Ustwo

110 million is the estimated number of people killed by their own communist government world wide. Links on it are easy to find.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

RJ Rummel, eh?

I wouldn't rely upon his conclusions.

Thanks for the link though. I think we can both agree that absolutist tyrannies, be they communist, fascist, despotic or theocratic, are terrible and the source of many millions of criminal deaths.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

If you don't like his conclusions take your pick, its not like there is only one source for it.

And no I don't equate communism with other tyrannies, as communism has proven far more deadly to its own people than any other form of government. Its like comparing the flu to the plague. Both may kill a lot of people, but which would you rather have?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

I'd never heard the figure 110 million before. To be honest, it seems a bit high.

I didn't ask you to equate communism to anything. I simply stated that all tyrannies are terrible. If you "prefer" one over the other, then so be it.

Oh, and for the record, I'd rather have communism over Nazism any day.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

Whats the difference? Both are founded on slave labor, lack of freedom, and fear of the government. My guess is the overall standard of living is higher under the Nazis, and the Nazi's never had the mass starvations, but it didn't survive long enough as a form of government to say for sure.

As for the figure, you may have never heard of it, but the people went 'somewhere'. Its something worth looking into.

Edit:You may find this link interesting.
http://www.unwatch.org/speeches/demcat.html

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

biznatch

That's the same type of reasoning as: "if America had been less or more harsh in punishing Germany(the huge debt they had to pay), things would have been much better:
if they had been less harsh: Germany would have not been in the same kind of economical slump, the people would have been less desperate and would not have elected Hitler as chancellor in 1933
if they had been more harsh: there wouldn't have been the possibility of the creation of a regime because of the complete deprivation of resources and money."

I don't think you can make conclusions so easily... Maybe there would've been something even worse than the 3rd reich...and maybe if the course of history had been different, China would've been the equivalent of North Korea...who knows, really...

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

biznatch

Communism over Nazism?? I disagree. Communism started as an idea of utopy, and that state was obviously never attained. Tyrants took advantage of it and would mass kill all the disagreeings..Nazis would do the same thing, in addition to killing all non white people, jews, gypsys, and more. And try conquering the world, killing everyone in its way.
While I'm not a fan of the current applications of communism (I used to live in Miami, and I met Cubans with horrible stories, like a teacher who had spent 20 years in jail over there), I don't think they got as bad as Hitler's regime(which I think in general opinion was historically the worst regime ever).

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

powerclown

You need to look more carefully. Some American media outlets are only too happy to point the finger at themselves. This could be one example putting to rest the notion of a conservative-dominated media:


New York Times Streak of Page One Stories on Abu Ghraib ends at 32 Days

As Spock would say: "Fascinating."

Ustwo

Powerclown - Thanks for that link, I know the left wing press is out to derail the Iraq mission, but I didn't know they were being that obvious about it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

ah yes, ustwo, THAT would explain the number of stories about abu ghraib, wouldn't it. that and not the information about the reality of the conditions there.
clearly, it is all a function of some fifth column.

do you actually believe this kind of stuff, ustwo?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Do I believe that the NYT is a left wing biased paper?

Yep.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jorgelito

I believe the NYT to be right-leaning, and the LAT to be left-leaning. Time Magazine to be right-leaning, Newsweek to be left-leaning. But then again, we probably see "what we want to see".

To put it another way, sometimes people accuse them mods of being "biased" or "leaning one way or the other". So, if we think there may be a bias, we will look for "signs" to justify our suspicions.

The truth, IMO, is probably somewhere in the middle. Some say the media is left-biased, some say the media is right biased. It is a black-hole argument - we can't escape it! LOL! Seriously though, whether or not the media is biased one way or another is an irreconciliable debate (for the moment).

Concerning this thread, ther are plenty of media articles illustrating both the positive and the negative sides.

Cheers!

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

alansmithee

I think this reasoning to be horrilbly flawed, and also rediculous. Using this "logic", there is nobody in the world with any moral ground whatsoever. All peoples have at one time or another committed acts which may be considered human right violations.

Most of the blame lies with the governments of the SE Asian countries in this. The only reason people in these areas are able to be exploited for labor is because their gov'ts allow it, where it's not allowed in western countries.

Mephisto2

So it's THEIR fault they're poor and being exploited...

Right.

It's got nothing to do with large multi-nationals.


Mr Mephisto

Axiom_e

I just became physically ill when I read about china. I mean I have actually have been overcome with nauesea.

I know I am one of the americans that live in a bubble. I live in a bubble because I don't how how to deal with something that I can't exert my single will and affect.

__________________
Life is meaningless.
How awesome is that?
Rock On! Now I can do whatever the hell I want
and give my own life meaning to myself.

Marvelous Marv

Where the hell are the insurgents with IEDs?

Maybe that's where we could release all of the prisoners currently held at Guantanamo.

