PDA

View Full Version : Wal Mart: The Evil Empire


Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 09:06 PM
I'm wondering if anyone else is as sick and tired as I am over this virus that is killing off American business. We all know where most of the products come from, overseas and most likely from slave labor in Asia. Their products are never as good as what we put the time and effort into. Customer service is nonexistent. A fair go for staff is nonexistent with low wage and poor working conditions rife. And where does all the money go? Not into making themselves better, oh no, it's to build more stores and overcome opposition to them. Sure they're cheap, cheap and nasty, and their predatory prices are designed to make others unable to compete and drive them out of business. I say we should fight back to put American business back into the hands of Americans.

Jae Onasi
07-20-2007, 11:23 PM
I don't like the fact that a lot of small-town downtowns have been killed by Wal-Mart. However, Wal-Mart's doing what the other small businesses weren't--consistently providing lower prices on a lot of the same goods. Last I knew, Sam Walton _was_ an American, living out the quintessential American Dream--building an incredibly successful business by fulfilling a consumer need.

Have you looked on the labels of a lot of items at their stores? Most of them are "made in America", and they make a big deal out of that, almost ad nauseum.

Benefits--many small businesses can't afford to provide _any_ health insurance for their employees, much less a decent plan. They certainly don't have things like profit-sharing and the other benefits that Wal-Mart provides. They also aren't required to conform to some of the EEOC regulations if they're very small. Try prosecuting a discrimination suit against a mom-and-pop store--it won't generally be successful.

Customer service varies by store/manager/individual, and I've never had a bad experience in Wal-Mart--at worst it's been mediocre. If you had a bad experience, did you contact the manager (or up the chain-of-command if necessary) to try to resolve it?

Poor working conditions? They're working in a climate controlled building in a generally clean and safe setting. They're not digging coal, fighting fires, picking up drunks and gang-bangers off the street, sitting in a tank in the middle of a 120-degree Iraqi summer day, or pulling people out of crashed cars and getting exposed to biohazards on a daily basis. You want poor working conditions, look at Chinese factories and migrant farmers.

Wal-Mart has done some things that are questionable in ethics or downright wrong, and they've broken the EEOC regs a number of times and are now paying for that, as they should. Small businesses are not exempt from shady dealings and discrimination, and it's much harder to hold them accountable, if the fraud/discrimination ever comes out in the first place.

People buy things at Wal-Mart because they can't get them elsewhere for less money. When you have a family to feed on a tight budget and the grocery bill at Wal-Mart is $80 for the same exact things that would cost you $100 at another store, the choice becomes real clear, real fast.

Prime
07-20-2007, 11:26 PM
We all know where most of the products come from, overseas and most likely from slave labor in Asia. Their products are never as good as what we put the time and effort into.And how many products do you think are actually made in your country and not overseas?

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 02:47 AM
Mostly, the people who get displaced from mom and pop outfits are...mom and pop. As Jae pointed out, they probably aren't giving their employees any better a deal than a big company can anyway. There's no doubt, though, that the rich among us are arguably overcompensated for their "contributions" (the differential between CEOs and lowest paid employess has exploded >10 fold in the last 20-30 years).

SilentScope001
07-21-2007, 02:32 PM
We need a new Wal Mart!

If there are two "Wal-Mart"-style chain stores running around competiting against each other, it will only lead to better profits for us, and lower profits for the two companies.

Eefluxx
07-21-2007, 03:19 PM
We need a new Wal-Mart?

We have one and its called Target, tho they claim they are not trying to outdo Wal-Mart they have doubled if not tripled their stores in the US in the last six years and will go from 10 distribution centers to almost 30 from 6 years ago to in the next coupla years. Like I said tho they claim they are not competeing with Wal-Mart but they are

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 05:05 PM
Yeah, they're all pretty much running against one another. Walmart even competes with grocery stores (or at least gives them that perception, if nothing else). There's a strip mall of sorts not too far away that made it a prerequiste that the WM that wanted to move in could not compete with the major regional grocery chain already there by selling foodstuffs.

Eefluxx
07-21-2007, 05:24 PM
Target has also gone into the whole supercenter grocery thing also:). I work for Target and love it when they say we are not competeing with with wal-mart because that would be stupid and they are the kings. Then the next thing they say is okay here is what we did and here is what wal-mart did this year. go figure

mimartin
07-21-2007, 08:34 PM
I lost a job in high school due to Wal-Mart coming into are town. I boycotted them for a while, but finally got over it. I donít shop at Wal-Mart for one reason their parking lot. Every time you walk into any Wal-Mart parking lot you are taking your life in your own hands. I donít understand what make people worst drivers in those lots than anywhere else in the US maybe low prices swimming in their heads. I shop at Target as their parking lot is a little less crowded and I believe my safety is worth the few cents more it cost over Wal-Mart.

