I have come to embrace Socialism!

Originally posted by Gakus

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gakus
Jesus was in fact a socialist, anyone attempting to argue otherwise is downright full of ignorance. He did nothing but preach for mankind to give and help their fellow man and to share with them as if they were their own kin.

REPLY: All past models of Socialism was giving to others by force. Jesus wants people to take care of their neighbors, and the churches to takes care of the poor, which is what happened until government, like FDR and Pres. Johnson' Great Society."


We shouldn't have to be "forced" to begin with, mankind should willingly SEEK to improve the lives of all those around us, and not just our selves. It's greed which makes something like capitalism possible.

Defending a type of ecomic system which only promotes further greed and war among its people?

REPLY: Greed??? Because someone has a dream and educates himself and works hard to achieve that dream? In less than 300 years America went from worst to first because of The Founders beliefs that individual liberty and freedom works better than anything else ever tried.... and it worked. America went from worst to first. The greed you talk about generates profits for everyone, based on peoples ideas for new goods and services, which then are made available to a free people; they can purchase or they can refuse, but it is done by their own choices and decisions. Capitalism (and those evil profits) allows America to help feed, cure and cloth the world.

ALL HAIL CAPITALISM!! without which we'd never be able to afford G4's and 100 bedroom homes, because we all really need those things to survive

REPLY: Capitalism equals freedom. We are the captains of our own ship; we can steer it towards open water and clear skies, or we can steer it towards the rocks, then expect others to pay for or build them another ship... at THEIR expense, of course.

Trying to explain freedom to many Americans is like trying to explain the concept of "wet" to a fish. But aside from that, lets take your example (complaint?) of someone having a dream or goal of owning a 100 bedroom house (the same concept applies to most anything someone might want to buy): think of all the individual "parts" that it takes to build the house; wood, steel, glass, copper, stone, shingles, oil products etc. Now think of all the people who mine/collect those materials. Then think of all the people who take the raw materials and process them from a raw material to something that can be used by another industry.
OK? Now there's a bunch of other people who take the processed materials and turn them into a finished product, like nails, screws, glass for windows to light bulbs, paint and stain, shingles, 40 different types and sizes of wood products, copper wire and plumbing, door slides, hinges and pulls. Then the landscapers use the products and services of other companies to do their job. Now think of those who design the machines and tools that make all of that possible; then those who again take raw materials to build those machines and tools. Now think of the design and raw materials again needed to build the cars, trucks and motorcycles to get the people to their jobs, and machinery to manufacture all of THOSE things.
Apply the same reasoning to the oil, materials, equipment/machinery and people who work together to produce the electricity that all of the above used to do all of that. So that terrible person who had a dream or a goal of having a house like that has helped to provide or save 20,000 jobs or more.. all for the want of one house. Each and every one from the top down... in all the different income levels made money. They all, in their own way, help those around them. The richest among us (the top two percent of wage earners) pay over 80% of our taxes, are philanthropic, and have their money in banks (they don't put it under a mattress or paper that house with it), which loan it out to others who have that silly dream of a house, or a G-4. Those rich people who educated themselves to be able to invest, design or build all of that machinery, make more than others because their efforts help the most number of people. Money (cash... dollars) are nothing more than Certificates of Appreciation. Under those rich people are all the other people who did the manual labor to do all of the other stuff. They are the ones who are hit hardest by government intervention (taxes) used mainly to sustain itself, and it's stolen every week or two from others who work for a living, who than have less to help others they feel are most in need. The ability to do all those things above is individual liberty and freedom at work, and Capitalism is what allows all of those things to happen. A true Democracy is basically nothing more than Socialism and mob rule. No Democracy in history has lasted more than 200 years, because the mob learns that they can vote themselves to receive money from those who earned it, which is where we've been headed since FDR.
Look.... read the Bill of Rights. Take notice that there are no rights that place a burden on your fellow man.
Socialism is always run by those who feel and believe that by their very existence they can make Socialism/Marxism or Communism work somehow. It is those people who never have to live in the world they created, and they place a burden on everyone by taking THEIR freedom (and, yes, money equals freedom) and distributing it to those who have put them in power (meaning a political outcome), instead of the capitalistic approach of the individual distributing it to who THEY feel needs it most, or who use it for an ECONOMIC outcome.

