Communism, Socialism, and Marxism should be declared Treason:

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Actually corporation by definition is

an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

So some form of government has to authorize it. I'm sure that in an anarchist scenario there could be something that would be the same as a publically traded company but it wouldn't be a corporation. It wouldn't have the same rights as a person.

I understand those that defend capitalism but just like everything else it doesn't work. Some will say it's because it has never really been tried. It's been tried but it falls to curruption just as fast as the others.

Im not sure i see your point. All businesses are created "under law". A private business is not exempt from prosecution or taxation. What difference does it make? I think our debate is pointless.

And capitalism does and has worked. It is the corrupt governments and businesses that pay off said governments that are ruining it. And dont kid yourself. Private businesses often grease local politicians palms for favoritism. Construction firms are the worst. Give the mayor some money, and suddenly you get a contract. Same issue, lesser scale. Coroprations are not the only boogie man out there, they are simply the most visible.

reply to post by nightbringr


Then please watch the online movie "Corporation" and come back online what you think of it.
It is a runaway system, totally out of control, worse than Rome was and approaching Soviets in its close-mindedness and cruelty. The modern corporation has the same rights as an individual (titled cleverly the "legal entity"), but it cannot die, it cannot be executed etc.
As it evolved, because modern neoliberal policies removed all the chains from the beast, it has become an icon for collective psychopathic action.
If any CEO has any conscience in a modern corporation, he/she is fired.
If any investor wants to disinvest because of ethical reasons, the same is the result.
The corporation stands.
No one controls it. At least no LIVING person can any more.

Guess what kind of power does?

Originally posted by Kokatsi
If any CEO has any conscience in a modern corporation, he/she is fired.

Of course. The bottom line for these companies is profit. Nothing else. I know this, you know this, the CEOs certainly know this. Whats your point?

Originally posted by Kokatsi
If any investor wants to disinvest because of ethical reasons, the same is the result.

No its not. I have invested time and time again on the stock market. When i pull my money to invest elsewhere, a company does not fire me. How could they, im not employed, quite the opposite, they work for me (or my money).

Im not sure why you posted that all to me. I have said in my last post i agree, there are many things wrong with corporations, governments and business in general that need to be fixed. Im not disagreeing.

But as i like to do, id like to post this question to you. What would YOU do to fix the system? Most here seem to be implying that our governments are behind the wrongdoings or could fix them. And i agree. But id love to see how you would fix it. I think many anti-corporationists here want to scrap our governments and start anew. Is this what you propose? And if so i think its hopelessly naive to think any new government (especially a socialist one), to have your best interests at heart. Do you trust your government absolutely?

reply to post by moleskin

....The problem with your capitalistic society at the moment, is that your freedoms are evapourating - and those freedoms relate to the financial system. Capitalism was supposed to free everyone from Poverty... here we are many years later and its safe to say all its done is increase the divide between rich and everyone else. ...

Please use the correct word. It is CORPORATISM not capitalism. Corporatism and Fractional Reserve Banking and Central Banks are what have killed not only the USA but most other countries in the world.

CAPITALISM is about the freedom to own your own property and use your resources and labor to produce products of worth to others... THINK BARTER!

As far as I am concerned we probably should make CORPORATIONS completely illegal and also limit their size.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Im not sure i see your point. All businesses are created "under law". A private business is not exempt from prosecution or taxation. What difference does it make? I think our debate is pointless.

And capitalism does and has worked. It is the corrupt governments and businesses that pay off said governments that are ruining it. And dont kid yourself. Private businesses often grease local politicians palms for favoritism. Construction firms are the worst. Give the mayor some money, and suddenly you get a contract. Same issue, lesser scale. Coroprations are not the only boogie man out there, they are simply the most visible.

You've just proven my point. The cornerstone of capitalism is a free market. How can there be a free market if businesses are greasing palms, monopolizing or getting legizlation passed to influence the market.

Show me one example of capitalism and a large scale that has worked as written.

You are missing the point about corporations they have the same rights as citizens "under law". Of course all businesses operate under law but they don't all have the same rights as actual citizens of a nation.

reply to post by daskakik


Im not missing any point. I keep telling you im agreeing with you.

But im also asking you to show me what it is you want. Im the first to admit the system is broken, but I dont believe there is an easy fix that is fair to all.

I believe capitalism in itself is the best. Corporatism is in serious need of laws and restrictions to curb dangerous or unfair practices however. The playing field needs to be leveled, but not at the expense of free enterprise or freedom in general. If someone wants to start a business and see it grow, he should not be restricted needlessly.

reply to post by nightbringr

I was just pointing out that corporations are a construct of the right.

Also, those that say capitalism has some flaws usually miss the fact that level playing fields are not part of capitalism. Deep pockets should be left to do what they want is capitalism. It isn't a flaw, it is part of the ideology. If you don't agree with that then how can you defend it?