I donít really see Wal-Mart as evil. They are giving a cut rate shopping experience at cut rate prices. Obviously their business plan works and is in line with their target consumer.

tk102
07-21-2007, 09:30 PM
Wal-Mart = Chinese imports = trade deficit

When I visited Xiamen last March, I remember distinctly how huge and numerous the port facilities there were and I could easily make out the Wal-Mart insignia on many of the containers being hoisted onto the ships. It really hit home to see first hand both the rapid pace of construction in the city and the large footprint of Wal-Mart.

(But who am I to talk -- I was there on business. :p )

link (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31049)

Q
07-21-2007, 10:03 PM
I really wish that our government had regulated trade with China in such a way that manufacturers here in the US could remain competitive. There's just no way that domestic production can compete with near-slave labor. Not to mention the fact that China has no OSHA and EPA regulations that inevitably make manufacturing more expensive.

@tk102(WAY off topic): I don't know which is more disturbing- your avvy or the fact that I know who that is. I really could have done without the stifled gag, thank you.;):barf:

SilentScope001
07-21-2007, 10:12 PM
If we go and regulate trade with China, then some other country will start dumping exports. Why can't we just deal with China becoming economically succesful and focus on innovation and technology...or at least on being a military superpower? :)

tk102
07-21-2007, 10:50 PM
If we go and regulate trade with China, then some other country will start dumping exports. Why can't we just deal with China becoming economically successful and focus on innovation and technology...or at least on being a military superpower? :)Regulating trade (i.e. imposing tariffs) is one way of dealing with China's currency fixation, their accelerating environmental damage, and their lax safety/quality controls of their exports. The free market can deal with the last two issues, but it can't prevent the Chinese government from artificially deflating the value of the yuan. This means not only are goods imported from China cheaper, but it also means that goods exported to China are more expensive. That has the same effect as a tariff. Hence, there is a need to "deal with China" -- especially since China is a member of the WTO.

This is actually the reason for western investment in China -- if you can manufacture in China, you sell your product more cheaply both inside and outside of China. China is a growth market and western corporations want the business of the Chinese consumer. To get it, you have to circumvent the currency fixation by manufacturing within China to sell to China.

I'm not against the idea of China becoming economically equal to other 1st world countries, but its rate of its economic growth is affecting too many people too quickly.



@Qliveur: Rick Astley was on top of the pop scene in the 1987-1988. If you were old enough to listen to the radio back then, it's not that surprising you know who is. :)

Allronix
07-21-2007, 11:06 PM
I'm with Nancy. Largest sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, anyone? Furthermore, the one in Kitsap county bribed city officials to get the environmental assessment overlooked so they could pave a wetland. Top it off with them managing to out-pollute the Navy base during construction!

The other reason I don't shop there? Well, it's the only place I see outright road rage with shopping carts. Cutting each other off, fistfights in the aisles, merchandise thrown to the far winds as people careen around the place. Go in during December, and you're taking your life in your hands. Worse, the management just seems to shrug it off.

However, Wal-Mart is just a big symptom/symbol of the worst bits in American Capitalism. They do a very good job of selling cut-rate, sweatshop-made crap to an American working class that often can't afford anywhere else or is too greedy to give a rat's rump where it's coming from, so long as it's cheap. Their wages, benefits, and labor practices are a race to the bottom that forces everyone else to scale back or be eaten. They make noisome intrusions into the personal lives of employees and look the other way on illegal aliens in de facto slavery doing their hazardous work. Yes, they do it - but so does every other monolith. (Oh, and the stuff that's "made in America" could technically be manufactured in Saipan or the Marinas Islands - places that are American protectorates without any of the benefits - like OSHA)

No thanks. I'll take my dollars somewhere a bit saner. At least with Goodwill, I know where that money's going!

Weave
07-21-2007, 11:45 PM
Yeah... Wal-Mart's not exactly Gross Domestic Product oriented... Not that relying completely on GDP is good or anything cause I'm a Syndicalist/ Libertarian Socialist and I think relying completely on GDP is self-mutilation, but I think every last product on a Wal-Mart shelf is probably a GNP from some Wal-Mart over in Napal or China... And completely relying on GNP is like having your own slaving companies over in other countries.

