A newfound 'right' for American workers

I do believe the program had the "right intentions". but has severely diversed off course. My mother was a widow at a young age when I was 15yrs old and left with 2 siblings. Those are what the intended purpose was for, along with disabilities.
What we have now is a sham for illegals and anyone who remotely claims a cough or sneeze. The program can stay, the scrutinization needs a severe overhaul. Half the fed workers need to be fired for allowing people onto "OUR" systems!

reply to post by mugger


Um, they were just following orders.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by eldard

Originally posted by ANOK
Capitalists are not required to create jobs,

Then require them if you want to. Wake me up if they comply.

My mistake, that should say capitalism is not requited, not needed, to create jobs as you claimed.

'Jobs' are really not what we want anyway, we want to be able to provide ourselves with resources we need for life, but your system takes those resources away, and hordes them, making them artificially scarce in order to make us work for you, to get money, to give back to you for the resources we need.

The system only benefits you, not me and the rest of the world. Your kind belong in the 1800's, your system is dieing, but you're taking us with you, and we have NO CHOICE, because your system has taken away that choice.

It's not YOUR land it's OURS.

You can have the land. Us Jewish thieves are moving to the BRIC countries and leave you Westerners to fend for yourselves. Isn't this what you want? You can own the system now.

reply to post by ANOK


I like everything you say but I also believe it's impossible in a multicultural society. In order to have a political/economic system as you describe there has to be a sense of community and belonging .. in America especially it would almost instantly turn into a fragmented system of bloodshed. We are animals first and foremost.

reply to post by Rockpuck


So for the satisfaction of your social darwinist ideology, you'd let people go hungry. Kids, their parents, grandparents, the whole lot. They don't live up to your standards (because of course, they're all "fat slobs" while you, no doubt, are the studliest o studs, an Ayn Randian aryan superman, practically) so let them starve.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

That's the kind of country you want to live in? One that punishes the needy and rewards the needless?

If so, then I have to say that you are, without a doubt, the enemy of this nation.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


No idea what your talking about .. though, I usually ignore the BS you post anyways...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ANOK

 

I like everything you say but I also believe it's impossible in a multicultural society. In order to have a political/economic system as you describe there has to be a sense of community and belonging .. in America especially it would almost instantly turn into a fragmented system of bloodshed. We are animals first and foremost.

Yes unfortunately I do realise that problem. That sense of community, and belonging, has been destroyed by this system that coerces us to compete with each other, the more desperate people become the more they turn on each other.

Poverty is the ultimate cause of that, long term poverty that spans generations.

But I'm not advocating changing anything overnight, history shows that never works. The revolution has to start at home. But as long as this system continues I can't see anything changing, its a dilemma. But if TPTB, and us, really want to see change somewhere it should be making that change now, practicing permaculture, starting collective industries etc. But there are three problems with that, TPTB would never get involved in anything like that because it is against their best interest, money makes people lazy, and no money makes people hopeless.

If you think about it the revolution has slowly been happening since the industrial revolution. There are actually successful cooperative industries etc., work conditions and pay have improved. But we are seeing all that being eroded by sending jobs overseas to places that haven't improved workers rights since the industrial revolution, and, as a result of that, the scarcity of jobs here will eventually erode workers rights also as the competition for 'jobs' increases.

The only thing is to try to get people to see what would be in their best interest, and learn to organize rather than compete. TPTB wouldn't succeed if they didn't organize, that is why we are kept in a constant state of disorganization.

reply to post by ANOK


I don't think poverty is the cause. We are animals, and we are territorial, and we are communitive. Cultures are cultures for a reason, people of a like mind, history, race, identity. Human populations are not meant to be spread over vast areas, nor are they intended to live in such large populations. For a system as you describe to work correctly (and not turn into a Stalinist nightmare) it would have to be regional and have a major population reduction.

I also wouldn't necessarily blame Capitalism .. just like the USSR wasn't real Communism, the USA isn't real Capitalism. To combat Globalism you need issolationism, nationalism .. and again, with that, multiculturalism won't work. It's a biproduct of globalism and corporatism which is what has destroyed so much progress the middle class has made in the US and Europe. If you leave populations alone in our current form, take away Globalism populations flat line .. there is no growth, the systems ballance and wealth is slowly distributed. This creates a need for an underclass .. a poverty to work for lower wages to raise the profits of corporations. Sending jobs over seas is only half of it .. importing a new lower class is the other.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ANOK

 

I don't think poverty is the cause. We are animals, and we are territorial, and we are communitive. Cultures are cultures for a reason, people of a like mind, history, race, identity. Human populations are not meant to be spread over vast areas, nor are they intended to live in such large populations. For a system as you describe to work correctly (and not turn into a Stalinist nightmare) it would have to be regional and have a major population reduction.

It's actually well know that poverty is the major cause of social unrest. Just look at the high crime areas.

www.scn.org...

Poverty is caused almost exclusively by an unequal distribution of wealth...

Poverty in South America is primarily perceived as an urban phenomenon as 70% of the population live in cities. But in the rural areas poverty has become a more problematic issue. The indigenous peasants are the poorest people. The poverty is caused due to many reasons mainly unequal distribution of wealth.

wiki.answers.com...

