It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel

I don't think there would be any need to build any factory, at least no more than usual in any healthy national economy.

That is short-sighted thinking. Any system which cannibalizes the ones before it out of necessity to maintain itself is not a self-supporting system. At one time, the factories you speak of did not exist; they had to be created. As industry grows, factories must be expanded, re-tooled, or in some cases completely rebuilt. This argument seems to diminish the attractiveness of your proposal, as it takes from those who have contributed the most initially in order to redistribute the wealth, possibly to those who have contributed little or nothing. It also ignores the prospect of future developments.


The question is much more about the WHO.

World Health Organization?



If i read you well, you sympatises with libertarian views - the less the state the better, this if this state is strictly lead as a public service.

I have been accused of having Libertarian leanings before; perhaps I do. I simply do not worry too much with labels, as they tend to become distorted and manipulative over time.

I consider myself to be a Conservative. If labels matter to you, that is.


the less you make cash, the more you're covered. MEthinks in USA that's the very opposite : the more rich you are, the better you health...

To a degree, you are correct. In actuality there is a gap that exists where those more impoverished receive free health care, and those who would be considered more or less 'wealthy' have good insurance that covers them. Those in the gap often make too much to qualify for government health care (Medicaid) and too little to afford decent insurance.

IMHO, this is due in no small part to the rise of larger government. Lobbyists have succeeded in changing our capitol from a place where representatives of the people vote on bills to a place where elected officials vote for the things their benefactors from big business want. The pay for a Congressman pales in comparison to the sums of money that can be obtained (usually indirectly, to avoid the few 'feel-good' laws in place) by catering to special interests. The medical industry as well as the pharmaceutical industry has been extremely efficient at tapping into this power outlet and creating a bureaucracy that keeps medical bills high, thus making insurance a defacto requirement for health care, and also keeps the insurance companies safe from competition that might lower their profits. We also have the added burden of Medicaid being subsidized by private insurers, since governmental regulations aimed at 'saving money' have forced providers to look to other patients to make up the difference.

It is indeed a system that has grown out of control, but also a system which is largely responsible for most medical advances in recent times (as long as those advances contain a profit). My concern is that a Socialized system will slow any medical advances that might be forthcoming under a Capitalistic system due to the profit motive. As is my main concern with Socialism in general.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

Well yes of course they would if first the population is not educated. But I'm not here to set up any 'ideal socialist nation', just to make commentary. And yes I do recognise the contempt in that comment.

Please forgive me ANOK! I meant no contempt, really. I simply state what my concerns are. In many aspects, you and I agree wholeheartedly.

You have already taught me much; please continue. But please do not become offended at questions I may pose. No ideal that cannot stand up to questioning is an ideal that can stand up to reality.


There are no 'ideal nations'. Everything is a compromise, and trust me, socialists do realise this. It seems to me that it's capitalists who think their 'ideal nation' is perfection, like nothing else matters. That economy is more important than society etc...

I will admit I used to think like that. But as time goes by and I observe more and learn more, I am coming to the conclusion that some amount of Socialism is indeed necessary to prevent what I like to call 'runaway Capitalism' - the very thing we in the US are experiencing right now. Perhaps our main point of contention is not which system is best, but how much of each should be included in the best arrangement.


It's up to every single individual to come to the conclusion that they don't need to be coerced and exploited any more. Maybe even you, if you REALLY think about it... Personally I believe it will be a natural progression, no need for revolution, or any other violent methods.
Your capitalist system will finally fail people one too many times, and they will search for alternatives. As is already happening.

Yes, we have just elected a new President upon a nebulous promise of simple "change". Not that I have seen any change so far, but that's for a different thread.


So please no stereotypes, it's one of the very methods used to control. Not all socialists are itching for violent revolution, far from it. I don't wear a red star and I don't hug trees.

And I, sir, do not sit in a smoky board room smoking big cigars while I laugh at those working under me.
And despite the handle, I consider entertainment to be more than a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a bug-zapper.


You see, you are not alone in fighting stereotypes.



What I have a hard time with is how you cannot see the points I've made about how society is manipulated by and for the 'ruling elites'?

I do indeed see your position on this aspect, and I agree with you on it. My posts to you, as I mentioned earlier, are in order to understand and point out possible flaws in your proposal.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rigel

I don't think there would be any need to build any factory, at least no more than usual in any healthy national economy.

That is short-sighted thinking. Any system which cannibalizes the ones before it out of necessity to maintain itself is not a self-supporting system. At one time, the factories you speak of did not exist; they had to be created. As industry grows, factories must be expanded, re-tooled, or in some cases completely rebuilt. This argument seems to diminish the attractiveness of your proposal, as it takes from those who have contributed the most initially in order to redistribute the wealth, possibly to those who have contributed little or nothing. It also ignores the prospect of future developments.



As much as Marx conceived his Communism for a rich, economically wealthy society, Anarchism not only would better rise in a developped, advanced world (even intellectually/morally), but in my opinon is NOTHING BUT THE TRUE END (as "goal" and "termination") of Capitalism (in its best part).




The question is much more about the WHO.

World Health Organization?



The "Who-Truly-Rules-The-System" : Everybody... or a few crooks ?




If i read you well, you sympatises with libertarian views - the less the state the better, this if this state is strictly lead as a public service.

I have been accused of having Libertarian leanings before; perhaps I do. I simply do not worry too much with labels, as they tend to become distorted and manipulative over time.
I consider myself to be a Conservative. If labels matter to you, that is.


This ofcoursely was not an attack. Conservative ? - Well. The American Constitution would have been a good premise to AAA ["Anarchist Anti-States of America"
], if all the dark forces who finally put forth the Fed and other forms of lobbyism and "mega-trust'ism", hadn't finally turned America into a mere contemporary Babylon - about to crash under the weight of its vices & excess on the theme of hyperconcentration (of power, of economic forces, etc).

Lobbyism - typically American - that the rest of your post seems to vividly diagnose...



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel

As much as Marx conceived his Communism for a rich, economically wealthy society, Anarchism not only would better rise in a developped, advanced world (even intellectually/morally), but in my opinon is NOTHING BUT THE TRUE END (as "goal" and "termination") of Capitalism (in its best part).

It would appear then that my concerns were grounded: your version of Anarchism does indeed prey on the developments that came before it as a matter of necessity.