Jae Onasi
07-22-2007, 12:12 AM
Well, until another company can put its money where its mouth is and deliver products people want at the price they want, _and_ do it in a US-friendly, employee-friendly, environmentally-friendly way, Wal-Mart's still going to be king of the discount chains. Wal-Mart originally set up shop in small, rural towns--the vast majority of people in those towns are not wealthy, and a great percentage of them are barely making ends meet. So Wal-Mart doesn't carry Gucci handbags or Armani suits. Who's going to wear an Armani suit on a farm, anyway? As long as the jeans are sturdy, it doesn't matter if the stitching is fancy or not.

Allronix, I think Goodwill is a great place, too, and we both donate and buy there as well as at the Salvation Army. My kids outgrow their clothes faster than they destroy them, and if we can save a few dollars here and there, it'll mean we can get our student loans paid off faster and get more put into their college funds and our retirement. I do have to ask, though, how many things donated to Goodwill were originally purchased at Wal-Mart, especially if Wal-Mart's the only game in your town?

TK-8252
07-22-2007, 01:08 AM
It never made sense to me why people hate Wal-Mart so much. They sell stuff dirt cheap. They help poor people by doing this. Wal-Mart makes a lot of money, and what's wrong with that? They make money because people continue to shop there. They do put mom-and-pop stores out of business, and the reason why this happens is because Wal-Mart offers their products for cheaper. Sorry, but the market has spoken, and they don't want to pay more for something if they don't have to.

The way to punish a store for bad service, abusing employees, or any other grievances you have is to use the power of the dollar and take your business elsewhere. If other people have qualms with Wal-Mart, then they will lose money, and be forced to fix the problem or go broke.

And if employees are being treated poorly, well, they're not slaves... they can quit and work elsewhere. If they pay women less, then organize a boycott until they pay women better.

With all this in mind, I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Corinthian
07-22-2007, 02:56 AM
People hate it when other people do better than them. It's class envy. I don't go to Wal-Mart much, mostly because it's a madhouse, but I have no problem with it. It's basically a matter of "This company is really successful, insanely successful, and my company is not so successful, so I hate the other company."

Nancy Allen``
07-22-2007, 09:42 AM
Have you looked on the labels of a lot of items at their stores? Most of them are "made in America", and they make a big deal out of that, almost ad nauseum.

Actually Wal Mart's importation had jumped from 5% in 1995 to 60% in 2005.

People buy things at Wal-Mart because they can't get them elsewhere for less money. When you have a family to feed on a tight budget and the grocery bill at Wal-Mart is $80 for the same exact things that would cost you $100 at another store, the choice becomes real clear, real fast.

I'll give you that, there are some who cannot afford to shop anywhere else. On the other side of the coin how ethical is it to sell products at a price you know others cannot compete with? Or just how they are able to afford to be able to sell their products at that price?

And how many products do you think are actually made in your country and not overseas?

Not nearly enough that's for certain.

I really wish that our government had regulated trade with China in such a way that manufacturers here in the US could remain competitive.

And they can't? Why? Because the goods are so cheap. Why are they so cheap? Because of where the goods came from. Now can they guarentee their stock is not from slave labour? I'm not opposed to overseas trade, but our country being used as a dumping ground is where I draw the line.

They do a very good job of selling cut-rate, sweatshop-made crap to an American working class that often can't afford anywhere else or is too greedy to give a rat's rump where it's coming from, so long as it's cheap.

No thanks. I'll take my dollars somewhere a bit saner. At least with Goodwill, I know where that money's going!

QFT. If Wal Mart is the only place you can afford to shop at then I understand, completely. However we should be doing what we can to put money back in our pockets.

So Wal-Mart doesn't carry Gucci handbags or Armani suits. Who's going to wear an Armani suit on a farm, anyway? As long as the jeans are sturdy, it doesn't matter if the stitching is fancy or not.

I always preferred jeans, though Mara Jade had good fashion sense I thought. But the high rollers arn't immune to sweatshop slave labour crap either. Wasn't Nike involved with it?

Allronix, I think Goodwill is a great place, too, and we both donate and buy there as well as at the Salvation Army.

There we go, exactly. The Salvos, charity organizations that provide to the community. Those who struggle can buy what they need and then the money's used to make their lives better, everybody wins.

They do put mom-and-pop stores out of business, and the reason why this happens is because Wal-Mart offers their products for cheaper.

