It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 62
92
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
reply to post by petrus4
 


this will happen unless we learn to live as united, civil and selfless people living in a true utopia before it's too late!


I agree with this, my friend.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Siberbat
 


Did you not see the part where Capitalism is described as private - not state owned or operated?

Exactly how is a bank private when the government is paying its bills?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
btw, for anyone interested in more info on the topic of socialism (such as the OP), here's some various information on socialism, both in theory and practice, that breaks the stereotype that all forms of socialism and communism are authoritative and forced upon people by big government...

here are some links to some various socialist thinkers and their ideologies:

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - Mutualism (a form of individualist, socialist, market anarchism):

Proudhon

Mutualism

"Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought that originates in the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market."

Mikhail Bakunin - Collectivism (a form of market socialism):

Bakunin

Collectivism (Collectivist Anarchism)

"Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary[1] doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves."

Pyotr Kropotkin - Anarcho-communism:

Kropotkin

Anarcho-communism

"Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"."

some other prominent individualist anarchists who were staunchly anti-capitalist, though it is not fully clear whether they could rightfully be described as socialists, include Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, William Godwin (though he never personally describe himself as an anarchist), etc.

here's some info on known examples of socialism actually existing. the smaller scale examples lasted quite a while (with a few still in existence) and the larger scale ones, for the most part, did not last all that long only because they were crushed by force:

The Spanish Revolution
Ukrainian Free Territory
The Israeli Kibbutzim
Freetown Christiania

here's some information on worker cooperatives:

Mondragon - the largest worker coop in the world, employing over 80,000 people, larger than many Fortune 500 companies, not mentioned in the Fortune 500 (or any similar European lists) because it isn't publicly traded:

Mondragon
Workers' Self-Management, or "Autogestion", in Argentina
International Co-operative Alliance
Grassroots Economic Organizing

to the productivity, job and income security, and longevity of cooperatives:

Worker Cooperative Productivity
Collectives in the Spanish Revolution
Business Ownership by Workers: Are Worker Cooperatives a Viable Option?

as ANOK has said, socialism is defined as "common ownership of the means of production" or "worker control over the means of production". i tend to personally favor the latter definition as it is more broad while the former would actually imply that mutualism and other forms of individualist socialism do not fit into this mold. also, it is more specific in the sense that it is not necessarily the ownership of the means of production, but rather specifically the control over said means of production, that counts. in other words, if i own something in conjunction with others but have no decision-making power over it, that is not true socialism.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


Didn't read all your links...

How do you get a worker to work and have them give you the BEST of their abilities?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
reply to post by eboyd
 


Didn't read all your links...

How do you get a worker to work and have them give you the BEST of their abilities?

The whole point is that he isn't working for you. Why should he give you the best of his ability? He gives the best of his ability because he gets to keep the profit made instead of handing it over to a third party.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
reply to post by eboyd
 


Didn't read all your links...

How do you get a worker to work and have them give you the BEST of their abilities?


that's understandable as i posted quite a bit.

i am not going to claim to be a know-all end-all source on how worker cooperatives operate as i have never actually worked in a cooperative myself (i live in Los Angeles where there are zero existing worker coops currently, at least to my knowledge), but what i do know is that a lot of the same devices that exist in capitalist firms, such as a hiring and firing process, productivity evaluations, financial evaluations, etc., exist in worker coops, albeit in slightly different forms. these forms can also vary between different coops, just as they can vary between capitalist firms. market forces also have their effect, as they would in any form of socialism other than communism (as anarchist communism would be participatorily planned, in contrast to central planning and the free market). regardless of what the devices are that worker coops use to keep workers productive, evidence (which was provided in the last several links i posted) shows that worker cooperatives are, on average, more productive than capitalist firms, they ensure job and income security better than capitalist firms, and as a result of these and other factors, they survive longer on average than capitalist firms.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwolf
reply to post by Siberbat
 


Did you not see the part where Capitalism is described as private - not state owned or operated?

Exactly how is a bank private when the government is paying its bills?


Banks are still privately owned. Lot's of privately owned business have had help from the government, Harley Davidson, Ford. They are still privately owned companies. Capitalists control government for their own needs, because financially they have the ultimate power. Welfare for capitalists, the people paying to continue their own exploitation.

If they were government owned that would be nationalism is not socialism. State ownership is nationalism, as in fascism, worker owned is socialism.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
reply to post by eboyd
 


Didn't read all your links...

How do you get a worker to work and have them give you the BEST of their abilities?


If your pay check was in direct relation to profits made you would be motivated to work as hard as you can.

In the present system the worker is motivated to do the least they have to do in order to keep their job. Working harder might if you're lucky one day get you a pay raise but in the meantime your hard work is just making someone else more wealthy. If the workers owned the means of production they could either just produce all they need, poverty is only a lack of resources, or sell for profit and share that profit, as apposed to it accumulating in private bank accounts.

But working hard makes you wealthier is a myth. The real top dog capitalists come from families that have been capitalist for centuries.


There’s a myth in the US, fanned by agents of the super wealthy, that if you just work hard, keep your nose to the grindstone, you’ll be rewarded with riches. It’s an easy sell all the way around. Regular people want to believe it, and it fluffs the tender feelings of those who are rich. Work hard and you’ll succeed, everyone wins! Good luck, you’ll need it. There are more powerball lottery winners in the US than people who started in the middle class and became billionaires. But even for more moderate winners it’s just not true. I know this for a fact, I’m one of the moderate winners.

freethoughtblogs.com...

