Do you find Communistic symbols offensive?

[Foxi4]

But not everyone can take out a business loan, and even when the market wasn't so tight, an excess of loans drove the economy into a historic tailspin that bankrupted hundreds of thousands of individuals and enriched a precious few at the top. The game plays at milking the middle for the top, until the middle is squeezed so dry there's nothing left.

I won't presume to know what your father has told you, I just know that you keep showing that you've got a myopic view of the world that suits you and doesn't seem open to challenge, and that your obviously long-felt hatred towards a tragedy has blinded you from any sort of meaningful discourse about this topic. It obviously colours your world view to the point where you can't ever seem to find compromise or empathy, and honestly it is quite depressing to watch. You seem like an intelligent individual, but the way certain topics are pettifogged out of control when things don't suit a narrative you like shows a clear break between your ability to view things critically and your need to keep offensively pounding out your cozy position that doesn't require self reflection. It is a sad trap that grabs a lot of folks, but I believe you can find clarity if you look past your irrational hatred of the concept of communism.

You act as if there were no Poles who actually miss those days - there are, sadly. We call them co-conspirators and collaborators, but they do exist, since as a merciful nation we didn’t execute any once the system was dismantled and they stood trial. In hindsight perhaps we should’ve. As for the latter part of your post, there can be no compromise with communists. There can be no freedom for the enemies of freedom. When in doubt, liberty is the answer - that’s a good sentiment to live by in my book. I’m not “blinded” by anything, I am very sober and very aware that we had two pretty shitty neighbours in the past, but it’s in the past. I won’t blame individual people since they were merely cogs in a hateful system - it is the system that’s at fault, it caused precisely what it was designed to cause, and it caused it every single time it was implemented regardless of social or territorial differences. No system of government in the world has a worse track record than communism, and I’m not saying that the ideas within aren’t “lofty” (although in truth it is amoral by design since redistribution is simply a different way of saying stealing from one and giving to another, usually oneself), what I’m saying is that it always devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship because that’s the only way to effectively enact the principles you hold so dear. That’s just the truth, and whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. We’ve learned our lesson, so the next time someone tries to take away our liberties “for the greater good”, we know where that leads and how to respond.

 

[Xzi]

Can you support that claim, or are you just making a statement?

Can I support the claim that these leaders were all incompetent failures without merit? Absolutely. Not that I should have to, you know I'm right about that. We have data after the fact proving that GWB didn't even win the 2000 presidential election, but capitalist greed took precedent over the democratic will of the people anyway.

Go do a better job yourself then and run me out of business.

"Go start your own airline." Talk about a lazy response, we both know that's an unfeasible solution to the problems plaguing that industry.

The Blizzard case is a hilarious mention considering they’re under active investigation as we speak.

And Kotick will face no consequences despite being at the very center of the scandal. That's not even a guess, I'm just stating it outright as a fact. Money insulates people from consequences in capitalist America, the rich have made sure of that over the decades.

As a side note, your claim that the current path is necessarily one that leads to societal collapse is going to be hard to prove considering the U.S. continues to exist while its communist adversaries either collapsed (USSR), converted in part to a more capitalist setup (China) or are barely holding on to dear life (Cuba, North Korea). It appears that the opposite is true - the more their ideas are propagated (and they’re propagated a lot these days) the less social cohesion we see in day to day life.

It's looking more and more like the US will barely beat the average lifespan of a developed nation. If authoritarianism and oligarchy don't sink us (much the same way they sunk the USSR), our inability to address threats like climate change and domestic terrorism will.

I’ve lost all track of what we were even initially talking about - I think we left off at you doing an apology tour for a system that’s responsible for around 100 million deaths across the globe and me pointing out that that’s a little cringe, but I may have hallucinated that since it’s so ridiculous.