Again, just how can they sell a product so cheaply? Also, could they drive their prices so low because they know that others just wouldn't be able to compete and drive them out of business? Besides which how much quality is in a lot of the stuff they sell? Some of their products if they're not of good quality can be dangerous.

People hate it when other people do better than them. It's class envy. I don't go to Wal-Mart much, mostly because it's a madhouse, but I have no problem with it. It's basically a matter of "This company is really successful, insanely successful, and my company is not so successful, so I hate the other company."

I understand what you're saying but I disagree. People like Bill Gates, George Lucas, ect, I couldn't be happier for them. People such as Trey Parker and Matt Stone for example (who despite claims to the contrary obviously think 'okay who can we p*** off?') and multimillion dollar athletes who cheat, do drugs and are in and out of prison, to me they don't deserve their fame and success if they are going to act this way.

Totenkopf
07-22-2007, 11:38 AM
I guess that things have changed since the last time I stepped in a WM. Don't recall ever witnessing the frenzy mentioned in this thread. Generally don't go there b/c there are other stores closer to home.

Web Rider
07-22-2007, 05:25 PM
Actually Wal Mart's importation had jumped from 5% in 1995 to 60% in 2005.

but at the same time the rate of products leaving America to be produced overseas increased as well. You can't sell Nike's made in the States if there aren't any still made here. While I'm sure this doesn't account for all of that 55% difference, saying it went from 5% to 60% is just playing the shock and awe card. It's not taking any of the other economic changes into account.


I'll give you that, there are some who cannot afford to shop anywhere else. On the other side of the coin how ethical is it to sell products at a price you know others cannot compete with? Or just how they are able to afford to be able to sell their products at that price?

I've never quite understood how it's "unethical" to sell things at a price you can afford but your opponents can't. Isn't that what the competitor in question did before Wally World hit the scene?


Not nearly enough that's for certain.
can't argue there, though a lot of it is our fault.

And they can't? Why? Because the goods are so cheap. Why are they so cheap? Because of where the goods came from. Now can they guarentee their stock is not from slave labour? I'm not opposed to overseas trade, but our country being used as a dumping ground is where I draw the line.

blame society I suppose. if we wanted real change, we'd have it. Obviously, we don't, 'cause nothing is happening.

er...computer overheating, finish later...

TK-8252
07-22-2007, 09:59 PM
Again, just how can they sell a product so cheaply?

They do so by operating as cheaply as possible. Selling generic brand goods made in foreign countries and cutting costs where they can.

Also, could they drive their prices so low because they know that others just wouldn't be able to compete and drive them out of business?

Well, yes, that's what they do. It's smart business. Beating the competition.

Besides which how much quality is in a lot of the stuff they sell? Some of their products if they're not of good quality can be dangerous.

Well, if you want better quality, you can pay a little extra and go to Target, Kohls, or the mall, or shop online for stuff. I do agree that if products are being sold that are potentially dangerous (such as toys from China with toxic paint used on them, which was a recent scare), that should be stopped or the store should face legal consequences.

Nancy Allen``
07-22-2007, 10:09 PM
It wouldn't have anything to do with who makes the products at all would it? Sweat shops? Forced labour? Slavery?

SilentScope001
07-22-2007, 10:24 PM
It wouldn't have anything to do with who makes the products at all would it? Sweat shops? Forced labour? Slavery?

Nah. Present proof, please?

Nancy Allen``
07-22-2007, 10:30 PM
Here's a few links, I'm not sure if what they say is the holy writ but it's enough to start asking questions.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3044wal-mart.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html

http://www.lizmichael.com/qinshi.htm

http://www.davelippman.com/walmart/whyihatewalmart.html

tk102
07-22-2007, 10:33 PM
China's minimum hourly wage: between $0.33/hr-$0.98/hr

http://www.newsgd.com/business/prospective/200610300039.htm
Exchange rate is approx 8 yuan / $1.

TK-8252
07-23-2007, 01:23 AM
It wouldn't have anything to do with who makes the products at all would it? Sweat shops? Forced labour? Slavery?

I'm not aware that there is slavery in places like China, Taiwan, etc (maybe there is, who knows). Yes, it's sweatshop labor no question, but that's just the nature of those countries. Just think about this: the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance.

Blame China's fascist government, not Wal-Mart.

Web Rider
07-23-2007, 02:15 AM
Blame China's fascist government, not Wal-Mart.

To be true, the blame is on all of us. As well as Wal-Mart for encouraging it, and on China for providing it, and us, of course, for continuing to support them.

If we wanted change, we'd have some. However, we're quite content in our current setup.

