Progressives want to spread the wealth, but not the work

Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Personally I think that life should go back to the self sustaining lifestyle where you plant the food, harvest it, hunt for the meat, build our own homes, and maybe even communal, that way, everybody would have to do there fair share or starve and die! Natural selection is the true nature of life...life today is not by natural selection, that's why we're in such a state to begin with!

Originally posted by mrbarber
Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Because being "Progressive" is not about progress in a free market, but progress in a Marxist sense, which is to say, punish the producers and reward those who don't. Or, as Marx would say, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, either way, it means to reward those whose ability is minimal and punish those whose ability is abundant. It is an equation that necessarily omits the reality that under such a dictum, those with ability will suppress it and simply focus on their needs.

OH, now you just stop that! Why should anyone have to endure the hardship that you've endured to become successful, when we can all just enjoy the fruits of your labor!?

I saw a bumper sticker last week, it is so appropriate: "Spread my work ethic, not my wealth!"

Now, more to the point... you never hear those points brought up in discussion because it interferes with their emotional appeal and introduces logic into the debate. Something they are simply not equipped to deal with.

You see, emotionally it sounds great to say, "Who deserves to make $10 million a year! Who NEEDS that much money!?" And then advocate for taking 25% more in taxes to pay fo all kinds of social welfare programs. Their "reasoning", if you can call it that, is that what's a measely $2.5 million when you have sooooooooo much???

Now, on the other hand, there ARE a great many people making SICK and extreme amounts of money for doing nothing more than finding ways to screw average working pay out of their money - many corporate CEOs come to mind. They're not taking any personal risks. Their leading established companies and in most cases are nothing more than figureheads.

So, I think when you're addressing this much maligned and comples issue, you need to clarify what direction you are approaching it. The independent business owner, inventor, innovator or the Corporate CEO, sports figure, actor. As always, there's two sides to every story.

reply to post by kozmo


I understand your points, and although I am not one of those corporate CEO's making these extreme incomes, I find that most of the criticism comes from those who A; don't make anywhere near that amount, but wouldn't be complaining if they were; or B, are politicians trying to appeal to those in group A.

Capitalists want to hoard the wealth, but not the work

Why is it a constant theme among those within the Capitalist Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by DJM8507]

Originally posted by DJM8507
Capitalists want to hoard the wealth, but not the work

[edit on 7-4-2010 by DJM8507]

Absolute nonsense!!! True capitalists EMPLOY people! Secondly, TRUE capitalists are the MOST philanthropic people on the planet donating MORE private money to charity than any other group!

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Personally I think that life should go back to the self sustaining lifestyle where you plant the food, harvest it, hunt for the meat, build our own homes, and maybe even communal, that way, everybody would have to do there fair share or starve and die! Natural selection is the true nature of life...life today is not by natural selection, that's why we're in such a state to begin with!

Although close to Social Darwinism, I frankly agree with you completely. I find myself drawn to that concept, or at least some sort of hybridized version of it.

At the very least, a meritocracy would suit me.

My opinion.

Originally posted by mrbarber
Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Share the work???? Share the risk????

That's just crazy talk!

Originally posted by mrbarber
Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Your premise is disingenuous and, of course, incorrect.

Why don't you describe for us in detail how you, personally, feel about the lower classes because isn't that the intent here?

Originally posted by Hadrian

Originally posted by mrbarber
Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Your premise is disingenuous and, of course, incorrect.

Why don't you describe for us in detail how you, personally, feel about the lower classes because isn't that the intent here?

How ironic then, that your premise is equally as disingenuous, as free market advocates are not interested in class warfare, but Progressive's keep insisting on fighting that war anyway.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by mrbarber
Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

Because being "Progressive" is not about progress in a free market, but progress in a Marxist sense, which is to say, punish the producers and reward those who don't. Or, as Marx would say, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, either way, it means to reward those whose ability is minimal and punish those whose ability is abundant. It is an equation that necessarily omits the reality that under such a dictum, those with ability will suppress it and simply focus on their needs.

You may as well drive around with a bumper-sticker that says "Glenn Beck Does My Thinking For Me".

Being "Progressive" is about Progress. End of discussion.

As for your interpretation of Marx's catch-phrase.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Those whose abilities allow for greater contribution will receive greater rewards for their contribution. Why does it have to be within the framework of a monetary system, a system which is inherently corrupt and wasteful. All you get from money is things, a great deal of these things are inferior and pointless because of cost:price ratios and cheap imitations.