Yeah you must have hallucinated that, as I've only ever made statements condemning the likes of Stalin and Mao. Their failures to give the working class a controlling stake in their countries also mean they never implemented anything that could be considered proper socialism or communism, however. Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the estimate of 100 million deaths caused by communism, so long as you're willing to accept that capitalism is responsible for more than 222 million deaths so far. Here's a breakdown of the numbers:

Spoiler

222,500,000+ Deaths due to certain events:

• 100,000,000: Extermination of native Americans (1492–1890)
• 15,000,000: Atlantic slave trade (1500–1870)
• 150,000: French repression of Haiti slave revolt (1792–1803)
• 300,000: French conquest of Algeria (1830–1847)
• 50,000: Opium Wars (1839–1842 & 1856–1860)
• 1,000,000: Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849)
• 100,000: British supression of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858)
• 20,000: Paris Commune Massacre (1871)
• 29,000,000: Famine in British Colonized India (1876–1879 & 1897–1902)
• 3,445: Black people lynched in the US (1882–1964)
• 10,000,000: Belgian Congo Atrocities: (1885–1908)
• 250,000: US conquest of the Philipines (1898–1913)
• 28,000: British concentration camps in South Africa (1899–1902)
• 800,000: French exploitation of Equitorial Africans (1900–1940)
• 65,000: German genocide of the Herero and Namaqua (1904–1907)
• 10,000,000: First World War (1914–1918)
• 100,000: White army pogroms against Jews (1917–1920)
• 600,000: Fascist Italian conquest in Africa (1922–1943)
• 10,000,000: Japanese Imperialism in East Asia (1931–1945)
• 200,000: White Terror in Spain (1936–1945)
• 25,000,000: Nazi oppression in Europe: (1938–1945)
• 30,000: Kuomintang Massacre in Taiwan (1947)
• 80,000: French suppression of Madagascar revolt (1947)
• 30,000: Israeli colonization of Palastine (1948-present)
• 100,000: South Korean Massacres (1948–1950)
• 50,000: British suppression of the Mau-Mau revolt (1952-1960)
• 16,000: Shah of Iran regime (1953–1979)
• 1,000,000: Algerian war of independence (1954–1962)
• 200,000: Juntas in Guatemala (1954–1962)
• 50,000: Papa & Baby Doc regimes in Haiti (1957–1971)
• 3,000,000: Vietnamese killed by US military (1963–1975)
• 1,000,000: Indonesian mass killings (1965–1966)
• 1,000,000: Biafran War (1967–1970)
• 400: Tlatelolco massacre (1968)
• 700,000: US bombing of Laos & Cambodia (1967–1973)
• 50,000: Somoza regime in Nicaragua (1972–1979)
• 3,200: Pinochet regime in Chile: (1973–1990)
• 1,500,000: Angola Civil War (1974–1992)
• 200,000: East Timor massacre (1975–1998)
• 1,000,000: Mozambique Civil War (1975–1990)
• 30,000: US-backed state terrorism in Argentina (1975–1990)
• 70,000: El Salvador military dictatorships (1977–1991)
• 30,000: Contra proxy war in Nicaragua: (1979–1990)
• 16,000: Bhopal Carbide disaster (1984)
• 3,000: US invasion of Panama (1989)
• 1,000,000: US embargo on Iraq (1991–2003)
• 400,000: Mujahideen faction conflict in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
• 200,000: Destruction of Yugoslavia (1992–1995)
• 6,000,000: Congolese Civil War (1997–2008)
• 30,000: NATO occupation of Afghanistan (2001-present)

 

[Foxi4]

Can I support the claim that these leaders were all incompetent failures without merit? Absolutely. Not that I should have to, you know I'm right about that. We have data after the fact proving that GWB didn't even win the 2000 presidential election, but capitalist greed took precedent over the democratic will of the people anyway.

"Go start your own airline." Talk about a lazy response, we both know that's an unfeasible solution to the problems plaguing that industry.


And Kotick will face no consequences despite being at the very center of the scandal. That's not even a guess, I'm just stating it outright as a fact. Money insulates people from consequences in capitalist America, the rich have made sure of that over the decades.


It's looking more and more like the US will barely beat the average lifespan of a developed nation. If authoritarianism and oligarchy don't sink us (much the same way they sunk the USSR), our inability to address threats like climate change and domestic terrorism will.