I do have a problem with this. If you will forgive the following analogy, it is like looters who profit greatly from a breakdown of order, but who quickly come to realize that this breakdown that showered them with opportunities for gain also fails when the storehouses are bare. Now, I am not accusing Anarchists of being akin to looters in a criminal sense; I rather am pointing out that if a social system cannot grow, it must die. And from what I have heard so far, Anarchism/Socialism as you explain it has no way to grow beyond the society it replaces. Am I understanding correctly?


The "Who-Truly-Rules-The-System" : Everybody... or a few crooks ?

Theoretically, those who produce for society rule it. In actuality, a few crooks do. That is an excellent argument for the difference between theoretical and actual implementation of any societal system.


This ofcoursely was not an attack.

I never considered it one.



Conservative ? - Well. The American Constitution would have been a good premise to AAA ["Anarchist Anti-States of America" ], if all the dark forces who finally put forth the Fed and other forms of lobbyism and "mega-trust'ism", hadn't finally turned America into a mere contemporary Babylon - about to crash under the weight of its vices & excess on the theme of hyperconcentration (of power, of economic forces, etc).

If I am understanding you correctly, we agree that the US Constitution is a fine document. The things you mention, such as the Federal Reserve, refusal to enforce anti-trust laws, lobbyists, etc. are all slaps in the face of the intent of the Constitution.

It's a very simple document that spells out precisely what the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government are. It lasted for two centuries before greed and apathy managed to rip apart its very foundations, using misinformation, translation, and spins on public opinion to undermine it. Oh, that we could somehow go back to the way things were intended to be! But then again, if one reads history, one realizes that the 'good old days' had their own problems, their own atrocities, and their own evils. That is why I contend that it is simple human nature, characterized by materialism, individualism, greed, avarice, vanity, and hatred that will oppose any social system. Therefore is it not better to build on these evils than to deny they exist?

Perhaps one day, we will advance as a culture and as a people to the point where we can live in harmony together for the benefit of all. But in the meantime, I will put my hard-earned capital (pun intended) on human weakness rather than its strength.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rigel

As much as Marx conceived his Communism for a rich, economically wealthy society, Anarchism not only would better rise in a developped, advanced world (even intellectually/morally), but in my opinon is NOTHING BUT THE TRUE END (as "goal" and "termination") of Capitalism (in its best part).

It would appear then that my concerns were grounded: your version of Anarchism does indeed prey on the developments that came before it as a matter of necessity.
(...)
Am I understanding correctly?


No, you aren't.
- Except if your consider that Society shall not progress at all when reached any sort of equilibrium. I don't think you do, though, if I read well what you say about the times of when the US Constitution was written.

Societies do evoluate, as we all know. American evolution of the last century toward power and world domination is to me not only du to the greed of a fistful of crooks, but also to the place it gives from the origins to a certain "Art of Living Together" : somewhere between an Ever-Contained-Civil-War (guns policies, cult of a somewhat salvage, raw liberty never questionned as such, etc) and a Premanent-Celebration-of-Competition-for-Any-Gettable-Wealth, and maybe the obsession for accumulating of this very wealth for every guy able to purchase more than the direct necessities... - All this gave ways to Organised Corruption and Generalized Greed that now drive most of US dynamics - worldwide as much as inside.

This said, Anarchism could happen through A/ violent revolution or B/ structural reformation, the latter being deeply implemented in many european countries and EU directives, as well as in HispanoAmerica, like for ex. in Porto Alegre and others "participative communities".

When François Mitterand nationalized most of the main french industries, or when Chavez does the same in Venezuela, you can see courageous acts of left leaded ideals. It could be much more bumpaudacious and funkalicious if some truly balled guy came into place - a guy or a Movement.

I suggest you to find out some english (and unbiased...) coverage of what Olivier Besancenot is doing and proposing in France and for the European Community. He used to be of troskyst influence, but now he's widely gathering on the left front, to the point of being view by a majority of French pple as the first, most credible Opponent to Sarkozy.

Edit : Implementing Anarchism could be done by giving more power and social or cash benefits to any employe, in form of stock-option, bonuses et al. Then in few generations a new distribution of wealth would lead to a greater equality in all terms, then the possiblities of implementing new policies within the corporations' management, as theorized by anarchist thinkers from early XXth - if not XIXth - century.




Conservative ? - Well. The American Constitution would have been a good premise to AAA ["Anarchist Anti-States of America" ], if all the dark forces who finally put forth the Fed and other forms of lobbyism and "mega-trust'ism", hadn't finally turned America into a mere contemporary Babylon - about to crash under the weight of its vices & excess on the theme of hyperconcentration (of power, of economic forces, etc).

If I am understanding you correctly, we agree that the US Constitution is a fine document. The things you mention, such as the Federal Reserve, refusal to enforce anti-trust laws, lobbyists, etc. are all slaps in the face of the intent of the Constitution.


Agreed.



It's a very simple document that spells out precisely what the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government are. It lasted for two centuries before greed and apathy managed to rip apart its very foundations, using misinformation, translation, and spins on public opinion to undermine it. Oh, that we could somehow go back to the way things were intended to be! But then again, if one reads history, one realizes that the 'good old days' had their own problems, their own atrocities, and their own evils. That is why I contend that it is simple human nature, characterized by materialism, individualism, greed, avarice, vanity, and hatred that will oppose any social system. Therefore is it not better to build on these evils than to deny they exist?


I partake in ANOK's views on the matter, being personally more of a RadicalChristian, considering as such each human as enlightened by Mankind's Divine Inner Wisdom, - than any Contempter-Of-Human-Kind convinced of what would be the human-kind wickedness. "Power corrupts, absolute powers corrupt absolutely" used to say a fellow compatriot of yours...



Perhaps one day, we will advance as a culture and as a people to the point where we can live in harmony together for the benefit of all. But in the meantime, I will put my hard-earned capital (pun intended) on human weakness rather than its strength.
TheRedneck


Hey Dude ! You finally get on the road ! Just push your horse not to be such reluctant toward the whimsical beauty of true wilderness !...



[edit on 15-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Rigel]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Please forgive me ANOK! I meant no contempt, really. I simply state what my concerns are. In many aspects, you and I agree wholeheartedly


Nooo I wasn't offended mate.

I should apologise to you really, I used your comment as an excuse to make a point...

One of the annoying, to me at least, myths that capitalists like to use is that they think socialists think that socialism would be a perfect system.

This is far from the truth, in fact socialists/anarchists etc., also realise the system we are in at present seems to think it's perfect, because whenever we point out that it is far from it, the capitalists jump to defend it, right?

Very few will actually agree when we say it's an unfair system that benefits the few over the many, yet how could you deny it?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel

No, you aren't... Societies do evoluate, as we all know.