SilentScope001
07-23-2007, 02:17 AM
China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing.

Web Rider
07-23-2007, 02:20 AM
China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing.

The best description of the Chinese government I've ever seen is "complicated yet simple."

tk102
07-23-2007, 10:18 AM
To be true, the blame is on all of us. As well as Wal-Mart for encouraging it, and on China for providing it, and us, of course, for continuing to support them.Exactly. There's enough blame for everyone. :) I can't do much about the Chinese government. I can choose where I buy products. Wal-Mart is the big gorilla here. the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance.Is this some sort of justification for shopping at Wal-Mart? If I don't buy from Wal-Mart the Chinese laborers will starve? Oh how altruistic! Wal-Mart should get a humanitarian award.

Totenkopf
07-23-2007, 11:04 AM
Might as well stop trading w/Mexico while we're at it. Not only do we have to subsidize the illegals they send up here (by not providing good jobs there), but we are then also guilty of supporting a system where a tiny minority really does actually control most of the wealth to the disadvantage of the general population. The problem with trading with what are essentially third world nations is that companies in those countries have MUCH LOWER COSTS than in the developed world. You really cannot compete with them b/c there isn't a level playing field where quality is the defining issue and not govt policies (tarrifs, regulations, etc..).

Prime
07-23-2007, 11:51 AM
China's minimum hourly wage: between $0.33/hr-$0.98/hr

http://www.newsgd.com/business/prospective/200610300039.htm
Exchange rate is approx 8 yuan / $1.It would also help to know the cost of living...

Yes, it's sweatshop labor no question, but that's just the nature of those countries. Just think about this: the people working in sweatshops in China would not even have the little bit of money they get from their labor if consumers didn't buy their products. So what's better... the people not work at all, and starve to death, or work hard as hell to scrape out a meager existance.Indeed. My father-in-law has worked with several international organizations and has seen this first hand. He has mentioned that often such income is the only kind for these families, so forcing them to close is not the answer, since there is no replacement. Often it is similar to a town in NA where a factory closes and everyone is out of work. There isn't as easy a solution as some people think...

Totenkopf
07-23-2007, 12:14 PM
It would also help to know the cost of living...

These two links might help. From what I was able to glean from them, parts the PRC seem to have a per capita income of ~$US1400/yr. The richer areas closer to about $US2500-3000 (at least at the official exchange rate of 8:1).


http://www.uschina.org/info/chops/2006/economy.html
http://www.just-style.com/store/product.aspx?ID=39712&lk=sup

SilentScope001
07-23-2007, 12:21 PM
I think people are forgetting something about the free market. The Free Market claims that if one country specializes in something, and another country specializes in something else, and they both trade with each other, then both countries prosper.

The US DOESN'T need to be the best in everything. They can't. If they do so, they will be less effective than if they let other countries be better in manufracutring or importing goods or menial labor or whatever. It can specialize in being the best in one area, then profit through the selling of that, rather than trying to do both at the same time.

Web Rider
07-23-2007, 01:26 PM
I think people are forgetting something about the free market. The Free Market claims that if one country specializes in something, and another country specializes in something else, and they both trade with each other, then both countries prosper.

The US DOESN'T need to be the best in everything. They can't. If they do so, they will be less effective than if they let other countries be better in manufracutring or importing goods or menial labor or whatever. It can specialize in being the best in one area, then profit through the selling of that, rather than trying to do both at the same time.

yes, but a country isn't uniform, example: the midwest can specialize in making wheat, the west can make oranges and the east can make maple syrup. The whole country doesn't have to specialize in one thing.

Additionally, "importing goods" is not something a country WANTS to be good at, if that's all they're good at, as soon as the exporters realize this, they've got 'em by the balls.

SilentScope001
07-23-2007, 01:42 PM
Importing is exactly how trade works. America needs to export. But they also need to export. Having a postive trade balance means that we don't actually benieft as much as if we had a zero trade balance, equally trading with other nations.

The USA needs to be good at something. If they are good at innovation, then they specialize in innovation and goods that require high technolgical advance, capital, instead of relying on goods that are labor-intensive.

I'm just repeating the refrain of Economics 101, a simplified verison. It is true that a country does not specialize in everything. Maybe it should though. Inderpedence is risky, but it does lead to beniefts.

But then again, I'm sure there are natural limits based on how much you want to protect the state. You can't outsource the US military to China, for instance. But you can outsource other jobs. Building toys isn't exactly something that is of prime importance to the foundation of our nation.