Yeah you must have hallucinated that, as I've only ever made statements condemning the likes of Stalin and Mao. Their failures to give the working class a controlling stake in their countries also mean they never implemented anything that could be considered proper socialism or communism, however. Nonetheless, I'm willing to accept the estimate of 100 million deaths caused by communism, so long as you're willing to accept that capitalism is responsible for more than 222 million deaths so far. Here's a breakdown of the numbers:

Spoiler

222,500,000+ Deaths due to certain events:

• 100,000,000: Extermination of native Americans (1492–1890)
• 15,000,000: Atlantic slave trade (1500–1870)
• 150,000: French repression of Haiti slave revolt (1792–1803)
• 300,000: French conquest of Algeria (1830–1847)
• 50,000: Opium Wars (1839–1842 & 1856–1860)
• 1,000,000: Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849)
• 100,000: British supression of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857–1858)
• 20,000: Paris Commune Massacre (1871)
• 29,000,000: Famine in British Colonized India (1876–1879 & 1897–1902)
• 3,445: Black people lynched in the US (1882–1964)
• 10,000,000: Belgian Congo Atrocities: (1885–1908)
• 250,000: US conquest of the Philipines (1898–1913)
• 28,000: British concentration camps in South Africa (1899–1902)
• 800,000: French exploitation of Equitorial Africans (1900–1940)
• 65,000: German genocide of the Herero and Namaqua (1904–1907)
• 10,000,000: First World War (1914–1918)
• 100,000: White army pogroms against Jews (1917–1920)
• 600,000: Fascist Italian conquest in Africa (1922–1943)
• 10,000,000: Japanese Imperialism in East Asia (1931–1945)
• 200,000: White Terror in Spain (1936–1945)
• 25,000,000: Nazi oppression in Europe: (1938–1945)
• 30,000: Kuomintang Massacre in Taiwan (1947)
• 80,000: French suppression of Madagascar revolt (1947)
• 30,000: Israeli colonization of Palastine (1948-present)
• 100,000: South Korean Massacres (1948–1950)
• 50,000: British suppression of the Mau-Mau revolt (1952-1960)
• 16,000: Shah of Iran regime (1953–1979)
• 1,000,000: Algerian war of independence (1954–1962)
• 200,000: Juntas in Guatemala (1954–1962)
• 50,000: Papa & Baby Doc regimes in Haiti (1957–1971)
• 3,000,000: Vietnamese killed by US military (1963–1975)
• 1,000,000: Indonesian mass killings (1965–1966)
• 1,000,000: Biafran War (1967–1970)
• 400: Tlatelolco massacre (1968)
• 700,000: US bombing of Laos & Cambodia (1967–1973)
• 50,000: Somoza regime in Nicaragua (1972–1979)
• 3,200: Pinochet regime in Chile: (1973–1990)
• 1,500,000: Angola Civil War (1974–1992)
• 200,000: East Timor massacre (1975–1998)
• 1,000,000: Mozambique Civil War (1975–1990)
• 30,000: US-backed state terrorism in Argentina (1975–1990)
• 70,000: El Salvador military dictatorships (1977–1991)
• 30,000: Contra proxy war in Nicaragua: (1979–1990)
• 16,000: Bhopal Carbide disaster (1984)
• 3,000: US invasion of Panama (1989)
• 1,000,000: US embargo on Iraq (1991–2003)
• 400,000: Mujahideen faction conflict in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
• 200,000: Destruction of Yugoslavia (1992–1995)
• 6,000,000: Congolese Civil War (1997–2008)
• 30,000: NATO occupation of Afghanistan (2001-present)

View attachment 278127

Not in particular, since half of that list dates back to before capitalism even took hold (early 19th century) and the remainder seems to be a list of various civil wars or military dictatorships that are in no way connected to capitalism as an economic system. For the record, it is not encumbent on western capitalists to solve racial tension problems in Mozambique. Cute infographic though, I hope she liked it (if you’re trying to impress a chick - I know how it is). We are not talking about “preventing death”, which is a nebulous concept anyway since you have no way of measuring what can or cannot be prevented, we are talking about causing death. Communist regimes *cause* death, capitalist economies are at worst ambivalent, which is kind of the whole point of the market being free.

 

[Xzi]

Cute infographic though, I hope she liked it (if you’re trying to impress a chick - I know how it is).

I didn't make it, though it is quite handy given that it backs the data up with sources.

 

[Foxi4]

I didn't make it, though it is quite handy given that it backs the data up with sources.