Exactly my point. How does a new product come into being with no centralized authority becoming involved. Example:

We all are aware of the new hybrid and electric automobiles that recently are being produced (finally). That represents a change from the era of strictly internal combustion vehicles. In order for the nice shiny Prius to be available from your local car dealer, the following must happen:
  • Someone must conceive the idea of a Prius.

  • Engineers must design the Prius based on that concept (or declare it impractical).

  • Someone must make the individual parts that make up the new Prius as a prototype. This is necessary to make sure the design actually works in reality as good as it did on paper.

  • Factories must be either retooled or built to manufacture parts that no one made before.

  • Advertising must be purchased in order to let consumers know about this wonderful new Prius. Otherwise they wouldn''t realize they could buy one.

All this must happen without any money being made by anyone. Up until this point, no one has bought a Prius, because they didn't exist. The way this happens now is that someone has the forethought to see that the Prius, if developed, would make a lot of money. So that someone (in actuality, many someones acting as a unit through a corporate structure typically) decides that it would be a smart move to take the losses, to put out the money to pay for the engineers and the parts and labor involved in prototyping, retooling, and construction to produce this Prius. They do so not because they want to make a Prius per se, and not because they are feeling charitable today (to the tune of as much as billions of dollars!), but because they believe that the money invested will return a profit that will greatly exceed the investment. If it does, they profit; if it does not, they lose. That is Capitalism.

Now, in the above example, under your version of Anarchism/Socialism, how are those steps paid for, and why would someone wish to take them? In other words, what is the driving force and the mechanism to increase technology and provide new products for the consumers?


Edit : Implementing Anarchism could be done by giving more power and social or cash benefits to any employe, in form of stock-option, bonuses et al. Then in few generations a new distribution of wealth would lead to a greater equality in all terms, then the possiblities of implementing new policies within the corporations' management, as theorized by anarchist thinkers from early XXth - if not XIXth - century.

The concept of having stock bonuses is, in my personal opinion, a great one. If you will read earlier in this thread, I mentioned a company that used to operate around here that used something akin to that, giving the workers an extreme amount of power to control their work environment and profit from company profits. It was successful for many years.

This does bring up another question, however, that goes back to the problem I mentioned much earlier: what about the people who do not wish to avail themselves of the advantages available to them? What about the workers who do not want to get a stock bonus, but prefer to have more immediate gratification (money) for their efforts? This phenomena does exist; in the many companies who offer stock options, not all employees choose to participate.

Also, what about the person who cannot locate a job in their preferred field? They may wish to hold down a temporary position that is beneath their ability level for a short time, to allow them to survive until a position they want opens up. It would appear, since stock options are typically a long-term financial endeavor, that once one becomes part of a company under your ideals, they would be somewhat forced (financially, not legally) to remain a part of that company. Is that so? And if not, where am I missing it?


Hey Dude ! You finally get on the road !

I've always been on that road. I just want to make sure it goes where I want to go.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Isn't it wonderful how everyone ignores the real lesson of thanksgiving? Bradford was governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony for 30 years between 1621 and 1656. His diary is available. And shows the results of Socialism and Capitalism.

It was thought ``that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,'' Unfortunately for Socialism ``For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,''

It failed because single men thought it an ``injuestice'' to feed another man's wife and children. They continued "Socialism" for three years and finally in desperation after three winters of near starvation, in the spring of 1623, Bradford set aside a plot of land for each family, that ``they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves.''

``This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.''

Why must we keep repeating the same experiment OVER and OVER. Real capitalism works pretty well for humans and Socialism does not. Humans are predators, that means they have evolved to be lazy to conserve energy. It is hardwired in to humans. Unless there is an incentive you are not going to over come that predator characteristic.

The USA is now operating under a oligarchy and mercantilism not under Capitalism. “good Capitalism” Should keep corporations fairly small. That is why we have laws against monopoly unfortunately those laws are ignored, why else would we see a Meat packing industry completely controlled by five soon to be three transnational corporations.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

I should apologise to you really, I used your comment as an excuse to make a point...

Where I come from, that's called "good debating tactic" and requires no apology.


I am glad you weren't offended.


One of the annoying, to me at least, myths that capitalists like to use is that they think socialists think that socialism would be a perfect system.

This is far from the truth, in fact socialists/anarchists etc., also realise the system we are in at present seems to think it's perfect, because whenever we point out that it is far from it, the capitalists jump to defend it, right?

Oh, believe me when I say Capitalism is far from perfect! It is far too easy for those who have to get more, and those who have not to be unable to survive, much less thrive.

Instead, I believe that Capitalism is the best form of economics overall, made much better with the introduction of certain 'Socialist' aspects (I enclose that in quotes because the concepts may not be inherently Socialist, but are considered to be in today's general society). Among these would be a progressive tax system (which we do have in the US), laws against unfair competitive practices via monopoly or fraudulent claims (which we also have, but which are being ignored by those in power), some sort of 'social safety net' for those who are unable, through a myriad of reasons, to compete successfully (which we have a poor attempt at... Welfare is more of a hammock than a safety net), and publicly provided education to allow the younger generation to help break free form any financial hardships of their parents (although i will admit our public schools are a disaster).

As you can see, we in the USA have made attempts to counter the unproductive aspects of Capitalism. Not every attempt has been a success; in fact, most have in some way failed. They have failed, for the most part, due to that human greed and selfishness I mentioned earlier. Those in power have used and abvused the systems put in place to accomplish needed societal goals for their own self-interests, and those who would have been helped by a properly-functioning system often abuse the system from their end as well, looking more to immediate gains than to long-range (or even medium range) objectives.

TheRedneck

(My apologies to you and to Rigel for the late replies; reality is that reality can get very demanding at times.
)



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


About the production process, allow me to take another exemple before going back to yours.

Let's take a fruit.

Today, a Fruit is grown up in some islandish plantation for, let's say, 5 cents. It's then sold to some businessman, who sells it to some businessman, who sells it to some businessman [...N x...], then it's sold at the local supermarket for half a dollar.

What happened to the ignorant, wild Banana on its road to Babylon ? Well, it just became a part of the criminal capitalist ring : from its african plantation to the local Walmart, it just allowed to perpetuate what are called "Tax Havens", as much it's used as a cover for billionaires crooks to set up 'shell-corporations' as a basis for their business to run well over national (and sometime international) laws, adding at each round out of thin air a little more value to the no-more dancing banana.