TK-8252
07-28-2007, 11:32 PM
China is not fascist! It's Maoist! Maoist! They are quite left-wing.

I consider fascism to be a disease among both left and right-wing governments.

Is this some sort of justification for shopping at Wal-Mart? If I don't buy from Wal-Mart the Chinese laborers will starve? Oh how altruistic! Wal-Mart should get a humanitarian award.

Well, it's not just Wal-Mart that sells goods from poor countries. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, or any other cheap stores, but I can look at all my clothes and see tags saying made in China, made in Mexico, made in Pakistan, etc.

I'm not trying to justify sweatshop labor, I'm just saying that the answer isn't to stop buying from these countries. Employers in China aren't going to start treating their employees like human beings because of boycotts. They'll just lay off a bunch of workers who will ultimately be driven even deeper into poverty.

John Galt
07-29-2007, 12:09 AM
I consider fascism to be a disease among both left and right-wing governments.


Fascism is a specific ultra-right wing ideology. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Authoritarianism, however, is a problem among both left and right-wing governments.

TK-8252
07-29-2007, 12:28 AM
Fascism is a specific ultra-right wing ideology. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Authoritarianism, however, is a problem among both left and right-wing governments.

I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so.

Weave
07-29-2007, 01:44 AM
I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so.

Well, the term has been used to describe the Roman and Byzantine empires... essentially... fascism is where the intrests of the individual and other societal interests are considered subordinate to the needs of The State. And the respect of the State outweigh that of the people's. It is usually biased against a certain group of people... (Nazi's hating Jews etc.), and can be sexist... but I think patriarchy is always installed in culture (And is wrong I might add).
It is usually nationalist, coporatist, and militarist integrated. And finally, it tries to unify the people as a single mass-moving culture which they try to globalize as "right" and therefore wage a war of conversion...

EX: Islamofascism, Naziism, Over-enforced Religiousity, Rexism, Patriarchy, Matriarchy, etc.
It matters not right-wing or left... if the state is considered more important than the people... it is Fascist... Totalaterianism-communism is fascist... Maoists and Stalinist are fascist... Leninism is fascist... communism, Marxism, and simple socialism are NOT like those other three...

Many people obviously know what fascism is and is not... but I'm saying that the denotation has not changed...

Just enlightening those who don't know... Fascism is basically... the way government is always headed if the people don't step in. If the people do nothing... then authority grows wild and out of control... corrupt and too powerful.

And please stop reading wikipedia for all your political info, it is biased at times and doesn't have all the information... If you want to know more... get essays and books on political values...
Communism namely... don't throw mud at communism until you've read the Communist Manifesto... or Das Kapital...
(I, however, do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat... but I do support many of Marx's theories).

SilentScope001
07-29-2007, 02:07 AM
I use "fascism" to describe any repressive, corrupt government, regardless of its political leaning. It originally referred to the political systems in Italy and Germany during WWII, I know, but it has a new meaning now. At least I think so.

Nah. Fascism always refers to a right-wing government that hates Commies and call for the supremecy of the state, sometimes even the superiority of an ethnic group. It's how Musilloni intended for the government to mean, and so there it is. You can't just throw the suffix "fascism" wherever you want and say, "Hah. The Government is evil! SMASH!"

Why should it be used this way? Because Germany and Italy actually called themselves fasicists. Here's a thing you have to know: Does Islamofasicists call themselves Islamofasicists? No? Then we should not use that label to describe that group! I'm not going to call Democrats "Retreatists" or Republicans "Greedists", even so I detail in fine bullet-points that Democrats are indeed "Retreatists" and Republicans are indeed "Greedists".

Anyway, your view would just turns fascism into a political slur, and the next evolution of Godwin's Law, and really, I don't see the point of doing so. If NeoNazists gain a foothold in the future of the Earth (hey, it can happen), then let's bring out the Fasicist demonology instead of abusing it right now.

The Chinese call themselves Maoist, hence I say they are Maoist. I give people the denecy to name their own political movement. Why take that decency away?

TK-8252
07-29-2007, 02:19 AM
You can't just throw the suffix "fascism" wherever you want and say, "Hah. The Government is evil! SMASH!"

That's quite fascist of you to try to stop me from doing so!



just kidding

Why take that decency away?

Because at this point, I can't figure out what the Chinese are anyway. They aren't really Communist, they just like to think they are for some bizarre reason.

Weave
07-29-2007, 02:27 AM
:lol:

I personally have a soft spot for William Godwin's Political Justice, SilentScope...
:D