I can think of a dozen alternatives as rewards for greater contribution other than money. But I want you to use your brain.

As for effort requires money. Anyone who lives by that creed is an idiot.

Do you think Einstein needed money to make his contribution to humanity?

Money as a motivation is for un-developed personalities and intellect.

As for sharing success and not the constituent elements that created such "success" - perhaps you should think about all the constituent elements and people who facilitated you to accumulate money, I'm pretty sure there was work, risk and sacrifices that allowed that to happen.

Don't be so self-righteous when you blatantly have a narrow vision of reality.

reply to post by ghostsoldier

You may as well drive around with a bumper-sticker that says "Glenn Beck Does My Thinking For Me".

Never seen the show, don't know his politics and don't care. Of course, enough of you Marxist spend so much time making that remark, I am beginning to wonder if Beck is scouring this site and stealing my material.

Being "Progressive" is about Progress. End of discussion.

And yet, you continued to yammer on:

As for your interpretation of Marx's catch-phrase.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Those whose abilities allow for greater contribution will receive greater rewards for their contribution. Why does it have to be within the framework of a monetary system, a system which is inherently corrupt and wasteful. All you get from money is things, a great deal of these things are inferior and pointless because of cost:price ratios and cheap imitations.

If those who are reaping the rewards want it to be within the framework of a monetary system, who are you to say they can't make such a contract? In a free market system, people are free to contract without interference, clearly not in you precious Marxist system. Cost and price will exist under any system, who do your think your kidding? It doesn't have to be money, people can barter if that is what they prefer, but don't kid yourself my friend, in that barter process, cost and price will factor in.

I can think of a dozen alternatives as rewards for greater contribution other than money. But I want you to use your brain.

You are missing the point of money. Money is nothing more than a simplified means of exchange to facilitate commerce. What real value does gold have? It is just a rock for Christ sakes. It is, however, a rare rock that is difficult to find and mine, and this, combined with the demand for it is what determines the value of gold. Thus, gold becomes a commodity, and when taking such a precious metal as gold, and tying that to money, what you have is a simplified way of selling goods for a fair and even exchange, or for providing a service for a fair and even exchange.

As for effort requires money. Anyone who lives by that creed is an idiot.

Uh-huh, and besides you, which idiot has offered that creed? Certainly not me. I only see you making the statement.

Do you think Einstein needed money to make his contribution to humanity?

Einstein certainly required remuneration for his effort, and in my book, his effort was valuable, and his command for remuneration should reflect that.

Money as a motivation is for un-developed personalities and intellect.

You're obsession with money is astounding. Money is just a thing used as remuneration. People have relied upon money since time immemorial, and it is not money that motivates effort, money is the result of effort. If not money then some other form of remuneration, but I assure you that if people need to offer remuneration to others for goods and services, they themselves will have to secure remuneration for whatever goods they produce or service they provide.

As for sharing success and not the constituent elements that created such "success" - perhaps you should think about all the constituent elements and people who facilitated you to accumulate money, I'm pretty sure there was work, risk and sacrifices that allowed that to happen.

What constituent elements are you referring to. If I write a novel and sell it directly to a publisher, what constituent elements are there besides my own effort? If I build a factory to manufacture cog wheels, and I then hire employees to help me produce these cog wheels and then sell them, I am paying those who labored up front for their effort, will pay the salesmen a commission for their efforts, and the profit that remains is mine for building the factory and investing in labor, and long before I gain a profit, my labor, sales crew and management, will have gained their profit. If those who are laboring are not satisfied with the contract they have made with me, they are free to negotiate a better one, or find another employer who will. Is that really so hard to understand? Is simplicity just not "intellectual" enough for you?

Don't be so self-righteous when you blatantly have a narrow vision of reality.

Only the Marxist gets to be self righteous? Where is this wise vision of yours? I read Marx in my youth because his ideas appealed to me, but Das Kapital turned me into a capitalist. I learned the value and pure simplicity of capitalism, and the freedom it provides, from Karl Marx himself. Of course, the typical Marxist will tell me that is because I didn't understand Marx, but I then feel compelled to quote Marx to these Marxists:

I am not a Marxist!