As for the corporation status in the US, do you realize that if it wasn't for the "natural born" in "natural born citizen" clause in the requirments as president there would be nothing technically barring a corporation from running and holding the office of president of the US.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


We are not that far apart. To be more clear I am sort of a collectivist, but recognize that others do not want to be part of a collective. I say to each their own. However, in a truly free society that protects individuals, shouldn't I have a right to form agreements with other collectivists, for our own security and prosperity? If a group of collectivists formed their own town, shouldn't they have the right to be "collectivists" without an "individualist" coming into that town using resources and then claiming they do not want to contribute?

I am a libertarian, if I can even be defined. I recognize the individual, and each individual is different. I also am all for free markets, but if a group wishes to share I see no issue in that, nor conflict with my libertarian views. I simply do not understand why individualist's want to tell me that I cannot form a group with others for my own security and prosperity by consent of others. Many libertarians though seem hell bent on telling me I am a socialist because I believe that individuals should be allowed to form partnerships with each other and provide for each others needs. They simply are so locked into their ideology that they can provide everything without the help of anyone else that they think I am a socialist. I know my limits as an individual and I know that agreements between many individuals like a co-op is freedom too. Freedom is not strictly limited to an individual if the individual desires to be a part of a group.

reply to post by daskakik


I disagree that it is inherently flawed. The current system is broke and needs fixing.

And I'll ask you one last time before I bow out: what would you do to fix it? Without any solid answers I'll assume you have all the desire to change the world, yet not a clue how to do it.

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by daskakik

 

I disagree that it is inherently flawed. The current system is broke and needs fixing.

And I'll ask you one last time before I bow out: what would you do to fix it? Without any solid answers I'll assume you have all the desire to change the world, yet not a clue how to do it.

Fix it? It's already been fixed by the ones that it serves. It works great for them, even if it leaves the rest struggling in its wake. It has always worked great for those at the top no matter what they decide to call it.

As for changing the world, I don't think it needs changing, but you are right, if I wanted to I wouldn't have a clue. How do you change human nature?

reply to post by daskakik


So. You advocate change, and most likely would like to see the current governments overthrown, yet have no idea what you would replace the current system with. Do you not see a danger in that? Do you not think it possible that something worse could take it's place?

I respect those who have real, solid plans. And I fear those who want to scrap the system and start anew, yet have no idea how. They think they know best, so if instilled as world leader, president, prime minister or whatever, they would most likely end up ruling with an iron fist, and we would have totalitarian government. I'm thinking 1984 and Big Brother. Or the Bolsheviks overthrow in Russia. Great intentions, but they ended up with a repressive, dominating regime.

Sorry. I will not trade my freedom for financial security. Freedom to me is much more important.

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by daskakik

 

So. You advocate change, and most likely would like to see the current governments overthrown, yet have no idea what you would replace the current system with. Do you not see a danger in that? Do you not think it possible that something worse could take it's place?

I respect those who have real, solid plans. And I fear those who want to scrap the system and start anew, yet have no idea how. They think they know best, so if instilled as world leader, president, prime minister or whatever, they would most likely end up ruling with an iron fist, and we would have totalitarian government. I'm thinking 1984 and Big Brother. Or the Bolsheviks overthrow in Russia. Great intentions, but they ended up with a repressive, dominating regime.

Sorry. I will not trade my freedom for financial security. Freedom to me is much more important.

I never advocated anything. I tried to point out, that in most instances, any system installed in any given part of the world was already controlled by those that had the means. This includes the US.

reply to post by daskakik


Your not advocating change?

What IS it you want? You dont like our system, but dont want to change it? That does not seem right. The point im trying to get across is, everyone wants to change the world, but most dont know what to do if they could. That is inheritantly dangerous.

Im suggesting that without a solid gameplan, its best to try and fix what we have rather than scrap it all and start anew. Now im not against starting fresh, but i would never dream of doing it without a solid plan, written down and fully planned out.

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by daskakik

 

Your not advocating change?

What IS it you want? You dont like our system, but dont want to change it? That does not seem right. The point im trying to get across is, everyone wants to change the world, but most dont know what to do if they could. That is inheritantly dangerous.

Im suggesting that without a solid gameplan, its best to try and fix what we have rather than scrap it all and start anew. Now im not against starting fresh, but i would never dream of doing it without a solid plan, written down and fully planned out.

I don't like or dislike the system. I just think that people praising capitalism don't really know what they are asking for and it is sad to see people blame socialism when it is in fact capitalism that is causing many of the problems. Here's an opinion piece about it and about the American system as it should have been kept:

Unfettered Capitalism is not Conservative!

In a pure capitalist society, the greatest "good" is the mere fact that capital is in private hands without government interference. To the capitalist, even his own national sovereignty is for sale to the highest bidder. It is through pure capitalist policies that allow foreigners to buy American real estate without even being citizens or residents here.

Similarly, it does not matter to the communist that his own national sovereignty can be sold out to the highest bidder. To the communist, as long as the "working class" or the "Proletariat" owns the means of production, then his own national sovereignty is expendable.