America at one time ran on Socialist ideals and principles, mainly because The homeland (Britain) forced them to do so. I heard somewhere that Rush read something like this on his show, but I won't link to that because it will rile up some people. So, check this link and learn: mises.org...

Originally posted by zappafan1
Quote supposed "facts" all you want to, but you still haven't answered the question of: where has it worked before? Look at Europe right now...

...most all of Europe has worked on the Socialist/Marxist model for over 100 years

What? No it hasn't.

Where do you people get this from?

Europe is as capitalist as the USA. You would understand this if you knew what socialism, and capitalism, actually is.

Socialism hasn't worked before because its not been allowed to. The capitalists have the power of the media, the police, the state in general, all we have is ourselves. This is not about a competition between capitalism and socialism and the winner is the better system. There should be no winners, or losers, only people.

People need to understand the market is NOT capitalism. Capitalism just means the means of producing goods for market are privately owned and controlled. Socialism does not get rid of markets, it just changes who owns the means to produce goods for the market. Socialism allows for a market economy that is real 'free-market', not markets owned and controlled by the few. This is what capitalists don't want you to know, they want you to think capitalism is the only way to have an economy.

Free market

The notion of a "free market" where all economic decisions regarding transfers of money, goods, and services take place on a voluntary basis, free of coercive influence, is commonly considered to be an essential characteristic of capitalism. Some individuals contend, that in systems where individuals are prevented from owning the means of production (including the profits), or coerced to share them, not all economic decisions are free of coercive influence, and, hence, are not free markets. In an ideal free market system none of these economic decisions involve coercion. Instead, they are determined in a decentralized manner by individuals trading, bargaining, cooperating, and competing with each other. In a free market, government may act in a defensive mode to forbid coercion among market participants but does not engage in proactive interventionist coercion. Nevertheless, some authorities claim that capitalism is perfectly compatible with interventionist authoritarian governments, and/or that a free market can exist without capitalism (see market socialism).

eng.anarchopedia.org...

I don't know where this quote came from. It was a signature line on a post elsewhere, but it pretty well sums up soclalism for me:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

My favoirite example is Great Britain. There had always been much envy directed at the landed class with their huge homes and large land possessions, and (eye roll) titles. But then a miracle happened: WW II. With the Germans stomping the stuffing out of London teh decision was made that the big houses would be used to house "the children." so the rich were kicked out of their houses and turned into dorm rooms.

After the war the socialists basically took over and the chancellor of trhe exchequer stated, "We're going to tax the rich until their pips squeak." (Pips refers to a decoration on a coat of arms.) So they passed a crippling inheritance tax. When a "rich" person died, much of the estate went to the state itself. Within two generations the big houses, which were expensive to maintain, were turned over to the "National Trust" (for free) The next generation was allowed to live in a wing, but after that they were out. Although there are a handful of large houses that are still owned by the original families, such as Longleat, house of the Marqess of Bath, most are in the Trust.

Meanwhile Great Britain, once the world's largest and nost successful super power, became a shadow of its former self. Having "won" WW II Britain went into a long period of decline from which it has never recovered. If you've been there recently and get out into the country, you'll see the decay. It's really sad.

Ironically, the one thing keeping Britain afloat is the tourist industry. And what to the tourists want to see? The big houses, of course. Without that tourist draw, Britain would be in much worse shape than it is. And it's still the shadows of the "rich" that are keeping the country going.

The thing is, you have to ask yourself what the "rich" do with "their" money? They either invest it in companies, save it in a bank, or they spend it. In either case that money goes into the economy. It is available as capital for others, if not the originator, to invest, and THAT creates jobs.