~Karl Marx~


All I have seen from you is ad hominem attacks, Strawman arguments, Special pleading, and reductive fallacies. Speaking of oversimplification, and since you bring up Einstein, consider what he had to say about the matter of simplicity:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

~Albert Einstein~

It is interesting to note that the self proclaimed "erudite" Marxist will dismiss free market advocates as simpletons, simply because they attempt to make everything as simple as possible, but you go simpler. For you we don't need money, you can think of a dozen unnamed alternatives. Unnamed, because typical of the self proclaimed "intellectuals", they will make bold claims, and beg off of supporting those claims, because it is their charitable nature to get others to think about it for themselves. Marxists rely upon hypothetical markets, constantly blustering their "if only's" and how simpler life would be, if only...

The only way the Marxist can possibly create the "stateless" society Marx promises, is by way of a gargantuan state that will suppress and oppress until all are equal, and then somehow, this gargantuan state will just magically go away. Naivete is not intellectualism. Freedom is not gained through subjugation. The worker does not have to be a worker, in a free market, and can endeavor to do whatever they want. If they lack capital to do it, they can use the free market to gain that capital so that they may invest how they see fit. Workers of the world unite? Workers of the world, get a clue!

[edit on 10-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I can think of a dozen alternatives as rewards for greater contribution other than money. But I want you to use your brain.

You are missing the point of money. Money is nothing more than a simplified means of exchange to facilitate commerce. What real value does gold have? It is just a rock for Christ sakes. It is, however, a rare rock that is difficult to find and mine, and this, combined with the demand for it is what determines the value of gold. Thus, gold becomes a commodity, and when taking such a precious metal as gold, and tying that to money, what you have is a simplified way of selling goods for a fair and even exchange, or for providing a service for a fair and even exchange.

Being the case that currency is no longer backed by gold, and we are ever moving closer to a point of a cashless society, the next logical step would be a world without a currency at all. Instead would be a system of give and take, in which you give – therefore you get. Although a total shift in human understanding would be required – and as a result, a resource based economy is not necessarily a viable or achievable goal for the short-term future. But it is something every human of able mind should be consciously aware of, and facilitating the evolution and growth of.

Capitalism isn’t the pinnacle of an economic system, it evolved from feudalism as a means of having more productive slaves, what’s next? This is the point I wish to communicate above anything else. What’s next? Why are our kids taught what is, instead of what should be. What’s next?

I understand money, what you speak of is the way things are, of course. I guess I am just a little soured by the negative effects it has on society, the damage it does to our planet and the hierarchy it creates that is not built on a logical and moral foundation. Consumers and Capitalisers take precedence over cooperation and consciousness.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Do you think Einstein needed money to make his contribution to humanity?

Einstein certainly required remuneration for his effort, and in my book, his effort was valuable, and his command for remuneration should reflect that.

You have negated the point I was trying to convey with a rhetorical question. It was not the pursuit of material-gain that inspired and drove Einstein to contribute. It was the contribution he was making that drove him. And because of his genius and contribution – he was rewarded. His “remuneration” as you refer to it, does not need to be in the form of monetary wealth. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (1949)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
As for sharing success and not the constituent elements that created such "success" - perhaps you should think about all the constituent elements and people who facilitated you to accumulate money, I'm pretty sure there was work, risk and sacrifices that allowed that to happen.

[...] If I build a factory to manufacture cog wheels, and I then hire employees to help me produce these cog wheels and then sell them, I am paying those who labored up front for their effort, will pay the salesmen a commission for their efforts, and the profit that remains is mine for building the factory and investing in labor, and long before I gain a profit, my labor, sales crew and management, will have gained their profit. If those who are laboring are not satisfied with the contract they have made with me, they are free to negotiate a better one, or find another employer who will. Is that really so hard to understand? Is simplicity just not "intellectual" enough for you?

The alternative being: Cogwheels will be needed in the foreseeable future, a factory is built by builders, the factory is operated by factory workers, supplied by resource suppliers, the cogwheels are produced to the highest standard, and then the cogwheels are sent to where they are needed.

I understand both, but the simplicity is in the latter.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The only way the Marxist can possibly create the "stateless" society Marx promises, is by way of a gargantuan state that will suppress and oppress until all are equal, and then somehow, this gargantuan state will just magically go away. Naivete is not intellectualism. Freedom is not gained through subjugation. The worker does not have to be a worker, in a free market, and can endeavor to do whatever they want. If they lack capital to do it, they can use the free market to gain that capital so that they may invest how they see fit. Workers of the world unite? Workers of the world, get a clue!