I could ague that capitalism doesn't work for large population either. In fact it is only really working for about 10% of the population, and that is in America....

the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

For 40% of the population it's not working at all. That is a serious unequal distribution of wealth. 10% of the country are not producing 70% of the wealth by themselves. A large amount of that 90% are the ones creating the wealth, because they are the people who labour.

I also wouldn't necessarily blame Capitalism .. just like the USSR wasn't real Communism, the USA isn't real Capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, so yes it is fully capitalist.

Communism is a system whereby money is abolished, and instead the community share from a communal supply of resources. So no, Russia was not even close to being communist.

To combat Globalism you need issolationism, nationalism .. and again, with that, multiculturalism won't work.

I disagree. Globalism is the result of capitalism, so it's capitalism that needs to be removed in order to stop globalization. No need to isolate, or nationalize.
Nationalizing is turning everything over to the government, which is how Russia was, and Nazi Germany.

It's a biproduct of globalism and corporatism which is what has destroyed so much progress the middle class has made in the US and Europe.

I agree that it is globalism, and corporatism (which are results of capitalism), that has forced people to move to other countries, but I don't see it as a problem outside of the capitalist requirement to compete for artificially scarce resources.

If you leave populations alone in our current form, take away Globalism populations flat line .. there is no growth, the systems ballance and wealth is slowly distributed. This creates a need for an underclass .. a poverty to work for lower wages to raise the profits of corporations. Sending jobs over seas is only half of it .. importing a new lower class is the other.

But that is exploitation of that 'lower class'. No one chooses to be lower class, it is a result of the unequal distribution of wealth. Why should they be exploited in order to raise profits for corporations? If these people were given the means of production, instead of being exploited for wealth that does not even benefit them, they would be able to survive, and not have to migrate.

1. You could give a man a fishing rod, and he will fish for his super. He will be a free man.
2. You could hire the man to work for you, because you own the fishing rod, but then he would have to work for you all day, and give you his pay back in order to buy the fish he caught, he doesn't benefit from the transaction. Then when you've over fished, and left the man with no rod, and no fish to catch anyway you put him in poverty. That is what has created poverty in many third world countries.

reply to post by ANOK

It's actually well know that poverty is the major cause of social unrest. Just look at the high crime areas.

Poverty is not the cause of social unrest. Mistreatment is.
Poverty is not the cause of crime. Lack of education and morals are.
I know (and have been myself) very poor people who would never raise a hand against anyone. Who would only break the law in the most dire of circumstances. Most people who commit crimes against other people are usually very uneducated, and come from families with major dysfunction.

Poverty is caused almost exclusively by an unequal distribution of wealth...

Poverty is a state of mind. Every society has had "poverty", and it's only caused by currency. A valuation of wealth. I use Ireland as an example (it's what I studied as a history major in college) under Brehon law there was wealth, power and social dynamic but there was no "poverty" in the sense that we think of today. Because it was deemed the responsibility of the local nobility to care for every person. If one did not care for the people, the people could elect a replacement .. if one governed a land of starvation, the regional nobility would often remove them themselves. Poverty it's self is unstopable in my opinion .. how you treat the poor, their social status, how they are seen by society is entirely up to us.

I could ague that capitalism doesn't work for large population either. In fact it is only really working for about 10% of the population, and that is in America....

I tend to agree.. I tend to disagree. Personally, I am a Mercantalist. (I am also a Monarchist in case you were wondering?)

Before Capitalism and Democracy education and production was reserved for the wealthy .. now? Science exploded.. take your poor Americans, Europeans etc .. how poor are they? They have electricity, cell phones, big macs .. my God, by 17th century standards our poorest poor are Kings!

And while I (and I presume you) see this as nothing more than methods of keeping the poor content in their place .. as well as the middle class.. you still cannot deny that the Capitalist society treats their poor far superior than any other currently around? The poor and lower middle class in America and Europe are nothing more than spoiled brats by comparison to their great grandparents.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, so yes it is fully capitalist.

There are many forms of Capitalism .. america is a hybrid form of Fascism. IMO anyways..

I disagree. Globalism is the result of capitalism, so it's capitalism that needs to be removed in order to stop globalization. No need to isolate, or nationalize.

Yes, I agree and disagree. Except that I also happen to know that you believe that Communism and Anarchy can co-exist and I do not. That's the only thing we disagree on, I believe. I see Communism as being Fascism, simply because it cannot exist with Government, for Government is power and wealth consolidated which is inherent to corruption. I personally believe Communism can only exist within absolute corruption (Enlightened Monarchy).

But that is exploitation of that 'lower class'. No one chooses to be lower class, it is a result of the unequal distribution of wealth. Why should they be exploited in order to raise profits for corporations? If these people were given the means of production, instead of being exploited for wealth that does not even benefit them, they would be able to survive, and not have to migrate.

In a perfect society .. another area we disagree on is that I subscribe to the belief of Human Nature which dictates we, as animals, are set in our ways. You could have a Communist paradise and Humans will exploit it for personal gain. We are a heirarchical species that desires control over our peers . .and not only that, but our internal instincts are to obey or lead, there is no inbetween....