Right now I could expand my business. I have enough money to do it. I could hire six more people in an attempt to expand into the next state over. But I'm afraid to do it. I don't know how much money the government will confiscate from me next year. Obamacare is going to reduce my profit, which is already very low, to near zero. In fact, I'm thinking of shutting down. I'm not quite retirement age, but I can take that capital I have for expanding my business and live on it. About a dozen people will lose their jobs. I'm sorry. I pride myself in my company and my employees, but the fact is they work 8 hours a day and I work 16 and I'm getting tired of the BS, the regulations, and the sheer drudgery of making a living under an oppressive government.

I really don't have to take it any more. To hell with the socialists. I quit, and it's you who will be poorer for it.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Capitalism just means the means of producing goods for market are privately owned and controlled.

As opposed to what?

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Capitalism just means the means of producing goods for market are privately owned and controlled.

As opposed to what?

Socialism, which is the workers ownership of the means of production. The workers who do the labour own the means of production. Instead of being paid an hourly wage, workers are paid from the profits made. This increases productivity (Spain raised productivity 20% when it collectivized in the 30's) because workers are more motivated.
The harder you work the more profit the company makes. If workers slack off they risk earning nothing. Socialism doesn't make things free, it just distributes profits made from labour more fairly, which is better for all of us in the long run.

home.comcast.net...

reply to post by schuyler


You can't blame what governments do on socialism.

Government and socialism are an oxymoron.

Socialism set out to rid ourselves of centralized authority.

Many governments have claimed in the past to support the people, but in reality they don't.

The British labour party is not socialist at all, maybe liberal capitalist, but not socialist. All they do is help maintain the status quo while maintaining the illusion of political choice.

No true socialist would support the labour party. Government control is nationalism, socialism does not require nationalism, fascism does.

Remember socialism, and capitalism, are economic systems not political systems. The idea of state socialism is just one way to bring about socialism, it's not the only or the best way. The better way toward socialism is Anarchism, libertarian socialism...

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

flag.blackened.net...

No state, no government, worker ownership of the means of production.

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Socialism, which is the workers ownership of the means of production. The workers who do the labour own the means of production. Instead of being paid an hourly wage, workers are paid from the profits made. This increases productivity (Spain raised productivity 20% when it collectivized in the 30's) because workers are more motivated.
The harder you work the more profit the company makes. If workers slack off they risk earning nothing. Socialism doesn't make things free, it just distributes profits made from labour more fairly, which is better for all of us in the long run.

You've got me curious. Some questions:

What, under a free market, stops people from making this arrangement voluntarily?

What happens if a worker decides what he's doing is not for him and wants to try his hand at another line of work?

Is there any difference in what "share" of a company each worker gets? How is this determined?

What is the original source of the 20% statistic for the Spanish Revolution?

Is a person who simply wishes to sell his services, but does not want any ownership responsibility, allowed to contract his labor with someone for a consensual wage?

Is a worker allowed to work entirely for himself (farm the little plot of land his peasant family has owned for centuries, or for a more modern example, run an Internet business)?

What is the incentive to invent or to be an entrepreneur (start producing a new good or service, and take responsibility for initial organization of the "company")?

Is a state required for this arrangement? If so, what powers must this state have?

I'll probably come up with more. I still find it hard to believe that such a system can exist for more than a few years (with or without a Franco smackdown). This feeling of mine is still at the level of intuition at this point, but it just seems to me that this system would be too volatile from a human/psychological standpoint and would quickly mutate into something else (something with hierarchy).

There's something I'd like to add: good answer to my question. First time I've given a star to a "socialist" post. I was expecting your usual "democratic communist" line of "the people" or some elected representative of a central State of some sort, which I was then prepared to rip to shreds. You have actually made me think.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Socialism, which is the workers ownership of the means of production. The workers who do the labour own the means of production. Instead of being paid an hourly wage, workers are paid from the profits made. This increases productivity (Spain raised productivity 20% when it collectivized in the 30's) because workers are more motivated.
The harder you work the more profit the company makes. If workers slack off they risk earning nothing. Socialism doesn't make things free, it just distributes profits made from labour more fairly, which is better for all of us in the long run.