It’s not about suppression and oppression, it’s about internationalising resources, and streamlining the process of decision making and development. How do you even define the “freedom” of which you speak, because I guarantee that there would be equal if not more Freedom under a resource-based Marxist inspired economy. This “gargantuan” state you speak of wouldn’t need to be so large with the capabilities of computer technology these days, the day to day running of society could be minimal if technology was properly applied and a reduction of population on the planet (I’m not suggesting or condoning any particular means of this, but it is a logical goal).

The worker does have to be a worker in the free-market regardless. To gain the capital needed to become what they want they either have to work, be indebted to someone/thing external, or have inherited wealth or receive charity, the role they will get to play in society is driven by market openings deemed to be profitable – not necessarily what is beneficial or needed.

In a resource-based-economy the role they would play in society would be largely generated by their propensities toward vocations that contributed to society and the goals and needs society has. A job is not who you are, they are separate, in Germany they view them as completely irrelevant to who you are as a person. As needs change, so would vocational roles. If a person had a particular genius, gift or determination in something they enjoyed, and others could enjoy and/or benefit from – there is nothing stopping that person from becoming professional in that field, and being appropriately rewarded and nurtured for the contribution they make.

The goals would be to remove the need for human labour, to free up room for intellectual pursuits, with societal goals being driving forces. Instead of having the most apples, I’d rather have half but with double the nutritional content.

People of the world unite? People of the world become conscious!

Capitalism rewards and perpetuates the primitive parts of our brains and natures (isopraxic, preservative, re-enactment, tropistic, and deceptive). The homosapien parts of our brains are there for a reason. If we’re not using them we may as well be a virus on the planet.



Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (1949)

Why is it a constant theme among those within the Progressive Movement that those of us who have accomplished are obligated to share our success with those who have not. Yet there is never a mention of sharing the work, the risk, and the sacrifice required to achieve those accomplishments.

My question is: why is it someone who shines a seat with his ass for half the day then goes to play golf with his buddies, deserves 10 million a year, while another man works 60 hours a week at $8 hr, laying concrete block, and still can't afford to feed his family or take a sick day? Is this fair?

I don't consider someone successful if they come from a wealthy family, get a great college education handed to them, and then join the good ol' boys club where the rich take care of the rich. That is not work, risk or sacrifice. Real work and sacrifice is done by the low wage earners of this country.

One of the biggest problems is the wage income inequality. Most countries have wage gaps that are reasonable. Japan's top incomes vs lowest incomes is 15 to 1. In Germany it is 16 to 1. In America it is 319 to 1.

what a perfect thread to drop this nugget in. To quote the source if I may

Perhaps SEIU’s new motto should be: “Socialism For Thee, Not Me.”

S unlight on SEIU Part I: Marxist Andy Stern’s Compensation Would Have Karl Marx Spinning in His Grave

One of the biggest problems is the wage income inequality...

Well, why don't we all (ATS users) start demanding pay for providing the content, which ultimately pays the salaries of the site owners?

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Thank you ghostsoldier, for your reasoned discourse and the many excellent points you make. Allow me to address these points as best I can:

Being the case that currency is no longer backed by gold, and we are ever moving closer to a point of a cashless society, the next logical step would be a world without a currency at all.

The useless currency being used today has quite clearly created the financial turmoil this world is in today. The United States is facing threat of hyperinflation due to the reckless nature of a Federal Reserve who was behind the issuance of fiat money to begin with. Hyperinflation is, for all intents and purposes, in a global economy, a world without a currency at all. If the currency being used is so useless that it is cheaper to use the paper money for toilet paper than buy it at a store, then you have your world with out a currency.

The thing is, markets won't allow for a sustainable hyperinflation or even inflation, and a recession or depression will always follow. When a currency is fixed to a precious commodity, paper money can't just be printed on some sort of imaginary system of credit. When consumer confidence is all that is backing the wealth behind currency, that confidence is soon to shatter. This is the way markets work, and no amount of Utopian design by academics can accurately predict the volatility of markets. While in today's modern understanding of market volatility there is a proclivity to describe it in terms of investor confidence, volatility of markets exist regardless of the confidence of investors and are inextricably tied to the environment.