It backs itself up with a straw man. There’s a difference between causing and not preventing. If I see a road accident and I don’t stop to help the victim, that’s a possibly preventable death, but I have not caused it. If I hit a pedestrian, deliberately, that’s murder, or at the very least vehicular manslaughter if I lie my way out of premeditation. This should be fairly simple to grasp - rounding up a bunch of farmers and sending them off to a winter camp in Siberia with no food is murder, not giving a beggar a blanket on a cold night is just being an asshole.

 

[Xzi]

We are not talking about “preventing death”, which is a nebulous concept anyway since you have no way of measuring what can or cannot be prevented, we are talking about causing death. Communist regimes *cause* death, capitalist economies are at worst ambivalent, which is kind of the whole point of the market being free.

That's a pathetic cop out. The figure of 100 million deaths caused by communism undoubtedly includes deaths by starvation or lack of other essentials. Capitalism ensures those types of deaths are a common occurrence.

 

[Dakitten]

You act as if there were no Poles who actually miss those days - there are, sadly. We call them co-conspirators and collaborators, but they do exist, since as a merciful nation we didn’t execute any once the system was dismantled and they stood trial. In hindsight perhaps we should’ve. As for the latter part of your post, there can be no compromise with communists. There can be no freedom for the enemies of freedom. When in doubt, liberty is the answer - that’s a good sentiment to live by in my book. I’m not “blinded” by anything, I am very sober and very aware that we had two pretty shitty neighbours in the past, but it’s in the past. I won’t blame individual people since they were merely cogs in a hateful system - it is the system that’s at fault, it caused precisely what it was designed to cause, and it caused it every single time it was implemented regardless of social or territorial differences. No system of government in the world has a worse track record than communism, and I’m not saying that the ideas within aren’t “lofty” (although in truth it is amoral by design since redistribution is simply a different way of saying stealing from one and giving to another, usually oneself), what I’m saying is that it always devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship because that’s the only way to effectively enact the principles you hold so dear. That’s just the truth, and whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. We’ve learned our lesson, so the next time someone tries to take away our liberties “for the greater good”, we know where that leads and how to respond.

Soooo... some people in your father's country miss communist rule, but they don't deserve compromise nor understanding and you wish some of them were executed. And you aren't blinded by hatred but communism is a hateful system that people in this thread are defending with discussions about equality and providing higher quality basic living standards for everyone. Yes, I can see that. Very convincing.

 

[Foxi4]

Soooo... some people in your father's country miss communist rule, but they don't deserve compromise nor understanding and you wish some of them were executed. And you aren't blinded by hatred but communism is a hateful system that people in this thread are defending with discussions about equality and providing higher quality basic living standards for everyone. Yes, I can see that. Very convincing.

That’s correct. I am told that 7.62 NATO permanently cures treason.

That's a pathetic cop out. The figure of 100 million deaths caused by communism undoubtedly includes deaths by starvation or lack of other essentials. Capitalism ensures those types of deaths are a common occurrence.

I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.

 

[Dakitten]

That’s correct. I am told that 7.62 NATO permanently cures treason.

I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.

By that logic, it can cure stubbornness, too. Also, any fraction of the numbers Xzi offered still lends heavily towards capitalism being far from a victimless system. Why wouldn't people want to usher in something different when any number of millions of folk have suffered?

 

[Xzi]

I see that you haven’t heard of the concept of deliberate starvation. Ukraine would love to have a word with you on that one.

How is starvation any less deliberate under capitalism? America throws out and pours bleach on metric tons of otherwise-edible food every day.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should under no circumstances be tied to the profit motive.

 

[Foxi4]

By that logic, it can cure stubbornness, too. Also, any fraction of the numbers Xzi offered still lends heavily towards capitalism being far from a victimless system. Why wouldn't people want to usher in something different when any number of millions of folk have suffered?

You are more than welcome to help the needy, just not with my money, and not at the point of a gun. I’m a rather charitable person myself, I simply refuse to be coerced into participating in anyone’s pipe dreams. You can play out your authoritarian fantasies on your own dime - I might chip in if I agree, or not if I disagree. That’s freedom. You telling me that I owe someone something based on nothing is coercion. Very simple stuff, really.