Results of this Free-Market, Free-Capitalism, Free-Enterprenizing Vault finally are :
- a fruit sold ten time its real value to the gentle sheepy consumer
- a rich crook richer than the not-so-rich crook-or-not who'll not sell fruits this way, id est won't use fruits to make dirty cash,
- healthy shell-corporations, healthy tax-havens, healthy worldwide opioïds, cocaïne and weapons (very free) juicing markets.
- the building-up of this entire system where valueless people become more and more rich on the money nicely given to them by the so poorer-and-poorer working-normal-guy in an ever inflational world where - oh irony ! - the State is more or less forced to become a part of it all, just acting as a relay between the then sold-out People and the most-unmoral who in the end happen to rule the entire system.

Yeepeehaaaa.


Well. Now the Prius thing. How would it work in an Anarchist manner, wide-and-deep-thought fashionned ?

Methinks the answer should be : all in all, the same way... ! Well, - almost...

1. - The Initiator would be : the People ( if not just peoples, ie a group within The People who'd wish this new product). That is, if any capitalist thinker is honest, the same than in any capitalist system. I mean that, if the problem is about the people finally buying the product when sold as a promise for the businesman to be paid back and so socially, economically and (why not?) politically crowned as a powerful citizen, well... in an ANARCHIST system, a new product would be launched (long story short) ON DEMAND. And this, just from what could be conceived as a modern AGORA, a place where The People could, would and shall exchange ideas and express their wished through referendum, polls, questionaries and other forms of ideologic/civic/economic/philosophic sharing - and then the industry forces would go ahead along the People's directive. Look how this could be easily implemented now that capitalism as indeedly made possible the advent of New Tech of Information & Communications...

Practically : the Firm is a property of The People. As the Head of the Admin, the People defines as a new need the Hybrid Car, not yet produced but promised to be bought en masse - so the said Need of It. Then the car is produced.


2. - About the problematic of Risk & Investments :
I agree that this "good you win bad you loose" doctrine you describe as for Capitalism is a pretty healthy dynamic of normal, basic capitalism (but still, is it ethically good, goodly moral ?). Many contenders of Bolchevik/Centralized Sovietism also observed, and somewhat with reason, that Planification and/or Communistoids-URSS-Economic Policies where doomed to fail because of the lack of such "darwinist force" at work (just the bureaucrats' greed finally prevailed in such a world devoid of any selective mecanism sanctioning the production quality in the very end). There, i'll however object that State Planification can quickly become the ONLY chance for Capitalism to be saved in tough times like the Great Depression was, when RoozBoy finally decided to raise the Federal Government to a wild-new dimension... Then, thousands of Artists through east to west America happened to become employed by the American People (well, the Fed State if not the Union) to just create beauty around them and not stay home as lazy men waiting for some social cover of any sort. This seemingly anecdoctic measure taken in the name of R.'s New Deal speaks volume about what could be a real Anarchist declination of what the State can be when it truly represents the Voice of the People. If the State can be just about Power when confronted to what tries to limit its prerogatives (like big capitalists corp's or mil-indus complexes), it can also be, when established full-scale and for what its supposed to stand for, an ORGANIZATION - and not a HIERARCHY or any POWER-FUELED OLIGARCHY alieneted or deconnected from its original purpose. But yes, from here the RISK is HIGH of the SOVIET-LIKE moral, ideologic, politic and practical DISASTER.
That is why ANARCHISM ultimately (or fundamentally) considers POWER (economic or politic) as PLAGUE, and build all their view from this apophatic ("defined by what it is not") term. POWER that is, in this view, ALWAYS THEORETICAL in an ABUSIVE way. The Power of a Politician, be it a dictator or a democratic-styled deputy, is always the result of some "representation" : the Dictator pretends to be invested of some special responsability for him to lead an entire people, the deputy is so because citizens have given him such a responsability. Anarchists show that both are impostors, whose mission will necessarily FAIL to act for what was mandated : the benefits of who they represent. - Why ? Because Power corrupts. The funny thing, here, is that humankind history is packed with examples of hubris-driven men who "weltanchauung" completely changed when the got enpowered with public (politic) or economic prerogatives.

So, one more time, the question here becomes : WHO (and not the World Health Organisation) ?

WHO decides ? WHO is supposed to be the Head of any Corporation ? WHO is mandated to lead the corp to X or Y economic or industrial goal ?

In liberal capitalism, those are of the responsability of the Counsel of Administration (translation of the french, not sure in eng.). But WHO composes the C.A. ? Well... Essentially the INVESTORS, be them Share-Holders or any private cash giver. Doesn't this sound strange ? I call this FEUDALISM.

I figure that an anarchist society would make any worker inside the corporation mandated as much the CEO to propose his views on the different problematics of the corp's evolution, policies and strategies.

Now back on topic :

Without private owner of production goods, no "economic garantee" would be needed at all : each car produced would be already sold.

3/ The Production Process would be merely the same : each "work class" (engineer, designer, base-worker) would simply work in the SAME way for the very SAME task. The difference would be that they'd work for the SAME wage (this ideally, - during a transition a scale of 10 then 5 then 3 levels of wage could be progressively applied).



The general idea is that of a man eating when he's hungry, and not willing to be obese for the sake of not starving... In a time that some describe as plagued with over-production, such a paradigm is maybe worth a look...

The other idea is to organize all decision process as to be accorded to the real needs of the people, and for so mandating the very same people to take on all collective decisions, even economic or industrial when applied on such a large scale as the "hybrid-cars-produced-by-huge-firms" problem you invoke.




[edit on 18-3-2009 by Rigel]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Rigel

Much to be considered here. Your reply may take some time, so please be patient.
It's being produced.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel

Today, a Fruit is grown up in some islandish plantation for, let's say, 5 cents. It's then sold to some businessman, who sells it to some businessman, who sells it to some businessman [...N x...], then it's sold at the local supermarket for half a dollar.

What happened to the ignorant, wild Banana on its road to Babylon ? Well, it just became a part of the criminal capitalist ring

In actuality, one may still purchase this wild banana for 5 cents. But to do so, one must go to the island plantation and buy it.

Your example would work more like this: The banana is grown for 5 cents. It is then sold to a ready buyer who has a warehouse where he can keep massive amounts of bananas. This buyer has expenses: the cost of building the warehouse initially, the cost of maintaining it, the cost of keeping the temperature controlled to protect the bananas. He also has a lot of money simply setting there so when the plantation owner brings him bananas, he can pay them for said bananas.

