9 ms·

I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. Perhaps it's t

I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. Perhaps it's time to want a different underlying system that wouldn't have a bottomline for profit maximization? idk

arcticbull 6y ago
IMO the best example is Chiquita -- they conspired with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala to secure their banana fields against the "godless communists." Naturally, they left Guatemala with a right-wing dictatorship. This kicked off a 46 year long civil war and the fallout has directly contributed to the migrant crisis at the border. They called it Operation PBSuccess. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtAKHnqkf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtAKHnqkf4
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  The phrase "Banana Republic" is entirely due to Chiquita/United Fruit Company. God bless America? (Also, wtf, Banana Republic is now an American fashion brand? Jesus Christ, way to have zero insight) Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for mentioning facts. Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible hand" idealists feelings? Who knows.
  - ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
    > Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for mentioning facts. > Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible hand" idealists feelings? Who knows. I’ve noticed that anything which questions capitalism, especially American capitalism gets rapidly downvoted. There seems to be a group of people, possibly even a bot network, which downvotes any and all such criticism. Randian ovjectivists have an outsized representation inside of YC as well as the HN community at large. I mean, why wouldn’t they? In a way YC is a successful cult which worships ar the alter of prosperity.
    - dang 6y ago
      > I’ve noticed that anything You're noticing, and then overgeneralizing, the data points you dislike (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). The overgeneralization comes because you don't notice (or underemphasize) the data points that don't make you angry. This is classic sample bias, as I believe I've pointed out to you under a different username in the past. Once people arrive at a spurious generalization like this, they imagine grandiose and sinister explanations for it. But the truth is quite boring: the community is divided the same way society at large is divided, the same way any large-enough population sample is. The only way HN is different is that we try to stop people from bashing each other with rhetorical two-by-fours about it. With limited success. Since you've continued to post flamewar comments and ignore our requests to stop, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. For someone who purports to care about community, that's incongruent. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
liberatethemass 6y ago
Lol, so does communism, monarchy, or when religion and politics merge (iran, ottoman empire etc).
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  I'm keen on your examples from Iran. Was it the time that the British asked the CIA to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and reinstall the Shah, for the benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now a subsidiary of BP)?
  - ladyanita22 6y ago
    No, I think it was the time a civil unrest threw the Shah and put the ayatollahs in power with the help of the Soviet Union (which is suspiciously absent from your remarks) and now their women face jail for not wearing the veil or their homosexuals are hung by a crane
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Both examples fit (one is monarchy—a stage managed abortive coup to justify an autocoup (the CIA directing both) by which a constitutional monarchy became a dictatorial one—the other a politics/religion merger.) If you are describing the problem the way it has upthread but only pointing to one or the other of the Iranian examples, it's pretty obviously being selective for dishonest purposes.
      - ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
        Be careful. Here in HN it is not allowed to look at Iran’s situation objectively or holistically. It is allowable to spew hatred at Iran. Any discussion of the western meddling which destabilized Iran, embargoes which starves Iranians or the use of Iran as a political red herring is a hellbannable offense. (I will most probably be hellbanned for this comment). Edit: Told ya. @dang has decreed thou shalt not criticize capitalism and thou shalt not criticize american capitalism.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Not sure why you've been downvoted, the list of complicit orgs is long. IBM, takes pride of place for their tabulation machines. Ford, and GM, for converting their German subsidiary factories to wartime usages, while declining to do the same in the USA. Nevermind Henry Ford's proclivity for funding anti-semitism. Then of course, all the German manufacturers of note. Krupp, Daimler, IG Farben, Hugo Boss... Actually, probably just quicker to link to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
redis_mlc 6y ago
> I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. The above sentence makes no sense: 1) The Third Reich no longer exists. 2) I think you're implying that companies that operated under the Third Reich should be punished, but that is orthogonal to capitalism and the Third Reich. It actually appears that you don't understand what the words "capitalism" and "authoritarianism" mean. But since you brought it up, note that the current owners of those companies are largely the grandchildren of Nazis (no exaggeration.) Hope that made your day! :)
EvilEy3 6y ago
> Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. How dare they!
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Here's a fun bit from an attempt to hold to account IG Farben, manufacturers of Zkylon B. > All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships and other positions in post-war companies, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.
- 2421n 6y ago
  You think it's funny or something that these companies were allowed to go unchecked?
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. It just leads to tedious, lame, and nasty flamewar—always the same—and those are off topic here. It's quite incredible how bad the internet is at discussing this stuff thoughtfully. It's clearly not the medium for it. It bonds with all its failure modes (e.g. snark, screaming, and paranoia) into one hell of a compound. We're trying for something different on HN, and for that to work we need users to be aware of this and not go there. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- La1n 6y ago
  Doesn't this thread already pose an ideological argument (e.g. country x and y are authoritarian/bad, while country z isn't)? I personally find it really hard to refrain from commenting when there is a very once sided view presented on a front-page topic. The issue I have is that some topics feel like they are either flamewar or a one-sided view where people feel like they can't comment because going against that view might start a flamewar. Neither promote curiosity edit: My comment isn't necessarily connected to that of parent, but more to your reply
  - Leary 6y ago
    This, this whole thread is both generic and ideological.
    - dang 6y ago
      I wouldn't say that about the OP. It obviously has political overlap, but it's not generic-ideological. That would be more like "all corporations always do what authoritarian governments say"—yet even such an article could conceivably be on topic here if it were substantive, went deeply into specific evidence, and wasn't primarily flamebait. What we don't want as an initial condition for a thread here is the unsubstantive sort of ideological article that hurls flameballs of snarky rhetoric. After that, it's the commenters' duty not to take thread further into flamewar, such as with generic ideological rhetoric. I know it's not easy but it's not as if the principle is hard to understand.