How is starvation any less deliberate under capitalism? America throws out and pours bleach on metric tons of otherwise-edible food every day.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should under no circumstances be tied to the profit motive.

The Soviets *confiscated food from households*, numpty. They went door to door and took anything that wasn’t bolted down. People had food, and then they didn’t. They *caused* the deaths directly. I can own a pile of bread and pour bleach over it every single day - it’s my bread, I can do whatever I want with it. If *you* come in to my house and pour bleach over my pile of bread, I’m calling the police.

My happiness is encumbent on me making a profit, by the way - I want to take my capital and use it to make more capital, at my own risk. That’s none of your business since none of my things belong to you - worry about your own things.

 

[Dakitten]

You are more than welcome to help the needy, just not with my money, and not at the point of a gun. I’m a rather charitable person myself, I simply refuse to be coerced to participate in anyone’s pipe dreams. You can play out your authoritarian fantasies on your own dime - I might chip in if I agree, or not if I disagree. That’s freedom. You telling me that I owe someone something based on nothing is coercion. Very simple stuff, really.

How very selfish. So you acknowledge suffering and even death, but so long as it doesn't threaten your pocketbook, the guns can keep being pointed anywhere else. I'm beginning to sense a reason for disliking communism... Well, I'll continue to help the needy and work towards rallying folks to raid your house*, then!

*That isn't a personal threat or rally cry against an individual, but a viewpoint regarding the poor stealing back from the wealthy. Nobody with any significant wealth is not a thief, so eat the rich if they won't share back~

 

[RichardTheKing]

After religion, Communism have caused more deaths in our world.

So Communism hasn't killed as many people as religions, yet the #1 killer is seen as socially acceptable, and even safe for kids (pffft ), whereas #2 is seen as dangerous and deadly.

Yeah, I'm far more "offended" (repulsed, sickened, disgusted, revolted, furious, lost-my-faith-in-humanity) by religion than I am Communism.
Dat needs ta be shut down pronto, dose f*kin' cults.

I suppose religion (cults) has a better public opinion because the majority of those deaths happened centuries ago, whereas Communism (and Nazism, etc.) only happened within the last century, with people who lived through it still being alive now.
That still doesn't excuse the complete ignorance of religion's evil, but it is a possible reason.

 

[Foxi4]

How very selfish. So you acknowledge suffering and even death, but so long as it doesn't threaten your pocketbook, the guns can keep being pointed anywhere else. I'm beginning to sense a reason for disliking communism... Well, I'll continue to help the needy and work towards rallying folks to raid your house*, then!

*That isn't a personal threat or rally cry against an individual, but a viewpoint regarding the poor stealing back from the wealthy. Nobody with any significant wealth is not a thief, so eat the rich if they won't share back~

That sure sounds like envy, jealousy and greed to me. Work on that. It’s hilarious that you would accuse me of pointing guns at others when it was the communists who expanded their giants on clay legs with force. They had to - since production was middling, they needed more and more nations to persecute against in order to fill their coffers. Eventually there was nothing left to conquer, and thus began the rapid decline.

 

[Dakitten]

That sure sounds like envy, jealousy and greed to me. Work on that.

I guess it might to somebody who doesn't have to ever starve. Equality often sounds like oppression to those with excess. Nobody celebrating socialist concepts wants to steal a yacht because they want a sweet boat party, they want to steal the yacht because it represents disgusting levels of opulence.

 

[Xzi]

I can own a pile of bread and pour bleach over it every single day - it’s my bread, I can do whatever I want with it. If *you* come in to my house and pour bleach over my pile of bread, I’m calling the police.

Why make this about yourself? We're talking about deaths caused by capitalism, and obviously corporate entities fall well within that definition. Their profits are unchanged either way, so the only reason for destroying life-sustaining nutrition like that is pure hatred/malice for the homeless and impoverished population. Capitalism treats these people as less than human and often with more disdain than actual criminals.

Heck, even prison provides three meals a day, thus encouraging the desperate homeless to commit criminal acts. And that brings things full circle because it costs way more to house a prisoner than it would to simply mandate against bleaching edible food. It's totally senseless from any perspective.