Now, the guy who grew the bananas cvan decide to bypass this buyer and simply store his own bananas. But that costs a lot of money, and chances are he just doesn't want the hassle. He wants to grow bananas. So he's happy to get that 5 cents and keep growing bananas. Not to mention, the buiyer deals with maybe 50 different plantations, so when all is said and done, he has a lot more bananas than the plantation owner would have.

Now our buyer wants to send these bananas to where people want bananas. To do that, he needs a buyer in that location. Ideally, the buyer would buy from those 50 plantations and then sell to a couple hundred stores. But in reality, he probably just sells to 5 other warehouses in different areas. So he gets orders in and sells the bananas for 10 cents. The 5 cent difference pays for his warehouse expenses, and for him to be able to eat every day. After all, who wants to live on nothing but bananas?

Now the trick is, how to get the bananas thousands of miles to the other warehouses? Simple: transportation (truck, rail, ship, etc.). The buyer now calls up a transportation company, who has the equipment and the people who can move all those bananas to the other warehouses. Of course, the buyer is only making 5 cents on a banana, so who's going to pay for the transportation? That's right, the warehouses he sells to! He is getting 10 cents for a banana, but transportation is 2 cents per banana, so the warehouses are actually paying 12 cents per banana.

Now, these warehouses sell bananas to individual stores. But they don't just sell bananas; they sell bananas, cocoa, apples, oranges, potatoes, Hamburger Helper, flour, salt, Beenie Weenies, chili, sardines, and everything else you typically see in a store. Why do we need them? Because there are literally hundreds of places that they have to deal with in order to have that huge selection of items we are used to seeing on the store shelves. The stores have all they can do just selling stuff to the public; they don't have time to call every different food producer and arrange for 100 bananas from this guy, 20 bags of flour from that guy, 30 loaves of bread from the other guy, and so on and so forth. Sure, they could do that, but then again, they would pay more per unit to have 30 pieces of food moved from one place to another than a warehouse would to have 100,000 pieces moved. That's why WalMart can sell items so much lower than small 'Mom & Pop' stores.

These warehouses cost money to build and run, too. And they have to pay for workers who move things from the incoming side to the outgoing side. Plus, keeping up with who ordered what and who is selling what is a logistical nightmare that pretty much screams "Computers!" Lots of computers, keeping up with literally millions of products, sellers, and buyers. That costs money too. So when all is said and done, these warehouses sell our banana for 18 cents, making 6 cents on the deal.

Again, someone has to take the food (which includes our banana) to the store. That someone is another transportation company, probably a trucking company. They'll charge for their service again, adding another 3 cents to the cost of our banana. It's now at 23 cents, almost 5 times what it sold for initially.

Finally, the banana arrives at our store. that store has to pay for the building, the stockboys, the shelving (yes, those things are expensive!), repairs, cashiers, and the like. They just paid 23 cents for that banana, but in order for them to make anything reasonable, they have to charge 33 cents for it. Oh, but wait! There's another problem... this store takes credit cards, so the people shopping there don't have to carry cash. they could take checks, but if they make people write checks, they'll have a lot of returned checks, which is nothing more than theft of their products. they still have to make a living,even if people are dishonest and steal their goods, so who is going to pay more? The people who buy things from them, of course. No one else can pay more in this arrangement. So by taking credit cards, they lose less money to theft. But credit card companies charge for the 'right' to accept those cards. The cost of our banana just went up by another 2 cents.

Now that banana in the store is costing 35 cents, but we hear on the media how farmers want to raise costs to 6 cents from 5 cents. What?!? We just paid 35 cents and the person who grew it only got 5? That's outrageous!

But it's only outrageous if one ignores the things that have to happen to efficiently get that banana to us. How much would it cost one of us to get to that plantation, buy the banana for 5 cents, and then get home with it? A lot more than 35 cents, that's for sure!

Sure, there's a difference between 35 cents in my example and 50 cents in yours. There should be, because I did not include the futures market where more (unnecessary) buying and selling goes on, with a price increase each time. the trick to stopping this is regulating those who buy only for profit and those who buy to legitimately provide a service. I personally believe any large purchaser should be required to take possession of the product they are buying, instead of just trading 'paper'. But that goes back to my (and I believe, our) contention that our present system is being abused... meaning it's not the fault of Capitalism per se, but rather the fault of unregulated Capitalism.


The Initiator would be : the People ( if not just peoples, ie a group within The People who'd wish this new product). That is, if any capitalist thinker is honest, the same than in any capitalist system. I mean that, if the problem is about the people finally buying the product when sold as a promise for the businesman to be paid back and so socially, economically and (why not?) politically crowned as a powerful citizen, well... in an ANARCHIST system, a new product would be launched (long story short) ON DEMAND.

My apologies Rigel; I purposely posted the last post to show that things do not magically appear.

Things take time, and people are fickle. Today's popular demand is typically tomorrow's dust collector. Every year, products are phased out in responce to new and improved products being offered. And of course, everyone wants the latest and the greatest. I am no exception, and I am sure neither are you or ANOK. I would love to have a high-def 72" plasma TV sitting here; but since I have better things to spend my money on, I am satisfied with my old 27" picture tube. Now if someone had come up to me ten years ago and said "Hey, I can make a TV that shows a much better picture, that costs less to run, and that is so flat you can hang it up like a picture! Oh, and it's 3 times as big a screen as you have now. Interested?"... well, I have to admit, my response would be "Wow, yeah!". But to date I have not bought one. If that person had opened his business to make plasma TVs on my word alone, he would be broke today.

Luckily, there is typically someone that will follow through and buy the product, but it is not a guarantee. This is where business does what it does so well; it makes a new product through huge investment in research, development, production, and marketing and it manages to make it affordable enough so enough people can buy it to make the deal profitable. As soon as enough people start buying the product, the price comes down, because the cost to make one goes down due to volume.

In Capitalism, there is a principle that works very well to keep those who are good at this doing well and those who aren't food at it out of the market. That principle is investment and profit. Those who fail, do not profit; those who succeed do profit. But in your arrangement, what would be the penalty for failing to produce a wanted, needed product at a reasonable cost? The people who produced the product would suffer no real penalty, since whatever they do profits them the same. Likewise, why work harder and longer to make the product better? You make the same just doing the same thing you always have done. There is no benefit to individuals in making things better for others.

You do address this issue in section 2, with the following quote:

I agree that this "good you win bad you loose" doctrine you describe as for Capitalism is a pretty healthy dynamic of normal, basic capitalism (but still, is it ethically good, goodly moral ?).
but since post space is running short, I will address it in the next post.

(continued onj next post)



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel - continued

I agree that this "good you win bad you loose" doctrine you describe as for Capitalism is a pretty healthy dynamic of normal, basic capitalism (but still, is it ethically good, goodly moral ?).