As the weather goes, so go the markets, and what is in demand but low supply will inherently cost more than what is in high supply but low demand, regardless of the economic "design" in place. If an economist hopes to design an economy they can not possibly hope to fixate on price alone, and ignoring costs will only invite economic peril. Regardless of the economic system in place, market principles are not human made rules where markets do as people command, markets reflect the environment in the practical sense, which is to say, markets quite naturally measure the cost and benefits of life, or survival, or sadly subsistence. Economies, as systems, always come with problems because all systems tend towards entropy. Economy as measurement is merely that, a system of measurement, and its only purpose in design is to facilitate the cost/benefit ratio.

Instead would be a system of give and take, in which you give – therefore you get.

This is precisely what capitalism offers. A system of give and take where those who respond to demand by supplying it, give and in doing so they are rewarded for this effort. Those who are taking are the ones who do the rewarding. It is a one on one situation of locality and self governance, where both parties are free to contract how they see fit, and is completely give and take.

Although a total shift in human understanding would be required –

Sadly, my friend, this is also true of capitalism, as both of us are pushing ideals not currently in place -

and as a result, a resource based economy is not necessarily a viable or achievable goal for the short-term future. But it is something every human of able mind should be consciously aware of, and facilitating the evolution and growth of.

Fortunately, where a "resource based economy" is not necessarily a viable or achievable goal for the short term future, capitalism is, and it is something every human of able mind should consciously be aware of, and facilitating the growth of. Why it is viable and achievable is because its tenets are simple and easy to understand, and where the system you are advocating seems to be reliant upon advanced technologies, not so capitalism, and indeed, when capitalism is allowed to function somewhere near its tenets, it facilitates advancement in technology, not the other way around.

The three basic tenets to capitalism, are a free and unregulated market, massive competition, and a currency backed by wealth where all can agree upon its value. This currency need not be in the form of money, what matters is that all parties involved agree that what is being exchanged is of value for both parties. If you value my goat and would like to have it for yourself and in exchange you offer me three chickens, and I counter and suggest my goat is worth four chickens and a bushel of apples from your apple tree, but then you counter and offer three chickens and the bushel of apples, and I accept, then the currency used for the purchase of my goat was three chickens and a bushel of apples and both of us were in agreement to its inherent wealth.

Under a capitalist system, the barter exchange I just described is wholly possible and there are no regulatory agencies in existence to prevent you or I from contracting as such. The current plethora of alphabet agencies that is a part of the United States federal government has so increased their powers that the simple barter process I just described may become, if it isn't all ready, "illegal". Your system of a resource based economy, if anything close to The Venus Projects ideas, is based upon a system of global governance, but any governance in capitalism actually tends to be much more local.

Capitalism isn’t the pinnacle of an economic system, it evolved from feudalism as a means of having more productive slaves, what’s next?

Allow me to speak to the first part of your statement before addressing the latter. I believe you are 100% correct that capitalism is not the pinnacle of an economic system, but until a viable and better one can replace it, your idealism alone is not enough to convince any pragmatist that this so called design of a "resource based economy" is dubious. Indeed, using the term "resource based economy" strikes a free market advocate as merely a co-opt of free market principles, serving as dressing on top of a centralized government regulating this "free market".

How capitalism evolved is less important than whether it works or not. As to your charge that it was some design to having more productive slaves, this is nothing more than empty rhetoric, and hammered away so much by the Marxist, it is just standard propaganda. While Smithonian principles no doubt facilitated the industrial age, it is the industrial world that is both yours and Marx's problem not capitalism. By industrial I mean to say the large factories which produce the goods we rely upon. But let's be clear here, at no point during the industrial age, and certainly not now, were people forced to become "workers", subjecting themselves to the inhumanity of an automaton's life on line at a factory. It was always, as it will always be, their choice.

This is the point I wish to communicate above anything else. What’s next? Why are our kids taught what is, instead of what should be. What’s next?

Our whole history of collective knowledge has seemingly been inadequate in actually understanding what is, let alone what should be. When kids are being taught what is, they are only being taught what is understood thus far, and what is understood thus far may be wrong, as we continue to discover more and more about the truth of our universe and of our existence. What ever kids are being taught, what should always be understood is that whatever is, can only be understood from the point of its observer, or subjectively so. Truth is not subjective, our understanding of it is.