You've got me curious. Some questions:

What, under a free market, stops people from making this arrangement voluntarily?

What arrangement?

What happens if a worker decides what he's doing is not for him and wants to try his hand at another line of work?

The same as you do now.

Is there any difference in what "share" of a company each worker gets? How is this determined?

It depends on what the workers decide. Workplaces will be democratic and all decisions will be made collectively as to their requirements.

What is the original source of the 20% statistic for the Spanish Revolution?

Good question. I believe Orwells book 'Homage to Catalonia' I believe. Orwells personal account of his time in Spain during the revolution.

Is a person who simply wishes to sell his services, but does not want any ownership responsibility, allowed to contract his labor with someone for a consensual wage?

If its a voluntary act for both parties I don't see why not.

Is a worker allowed to work entirely for himself (farm the little plot of land his peasant family has owned for centuries, or for a more modern example, run an Internet business)?

Yes.

What is the incentive to invent or to be an entrepreneur (start producing a new good or service, and take responsibility for initial organization of the "company")?

This very rarely happens in the real world. But no one would stop you. You might have problems if you try to 'hire' people at an hourly wage. Again no one will stop you, but if workers had the choice to work at a coop they would have no motivation to work for you.

Is a state required for this arrangement? If so, what powers must this state have?

No. Socialism requires no state or government system. This is why Anarchism has traditionaly been socialist, see my post on this in this thread.

I'll probably come up with more.

Please do, I can't guarantee I have all the answers, I'm just trying to get the basics over and dispel some of the myths about socialism and capitalism. BUT before you ask any more questions please go back through the thread, many of your questions are already answered.

I still find it hard to believe that such a system can exist for more than a few years (with or without a Franco smackdown). This feeling of mine is still at the level of intuition at this point, but it just seems to me that this system would be too volatile from a human/psychological standpoint and would quickly mutate into something else (something with hierarchy).

That's why we have to be aware of it, and not let the population sink into apathy and control by those in power with a state system. Capitalism is the unnatural state, that is why it requires such a string state system for it to maintain control.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

You've got me curious. Some questions:

What, under a free market, stops people from making this arrangement voluntarily?

What arrangement?

To form a company owned by the workers.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

What happens if a worker decides what he's doing is not for him and wants to try his hand at another line of work?

The same as you do now.

So he finds some other clique of workers and begins working and enjoying the profits. What happens if there is disagreement among the new workers about whether to take on the new worker? Do they have specialized human resources workers, like we do now? What if some workers don't think the new worker's added production will offset what they lose from adding him to the share? How does such a conflict get resolved?

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Is there any difference in what "share" of a company each worker gets? How is this determined?

It depends on what the workers decide. Workplaces will be democratic and all decisions will be made collectively as to their requirements.

And if it turns out that a "worker" to manage the whole affair, make it competitive, and profitable, is worth a heck of a lot more than a widget welder, what happens? I suppose the workers may be happy to pay the "CEO" a larger wage, if he's benefitting them all.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

What is the original source of the 20% statistic for the Spanish Revolution?

Good question. I believe Orwells book 'Homage to Catalonia' I believe. Orwells personal account of his time in Spain during the revolution.

I will have to take a look. I find it hard to believe Orwell, as a visitor, had a reliable means of measuring productivity of industry. But I could always be surprised.

It's too bad there hasn't been any long-term "test" of this type of socialism. And I should add that the "capitalistic test" has produced the greatest advances in material wealth and technology in all of human history. Of course it has also led to our current situation of taxation feeding politically-connected corporations and a huge, irredeemably corrupt state, but every good thing becomes degenerate in time, eh?

Originally posted by Wally Hope

What is the incentive to invent or to be an entrepreneur (start producing a new good or service, and take responsibility for initial organization of the "company")?

