It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(a) capitalist owned: One guy owns it and earns $1,000,000/year. His 50 workers are paid minimum wage $15,000/year.
(b) socialist (worker) owned: no rich guy: the 50 workers now earn his salary of $1,000,000/50 = $20,000 each.
Each worker now averages 15,000 + 20,000 = $35,000, more than double his meager capitalistic wages.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Wally Hope
No, that would then be fascism.
As long as the means of production are privately owned then it is capitalism.
Originally posted by Shamanistical
No, that would be freedom.
There's nothing wrong with privately owned businesses. I myself am owner of a manufacturing business and those are the businesses that WORK because the CEO owns and run the place. They have a personal vested interest in the business because they OWN it, it's theirs. Thus, it would be impossible for a CEO of a privately owned business to scam, steal, or defraud himself because the owner would be steal and defrauding only him or herself.
The problem in America is with publicly held/owned business. You see, the CEOs of those publicly owned businesses do not have a real personal vested interest in the company itself. They are not ruined if the business fails, not even if it fails because they walked off with all of the profits. The stock holders got the shaft because they are the owners, not the CEO, so they loose.
The only way things will work and work honestly is when the CEO at the helm OWNS the ship. Privately owned and operated. What does a CEO care if the ship sinks if they can loot the thing before it sinks. That doesn't happen when the business is privately owned .. an owner of a business can't steal or defraud themselves, that's impossible (how would that work? Take my money out of my right pocket and put it in my left pocket?).
The problem with America is PUBLICLY owned businesses.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Wally Hope
Actually, it isn't. You have forgotten all about human nature. If everybody gets paid the same, then why do anything more than the absolute minimum? How do companies get formed in your socialists paradise? Certainly no entrepreneurs arise, where is their motivation? How do new inventions come about? If the scientist/inventor sees no personal incentive, then why would he invest the time out of his life? Socialism leads to stagnation, it destroys the soul.
Yes. Forceful taking of my money. Sounds like theft to me.
Originally posted by JonoEnglish
Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by Rob37n
Because the worker deserves his wages. No person has any right to take what does not belong to them and give it to others. Communism/Socialism is the government sponsored theft of peoples' property.
Do you see all taxation as theft?
You can use html quote tags [ quote ] what you want to post as a quote [ /quote ] Just remove the spaces I put between the "quote" and the brackets "".
Originally posted by BigFrigginAl
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
See...you do not even practice what you preach...here I am, in need (of vital info) (how to insert a quote), where is my handout??? (instructions on how to insert said quote) LOL
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Privately owned businesses are exploitative. The worker is paid a fixed hourly wage, a small percentage of the wealth created. It's fine for the owner. A socialist/cooperative workplace distributes the wealth earned more fairly. The workers have more vested interest in the company because they are directly affected by it's success or failure, other than yearly pay raises or redundancy.
When a company is worker owned the workers have direct personal interest in the company. They are more motivated to work harder as it directly effects their income. In capitalism the workers is only motivated to do what they need to keep their job, if they can get away with slacking it does not effect their income.
Try again though, no one has been able to convince me of the merits of capitalism.
Originally posted by Shamanistical
First off, a worker is paid whatever wage THEY agreed to at hiring. Nobody is forced to work for less than what they feel they need, want, or deserve.
I myself have turned down many jobs in the past because they were beneath my qualifications, experience, talents, skills, and income requirements.
I've also NOT been offered jobs at wages I desired because I was NOT QUALIFIED or either not the best candidate. That's the way it is suppose to work, it's all voluntary you know. You also have the option to start your own business and run it any way you want and pay your employees whatever pleases them too. Or just work for yourself and hire nobody and keep all the net income for yourself.
Anyhow, what you seem to want already exists. If you want to share in the profit of publicly held/owned companies, buy some stock in them. You can do that tomorrow and achieve your desire to reap more rewards.
And oh yeah, if you think you are entitled to some of the profit of a publicly held business, then you must also be willing to share in the risks and losses too, because THAT is how it is suppose to work for publicly owned businesses.
As for privately owned businesses, nobody is entitled to any of the PROFITS except the owner(s) because it's THEIR capital that's invested in the business that's at risk, not any employees, and he/she can do with it as they please because it's all theirs. Period.
Have you ever tried to own and operate your own business and make a profit for yourself? THAT is how you convince YOURSELF. Why should it be someone else's responsibility to convince you of this or that? You don't seem to believe me and what I have to say, and I speak from experience. I guess you'll have to prove this for yourself and until you've sat in the CEOs seat of your own privately own business, you really don't know what you are talking about, you lack experience.
Oh, also, a JOB is NOT a RIGHT. And neither is a "desire" income. A "right" can not and must not impose a demand upon another to DO something for YOU in order to create/fulfill that (so-called) "right" for you. And besides, how can you make such demands of others? Maybe I can do the same and demand you do this and that for me. Come on, ha, make me a job I will like, and pay me what "I" have determined to be fair for me, ha. Come on, you've made such demands of others, can we not make the same demands of you?
Freedom, man, it's great for those that can handle it. Sounds like it sucks though for those that can't deal with so much freedom and responsibility for themselves and their lives.
Oh, BTW, the day I can earn a larger return on my net worth by merely depositing it in a bank than running a small business, that will be the day 28 people loose their job, I auction everything off, and put my eggs in the bank.
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Originally posted by MikeNice81
How is it ever justified to kill ten year old children and starve 10 million people to maintain luxury for the ruling elite.
That is the sort of thing that is taking place due to globalism nowadays. It's a gulag with invisible walls and if people can't see it than they can pretend it isn't there.
I'm glad you brought this up. It shows where we are currently headed.
Originally posted by amari
Because in the minds of sane Human Beings freedom is always stronger than Socialism and Communism. The operators of Socialism and Communism want to control every aspect of your life. Mankind values freedom over some one telling them what they can do every minute of the day. Yes a civilized society has laws that humanity abides by but being a totally controlled Guinea Pig in a cage is a different matter. Freedom rules. ^Y^
The recent escapes from the Kingman AZ prison have brought to light significant concerns about for-profit prison corporations in a state with the nation’s sixth highest incarceration rate and which houses 20 percent of those prisoners in for-profit facilities. The AFSC’s Caroline Isaacs has tracked the for-profit prison industry for years.
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)
There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.
Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.