I don't fully agree with everything he says but it does give a different point of view.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto


I simply do not understand why individualist's want to tell me that I cannot form a group with others for my own security and prosperity by consent of others. Many libertarians though seem hell bent on telling me I am a socialist because I believe that individuals should be allowed to form partnerships with each other and provide for each others needs. They simply are so locked into their ideology that they can provide everything without the help of anyone else that they think I am a socialist. I know my limits as an individual and I know that agreements between many individuals like a co-op is freedom too. Freedom is not strictly limited to an individual if the individual desires to be a part of a group.

This^. Well said. How can we claim to support individual freedom if individuals do not have the right to form collectivities if they want to, with other individuals who also want to?

Families are a small collectivity that is interdependant. If we were to outlaw any collectivist notions and activities, we'd have to eliminate families. No marriage, no raising of children within such a grouping.

Originally posted by daskakik
In a pure capitalist society, the greatest "good" is the mere fact that capital is in private hands without government interference.

This shows the system you are quoting is completely free of government inferference. There is not one example of this in our world today, making the entire article you posted of no bearing on our current discussion.

Originally posted by daskakik
To the capitalist, even his own national sovereignty is for sale to the highest bidder. It is through pure capitalist policies that allow foreigners to buy American real estate without even being citizens or residents here.

I agree this shouldnt be allowed. NAFTA was Canadas biggest mistake in the last 20 years. Signing it allows the USA to plunder our national resources. We are abundant in fresh water, lumber and oilsands, and we should never have signed. I want these to be Canadian assets, but alas, now they are the highest bidders.

Originally posted by daskakik
Similarly, it does not matter to the communist that his own national sovereignty can be sold out to the highest bidder. To the communist, as long as the "working class" or the "Proletariat" owns the means of production, then his own national sovereignty is expendable.

Not sure that has any bearing on our discussion at all. I certainly hope no one is advocating we go commie.

And i will point at socialism all day long as the downfall of our western societies. Greece, Ireland and Spain are perfect examples. Greeces governmental beuracracy is so bloated that an entire 1 in 5 greeks are employed in governmental services. Until recently, it made more sense in Ireland to go on welfare and take handouts than to actually work a minimum wage job, you would make more money. These are obviously huge issues and breeds laziness. An entitlement mindset brought upon by handouts given to the lazy ones who do not want to work is a problem. People do not realize the value of hard work and would prefer to play World of Warcraft all the while getting their monthly welfare cheques. These same people rage against the system because they do not have money to afford expensive SUVs and trips to the Bahamas.

Can you imagine an entire country doing this? There would be absolutely no GDP, the government would have to run massive deficits to pay for the welfare state, and the economy would go into a massive recession. This is what has happened to Greece.

That being said, corporatism is in serious need of new rules and regulations to make those accountable for their companies actions. The playing field CAN be leveled, it simply takes a strong leader to take charge and make the necissary changes. It can be done and we should not lose faith or sight of the big picture.

reply to post by nightbringr


The observations about Capitalism and Communism are not mine but a quote from the link that I posted. No one said anything about going commie. It pointed out that both are dangerous to national sovereignty and both seek globalization. I take it you didn't read it.

You can point out socialism as the reason for the downfall of western societies but you would be wrong. Capitalism is the real reason. You say NAFTA was Canada's biggest mistake in the last 20 years. Well that is 100% capitalism. How can the biggest mistake not be the main reason for the current situation?

Entitlement does exist. For example, NAFTA allows companies to exploit Canada's natural resources. Are these not owned by all Canadians? If the government is selling them off to a company or to another country are you not entitled to part of that money?

Socialism and communism are ok if what you do and provide is yours and not ripped from you and given to someone who has not earned the right to have it. If our works are our own and responsibility is not shouldered by everyone and if people are rightfully punished (and not everyone punished) when they're in error then I'm fine with it.

The trouble happens when we function as a collective, when individual responsibility is not acknowledged and we're instead seen as a super-organism. That kind of society is not human.

I don't want to be hurt or stolen from because somebody else can't make good choices. That's the bottom line. If they want to screw up their life, let them. But let it be their loss, not mine too.

I'm just tired of all the parasites that use the system for their selfish benefit.

With necessity comes invention, but with handouts comes dependency and stagnation. If somebody is not good enough and doesn't pass the grade, that's their business, not ours.

As they say, a lion chasing you is the best form of exercise. Our society is forgetting this truth.

reply to post by daskakik


Well we are going to have to agree to disagree.

You keep stating over and over that capitalism is our downfall, yet never once provide any solutions. There is no point in carrying on this debate. With no solutions you are all complains, no ideas. It is so very easy to say somthing is wrong, but it takes real thinking to solve it.

reply to post by nightbringr


How can there be solutions if people don't accept the cause of the problems? I'm not even complaining about the system. I'm complaining about the OP.

You keep saying the playing field needs to be leveled. Capitalism in it's pure form says "let the market police itself". So, what you propose would be a hybrid system. That's what many have already said on this thread. It's actually what is in place which is why I'm not complaining.

You keep proposing socialistic ideas like level playing fields and restricting corporations, while all the time blaming socialism. The OP says that is treasonous and you all should be hung. I disagree and I fail to see why you don't.

That's all I got. See you around.