII style?

We could, I think that 1200-odd posts of the same arguments back and forth is prolly sufficient to wear everybody out....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che: Nope...no reminder needed. I know the failings of capitalism. And the 50+ million deaths....I think it's safe to say that while that war revived capitalism, it was not caused by capitalism. That honor goes to a goofy looking nutjob with bad hair and a worse political agenda (who was neither capitalist, nor communist, it should be stressed).

Hitler came to power in a society where capitalism had failed. He would never have taken power in a society where the economic system had not failed.

[chequita guevara]

There's actually some very good research on the economic aspects of fascism. Who contributed, who controled it, and who benefited. When the capitalists of Germany wanted something, the Nazis delivered. Far from being in total control of Germany, Hitler served at the pleasure of his bosses. Had the capitalists felt that Hitler was dangerous to their interests, the Army would have deposed him in a heartbeat.

I know, we're fascinated by the idea of a man with total control, the madman who wanted to control the world. The reality is rather something different. Hitler was an errand boy. The capitalists wanted the unions crushed, the unions were crushed and replaced with subserviant unions. The capitalists wanted slave labor, the Nazis rounded up Jews, Gypsies, and anyone else they could get away with taking. The capitalists wanted Markets, the Nazis conquered them. The capitalists wanted competition destroyed, the Nazis bombed them. The capitalista wanted fat government contracts, the Nazis gave them. Eventually, yes, he did get out of control, but that wasn't until the last year or so of his life.

[Velociryx]

Hitler came to power in a country that had been soundly beaten in the LAST world war, and was so hobbled by the severity of the treaties that the victors imposed on it that there was NOTHING to Germany. Yes, the German economy failed. EVERYTHING failed. That was the price of defeat.

But that wasn't the "fault" of the economic system, no matter what it was.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hitler came to power in a country that had been soundly beaten in the LAST world war, and was so hobbled by the severity of the treaties that the victors imposed on it that there was NOTHING to Germany. Yes, the German economy failed. EVERYTHING failed. That was the price of defeat.

But that wasn't the "fault" of the economic system, no matter what it was.

-=Vel=-

Are you actually going to argue that the Great Depression wasn't caused by capitalism?

[chequita guevara]

The capitalists said jump. The Nazis told everyone else how high.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hitler came to power in a country that had been soundly beaten in the LAST world war, and was so hobbled by the severity of the treaties that the victors imposed on it that there was NOTHING to Germany. Yes, the German economy failed. EVERYTHING failed. That was the price of defeat.

But that wasn't the "fault" of the economic system, no matter what it was.

-=Vel=-

But the First War was a war over the division of colonies. It was a war over which country's capitalists would be supreme. Hence the humiliation of Germany, Austria, and Turkey.

Furthermore, as the capitalists funded the Nazis, and gave them cars and lent them airplanes to get around Gemany on the political campaigns, they are most certainly responsible for the Nazis coming to power.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Are you actually going to argue that the Great Depression wasn't caused by capitalism?

I'll argue that it was the fault of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act, not a capitalist idea btw.

He would never have taken power in a society where the economic system had not failed.

Hitler may not have siezed power but I fail to see why Germany wouldn't have turned aggressive regardless.

[Velociryx]

Yep....politicians here get donations from all sorts of groups. Sometimes, they pander to what those groups want. Often, the politicians take the money and run.

We disagree on a tangential topic. If you want to believe that blaming capitalism for both world wars strengthens your argument, go right ahead.

Meantime, I'll sit over here waiting for someone....ANYONE to show me communism working as advertised. A single compan, a small country....anything.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

War is caused by the competition for resources. That is a capitalist idea.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Odin -

Do you know why government funds NASA? Because, we are told, private industry wouldn't fund space exploration because of concerns for profit, i.e., only government can fund such endeavors. What does this really mean? It means private industry wouldn't fund space exploration because it's a waste of billions of dollars, so only government can "afford" to waste that money. Do you consider that a diversion of resources from more efficient activities to the less efficient?

Efficiency has jack squat to do with this. NASA overcomes the initial capital outlay problem. GUess what? Satellites are very profitable right now. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch is buying up all the world's satellite networks. But, satellites have become more and more profitable over the years. In the beginning, they weren't, and the initial capital outlay to do satellites (an entire private space program!) would have prohibited the private sector from fooling around with them. Satellites turned out to be a good thing.

Btw, most medical advances result from inquiries into tangential or unrelated areas. I doubt we'll find a cure for cancer because somebody spent years looking for that cure, but because someone stumbled upon it while looking for a way to prevent hair loss or something.

Just like satellites once were. Again, this sort of research is best funded in the public sector and in a non-corporate academia.

If the first part was true, why have communists slaughtered so many people for non-conformity? As for the second, would you like to swap life spans and standard of living with those cavemen?

Thx Vel

Here we go again. This would be like me objecting to contemporary capitalism using Dickens or Sinclair examples. Oh wait, if you go to the south Bronx it does look like a damn Dickens novel.

[Velociryx]

Kid: I see....so there WERE no wars (and thus, no competition for resources) before the advent and rise of capitalism.

Gotcha.