On a one to one basis, what is and what should be is far easier to manage than on a global scale. In a one to one situation, it is between you and I to decide what is and what is not, and what should be, but who would decide on our behalf what is and what should be in your Utopian world of a "resource based economy"? What great leader do we trust to make such decisions on our behalf?

I understand money, what you speak of is the way things are, of course. I guess I am just a little soured by the negative effects it has on society, the damage it does to our planet and the hierarchy it creates that is not built on a logical and moral foundation. Consumers and Capitalisers take precedence over cooperation and consciousness.

I understand the sourness of which you speak but it is folly to blame currency for it. Look at the etymology of the word itself to understand what currency is. It is merely the flow by which the waters move. Tides of oceans ebb and flow with the currents and this ebb and flow can be measured to help better understand the current. This is all currency is, it is not the root of all evil, humanity deserves all the blame for that, and whoever said money was the root of all evil was just shifting the blame somewhere else. It is a false meme placed into a collective consciousness.

You have negated the point I was trying to convey with a rhetorical question. It was not the pursuit of material-gain that inspired and drove Einstein to contribute.

Nor is it the pursuit of material-gain to respond to you here, nor is it the pursuit of material gain to write a novel, I do so because I am compelled to do so. I do not expect remuneration for the effort I make here, but upon finishing my novel, if I can find a buyer, you can be rest assured I will do my best to negotiate the best possible price for my effort, so that I may flourish and prosper, and I would appreciate it if and when I sell my novel or other writings, that when negotiating a price, third parties stay out of the negotiation process, and I don't think this is too much to ask of the world.

Continued...

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Continuing...

The alternative being: Cogwheels will be needed in the foreseeable future, a factory is built by builders, the factory is operated by factory workers, supplied by resource suppliers, the cogwheels are produced to the highest standard, and then the cogwheels are sent to where they are needed.

It is a damn fine idea! It is not, however, "alternative" to capitalism, it embodies the principles of capitalism precisely. A group of visionaries who see a future demand and prudently create the means by which to supply that demand and do so offering the best possible quality! Capitalism baby, ya got to love it.

It’s not about suppression and oppression, it’s about internationalising resources, and streamlining the process of decision making and development.

If resources weren't all ready internationalized then all the tea in China wouldn't help, let alone make any idiomatic sense. A one on one situation between buyer and seller is as streamlined as one can get, and that is capitalism. This internationalization you are advocating could never come close to the streamlined process of decision making that is buyer and seller.

How do you even define the “freedom” of which you speak, because I guarantee that there would be equal if not more Freedom under a resource-based Marxist inspired economy.

Can you guarantee this equal freedom by offering a free and unregulated market? Can you guarantee this equal freedom by ensuring that no licensing schemes exist and that all people are free to join the market place as a seller at their own pleasure? You've all ready explained that you want to do away with currency all together so you can't possibly guarantee that an established currency backed by wealth would be implemented. What comes with this guarantee, besides empty promises? In business a guarantee is usually backed up by money back.

This “gargantuan” state you speak of wouldn’t need to be so large with the capabilities of computer technology these days, the day to day running of society could be minimal if technology was properly applied and a reduction of population on the planet (I’m not suggesting or condoning any particular means of this, but it is a logical goal).

Gee, if only Karl had the advantage of computer technology and all the advancements that the entrepreneurial spirit has brought, then maybe he could have had his ideas put in place sooner. Of course, the Marxist will always wonder why there is such an "irrational" fear of their ideology, then think they can excuse horrifying ideas with parenthetical disclaimers. Eugenics is an elitist agenda, and most free market advocates recognize how elitists have so lovingly embraced Marxist principles, and how they so love to sell these ideas to a public they are convinced exist in too large of numbers. Mmmmmm.....

Let us just assume for a second that your obvious concerns for over population are justified, and I don't mean to make your economic design work out, I mean over populated to the point that human life is no longer sustainable on the planet. You would suggest the logical thing is to start looking at a reduction in population, in spite of the obvious command nature gives every species; to survive! I would suggest that the logical thing to do in such a scenario, is long before we get to that point, we figure out how to navigate the stars and begin the inevitable colonization of other planets. Uninhabited planets, or those we are welcomed on, either way, I would suggest such a strategy is much more in line with the command to survive, than is programs devised to reverse natures own way of ensuring our species survival.

The worker does have to be a worker in the free-market regardless.