This very rarely happens in the real world. But no one would stop you. You might have problems if you try to 'hire' people at an hourly wage. Again no one will stop you, but if workers had the choice to work at a coop they would have no motivation to work for you.

It might be "very rare", in that among any group of people successful entrepreneurs will be very rare, but entrepreneurship is how every major industry in the US got its start. People seem unaware that corporations do have histories, and start out as small start-ups that were wildly successful at meeting demand and grew and grew.

As for motivation, you are really assuming there. Again, drawing on my familiarity with Internet entrepreneurs and friends who have gone to work for start-ups, the workers of these small start-ups are often extremely enthusiastic, and personal friends of the owner. The "impersonality" of the large company does not really appear until a company gets very successful and expands.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

I still find it hard to believe that such a system can exist for more than a few years (with or without a Franco smackdown). This feeling of mine is still at the level of intuition at this point, but it just seems to me that this system would be too volatile from a human/psychological standpoint and would quickly mutate into something else (something with hierarchy).

That's why we have to be aware of it, and not let the population sink into apathy and control by those in power with a state system. Capitalism is the unnatural state, that is why it requires such a string state system for it to maintain control.

I'd be careful with defining what's "natural" and "unnatural". If capitalism is unnatural as you say, then time will destroy it. I've always seen socialism as more unnatural, but most socialists I've talked to are statists and it's easy to show that a centrally planned system is less natural than an organically evolved system. As to your brand of socialism, all I can say is time will tell. I am more of a libertarian than a pro-capitalist. If liberty yields your type of socialism, then so be it.

I still have my doubts that people will be "aware of it" for too long. Humans are hierarchical animals who produce power structures for themselves even as kids on a playground. Ugly as they are, states didn't come from nowhere, you know?

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

To form a company owned by the workers.

OK but what do you mean by 'under free markets'?

Socialism allows free markets. More so than capitalism.

So he finds some other clique of workers and begins working and enjoying the profits. What happens if there is disagreement among the new workers about whether to take on the new worker? Do they have specialized human resources workers, like we do now? What if some workers don't think the new worker's added production will offset what they lose from adding him to the share? How does such a conflict get resolved?

It's not a 'clique of workers', this only shows your obvious contempt.

This will be up to the workers involved. There is no blueprint for this, no rules.

And if it turns out that a "worker" to manage the whole affair, make it competitive, and profitable, is worth a heck of a lot more than a widget welder, what happens? I suppose the workers may be happy to pay the "CEO" a larger wage, if he's benefitting them all.

There will be no one person managing the whole affair. Cooperatives are completely democratic.

I will have to take a look. I find it hard to believe Orwell, as a visitor, had a reliable means of measuring productivity of industry. But I could always be surprised.

He was not just a visitor he was actively involved, along with an estimated 10 million other people.

And I should add that the "capitalistic test" has produced the greatest advances in material wealth and technology in all of human history.

For who? 80% of the worlds population live on less than $10 a day.

www.prfire.co.uk... html

I'd be careful with defining what's "natural" and "unnatural". If capitalism is unnatural as you say, then time will destroy it.

Capitalist is destroying itself. This is why we have recessions, towns turn into ghost towns, countries in poverty, war, mass prison populations.

Capitalism works for you because you are one of the lucky few.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

To form a company owned by the workers.

OK but what do you mean by 'under free markets'?

Socialism allows free markets. More so than capitalism.

It means what it means. What, in a country that is not a state despotism like USSR, is stopping 10 people from getting together, starting a business, working the business, and sharing the profits?

I understand that your brand of socialism has free markets. What I do not understand is why more cooperatives did not develop in existing free markets if it is such the "natural" system that you claim it is.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

So he finds some other clique of workers and begins working and enjoying the profits. What happens if there is disagreement among the new workers about whether to take on the new worker? Do they have specialized human resources workers, like we do now? What if some workers don't think the new worker's added production will offset what they lose from adding him to the share? How does such a conflict get resolved?

It's not a 'clique of workers', this only shows your obvious contempt.

This will be up to the workers involved. There is no blueprint for this, no rules.