arcticbull 6y ago

IMO the best example is Chiquita -- they conspired with the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala to secure their banana fields against the "godless communists." Naturally, they left Guatemala with a right-wing dictatorship. This kicked off a 46 year long civil war and the fallout has directly contributed to the migrant crisis at the border. They called it Operation PBSuccess. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtAKHnqkf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtAKHnqkf4

EdwardDiego 6y ago
The phrase "Banana Republic" is entirely due to Chiquita/United Fruit Company. God bless America? (Also, wtf, Banana Republic is now an American fashion brand? Jesus Christ, way to have zero insight) Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for mentioning facts. Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible hand" idealists feelings? Who knows.
- ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
  > Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for mentioning facts. > Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible hand" idealists feelings? Who knows. I’ve noticed that anything which questions capitalism, especially American capitalism gets rapidly downvoted. There seems to be a group of people, possibly even a bot network, which downvotes any and all such criticism. Randian ovjectivists have an outsized representation inside of YC as well as the HN community at large. I mean, why wouldn’t they? In a way YC is a successful cult which worships ar the alter of prosperity.
  - dang 6y ago
    > I’ve noticed that anything You're noticing, and then overgeneralizing, the data points you dislike (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). The overgeneralization comes because you don't notice (or underemphasize) the data points that don't make you angry. This is classic sample bias, as I believe I've pointed out to you under a different username in the past. Once people arrive at a spurious generalization like this, they imagine grandiose and sinister explanations for it. But the truth is quite boring: the community is divided the same way society at large is divided, the same way any large-enough population sample is. The only way HN is different is that we try to stop people from bashing each other with rhetorical two-by-fours about it. With limited success. Since you've continued to post flamewar comments and ignore our requests to stop, I've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. For someone who purports to care about community, that's incongruent. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

liberatethemass 6y ago

Lol, so does communism, monarchy, or when religion and politics merge (iran, ottoman empire etc).

EdwardDiego 6y ago
I'm keen on your examples from Iran. Was it the time that the British asked the CIA to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and reinstall the Shah, for the benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now a subsidiary of BP)?
- ladyanita22 6y ago
  No, I think it was the time a civil unrest threw the Shah and put the ayatollahs in power with the help of the Soviet Union (which is suspiciously absent from your remarks) and now their women face jail for not wearing the veil or their homosexuals are hung by a crane
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Both examples fit (one is monarchy—a stage managed abortive coup to justify an autocoup (the CIA directing both) by which a constitutional monarchy became a dictatorial one—the other a politics/religion merger.) If you are describing the problem the way it has upthread but only pointing to one or the other of the Iranian examples, it's pretty obviously being selective for dishonest purposes.
    - ic0n0cl4st 6y ago
      Be careful. Here in HN it is not allowed to look at Iran’s situation objectively or holistically. It is allowable to spew hatred at Iran. Any discussion of the western meddling which destabilized Iran, embargoes which starves Iranians or the use of Iran as a political red herring is a hellbannable offense. (I will most probably be hellbanned for this comment). Edit: Told ya. @dang has decreed thou shalt not criticize capitalism and thou shalt not criticize american capitalism.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Not sure why you've been downvoted, the list of complicit orgs is long. IBM, takes pride of place for their tabulation machines. Ford, and GM, for converting their German subsidiary factories to wartime usages, while declining to do the same in the USA. Nevermind Henry Ford's proclivity for funding anti-semitism. Then of course, all the German manufacturers of note. Krupp, Daimler, IG Farben, Hugo Boss... Actually, probably just quicker to link to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...

redis_mlc 6y ago

> I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. The above sentence makes no sense: 1) The Third Reich no longer exists. 2) I think you're implying that companies that operated under the Third Reich should be punished, but that is orthogonal to capitalism and the Third Reich. It actually appears that you don't understand what the words "capitalism" and "authoritarianism" mean. But since you brought it up, note that the current owners of those companies are largely the grandchildren of Nazis (no exaggeration.) Hope that made your day! :)

EvilEy3 6y ago

> Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped the Third Reich. How dare they!

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Here's a fun bit from an attempt to hold to account IG Farben, manufacturers of Zkylon B. > All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships and other positions in post-war companies, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.
2421n 6y ago
You think it's funny or something that these companies were allowed to go unchecked?

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological arguments. It just leads to tedious, lame, and nasty flamewar—always the same—and those are off topic here. It's quite incredible how bad the internet is at discussing this stuff thoughtfully. It's clearly not the medium for it. It bonds with all its failure modes (e.g. snark, screaming, and paranoia) into one hell of a compound. We're trying for something different on HN, and for that to work we need users to be aware of this and not go there. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

La1n 6y ago
Doesn't this thread already pose an ideological argument (e.g. country x and y are authoritarian/bad, while country z isn't)? I personally find it really hard to refrain from commenting when there is a very once sided view presented on a front-page topic. The issue I have is that some topics feel like they are either flamewar or a one-sided view where people feel like they can't comment because going against that view might start a flamewar. Neither promote curiosity edit: My comment isn't necessarily connected to that of parent, but more to your reply
- Leary 6y ago
  This, this whole thread is both generic and ideological.
  - dang 6y ago
    I wouldn't say that about the OP. It obviously has political overlap, but it's not generic-ideological. That would be more like "all corporations always do what authoritarian governments say"—yet even such an article could conceivably be on topic here if it were substantive, went deeply into specific evidence, and wasn't primarily flamebait. What we don't want as an initial condition for a thread here is the unsubstantive sort of ideological article that hurls flameballs of snarky rhetoric. After that, it's the commenters' duty not to take thread further into flamewar, such as with generic ideological rhetoric. I know it's not easy but it's not as if the principle is hard to understand.