Everything bad can be blamed on greedy corporations

[Puppycow]

Ever notice how some people like to pin the blame for everything bad on greedy corporations?

One recent example that annoyed me is the epidemic of rape in the Congo.

Apparently the villains, according to some, are western companies that buy coltan for use in cellphones and other electronic products. It's never the people directly responsible for the crimes, but always greedy western capitalists who are to blame. The rapists and murderers themselves have no agency.

[Twiler]

The issue of responsibility is complicated. While individuals can commit crimes, their reasons for doing so (usually pragmatism and/or sociopathy) are generally the fault of cultural and governmental problems. As large corporations are immensely powerful, they have a great deal of control over cultures and governments, and such, they must bear some responsibility for crimes committed in countries that they influence.

That said, you could probably prove that anyone on Earth is responsible to some extent for any crime. I think that in some cases pointing the finger is justified, but I doubt that all such accusations are completely fair.

[lomiller]

I think the real question here is whether the corporations promote the system that is causing the problems or if they are simply working within the system that exists.

While there are examples of the former, I don’t see any evidence that this is one such case. In fact I think most corporations would be much happier to be dealing with a politically and economically stable supply.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Twiler

The issue of responsibility is complicated. While individuals can commit crimes, their reasons for doing so (usually pragmatism and/or sociopathy) are generally the fault of cultural and governmental problems. As large corporations are immensely powerful, they have a great deal of control over cultures and governments, and such, they must bear some responsibility for crimes committed in countries that they influence.

But "cultural and governmental problems" are the aggregate result of innumerable choices by individuals. Are corporate CEOs the only people in the world with moral agency and responsibility? Also, since a "problem" is not itself an individual with free will, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that anything is the "fault" of a "problem."

And isn't "sociopathy" just a modern euphemism for evil? It seems to shift the blame away from moral agent and on to some "pathology."

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But "cultural and governmental problems" are the aggregate result of innumerable choices by individuals. Are corporate CEOs the only people in the world with moral agency and responsibility? Also, since a "problem" is not itself an individual with free will, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that anything is the "fault" of a "problem."

And isn't "sociopathy" just a modern euphemism for evil? It seems to shift the blame away from moral agent and on to some "pathology."

The point of it is that we do not live in a vacuum. Give me enough food to eat, and I shall eat it. Give me not enough food to eat, and I might very well steal some.

It is easy to see that individuals cause crimes. But when you look at a nation, and say "of 1 million people in this nation, 300,000 do X. In this other nation it's 30,000" you draw other conclusions. These conclusions, inevitably, is that there are social factors involved.

This conclusion seems inevitable. I mean it's clearly the result of deep insanity to say that one country has a concentration of 'evilitis' or 'bad thetans' or some other stupid explanation. Clearly something causes the discrepancy, and unless you're very ignorant about statistics, you don't think it's simple variance.


Now you may have a moral issue with people who try to identify the social factors that cause rape and murder, and mitigate or remove those factors. You may think they are simply pushing an agenda. And you may believe the entire idea of stopping the social factors behind rape and murder is pointless, and that one should accept the rape and murder, and punish the criminals.


This would make you a sociopath. Or, if you prefer, evil. Anyone who looks at those trying to prevent rape and murder, and says not "I think they're wrong, I'll help them out" or "maybe they're onto something, what could we do" but "why do they do something stupid like this, they should just pin the blame on the evil people, and not try to stop what's happening?"

This is not a good person. Now if you wish to identify social factors other than the corporations, or think that their methodology is flawed, please do so. Identifying flawed methodology is always quite useful (I'd suggest writing, I hear they publish letters). If you wish to point out social factors they missed, please do so. If you want to say "no, trying to stop the rape and murder is pointless" please excuse me while I choose the best modern euphamism for you.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

But "cultural and governmental problems" are the aggregate result of innumerable choices by individuals. Are corporate CEOs the only people in the world with moral agency and responsibility? Also, since a "problem" is not itself an individual with free will, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that anything is the "fault" of a "problem."

And isn't "sociopathy" just a modern euphemism for evil? It seems to shift the blame away from moral agent and on to some "pathology."

What use is blame anyway?
I'm much more interested in "What do I have the power to do that can change a bad situation?" than "Who is the real bad guy here?".

So who can I have more control over? Thousands or millions of individual rapists thieves and murderers, thousands of miles away, or corporations largely based in my own country? Corporations run by a handful of people, who care deeply about their bottom line which is threatened by negative public opinion.

In terms of targeting individuals who perpetrate these crimes, that will only be useful when the society around them condemns them, which will only be possible when the society around them has a certain level of stability.

Attacking corporations who contribute to instability, and promoting education are pragmatic approaches. Blaming individual perpetrators is useless, not because they have no agency, but because there is no way that blame can be channeled into useful action.

Individual slaveholders may have had the agency when slavery was prevalent in the US, but it took a systemic change to eliminate it. The reason for slavery could have been looked at as the economic and governmental conditions, and the industries that thrived on slavery, or as the actions of individual slaveholders. Slavery was ended not by attacking each individual slaveholder, but by changing the system.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

So who can I have more control over? Thousands or millions of individual rapists thieves and murderers, thousands of miles away, or corporations largely based in my own country? Corporations run by a handful of people, who care deeply about their bottom line which is threatened by negative public opinion.

What makes you think that controlling these corporations will have any effect on the congolese cultural value of rape?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What makes you think that controlling these corporations will have any effect on the congolese cultural value of rape?

Well if you read the article (Puppy didn't) it's mostly about how the Army is the one doing the bad things. So right now, the only person we have blaming corporations is... well... the OP.

I think I've made my position on that load of tripe pretty clear.

One of the better-informed articles I've read about it is here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0127/p09s02-coop.html

Though I'm sure there's much longer articles about it.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What makes you think that controlling these corporations will have any effect on the congolese cultural value of rape?

It won't in this particular case because the corporations aren't contributing to the situation in a major way, as GreyIce pointed out, the article doesn't mention what the Op seems to think it does.

But in situations where US companies, and US government policies contribute to negative social conditions, it is far more useful for US citizens to address our own companies and policies than to shake our fists at individual criminals.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Well if you read the article (Puppy didn't) it's mostly about how the Army is the one doing the bad things. So right now, the only person we have blaming corporations is... well... the OP.

I think I've made my position on that load of tripe pretty clear.

One of the better-informed articles I've read about it is here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0127/p09s02-coop.html

Though I'm sure there's much longer articles about it.

I never claimed that the article blames corporations, and yes I did read it. That was just in case somebody reading the thread never heard of this issue.

I heard this on the radio. Actually, I just found it on the internet:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/08/13.php#26570

Some guests and callers to the program basically blame the thing on western corporations.

For example, the caller at 36:20.

[zaphod2016]

Both state and corporation present threats to our liberty. The key to our survival is simple: turn one monster against the other.

[kevinquinnyo]

Yes, I find it irritating to no end when people say "greedy corporations," or "windfall profits," etc, etc.

Companies cannot pick and choose prices. The whole concept of a corporation being greedy doesn't pan out logically at all. It shows a lack of understanding of economics, and worse yet, even a willful ignorance of it.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

Companies cannot pick and choose prices.

Bull flops. Have you forgotten ENRON?

Quote:

The whole concept of a corporation being greedy doesn't pan out logically at all. It shows a lack of understanding of economics, and worse yet, even a willful ignorance of it.

Okay. This is quibbling. Corpoorations are basicly amoral, but, because they are required by a misbegotten law to ensure a profit for shareholders, their actions are, for all practical purposes, often immoral. They are driven to destroy other corporations or small businesses in order to better control the markets, and to hell with the feelings of anyone who gets in the way and gets hurt. They are, in so far as they have any of the characteristics of a person, sociopaths.

[kevinquinnyo]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Bull flops. Have you forgotten ENRON?



Okay. This is quibbling. Corpoorations are basicly amoral, but, because they are required by a misbegotten law to ensure a profit for shareholders, their actions are, for all practical purposes, often immoral. They are driven to destroy other corporations or small businesses in order to better control the markets, and to hell with the feelings of anyone who gets in the way and gets hurt. They are, in so far as they have any of the characteristics of a person, sociopaths.

There's your mistake right there, though, "insofar as they have any characteristics of a person."

That's where the logic ends. You're comparing an entity to a single human being's motives. But even if the owner of a small company (whose daily operations are controlled by a single person, the owner) says, okay, I can't sell these apples for 10 dollars a piece, even though I need to do that to exceed my production costs, then he doesn't stop doing it because he feels that 10 dollars is too much money to charge for an apple. He is forced out of the business by competition who can sell them for less and still make profit. Greed never had anything to do with it. Everyone wants to make as much money as possible, they are limited by competitive forces.

If you don't agree with that, then go pay sticker price for the next car you buy, if you truly don't consider yourself greedy, then pay more than they ask, and then give the car away to your neighbor.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding to attribute the word greed to a corporation playing in a competitive environment.

I have a marketing company now, and I sell advertising spots through social media.

I can't just set the price to whatever the hell I want. I charge the maximum amount that I can in order to make the most money and have the most volume. Does that make me greedy?

If I hired you, would you tell me to give away my advertising spots out of "niceness?" It would put me out of business, that I know.

Get off of this moral high horse and think about things rationally.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

There's your mistake right there, ... Greed never had anything to do with it. Everyone wants to make as much money as possible, they are limited by competitive forces.

Assuming your example was supposed to reflect the whole corporate world, greed has a lot to do with it in many, though not all cases. To claim it doesn't is naive just as it's naive to think the corporate culture that results, for example, in profit over indigenous people is some non-human entity that isn't capable of greed.

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

It's a fundamental misunderstanding to attribute the word greed to a corporation playing in a competitive environment.

Corporate decisions are made by individuals. They aren't made by machines. Some decision makers are much less ethical than others. To claim no ethics, only competition and profit motives are at work, is false.

You have the Enrons and the Tycos where decision makers exceeded the average ethical standard and perpetrated fraud and deceit. You have the Standard Oil and Shell Oil decision makers who decided that the corporation had no ethical responsibility for polluting the environment indigenous peoples depended upon for survival. You have the Gulf Western corporate decision makers who funded Latin American dictators who in turn murdered labor union organizers for the benefit of the corporation.

Those are examples of corporate decisions not all executives would agree were acceptable for the sake of profits.

OTOH, as far as leaving pollution to someone else to clean up if you can get away with it, and suppressing labor unions go, the corporate culture is to accept decisions along these lines to varying degrees. Such a corporate culture indeed exists and it influences many of the decision makers into making decisions they would probably not make without the fact others making similar decisions makes it easier to absolve one's conscience of guilt. Claiming one's ethical loyalty is to corporate profits therefore one has no guilt if one's decisions led to a murdered labor organizer or ruined the water supply for dozens of Amazon villages is a common theme among corporate executives.

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

I have a marketing company now, and I sell advertising spots through social media.

I can't just set the price to whatever the hell I want. I charge the maximum amount that I can in order to make the most money and have the most volume. Does that make me greedy?

If I hired you, would you tell me to give away my advertising spots out of "niceness?" It would put me out of business, that I know.

Get off of this moral high horse and think about things rationally.

Your example is really a non sequitur. You've outlined a single decision, setting a price, but that has no bearing on the corporate decisions being discussed as the result of greed.

Just having a successful business is not an indicator of greed. An indicator of greed would be something more like selling flu vaccine to the highest bidder during a vaccine shortage, or price gouging after a natural disaster.

[NWO Sentryman]

And your solution is? Total state control of the economy, like Stalin and Mao?

Oh that's right, Socialism is an ideology of human rights.

But seriously, what system do you propose?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

And your solution is? Total state control of the economy, like Stalin and Mao?

I would love to see the power grid, phone system and internet and all hospitals run as part of the commons. Natural monop[olies, turned over to private industry, have always been a conduit of obscene profits from the pockets of the working class into the pockets of a few entrepreneurs.

Quote:

Oh that's right, Socialism is an ideology of human rights.

Actually, it is, though Marx may have taken it a bit far, and Lenin and Stalin definitely did.

Quote:

But seriously, what system do you propose?

Mixed socialist/capitalist ecconomy. The people own the infrastructure and administer it for the common good. Can't build a dam without wiping out a salmon run or spending money to builld fish escapement? Industry screams rape and insists on the right to make a profit. The people, especially in a state where the loss of a salmon run means the loss of livelihood will insist on the escapement improvements.

Look how well private hospitals and for-profit health care have worked for the unemployed working man these days.

Capitalism is not essential to freedom.

[lightfire22000]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Mixed socialist/capitalist ecconomy. The people own the infrastructure and administer it for the common good. Can't build a dam without wiping out a salmon run or spending money to builld fish escapement? Industry screams rape and insists on the right to make a profit. The people, especially in a state where the loss of a salmon run means the loss of livelihood will insist on the escapement improvements.

Look how well private hospitals and for-profit health care have worked for the unemployed working man these days.

Capitalism is not essential to freedom.

Yep, Capitalism, in the sense of free markets, is essential for freedom. It is freedom. Who's to say what a "common good" is? Nobody. No one has that authority. However, in order to succeed in free markets, one has to serve people to make money. That is why it is superior. Your system fails on its own terms.

That being said, I oppose "corporatism" in the sense of government sanctioned monopolies, easements, and bailouts wholeheartedly.

[negativ]

Don't be silly. Everything bad is ultimately traceable to The Liberals(tm), and The Liberal Media. Not Real Americans.

Bill Clinton is 100% responsible for the Congo Free State.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I never claimed that the article blames corporations, and yes I did read it. That was just in case somebody reading the thread never heard of this issue.

I heard this on the radio. Actually, I just found it on the internet:

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/08/13.php#26570

Some guests and callers to the program basically blame the thing on western corporations.

For example, the caller at 36:20.

Random caller on radio is wrong about the Congo, Puppy reacts with rant about how none of the world's problems can be caused by social factors and people who think that they can are denying personal culpability.

I won't say worst overreaction in the history of the JREF, but if I put it in the top 5, I can't say that it would be easy to unseat.

Nothing you wrote has any basis in our reality. Not to mention, it's extremely vicious, stupid, shortsighted, and if adopted as a majority opinion, would lead to countless horrible acts (fortunately most of our leaders (yes, even Shrub) are smarter than that).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

Yep, Capitalism, in the sense of free markets, is essential for freedom. It is freedom. Who's to say what a "common good" is? Nobody. No one has that authority.

This is tunnel vision. It is not questionable that murder is against the common good. Who has trouble seeing that except some of the murderers?

So the issue is not that no one can determine the common good. The issue is to what extent we agree on what the common good is. Hopefully we can all agree murder is not good.

Originally Posted by lightfire22000

However, in order to succeed in free markets, one has to serve people to make money. That is why it is superior. Your system fails on its own terms.

A number of services work better under public control and a number work better under private control. Both those who believe in all private or all public have been proved wrong in numerous examples in history.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I would love to see the power grid, phone system and internet and all hospitals run as part of the commons. Natural monop[olies, turned over to private industry, have always been a conduit of obscene profits from the pockets of the working class into the pockets of a few entrepreneurs.



Actually, it is, though Marx may have taken it a bit far, and Lenin and Stalin definitely did.



Mixed socialist/capitalist ecconomy. The people own the infrastructure and administer it for the common good. Can't build a dam without wiping out a salmon run or spending money to builld fish escapement? Industry screams rape and insists on the right to make a profit. The people, especially in a state where the loss of a salmon run means the loss of livelihood will insist on the escapement improvements.

Look how well private hospitals and for-profit health care have worked for the unemployed working man these days.

Capitalism is not essential to freedom.

Ah yes, state control of communications, just like Stalin and Mao. But that's okay, they're socialist.

Socialism has led to the most tyrannical systems in the world, leading up to 200 million deaths in the past century alone - but that's okay, it's an ideology of human rights.

When everything is state run, it's ok. It made China and Russia into superpowers.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin and Kim Il Sung would all agree with you.

We all know you worship mao and Stalin in secret.

the "common good" would just mean mob rule and ochlocracy, just like Plato said.

So Big Gov't = freedom. Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung etc. but that's okay, it was socialism.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Ah yes, state control of communications, just like Stalin and Mao. But that's okay, they're socialist.

Socialism has led to the most tyrannical systems in the world, leading up to 200 million deaths in the past century alone - but that's okay, it's an ideology of human rights.

When everything is state run, it's ok. It made China and Russia into superpowers.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin and Kim Il Sung would all agree with you.

We all know you worship mao and Stalin in secret.

the "common good" would just mean mob rule and ochlocracy, just like Plato said.

So Big Gov't = freedom. Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung etc. but that's okay, it was socialism.

While Hitler and Mussolini rather like your capitalist approach. Not to mention the slave traders, the British Empire, Pinochet, and countless other tyrants. What will you tell the victims of capitalism?

Oh right. To not make strawmen.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Random caller on radio is wrong about the Congo, Puppy reacts with rant about how none of the world's problems can be caused by social factors and people who think that they can are denying personal culpability.

I won't say worst overreaction in the history of the JREF, but if I put it in the top 5, I can't say that it would be easy to unseat.

Nothing you wrote has any basis in our reality. Not to mention, it's extremely vicious, stupid, shortsighted, and if adopted as a majority opinion, would lead to countless horrible acts (fortunately most of our leaders (yes, even Shrub) are smarter than that).

I think your reaction to me is perhaps the "worst overreaction in the history of the JREF."

[MysteryMammal]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Ah yes, state control of communications, just like Stalin and Mao. But that's okay, they're socialist communist.

Socialism Communism has led to the most tyrannical systems in the world, leading up to 200 million deaths in the past century alone - but that's okay, it's an ideology of human rights.

When everything is state run, it's ok. It made China and Russia into superpowers.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin and Kim Il Sung would all agree with you.

We all know you worship mao and Stalin in secret.

the "common good" would just mean mob rule and ochlocracy, just like Plato said.

So Big Gov't = freedom. Tell that to the victims of Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung etc. but that's okay, it was socialism communism.

I fixed your rant for you. But I have one question: How can you know what someone does in secret? Shouldn't that be "We all believe you worship Mao and Stalin in secret." ?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I think your reaction to me is perhaps the "worst overreaction in the history of the JREF."

Really? I find you and your ilk detestable, and describe why in great detail?

I suppose I could post smilies or something, but it was much more interesting to me to describe in detail the inherent ethical and logical flaws in your hypothesis. Your defense was... well... predictable.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

There's your mistake right there, though, "insofar as they have any characteristics of a person."

That's where the logic ends. You're comparing an entity to a single human being's motives. But even if the owner of a small company (whose daily operations are controlled by a single person, the owner) says, okay, I can't sell these apples for 10 dollars a piece, even though I need to do that to exceed my production costs, then he doesn't stop doing it because he feels that 10 dollars is too much money to charge for an apple. He is forced out of the business by competition who can sell them for less and still make profit. Greed never had anything to do with it. Everyone wants to make as much money as possible, they are limited by competitive forces.

If you don't agree with that, then go pay sticker price for the next car you buy, if you truly don't consider yourself greedy, then pay more than they ask, and then give the car away to your neighbor.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding to attribute the word greed to a corporation playing in a competitive environment.

I have a marketing company now, and I sell advertising spots through social media.

I can't just set the price to whatever the hell I want. I charge the maximum amount that I can in order to make the most money and have the most volume. Does that make me greedy?

If I hired you, would you tell me to give away my advertising spots out of "niceness?" It would put me out of business, that I know.

Get off of this moral high horse and think about things rationally.

By the same token, I am running a chemical plant. I relocate to a foreign because I find the safety regulations in America just too difficult to follow, and prefer the ones in that country.

Would you call it niceness if I chose to voluntarily meet the more expensive American standards?


Bonus round: What historical event am I describing?

[oggiesnr]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

By the same token, I am running a chemical plant. I relocate to a foreign because I find the safety regulations in America just too difficult to follow, and prefer the ones in that country.

Would you call it niceness if I chose to voluntarily meet the more expensive American standards?


Bonus round: What historical event am I describing?

Union Carbide (a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company) at Bhopal. This year is the 25th anniversary and the company has spent much of that time using the law to avoid paying for the cleanup or compensation.

It is of course arguable as to whether they even bothered following the laxer local rules.

Steve

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Really? I find you and your ilk detestable, and describe why in great detail?

I suppose I could post smilies or something, but it was much more interesting to me to describe in detail the inherent ethical and logical flaws in your hypothesis. Your defense was... well... predictable.

"My hypothesis"? You accused me of believing in thetans and other ridiculous positions I never took, and then did a stellar job of decimating that straw man. Now you pile on more ad hominems. My actual position is nothing like what you seem to imagine it to be. Life is too short to for me to allow myself to be bothered for another minute by you so I will avail myself of the ignore function.

Bye.

[lightfire22000]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

This is tunnel vision. It is not questionable that murder is against the common good. Who has trouble seeing that except some of the murderers?

So the issue is not that no one can determine the common good. The issue is to what extent we agree on what the common good is. Hopefully we can all agree murder is not good.

It is true that the vast majority of people, including myself, seem to oppose a conception of murder. However, they widely disagree on what constitutes murder. Lots of people think the Death Penalty is okay as a means for justice specifically, I do not. I also don't know if executing somebody for revenge "under the law" is murder. Others, the Dominionists, say that it is okay to kill homosexuals simply for engaging in gay sex. Still, some people think that abortion should be legal AFTER BIRTH! People widely differ on what constitutes murder.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

A number of services work better under public control and a number work better under private control. Both those who believe in all private or all public have been proved wrong in numerous examples in history.

I think the free market creates some government, like police and defense, but there is way too much public control today. In fact, I think there has been too much control for a very long time. For instance, many, if not all public roads are unnecessary. State employees wreck roads simply to create the jobs to rebuild the roads.

[lightfire22000]

Originally Posted by negativ

Don't be silly. Everything bad is ultimately traceable to The Liberals(tm), and The Liberal Media. Not Real Americans.

Bill Clinton is 100% responsible for the Congo Free State.

No, but the Belgian government is. Just because something says its private, doesn't make it private. I read Hochschild's book, I think it was "Leopold's Ghost" or "King Leopold's Ghost" in '04 and he talks about tons and tons of government subsidies that went into the Congo abuses if I recall correctly. Of course, monarchy is a government subsidy in itself.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

There's your mistake right there, though, "insofar as they have any characteristics of a person."

In some aspects of the law, aren't US corporations granted the same rights as individuals?

[lightfire22000]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

In some aspects of the law, aren't US corporations granted the same rights as individuals?

Yep, "corporate personhood".

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

"My hypothesis"? You accused me of believing in thetans and other ridiculous positions I never took, and then did a stellar job of decimating that straw man. Now you pile on more ad hominems. My actual position is nothing like what you seem to imagine it to be. Life is too short to for me to allow myself to be bothered for another minute by you so I will avail myself of the ignore function.

Bye.

How very articulett of you.

[Beat]

Originally Posted by Twiler

The issue of responsibility is complicated. While individuals can commit crimes, their reasons for doing so (usually pragmatism and/or sociopathy) are generally the fault of cultural and governmental problems. As large corporations are immensely powerful, they have a great deal of control over cultures and governments, and such, they must bear some responsibility for crimes committed in countries that they influence.

That said, you could probably prove that anyone on Earth is responsible to some extent for any crime. I think that in some cases pointing the finger is justified, but I doubt that all such accusations are completely fair.

Not all accusations are fair, but I'm pretty sure that we can agree that a lot of corporations are not being responsible enough with their power. Especially in current times, when the people at the top of the corporations can afford to give up some money to help thousands of other people who cannot afford to give anything up.
Have you heard the saying "noblesse oblige"? It's pretty much true.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

While Hitler and Mussolini rather like your capitalist approach. Not to mention the slave traders, the British Empire, Pinochet, and countless other tyrants. What will you tell the victims of capitalism?

Oh right. To not make strawmen.

Em, Mussolini and Hitler were Socialists. National Socialism was socialism as well as Fascism. Read their 25 point peorgramme.

Pinochet did not kill for ideology. Besides he was a piker compared to Stalin and Mao.

Many other tyrants in history did not kill in the name of capitalism. They killed in the name of God, the state or for power.

The Slave trade was horrible reprehensible, buit which nations stopped it first? the capitalist nations.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Em, Mussolini and Hitler were Socialists. National Socialism was socialism as well as Fascism. Read their 25 point peorgramme.

Pinochet did not kill for ideology. Besides he was a piker compared to Stalin and Mao.

Many other tyrants in history did not kill in the name of capitalism. They killed in the name of God, the state or for power.

The Slave trade was horrible reprehensible, buit which nations stopped it first? the capitalist nations.

Ah, one of those I see. It's about the point where you claim that Hitler and Mussolini were socialist that people start ignoring you, because it shows such an intense ignorance of history that it's incredible.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Ah, one of those I see. It's about the point where you claim that Hitler and Mussolini were socialist that people start ignoring you, because it shows such an intense ignorance of history that it's incredible.

Please cite the historical references that you think best demonstrate that the national socialist movements in Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. in the early 20th century did not spring from the same post-enlightenment progressive theories, and share many of the same ideological and operational characteristics as their international socialist rivals.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Please cite the historical references that you think best demonstrate that the national socialist movements in Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. in the early 20th century did not spring from the same post-enlightenment progressive theories, and share many of the same ideological and operational characteristics as their international socialist rivals.

You want me to cite historical references that the Nazis were different from, say... Eugene Debs?

I... don't even know where to start...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

You want me to cite historical references that the Nazis were different from, say... Eugene Debs?

I... don't even know where to start...

Why not start with "the historical references that you think best demonstrate" the differences?

Please also try to keep in mind the actual scope of my request. I'm willing to stipulate that the Nazis and Eugene Debs diverged in their resepctive thinking somewhere along the way. What I'm not willing to stipulate, solely on your say-so, is that they did not start out in the same field of closely-related progressive ideas in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I'm also not willing to stipulate, solely on your say-so, that the national socialist movements in several different countries (not just the German variant we all know and love) sprang from a different ideological origin than the international socialist movements of the same period before diverging somewhat as they each evolved.

I'm also not willing to stipulate, solely on your say-so, that the "fascist" totalitarianism of early 20th century Germany, Italy and Spain had more significant differences than significant similarities with the "socialist" totalitarianism being promoted elsewhere during that same period.

You claim that it is ignorant to dispute these things. You imply that far from being ignorant, you are quite knowledgeable about these things. I'm not asking you for a history lesson. I'm simply asking where you got your history lesson from. Don't you remember?