 

[Foxi4]

I guess it might to somebody who doesn't have to ever starve. Equality often sounds like oppression to those with excess. Nobody celebrating socialist concepts wants to steal a yacht because they want a sweet boat party, they want to steal the yacht because it represents disgusting levels of opulence.

You don’t know my life.

Why make this about yourself? We're talking about deaths caused by capitalism, and obviously corporate entities fall well within that definition. Their profits are unchanged either way, so the only reason for destroying life-sustaining sustenance like that is pure hatred/malice for the homeless and impoverished population. Capitalism treats these people as less than human and often with more disdain than actual criminals. Even prison provides three meals a day, thus encouraging the desperate homeless to commit criminal acts.

Ah, so it’s an assumption then. You’re ascribing a motive when you have no evidence of one? That’s a new one. I think we had a chat about this exact topic in another thread in the past - regulations, liability and so forth, the government can just buy all that food that’s close to its expiry date at a discounted price if it really wants to, so on and so forth. Boring, and off topic. It’s not your goods, I don’t know why you’re concerned about them. You don’t get to decide what happens with property that doesn’t belong to you anyway. What does that have to do with symbolism? While we’re on the subject of symbolism, as in the actual topic of the thread, do you find capitalist symbolism to be offensive? Like, the Coca-Cola logo, or Uncle Moneybags, anything? Now that’s a more interesting, and more humorous subject to tackle.

 

[Xzi]

I think we had a chat about this exact topic in another thread in the past - regulations, liability and so forth, the government can just buy all that food that’s close to its expiry date at a discounted price if it really wants to, so on and so forth.

Correct, or they could just make it illegal to destroy/poison food that's just past its expiration, which wouldn't cost anything. But they won't because both parties in charge of government are capitalist parties, and therefore fine with the homeless population dying due to starvation. Impossible to attribute these deaths to anything other than capitalism, really.

While we’re on the subject of symbolism, as in the actual topic of the thread, do you find capitalist symbolism to be offensive? Like, the Coca-Cola logo, or the Uncle Moneybags, anything? Now that’s a more interesting, and more humorous subject to tackle.

The symbols themselves? Not particularly. I do try to avoid certain brands because of what's associated with them or the way they choose to conduct business, though. For example: Ford and their past association with/endorsement of the Nazis, or Nestle with their slave labor and strategy of stealing water from public sources. It's some of the companies behind the symbols that I find offensive.

 

[Foxi4]

Correct, or they could just make it illegal to destroy/poison food that's just past its expiration, which wouldn't cost anything. But they won't because both parties in charge of government are capitalist parties, and therefore fine with the homeless population dying due to starvation. Impossible to attribute these deaths to anything other than capitalism, really.


The symbols themselves? Not particularly. I do try to avoid certain brands because of what's associated with them or the way they choose to conduct business, though. For example: Ford and their past association with/endorsement of the Nazis, or Nestle with their slave labor and strategy of stealing water from public sources. It's some of the companies behind the symbols that I find offensive.

The first part is silly. I thought you guys liked social democracies? People can’t eat all that food, they’ll get a tummy ache! I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that corporations *don’t* want to deal with the cost of destroying unsold stock, and it is a cost. There are certainly better solutions, and I imagine “disposing” of it with the use of homeless stomachs, perhaps with a little incentive in the form of a tax break, would do wonders - one hand washes the other. I find that people are generally more agreeable if you compensate them for their trouble, honey works better than vinegar.

The latter part is great - voting with your wallet is the way to go. Now you’re talking my language, the money language. I can get behind that - finally I got something fun out of this exchange. It’s great that we get to pick and choose what brands we support.

 

[Xzi]

I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that corporations *don’t* want to deal with the cost of destroying unsold stock, and it is a cost.

They clearly do want to take on that cost, because bleaching the food they throw out was not always the norm. It only started becoming common around the mid-2010s.

The latter part is great - voting with your wallet is the way to go. Now you’re talking my language, the money language. I can get behind that - finally I got something fun out of this exchange. It’s great that we get to pick and choose what brands we support.

I'm not about to go patting myself on the back for it, as I'm not under the delusion that my lack of patronage will be enough to put either of the megacorps I gave as examples out of business. But sure, with capitalism you gotta take what wins you can where you can, no matter how seemingly insignificant.