My contempt is obvious because I made no attempt to hide it. I think you are showing your naïveté to human psychology. Where you see peaches and gravy, I see workers indignant that the new guy is getting more than what they perceive is his fair share, another group of workers insisting he'll sufficiently improve productivity, all of whose opinions are based on personal reasons (maybe some in the former group have a personal beef with the new guy, while some in the latter are personal friends). I don't think you're appreciating how quickly social pressures produce hierarchy and coercion in human relationships.

So yes, "clique" is exactly what I meant.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

And if it turns out that a "worker" to manage the whole affair, make it competitive, and profitable, is worth a heck of a lot more than a widget welder, what happens? I suppose the workers may be happy to pay the "CEO" a larger wage, if he's benefitting them all.

There will be no one person managing the whole affair. Cooperatives are completely democratic.

What does "completely democratic" mean? Have you ever thought that through or does it stop there?

And what if one company "democratically" elects somebody to manage the whole affair because he is strong-willed and a good leader, and his company out-produces a company that does not elect a CEO?

Originally posted by Wally Hope

And I should add that the "capitalistic test" has produced the greatest advances in material wealth and technology in all of human history.

For who? 80% of the worlds population live on less than $10 a day.

www.prfire.co.uk... html

And? 80% of the world's population do not live under a social order that began in near-economic-anarchy. This is in fact evidence of the success of economic liberty. 20% of the world's population is a big number.

I don't disagree that the world has problems, but to tie everything to the mere fact that some people had economic liberty for a while is completely preposterous. There's a whole lot more to the misery than economics. If we'd had socialism in America there'd still be starving kids in Africa.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

I'd be careful with defining what's "natural" and "unnatural". If capitalism is unnatural as you say, then time will destroy it.

Capitalist is destroying itself. This is why we have recessions, towns turn into ghost towns, countries in poverty, war, mass prison populations.

Capitalism works for you because you are one of the lucky few.

Responsibility for major country-wide recessions falls squarely on the central bank (Federal Reserve), hardly a free-market institution. War is a statist tragedy and is the opposite of free markets. Really none of today's major problems cannot be blamed strictly on "private ownership of the means of production". I fail to see how replacing this with "worker ownership" would make any difference.

I'm not even sure there's a rigorous way to distinguish between "mean of production" and any other good. And surely you are not advocating abolishing all property or you would have said so.

And yes, I'm one of the lucky few to live in a country that formerly had a free market, and I am still reaping the benefits of that market system (though the benefits are diminishing in time with the increase in state entanglement).

If it weren't for the workers, a company would not make any profit, and if it weren't for the workers, a company would not produce anything to speak of and would go out of business fairly quickly.

Why then is it an unrealistic expectation that employees are treated with dignity and respect? Why is it an unrealistic expectation that employees be compensated in a fair and just manner for the hard work that they put in for a company on an annual basis?

Sadly, it seems that the attitude most prevalent throughout the world is that employees should consider themselves lucky that they even have a job at all. Regardless of the pay or treatment that they receive in return.

I would have to ask the supporters of the current system how far they think these businesses would go in life without their employees? If it weren't for the employees, you would have no computer to type on, you would have nothing to eat, you would have no vehicle to drive, no technological advances to benefit from, no medicine to extend the lives of your loved ones, you would have no roof over your head, and you would not have clean water to drink. Essentially, you would have nothing at all if it weren't for the contribution of the average human being.

Therefore, how on earth is it unreasonable to expect that the average human being be treated with more respect , dignity and equality than the current system actually allows?

If anything, a true socialist system, one that places the power in the hands of the people, as opposed to the privileged few, offers far more freedom and equality, than the current capitalist model ever could.

Unfortunately, we have a large group of people that would rather fight against the betterment of humanity. They are actually fighting change that would better their own lives as well as billions of other human beings throughout the world, and sadly they cannot even see that. I feel they are being played and played well. They are literally fighting to maintain a system that is against their own best interests. A system that is against the majority of humanities best interests. One only need to look throughout the world to see this. It is a system that was designed to benefit the few as opposed to the many.