They'd have blown up all of those vans in a week.

alansmithee

In a way, yes. The large corps have one purpose-maximizing profits. By using cheap labor and bad working conditions, they are doing this. And the gov'ts are allowing this, and the people aren't getting rid of their exploitave gov'ts. So yes, it is their fault. It isn't up ot a company to go into a country and force good working conditions upon people.

sapiens

So, corporations have no moral responsibility? They can do whatever they want as long as they're not stopped by a government?

alansmithee

Yes. It's not their job to be a moral authority, its a corporation's job to make profit. If it is judged that doing things considered by some to be amoral is the way to make greater profits, and no gov't puts a limit on those actions, then it's wholly in their rights to do it.

roachboy

i always find the equation of capitalism with political freedom to be amusing.

particularly if you actually take seriously anything alansmithee just said--which is a nice summary of what you would read about in almost any introduction to capitalist ideology textbook.

his post provides a nice snapshot of the central argument against any possible equation of capitalist modes of production and any particular legal or political regime.

left to themselves, captialist firms will reinvent the bottom in terms of wages, in terms of quality of life, in terms of social stability (if you view your workers as interchangeable extensions of the machinery they run, what do you care about social reproduction--fact is, you dont--this despite it being self-defeating in the longer run--but in the contemporary capitalist context, there need be no longer run at the level of production--relocate whewn shit gets ugly. no problem. profits uber alles.)

china has had among the fastest growing capitalist economies in the world for the past 15 years or so. production facilities are located there in huge numbers--apparently, it is ok for these firms to see in political repression--opposition to union activity for example--a kind of externalization of costs. and apparently alansmithee would be able to do nothing but justify this position.


capitalism is not a liberating force--was never, never will be. it is a system of economic activity that assumes human being can be treated like things and that freedom is something top be bought by holders of capital.

it is a revolutionary force--marx was right about that--and one of the explanations for the rise of the modern nation-state is as a political formation set up to mitigate the destruction visited upon regions that are integrated into this system.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sapiens

First, thanks for the response.

Second, I think that the ability to perform an act because of an absence of laws to the contrary, does not necessarily make that act a right.

Third, could you clarify a few things?
If there are no existing laws governing whatever morally reprehensible act they want to commit, they are free to do so? It was legal for German companies to use slave labor during Nazi rule. So, it was fine for the companies to do so because they have no moral responsibility? I disagree, but this is your position, correct?

What if the government is unable limit those acts despite laws (inadequate enforcement)? If a corportations only motive should be profit, are they within their "rights" to perform those acts?

Because corporations are made up of people, people make the decisions, etc., does the same logic apply to people? (If there are no laws governing an act, you have a "right" to commit that act?)

alansmithee

I don't understand this at all. I can see something not being right, but how isn't it "a" right? Who decides what things are rights and not in the absence of law, besides personal whim?

In Germany, it most certainly was. And if no other country where that company did business enacted laws forbidding countries doing business there who used slave labor, it would also be fine in those countries. Now, this might not be most profitable, however. A competitor could easily point out that company's use of slave labor, and if the business lost due to this was greater than the profit gained by using slave labor, it wouldn't make much sense for them to use slave labor.

Not if it's illegal. Just because a gov't can't enforce laws now, doesn't mean that that situation will always remain. And if a gov't is so inept that they are wholly unable to enforce laws for corporations, the corporation in essence becomes the gov't and makes their own laws.

Homicide (the willful act of unlawfully killing a person) is illegal, and assumedly wrong. People are made up of cells, cells give people life, etc. So should it be illegal to "murder" cells?

A corporation does have people in charge, true. But it is something entirely separate from the people in charge of it. Now, the people themselves might balk at doing something that is legal but immoral, but then that employee is not doing his job properly.

And if there is no laws governing an act, people/corporations/whatever certainly do have a right to do it.

sapiens

I understand that as a conceptual and legal entity, a corporation, that which is on paper, does not in itself have moral responsibility. (Any more than a rock has moral responsibility). I also understand that if there is no legislation barring a particular act, a corporation can perform that act. But in my view, a corporation is also composed of people. In my view, those people have moral resposibility that runs above and beyond their duty to turn a profit. I think that even if it was perfectly legal to perform a particular act- to enslave an ethnic group, for example- it wouldn't be my "right" to do so even if it might be a "legal right".

I shouldn't be able to inflict unreasonable costs on you regardless of the legality. I want to use the term "natural law" because that's what it seems like - a violation of natural law. I'm hesitant to do so because: 1) natural law may be to take inflict costs on others and reap benefits; and 2) just because something is natural doesn't make it right.

I suppose laws are created based on moral consensus. That moral consensus is composed of different individuals' personal morality. I also suppose that in the absence of law, personal morality (or personal whim), does dictate what is a right and what is not. Personal morality is a murky topic for discusion, but I suppose that is what this interaction boils down to...