Really, I see nothing unethical about it. That's the way nature works, and the way nature always has worked. A tree may spring forth out ofthe ground, with everything it needs to become tall and strong. But if it tries to grow in a place with poor soil, it cannot achieve its potential. If it tries to grow next to an older tree, it is soon choked out. If it tries to grow in a flood plain, it will be drowned by the first flood. It will have failed, and will be punished for that failure by either not achieving full potential or by dying off. But if that same tree grows in a good area, it will grow tall and strong and straight, its reward for making a good choice. That's nature, and when one considers that the tree has no real say in where it tries to grow, how much more should that principle be applied to those of us who do have a choice in our activities?


Because Power corrupts. The funny thing, here, is that humankind history is packed with examples of hubris-driven men who "weltanchauung" completely changed when the got enpowered with public (politic) or economic prerogatives.

We state the same thing a little differently around these parts ("Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"), but the meaning is the same.

The main problem with Capitalism is a lack of self-correction; that is, when one achieves sufficient wealth, they can effectively control the market and thereby increase their wealth at the expense of others less fortunate with no real effort. Conversely, those who are unfortunately unable to compete effectively, even though such misfortune may be through no fault of their own, can find themselves unable to advance themselves beyond their current economic status due to their current economic status.

This is where some other method is needed to control this 'runaway Capitalism'. This is where government should be focusing their economic efforts. Those who are indigent for any reason other than an unwillingness to work should be maintained at some recoverable level. Conversely, those who have benefitted the most must also be constrained to some degree to prevent their ability to manipulate the market and silence any upcoming competition. We in the USA have both systems in place, but they simply do not work well. Welfare breeds a lower class who refuse to work and instead look to crime as a way to improve their lot in life beyond the safety net level. A progressive tax system, along with anti-trust laws, are intended to squelch excessive market control by one entity or group, but the anti-trust laws are being ignored by the current administrations (both Bush and Obama thus far) and the tax system has been packed full of loopholes and exemptions due to the efforts of lobbyists.

So we can see that the core problem in the USA is not Capitalism itself, but rather the lack of government to enforce proper regulations and implement social safety nets effectively. It is akin to a door to a lion's cage at the local zoo being left open; when finally the lion is restrained, the deaths of those whom it killed should be blamed not on the lion, as it was doing what it was intended by design to do; rather, it is the fault of the person who left the door open. Unfortunately, today we have the equivalent of all the lions running wild, because all the cage doors are open. The end result, as is normally the result of such a happening, will possibly be that the lions are killed, but the guy who opened all the doors will continue. As such, we will lose the zoo completely.

I like zoos. Do you?



The difference would be that they'd work for the SAME wage (this ideally, - during a transition a scale of 10 then 5 then 3 levels of wage could be progressively applied).

Blatantly unfair. Please allow me to explain why:

The wages each person under Capitalism earns (in theory anyway) is a direct result of their own abilities and their personal investment (both in terms of time and money) in their future earning potential. The guy who cleans the factory floor is just as much human, with the same feelings and dreams and desires (and yes, possibly ability) as the engineer who works in the design department for 20 times as much money. But the janitor did not go to college. The janitor started work right out of high school (in some cases before even finishing that), while the engineer spent 6 years of his life paying more to a school than the janitor makes, racking up a huge debt, and receiving nothing for his time. He thought ahead, and made a good decision. He chose to sacrifice everything materially in life for those 6 years in order to try and get more later. now, if an engineers job paid the same as a janitors job, why would anyone go through that 6 years of hard study and sacrifice?

I think i can anticipate your answer: if the engineer was guaranteed his wage for that 6 years, it would then be fair. But that's not exactly true. those six years of study included innumerable long nights of studying in addition to daily classes. Why, then would anyone go to college and work harder for no additional personal gains?

This again gets back to the moral question you proposed earlier. Why would someone work harder than they had to if there was no reward for doing so? In such a society, I would want a job sitting and typing on the Internet! Along with, I presume, millions of others. After all, I am now producing a product - entertainment for others who read this. Why can I not be paid for it?

The reason is simple under Capitalism: what I do can be done by almost anyone. It therefore holds little to no real value to society. Under Socialism, who determines what job holds value and what job doesn't? Who determines whether or not someone is good at their chosen job? Who steps in when too many people want to do one job and not enough want to do another?

I already know the answer, as history has shown it to us. The answer is: a ruling elite class which will arise, but this time with total, absolute power over all, because there is no class mobility due to there being no class among the people under rule of this elite class. What was it we were discussing earlier? Oh, that's right:

Because Power corrupts. The funny thing, here, is that humankind history is packed with examples of hubris-driven men who "weltanchauung" completely changed when the got enpowered with public (politic) or economic prerogatives.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Where I come from, that's called "good debating tactic" and requires no apology.
I am glad you weren't offended.


Hey thanx man, you guys are doing better than me though, I tend to run out of steam early lol.

I keep trying to write another reply but I just keep repeating myself, but I wanted to say that I am more anti-capitalist than I am pro-anything. I see libertarian socialism as a good way to go because really it has no blueprint for society. Under LibSoc it's up to you and me how we run our communities and lives, not some bureaucrat career politician who's only goal is to get to Washington and will follow ANY path that will take them there. How can anyone put their trust in a system like this?

I would even support a government if it was only on a local level, and not centralised. It would have to be ran by elected non-payed volunteers, no career politicians. Positions will be filled by people who are a part of the community it effects. Positions would be temporary, no monopolising. NO self promoting, as in 'vote for me'. NO NO NO political contributions EVER. But that really would be utopia, wouldn't it?...



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The wages each person under Capitalism earns (in theory anyway) is a direct result of their own abilities and their personal investment (both in terms of time and money) in their future earning potential.


You're right to say 'in theory' because in reality this is not how it works.

Do you really think the wealthy at the top really got there because they worked harder than anyone else?

You only have to look at history to see this idea is a complete myth, and it's what keeps people chasing carrots (thinking that one day if they work hard enough they will be rewarded with wealth).

This is the conditioning I talk about. The reason you want to believe this, even when you yourself know it really only works in theory, is because it's what you've been told over and over again through school and the media. It's very hard for someone who's been conditioned to believe something to change their mind about it. You've been psychologically conditioned, using terms such as 'un-American' (like who has the right to determine what is American) to the point peoples thinking is completely controlled.

Unless you can completely let go of what you've been taught, you'll never really see the truth. That might sound a bit arrogant but it's true. And once you can see through it, it becomes painfully obvious what a complete scam the whole system is.

