Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:24 am

JimC wrote:That example comes from the negative side of the ledger, frantically trying to maximise profits, with no forethought (even self-interested) that such actions usually come unstuck in the long term.

But you would be hard-pressed to argue that the free-enterprise system is not a generator of technological innovation and efficiency increases; saying that does not do away with the negatives I outlined...
No I agree. It's just important to remember that there are negative innovations too. Credit Default Swaps is another spectacularly negative innovation, one that brought the financial world to a standstill in the GFC.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:29 am

laklak wrote:And nobody cares. They line up to buy the latest and greatest iShit. Half the ones in line are probably Bernie Bro vegans.
Very true. But not even Bern Bros (nor you or I) are immune to psychological priming and conditioning. Advertising is psychological warfare against a country's own population. I'm not sure how, but we need to curb or better regulate advertising. For a start, I think I'd ban all advertising during G and PG shows. The conditioning starts during childhood. Taking away a big source of that conditioning would be a good start.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by JimC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:09 am

It used to be "first, kill all the lawyers"

Now I'm good with "first, kill all ad agency people"
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:41 am

Advertising is a curse of our time. It creates greed and the desire to have.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:47 am

Capitalism isn't about greed, and advertising is awesome because freedum!

[/42]
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:57 am

Informative advertising has its use in the right places. Non informative advertising should strictly be controlled. On PB it is very strictly controlled and most people do other things during the ads. PB programmes cant be interrupted by ads. We only have blocks between programmes that includes films and sports events like a football match.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73015
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by JimC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:06 am

If advertising was restricted to factual information about the benefits of a given widget, rather than being nasty attempts at emotional manipulation I would not have a serious problem with it. That would fulfil the free-enterprise model of allowing consumers to choose better designed products, fostering steady improvements in technology, without becoming a sausage machine for consumerism at all costs.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:13 am

I agree but kept to a time block.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:26 pm

JimC wrote:If advertising was restricted to factual information about the benefits of a given widget, rather than being nasty attempts at emotional manipulation I would not have a serious problem with it. That would fulfil the free-enterprise model of allowing consumers to choose better designed products, fostering steady improvements in technology, without becoming a sausage machine for consumerism at all costs.
Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact. The notion that selling widgets for their practical application only, and a straight cost/benefit analysis could reasonably be determined by the State, or anyone, is a bit off base.

Must coffee be sold only via factual information about the benefits? Are there any benefits? Some say yes, some say no, some say coffee is bad for your, others say good. Some will pay $3.00 for a small cup of cofee because of the branding, and status of a certain cup, while others think a $1 cuppa from a fast food joint is just as good.

Shampoo? Conditioner? Most beauty products?

Clothing lines? Is Victoria's Secret supposed to market just by discussing how practical and effecive their bras and underpants are? Or are they selling something else?

Beer? What about beer? Should their adverts just discuss how good it tastes, or can they also portray a brand image, like when Corona shows friends watching the sunset together, clinking glasses, and setting a certain tone?

Is it manipulation? Or, is it something people want?

Obviously, advertising is manipulation. They're trying to get you to buy something. But then, so is political advertising. So is political discussion and debate. I don't think you are identifying a distinction that can be made, as a practical matter.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:28 pm

pErvinalia wrote:Capitalism isn't about greed, and advertising is awesome because freedum!

[/42]
People are sometimes greedy, whether in a capitalist system or in a communist system.

Advertising is just people saying what they want to say. And, yes, freedom is better than the alternative.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:30 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Advertising is a curse of our time. It creates greed and the desire to have.
Do you find yourself buying things you don't want? Can you give examples where you've realized later that advertising gave you a "desire to have" or made you greedy?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:50 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:There is nothing "excessive or rapacious" in desire for pecuniary gain resulting from employment of capital in a transaction.
When someone who, with the sweat of his brow saves enough money to put down as a deposit for a home, then spends years paying it off and eventually sells it at a presumably much higher market value when the children have flown the coop and it is time to downsize, that person is making a profit - from his/her own labour. No greed involved because there is no exploitation involved. We're not talking about that.
Profiting off the sale of land, whether one year down the road, or 20-30 years down the road, is not profit from labor. It's part of what communism as a core principle would make illegal. It's no more "excessive or rapacious" to pick up a piece of property on January 1, and then because of an economic boom be able to sell it in one year at a 100% profit, than to wait 20 years for it. Your argument in this regard is just an emotional one - it feels more "earned" if a homeowner holds onto a house for 20 years than if they only hold onto it for a year.

Hermit wrote: What we're talking about is when Apple Corp creams off 20 to 25% of the value its workers create and directs it into the pockets of its shareholders, which, in the words of one Apple executive "requires factories that seem harsh by American standards", profit meets greed.
In this sense, when there is not a level playing field among nations, there is a good reason to saddle the offending country, like China, with hefty tariffs so that the human cost is combatted. The libertarian might say that the tariffs should be 0 so that the low cost/low reg country like China could import in goods to the US, and then eventually the wages and benefits in China will go up and even out with the US (which will go down, quite possibly).

What are you referring to with Apple? Net profit? What's your basis for determining what is too much and what is reasonable net profit. I would agree, however, that there is a place for regulation of factories, and there should at least be a level enough playing field that countries cannot have 0 minimum wage compared to $8 an hour or more, and low cost facilities due to low or no regulation on safety and benefits etc. I don't think that's a function of the greed of a particular net profit number -- that's a function of a place like China not taking care of its workers, which is typical of a communism-based country. Working conditions in communist countries have for the last 100 years been generally worse than that found in capitalist countries.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:01 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
We're not using the word "problem" in the same way. The problem I'm identifying is with the distinction you and others are trying to make.

How are we to determine what products are being sold by practical, real world, functional, factual use information, and which ones are being sold by manipulation? Who is to say what the use of a product is, if not the customer?

Take a car - are they only to be sold based on their ability to drive you to a place, and their relative gas mileage, power, and torque ratios? Just the practical, factual pluses and minuses? Or, is it o.k. to sell based on status, beauty, or other less practical/factual features?

Should shoes only be sold based on how comfortable they are demonstrated by evidence based studies to be, and how durable? Or, can they be sold based on how fashionable they are, and how much they make the customer lust for that particular shoe design? If a person says they get an emotional rush from a beautiful new pair of shoes, is that not something they ought to be able to buy?

I got to the mall, and I see stores just flooded with clothing options. Hundreds, upon hundreds of shirts, shoes, socks, dresses, slacks, jackets -- thousands of options - every color - every shape - every fabric - mountains of options. And, customers shopping around, trying them on - often seeing how the shirt or dress or shoes "make them feel" and then buying them. Often they will have closets full of clothes at home, far more than they "need." The different brands of clothing lines sell based on a variety of factors, often not factual things like warmth, durability, practicality.

It seems that one might argue that we shouldn't have those options, and clothes should not be sold on status. Why does a Tommy Bahama shirt cost $110 to $135 or more - it's just a short sleeved bowling shirt. Another brand, same material, same basic look, can cost 1/3 of that - or less on the "sale rack." Is Tommy Bahama "manipulating" me if I buy that shirt because their advertisements don't focus on the strength and durability of their fabric and how well the buttons are sewn on?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:02 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
Do you find yourself buying things you don't want? Can you give examples where you've realized later that advertising gave you a "desire to have" or made you greedy? Have you found yourself buying things out fear, or untoward desires?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests