Communism VS. Laissez-Faire Capitalism

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]it was a modern parallel on the off chance that early 20th Century global politics may fly over some heads. and I doubt 'most Americans would have wanted the islands' as trade partners, instead of actual land.fidosim

Well they certainly got one. We may have wanted overseas territories for economic reasons, but we used the same brutal, demeaning, and de-humanizing tactics when dealing with the locals that the Europeans used. We went to war, outraged with Spanish atrocities in Cuba, then outdid them by murdering thousands of innocent Filipinos to put down a rebellion.

Well they certainly got one. We may have wanted overseas territories for economic reasons, but we used the same brutal, demeaning, and de-humanizing tactics when dealing with the locals that the Europeans used. We went to war, outraged with Spanish atrocities in Cuba, then outdid them by murdering thousands of innocent Filipinos to put down a rebellion.

HomicidalCherry

[QUOTE="fidosim"] It simply didn't want to contruct an overseas empire based entirely off of landed expansion like those of Britain or Spain.Hewkii

Simply put, Britain planted a flag in India and decreed that they were now British subjects. The U.S. simply wanted new markets for its surplus goods. Most policymakers didn't care so much whether or not a given territory was "owned" by the U.S. on a political map of the world or not.fidosim

Well they certainly got one. We may have wanted overseas territories for economic reasons, but we used the same brutal, demeaning, and de-humanizing tactics when dealing with the locals that the Europeans used. We went to war, outraged with Spanish atrocities in Cuba, then outdid them by murdering thousands of innocent Filipinos to put down a rebellion.HomicidalCherry

Oh now thats just interesting, and here I thought almost everyone on gamespot is a sould hater of communism, interesting to see it has 44%. I vote for communism.

XenoLair

"No enemies to the left".

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="fidosim"] It simply didn't want to contruct an overseas empire based entirely off of landed expansion like those of Britain or Spain.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Simply put, Britain planted a flag in India and decreed that they were now British subjects. The U.S. simply wanted new markets for its surplus goods. Most policymakers didn't care so much whether or not a given territory was "owned" by the U.S. on a political map of the world or not.Hewkii

yea. America today is an economic imperialist, as apposed to Britain which was a territorial imperialistic empirehamstergeddon

Yes, well what happened after the Second World War? The Brits let us build bases around their empire as it was fragmenting. There's quite a bit of symbolism behind that.fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Yes, well what happened after the Second World War? The Brits let us build bases around their empire as it was fragmenting. There's quite a bit of symbolism behind that.Hewkii

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]Well they certainly got one. We may have wanted overseas territories for economic reasons, but we used the same brutal, demeaning, and de-humanizing tactics when dealing with the locals that the Europeans used. We went to war, outraged with Spanish atrocities in Cuba, then outdid them by murdering thousands of innocent Filipinos to put down a rebellion.fidosim

I more specifically remember the treaty (Paris I think?) passing the Senate with more than two thirds of the senate voting to pass it. Anti-imperialism wasn't very strong at all at the time of the Spanish-American war (It was really just William Jennings Bryan and a couple other Dems). Having a U.S. flag planted in Manila was very important and widely supported at the time (lest the brutal savages be left to their own devices :roll: ). The U.S. wasn't looking for a trading partner, it was looking for a colony which would only buy U.S. goods and could be used as a base to project power and influence across the rest of Asia (particularly China).

Or maybe the white man's burden was just too heavy for the Brits in the war's aftermath. fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]Well they certainly got one. We may have wanted overseas territories for economic reasons, but we used the same brutal, demeaning, and de-humanizing tactics when dealing with the locals that the Europeans used. We went to war, outraged with Spanish atrocities in Cuba, then outdid them by murdering thousands of innocent Filipinos to put down a rebellion.HomicidalCherry

I more specifically remember the treaty (Paris I think?) passing the Senate with more than two thirds of the senate voting to pass it. Anti-imperialism wasn't very strong at all at the time of the Spanish-American war (It was really just William Jennings Bryan and a couple other Dems). Having a U.S. flag planted in Manila was very important and widely supported at the time (lest the brutal savages be left to their own devices:roll:). The U.S. wasn't looking for a trading partner, it was looking for a colony which would only buy U.S. goods and could be used as a base to project power and influence across the rest of Asia (particularly China).

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Or maybe the white man's burden was just too heavy for the Brits in the war's aftermath. Hewkii

I think he was being sarcastic. The "White Man's Burden" was the idea, at the time, that it was up to whites (specifically Anglo-Saxons) to spread their "vastly superior" way of life to all the "uncivilized brutes" around the world.

I think he was being sarcastic. The "White Man's Burden" was the idea, at the time, that it was up to whites (specifically Anglo-Saxons) to spread their "vastly superior" way of life to all the "uncivilized brutes" around the world.

HomicidalCherry

that's what the smilie was for. Hewkii

I think he was being sarcastic. The "White Man's Burden" was the idea, at the time, that it was up to whites (specifically Anglo-Saxons) to spread their "vastly superior" way of life to all the "uncivilized brutes" around the world.

You sure showed him.fidosim

Laissez-Faire Capitalisim. But both are way to extrem to the left and right

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="HomicidalCherry"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] I'm fine with that, I don't work hard and I'm one of the laziest sods alive.True_Gamer_

Exactly, I don't wanna be stuck supporting bums like you.:P

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]that's what the smilie was for. fidosim

I lol'd.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

aRE-you-AFraid

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

aRE-you-AFraid

Those "misinformed friends" are probably even more misinformed about communism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_ASeanDog123

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. Good stuff.

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_AMagicMan4597

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone posted this. Good stuff.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

aRE-you-AFraid

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

aRE-you-AFraid

Can i say......America? lol

Can i say......America? lol

Euroshinobi

[QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

Can i say......America? lol

Ace_WondersX

Yes that is why i said 'can i say America'

I'm not satisfied with the choices :/

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

Can i say......America? lol

Euroshinobi

Yes that is why i said 'can i say America'

I'm not satisfied with the choices :/

Well, if the past has told us anything, it's that communism doesn't work. Perfect in theory, but in reality, it is taken advantage of like the Canadian immigration policy. We really need to stop giving so much money to immigrants that do no work. It really raises the taxes.

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Ace_WondersX

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Unknownmuncher

Wouldn't complete free market capitalism have a similar effect to communism? Instead of government-owned monopolies, you'd have corporate monopolies, and there would be just as little incentive to improve the product. The only difference would be the government would hold some responsibility to control the working conditions and emissions, whereas the corporations would hold no care for anything other than making products at the lowest possible price. Your only hope of a better life in the free market scenario would be to get in on that top 0.1% of the world's population that would hold all the money and power.F1_2004

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Unknownmuncher

[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Major_Commie

[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.

Major_Commie

Couldn't stand no environment guidelines. Communism.Lethalhazard

Wasn't the Soviet Union a monstrous polluter to the point that it helped hasten the disintegration of the system? I don't see how communism automatically assumes any more of a concern for the environment, or stricter environmental guidelines.

I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.