Really? I rarely hear the term worker used at all among free market advocates. I always hear the term when among Marxists. It is the Marxists who wants a class war, not the capitalist. Perhaps the Marxist and the aristocracy, but I assure you that it was capitalism that made the aristocracy obsolete, not any form of socialism, communism, Leninism, Trotskyism, nor Marxism, it was capitalism that showed the aristocracy how little they mattered. Whether the alliance between the aristocracy and the Marxists is unwitting or wholly knowing, that alliance is clear to see to any free market advocate.

To gain the capital needed to become what they want they either have to work, be indebted to someone/thing external, or have inherited wealth or receive charity, the role they will get to play in society is driven by market openings deemed to be profitable – not necessarily what is beneficial or needed.

To gain the capital they need the will have to work? Ah! Okay, forget all I said before this, you've finally convinced me. Capitalism is unfair because if forces people to work for their wealth. Well, not exactly, right? I mean, work isn't so bad, right? It's just really unfair that those who worked before me and accumulated wealth then left that wealth to their children who now have more wealth than me, and didn't work an hour to get it. That's not fair! Of course, it isn't fair that I missed being six foot tall by a quarter of an inch, it sure as hell isn't fair that I'm losing my hair and what remains is turning gray while hair begins growing out of my nose and ears! It's just not fair I tell you!

Earlier you described a scenario where people together, had a vision and pooled their resources to build that vision, and then used their effort to create quality supply, and fill a demand. But now you suggest, they could never do it on their own, through their own investment. If this is true it is only true because these poor "workers" have been so brainwashed with Marxist nonsense, they know nothing about investment. The debt they may have to assume in order to build their own business together, would be a far better debt that those workers struggle with today separately.

The last time the grocery store unions went on strike, my local super market employees expected me to stop shopping there while they were on strike. They felt betrayed by me, and accused me of supporting the scabs and not them, showing no regard to the fact that I merely wanted some groceries. I would listen to their advocacy's and testimonies, I would listen to their horror stories as they explained why they had to go on strike, and it was over management asking them to pay more for their share of health insurance. I then listened to how some have since lost their houses because of this strike. How stupid was that?

They risked their property for a better price on health insurance? That kind of business decision making implies if they had pooled their resources to build a supermarket that directly competed with those they had an issue with, they probably would've failed anyway making boneheaded financial decisions. But, to the Marxist, the ability to make sound and profitable financial decisions has no value. Go figure.

In a resource-based-economy the role they would play in society would be largely generated by their propensities toward vocations that contributed to society and the goals and needs society has. A job is not who you are, they are separate, in Germany they view them as completely irrelevant to who you are as a person.

In a capitalist based society the role each person plays is up to them. They decide what they want to be, and they negotiate the best possible deal to get paid doing what they want to do, and while everybody is going about looking out for their self interest, a greater good emerges where people are happy because they are doing what they want to do and making a living doing it. Not everyone will be happy all of the time, but they never will be under any circumstances. Life comes with ups and downs no matter what the system in place. The difference between the ideal of capitalism and what you are advocating is personal choice. In your system, there is some grand plan where all agree to submit to their role in this plan. In what I offer, the only grand plan is personal prosperity and longevity for the greatest number of people possible.

As needs change, so would vocational roles. If a person had a particular genius, gift or determination in something they enjoyed, and others could enjoy and/or benefit from – there is nothing stopping that person from becoming professional in that field, and being appropriately rewarded and nurtured for the contribution

It is uncanny in how selling your Utopian ideal, what you describe is capitalism.

The goals would be to remove the need for human labour, to free up room for intellectual pursuits, with societal goals being driving forces. Instead of having the most apples, I’d rather have half but with double the nutritional content.

That goal is being reached through the technology you spoke of earlier, and without your grand master depopulation plan. What ever you mean by "societal goals" I assure those goals are nothing more than the goals of the individuals in that society, and no amount of goal driven planning can force an individual to adopt your goals against his will. If you want less apples with more nutritional content, plant an apple orchard and make it so! Who is stopping you?

People of the world unite? People of the world become conscious!

When they do, they will fully understand that they are not only capable of self governance, they will understand they possess the authority govern themselves.

"spread the wealth but not the work"?

I'm sure there's incredible numbers of unemployed progressives, Democrats, Republicans and people of every political stripe and hue that would love a chance to spread and share "the work" right now.