[edit on 3/20/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

I would even support a government if it was only on a local level, and not centralised. It would have to be ran by elected non-payed volunteers, no career politicians. Positions will be filled by people who are a part of the community it effects. Positions would be temporary, no monopolising. NO self promoting, as in 'vote for me'. NO NO NO political contributions EVER. But that really would be utopia, wouldn't it?...

While I'm not as hard-line as you, I do like your ideas, especially the one about a lack of central government. That is actually the what the USA was intended to be: a weak but effective central government to do really no more than establish minimal rights for inhabitants in each state, be an arbiter of sorts for states which had disagreements, and provide a military and trade facia which the individual states could not efficiently do by themselves.

Over the years, power has been slowly usurped from the people and formed into this massive central government we now have. It's not really the fault of Capitalism per se, but rather the fault of the people. No document, the US Constitution included, can combat apathy and ignorance among a people. The price of freedom is indeed high, and must be paid regularly. We as a nation are seriously in default on this payment, and we are now reaping the consequences of that unpaid debt.

IMHO the answer is not in exchanging Capitalism for Socialism, but rather in returning the population to one not dependent on a central government and fiercely independent. We used to be that way; alas, no more. America is a nation now comprised primarily of greedy self-centered cowards, too weak to do for themselves, and too absorbed in themselves to want to think for themselves.

I'll agree with a weak central government (although I still believe some form of central government is still needed), limits on terms in office, limits on pay (no politician should have a reason to become such for profit, but instead should do so for service to their country), STRICT limits on political contributions (signs in the yard or bumper stickers would be OK in my view), and restricting political office to those who have lived in the community being represented for a lengthy period opf time (10-15 years?).

We do seem to be more in agreement than not; I believe you simply have had too much of the present system and are wont to do whatever it takes to implement something different, while I still believe the basis is sound, just the implementation is rotten to the core.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

You're right to say 'in theory' because in reality this is not how it works.

Do you really think the wealthy at the top really got there because they worked harder than anyone else?

Actually, some of them did. But you're right in that the majority did not.

Again, though, this is apathy at work among the people. In a perfect world, the power of the individual people would manifest itself through, as an example, boycotts of products, making any movement toward runaway Capitalism fruitless. I practice this in my own life. As a truck driver, I have dealt with many of the companies that regularly sell their wares to the public. I will not spend money at Publix, because they have treated me badly on many occasions. I recently needed paint for my new shop; Since I had been treated well by Behr and badly by Sherwin-Williams, I chose to buy Behr paint.

A minor gesture in a massive economy, I know. But it is my belief that a company will treat their contract drivers they way they would like to treat everyone. Therefore I will use my money to try and swing the pendulum of power away from those who abuse what power they have other others and toward those who do not abuse their power. Alone, I will make no difference, but if others follow suit, there will be a change as some companies grow and thrive, and others die off for lack of sales.

It is a dream, I will admit. Most people I know care nothing about who they are buying from ar what their payment will go to benefit. Instead, people look at the pretty boxes (which will be thrown away) or the price, willing to sacrifice their power for mere pennies. As long as this attitude exists among the people, no societal arrangement can not turn into some form of dictatorship; as I explained in the previous post, there is a price to pay for freedom. Under Capitalism, we have the monopolized economy that ignores common sense and the good of those who do the work to reward those who are sitting comfortably at the top of the economic ladder and do nothing productive for society. Under Socialism, given the same apathetic ignorance, the result would be a Communistic government, which has always degenerated into a totalitarian system.

Why trade one bad for another,? Both systems have weaknesses that can be exploited. Sometimes it is better to fix what you have, especially if the alternative works just as poorly.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Over the years, power has been slowly usurped from the people and formed into this massive central government we now have. It's not really the fault of Capitalism per se, but rather the fault of the people.


I agree that it's not all the fault of capitalism. But the thing is capitalism is the tool used by the 'ruling classes' to keep us 'in our place' and from being able to really advance due to economic 'slavery'.

Unless we rid ourselves of it we have no chance of changing the way the system is. Without capital the state will not exist. The state (which alows one class of people rule over another) exists because of capitalism, because of a system where a few own the capital, and thus the means of production, and the majority work to support that system. Which means that those who own capital can, and do, dictate almost every policy that effects how our world is ran. Everything from starving children in Africa to what war they'll perpetuate next, to 9/11.

Who do you want making these decisions of life and death? We'll get nuked because some CEO needed to expand his market into someone else's back yard.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The problem is, and one of the capitalist myths, is that even if EVERYONE worked their asses off the system is set up to re-adjust itself, so there will ALWAYS be a wealthy class and a poverty class, and all that we have in between.

It is impossible for ALL to be wealthy under capitalism. The market will always adjust the price of goods and the value of currency.

It's a lot to explain in a short post, but think what happens when the market gets flooded with currency, it devalues until goods become ridiculously expensive. So even if you were wealthy yesterday you are just as poor again today.

Think about the work place. If there were jobs for everyone, and no unemployment, the power would be in the hands of the workers (as it should be) and the worker could quit and get another better job anytime. The employer would have to pay ever higher wages to keep good workers, which eventually leads to bankruptcy, lay offs, and AGAIN unemployment. It's not in the systems interest to make everyone wealthy. The system was set up BY the wealthy FOR the wealthy, not to make the poor wealthy but to keep the power and control in their hands.

Look at history and the continuing class struggle, and what the PTB have done to maintain their control over the masses. History you don't learn in state schools, especially in America the country that was designed from the begging to be free of any class awareness in its population, but keep the class distinctions as they've always been. A country where you are told you're all equal, being 'American' is enough, no matter what crap is poured on you from the state, or how many wars, depressions, lay off etc., you have to endure. Wave the flag, you don't want to be un-American, questioning your master is communist...


[edit on 3/20/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK and post by ANOK

I'm combining both sets of posts for convenience to anyone who might be reading this.


I agree that it's not all the fault of capitalism. But the thing is capitalism is the tool used by the 'ruling classes' to keep us 'in our place' and from being able to really advance due to economic 'slavery'.

It absolutely is. But consider this: if you are under attack by someone armed with a pitchfork, what good does it do to take away the pitchfork and give him a axe? Both are deadly weapons.

So it is with Capitalism and Socialism. The problem lies not with the system being used, but with those who would exploit it unfairly, to the detriment of society as a whole. We have previously agreed that neither system in its pure form is without serious flaws. And it's not even the fact that these people who do the exploitation are necessarily 'evil', but that they are human.