1. You could give a man a fishing rod, and he will fish for his super. He will be a free man.

Untill I stab him in the back, steal his fish and rape his mate.

We are animals..

I truly wish I could believe what you do .. that it's possible, that Communism could exist but I simply can't. I believe in the worst of our species.

(and sorry for the spelling im on my cell and spellcheck won't work!)

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Poverty is not the cause of social unrest. Mistreatment is.
Poverty is not the cause of crime. Lack of education and morals are.
I know (and have been myself) very poor people who would never raise a hand against anyone. Who would only break the law in the most dire of circumstances. Most people who commit crimes against other people are usually very uneducated, and come from families with major dysfunction.

Again I disagree. There have been many studies that show poverty is the largest cause of social unrest.
Just because you don't raise a hand to anyone doesn't change that fact. I have always been poor myself, I live on $900 a month now in a major west coast city, and I don't raise a hand to anyone either, but I do feel the frustrations that causes others to act out. But it is not individual poverty really, it is the institutionalized poverty of communities that has gone on for generations.

Mistreatment is caused by poverty, wealthy people do not allow themselves to be mistreated. Poor people often have no choice. Lack of education, and morals, are also a result of poverty. Wealthy people can afford to be educated and have no reason to be anti-social, regardless of their morals. Are capitalists who knowingly exploit others for their own benefit the ambassadors of morality? I don't think so.

Go read any article about social unrest and you will see poverty is always there.

Poverty is a state of mind.

No, poverty is a lack of resources.

I tend to agree.. I tend to disagree. Personally, I am a Mercantalist. (I am also a Monarchist in case you were wondering?)

Mercantilism is government control of foreign trade, it's still capitalism.

Before Capitalism and Democracy education and production was reserved for the wealthy .. now? Science exploded.. take your poor Americans, Europeans etc .. how poor are they? They have electricity, cell phones, big macs .. my God, by 17th century standards our poorest poor are Kings!

This is true and I talked about this, the 'slow revolution'. But those gains are only temporary, and we're slowly being forced back to the time we didn't have those things. All the gains we have had since the industrial revolution have been from people, not authorities.

Yes we have cell phones but still most of the world lives in poverty! Cell phones, or human life?

you still cannot deny that the Capitalist society treats their poor far superior than any other currently around? The poor and lower middle class in America and Europe are nothing more than spoiled brats by comparison to their great grandparents.

But that capitalist wealth you enjoy has come at the expense of the rest of the world that is in poverty. Capitalist wealth has come from slavery, exploitation of third world lands etc. You are comfortable, and happy, but you are a minority believe it or not. This is really not about me and you though, because we are both wealthy compared to a lot of the world.

There are many forms of Capitalism .. america is a hybrid form of Fascism. IMO anyways..

No, capitalism is capitalism and capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. That is the ONLY definition that is unique to capitalism and nothing else. Fascism is capitalistic, corporations and government working together. Fascism is a political system, capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic system, anarchism is a political system. Corporations are capitalistic, globalism is a capitalist agenda.

Except that I also happen to know that you believe that Communism and Anarchy can co-exist and I do not.

The original anarchists were socialists, and communists, who were apposed to the state system. They were socialists and communists first, and only started calling themselves anarchists when the left split between supporters of the state, Marxists, and those who apposed the state who took on the term anarchist, then later libertarians, libertarian socialists, syndicalists etc., (all anarchists).

So yes they can co-exist. Those early economists were not stupid.

That's the only thing we disagree on, I believe. I see Communism as being Fascism, simply because it cannot exist with Government, for Government is power and wealth consolidated which is inherent to corruption. I personally believe Communism can only exist within absolute corruption (Enlightened Monarchy).

Communism is a system that instead of money resources are communally shared.

Fascism is a highly authoritative system where government is controlled by corporations, capitalists.

So no communism is not fascism. Communism is communism and fascism is fascism.

Why do you keep mentioning communism anyway, I thought we were talking about socialism?

In a perfect society .. another area we disagree on is that I subscribe to the belief of Human Nature which dictates we, as animals, are set in our ways.

Human history proves you wrong.

You could have a Communist paradise and Humans will exploit it for personal gain. We are a heirarchical species that desires control over our peers . .and not only that, but our internal instincts are to obey or lead, there is no inbetween....

Why do you assume communism would have to be paradise, no system is paradise just more fair than othwers.
But again I was not talking about communism. That is a different system to socialism. Socialism still uses money, and free market trade.

Untill I stab him in the back, steal his fish and rape his mate.

We are animals..

No, you are an asshole who would not be welcome in a community. I am not an animal! (LOL)

(That is what capitalists did though isn't it? Stole the land and raped the locals)

I truly wish I could believe what you do .. that it's possible, that Communism could exist but I simply can't. I believe in the worst of our species.

Not talking about communism, pay attention. Your attitude is why things are not getting better. You have the attitude of someone who is part of a community that has given up, and accepted your lot. You are powerless because you have become passive. You only see the negative in people. Empower yourself.