Thankfully, more and more people are beginning to see through the charade, and are becoming fed up with it.

Eventually, the power will be restored to the people. The very same people that make this world go round. The very same people who bust their behinds on a daily basis and receive very little in return for doing so.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


There are currently examples of this type of business in the US. It is call ESOP.

These type of companies give more of the profits back to the employee and offer them a larger stake in the decisions of the company. They are great companies to work for but sadly there are very few.

They can be operated in varying degrees.

reply to post by nvn777


I completely agree with you. It has always seemed so strange to me that a CEO/top management makes many, many times what the lowest paid worker does but is equally important to the success and operation of that business.

You take a janitor out of a business and it will eventually fail. At any level if you remove a required piece, that business will eventually fail.

Yet somehow we value the person at the top as so much more important to the success of that business. While he/she may have bigger decisions to make they are no more important than the man/woman who cleans the bathroom, or answers the phones or files the paperwork.

Every piece of a company has value or it would be eliminated. I dont think that a CEO wants to clean toilets but if they dont get cleaned(ever) his business will fail. Who would work at a business that had bathrooms with toilets overflowing or not functioning at all? How can you gain/manage customers without someone to answer the phone?

There is no reason that "the decider"(CEO) should be making 40,50,100 times the lowest paid worker.

We used to have unions in this country that helped to even the playing field but sadly the corporate propagandist has beat them to the point they are nearing extinction. This combined with free trade and global economics and there lack of regulation has really put a damper on worker rights.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

There is no reason that "the decider"(CEO) should be making 40,50,100 times the lowest paid worker.

You know I don't think it's the decider that you need to worry about. MOst times, these are smart people with a strong work ethic.

It's the trust fund babies who are the problem. These are the people who conspire against the common man in an attempt to maintain thier wealth and position.

It's the people who have inheirited thier money that are the real issue. These are the people who have been raised from birth to believe that they are better than anyone else.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I agree with you, that trust funders are dangerous. Lots of money, poor work ethic, etc. But there are also a group of wealthy that call themselves, "self made" and they can be just as dangerous. They are under this false belief that every thing they have obtained has been the result of who they are and what they have personally done. They neglect the many very advantages situations that simply come about because of luck, ie right place right time.

They feel that because THEY made it, that everyone can. And this is simply not true.

There is a small group of people who become wealthy and realize how lucky they are. They realize that many of the circumstances that allowed them to become wealthy are the result of the system, friends, family, being in the right place at the right time, along with many other factors. They are the humble rich. They usually run very ethical businesses and treat their employees much more fair than their corporate counterparts.

And it should be noted that a lot of the top wealth, 1-2% have been rich since this country was formed. You can trace the wealth of the top 1-2% back 300+ years. They are American Royalty and are what I would consider the most dangerous.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

And it should be noted that a lot of the top wealth, 1-2% have been rich since this country was formed. You can trace the wealth of the top 1-2% back 300+ years. They are American Royalty and are what I would consider the most dangerous.

Really I was unaware of that.

Old money?

What would you put thier numbers at?

I'm beginning to embrace www.road2liberty2010.com

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I shouldnt say 300yrs while some wealth does go back that far. Much of the top wealthy in the US are lineages from the early to mid 19th century.
I dont know their numbers but just take a look at some of the popular ones. Check out the lineage of the Kennedy family, the Bush family, Rockefeller family, etc. These families still hold significant wealth in this country, that was originally made over 100-200years ago.

You can find more families that are in the top% of the wealthiest who inherited much of this wealth from great, great grandparents. Granted they have invested and started new businesses with this money but this great wealth has maintained its place with their families for generations.

Kennedy Family
Bush Family
Rockefeller Family
Vanderbilt Family
Astor Family

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


Your article is quoted as saying Cuba's education system is unparalleled in Latin America, yet Castro critizizes his own system calling it a failure. Commie FAIL