I saw a news report last night I believe, about some criminals making a getaway in LA. Their tactic was to dump cash along the roadway, mostly $20 and $100 bills in order to create chaos. They were caught, but the ploy did work to some degree. People stopped and ran to and fro among traffic trying to scoop up as much of that green gold as they could. In many cases, they snarled traffic and risked being run over just for money.

Do I blame them? No! I would have probably done the same thing. Money for nothing is a hard thing to pass up. But it gives an insight into human nature... all human nature. We strive for competition, to have more and be better than the guy next door. We are also inherently lazy, preferring to lie around rather than work hard and diligently in order to get ahead.

In essence, situations have arisen during our history that have been very akin in principle to free cash blowing across the highway in respect to those who are in power today. At some point, someone (either themselves or their ancestors) made a tremendous sum of money and was able to use that money to assure a power role in future society. Now sit back and think a moment; if that opportunity arose for you, would you take advantage of it? Would you pick up cash just blowing across the highway? Would you be able to resist the ability to buy that shiny new car, or live in a bigger house, or just have a better computer? I doubt seriously I would resist that temptation, and I also believe you would feel the same.

Now there is another aspect to this situation, and that is lack of respect for others. This is where I believe you and I differ from those presently in power. Where I would be concerned about the effect of my actions on others (as I am sure you would be as well) too many people are not. As I see it, there are two primary causes for this lack of respect for others: a lack of familiarity with other lifestyles, and a love of money (as opposed to a desire to better oneself). In the former, people typically either grow up without being exposed to the average lifestyle of the majority of others, and thus begin to see them as somewhat less than human (and I must say I see that problem across all levels of society, not just among the 'elite'). In the latter, the human concept of greed simply overwhelms people. In both cases, it is often not the people who made the money being used now to wield power that are to blame, but their descendants.

Mr. Sam Walton some years back opened a general store and, I assume due to his ability to market and manage a company, built it into a massive retail powerhouse we call 'WalMart'. For many years, Mr. Sam (as he was affectionately known by those who worked for him) was a model of virtue and fairness to all. He brought goods to communities for lower prices, was fastidious about customer satisfaction, and made sure his company was instrumental in helping many a bright young entrepreneur get started on the road to success. Mr. Sam passed away finally, and turned control of WalMart over to his son, who he had personally groomed from youth to run the business after he was gone. But that son also died an untimely death, and the company fell into the hands of his other children and his wife, who knew nothing of the philosophies Mr. Sam held so dear for his company. They since have turned WalMart into just another department store, where competition is squelched, corporate profits are always more vital than public relations, and that bottom line means more than the very lives of their employees. Sad, so, so sad. Yet, how else should it have been handled? Who would receive the benefits of the hard work and dedication of Mr. Sam after his death? Should his wife, who invested years at his side caring for him, not receive the benefits of his hard work? Should his children, his most precious blessings, not receive something? I say they should. I would want my wife and children to receive some benefit from my sacrifices, should I not be around to enjoy them.

Now WalMart will fail, if not totally, then at least be relegated to the likes of K-Mart and Sears in due time. The poor business philosophies will continue to work to its detriment just as they worked to its advantage under Mr. Sam. What goes around will come around. But WalMart is huge and it will survive for quite some time.

Under Socialism, the employees would own WalMart, correct? So what would happen when the employees wanted more and better from society? Would they act as Mr. Sam, or as his survivors? I would guess the latter, since a person like Mr. Sam comes along rarely, so what would be the advantage to the consumer?


The problem is, and one of the capitalist myths, is that even if EVERYONE worked their asses off the system is set up to re-adjust itself, so there will ALWAYS be a wealthy class and a poverty class, and all that we have in between.

It is impossible for ALL to be wealthy under capitalism. The market will always adjust the price of goods and the value of currency.

Absolutely true, and anyone who believes this myth (not formed under Capitalism, but under politics) is grossly misinformed. Capitalism is about competition, and there will always be a loser and a winner in any competitive battle, whether that battle be a Little League softball game between little kids on a weekend evening or The Braves vs. the Yankees in the World Series.

But there are good things about competition. It is competition that makes people perform better and more efficiently. It is competition that brings new technologies to the forefront of society. Competition allowed us to put a man on the moon in 1969, and in the wake of that triumph, brought new materials and technologies to society.

At one time, messages could only be sent from one place to another by an actual person traveling that distance with a note. Then someone thought of a better way - electricity! Wires began to connect one area to another and Morse Code could be used to send messages in minutes instead of days. Of course, one had to know Morse Code and had to have access to a telegraph office, but it was so much better than horse and rider; who could want anything more? Then came the telephone, so now you didn't need to know Morse Code. You could hear the person speaking on the other end of the line. It was a scratchy sound, true, but what more could anyone want? Quality? Oh, yes, the invention of high-speed switches and higher-quality cables meant that now you could even hear what was happening in the background.

But you still needed wires, and wires were expensive. Then came radio, and now information could be 'beamed' into every home in a large area, with nothing more than a simple wire hung up outside for an antenna. But AM was still scratchy and tended to fade in and out, so someone developed FM. No more fading, and the quality was amazing compared to AM. Next came the idea of digital PLL circuits, which further improved the quality as well as the reception distance. Then, someone had the idea to launch a satellite into space and beam radio signals down to mobile radios. Thus, we have XM/Sirius radio.

People loved the telephone, but hated that black coiled cord attaching them to the device. So wireless units, based on miniaturized radio transceivers, were introduced. Now you could walk around your home unhindered by a cable, but still you had to be close to the phone to stay connected. So someone decided to introduce the cellular phone, a truly wireless and portable phone that could go anywhere. Soon, these phones included digital cameras, then Internet capability, and now with Bluetooth technology they have become an indispensable method of all forms of instantaneous communication.

All along that story, one concept keeps showing itself: competition. No one was happy with things the way they were, but instead dreamed of outdoing the other guy, making something better, faster, sleeker, cheaper. Without that competition, we would still be riding horses in order to carry handwritten notes back and forth. You and I would not know each other, since there would be no Internet and no reason for either of us to make contact with each other.

It is easy to believe that we have somehow reached the pinnacle of technology, that nothing new and exciting is left to come along. But that thought has been around since the invention of the saddle; yet look how far we have come, due to competition. There is more coming. All we must do is reward those who do great things, and people will do great things. If we instead hold back any reward, we would be silly to expect great effort. The two are inextricably intertwined in human nature.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/21/2009 by TheRedneck]



new topics




 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join