The odds are against anyone going from the bottom to the top. Get rid of the top, and the centralization of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, and those at the bottom could be far better off. This would increase production, decrease crime etc.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Risky for me to post this here...

As cold and uncaring as this may sound, my goal as a business owner/CEO is to maintain and increase my revenue. Yes its true, I don't want to pay anymore for a workers services than I have to (at a risk, I say again, with conviction I want to maximize profits). BUT this worker who knows his/her worth will demand their worth, a good owner will recognize this and create a long lasting relationship. As a CEO/biz owner/even manager for a company, I will pay for a person’s value.

In order for me to do that, I will hire the best help and pay them a wage that motivates them... Because I recognize it is with their assistance and their specific skill, because of them, my product/service is being purchased by happy customers...

It all comes down to the you and me, the individual. How do we choose to walk this earth?
One finds what they love/enjoy/get excited about. Possibly create some type of value of what it is that makes one happy, doesn't matter, either a service or a product you created. (gardening, designing, brick work, writing, taste testing, hat making, wallet making, purse making, cook, chef, bartender, computers, engineer, glass maker, model, tax person....anything). For me, I love the service industry.. So I opened up a sports bar... as a matter of fact, I documented my steps in detail and some people found value in that, and did not mind paying me for my first hand knowledge of how I opened up a bar, they asked, I did not offer. Accidentally I created another revenue stream…

Simple Transaction:
So you decide to offer your craft/love of what you do/create to the masses.
I find your craft to be useful for my needs, and I truly feel I am purchasing a fine service/product.
I tell people about your service/product. This is nothing but a positive transaction so far... Fare to say? You start to grow, then you hire the right workers (workers who truly enjoy what they do) you treat your workers the way you feel they should be treated. You pay them well, so they gladly, graciously give you the best of their ability... There's your unity.

I see money as a way to measure your input into your product/service, its value that I see and I pay you with money to show my appreciation for your hard work.... A pleased customer will never mind paying what is deserved. Money is a measuring tool, that’s all.

I like roads, bridges and public buildings and so forth, I appreciate that piece of the socialist pie, I just don't want the entire socialist pie... Both sides have some great ideas, and I don't think taking a little ideology from the left and some from the right would go against any natural law. I am for helping the sick, and I'm for helping people dig deep within themselves and go get what exists, which is greatness within themselves.

Now if I was forced to work in a wallet making factory because a socialist government said I had to. What kind of product do you think I will deliver? I wouldn't be thinking for myself, I've given up my brains/my will/my dreams for the good of humanity. That right there is nothing but a negative transaction... How can I give you value under force?

Once you find that greatness that always existed and if you decide to go solo and start a venture to sell that value and maximize profit, the end result is a positive transaction for you, your workers and the buyers.

Money isn't the root of evil. How can that be? Money doesn't come with virtue nor greed. We only hope that if people can't help, then they won't hurt...

Please don’t misconstrue my ideas as advocacy for Monsanto type corporations… This is where we need to remember, that money doesn’t come with virtue nor greed.

This is where I do feel a small piece of a socialist pie government intervention is needed…. I don’t believe in helping a company because they are too big to fail (gov interventin), but I do believe in penalizing a company because they think they are too big for their britches and to maximize profits (I believe in maximizing profits, but I won't sh-t on my neighbor or fellow man to do it.) while possibly risking our future food supply, fine them, shut them down… This is just complete wrong and it appears greed has taken Monsanto over, there is NO value in their product anymore. Their products on our shelves only means that they had to lie, steal, bribe, lobby their product onto our shelves under our noses...

Hope this makes some sense.... writing too fast to get happy hour going with a smile and gratitude…..well I can slow down, because I have a very dependable, reliable, well paid staff...


edit on 8-2-2012 by syrinx2112 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx2112
 


First off socialism is not a government, it is an economic system. It can be libertarian, anarchist, so no state or government required. No one is going to force anyone to work anywhere.

If you have no capital, and live in somewhere like China, then capitalism is forcing you to work in a sweat shop for long hour and no pay.

You see capitalism is good from your perspective of it, which is a very limited perspective. The majority of the working class does not have the fortune to work for someone like you.

So really no matter how well you treat your employees, you could pay them all the the money in the world, but the capitalist system still exists, and it will still exploit labour, and it will still create artificial scarcity. No matter how moral you try to make it the very nature of capitalism will always create unfair divisions in wealth, where some will have an abundance and some will go without. Socialism just gives those without a better chance of sharing some of the access resources we already create.


Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

www.worldhunger.org...

Give a man a fish...

This is not a personal attack on capitalists, it's an attack on the system of capitalism. It's about wanting a sustainable system that provides for our needs instead of others greed. Not all capitalists are greedy, but again the very nature of the system perpetuates greed through fear and control. The problems of capitalism go beyond simply economic ones, as the very nature of Human thought has been influenced creating hierarchical systems of control, oppression, and exploitation a normal part of our communities. As capitalism is really legalized crime, and people learn from experience and their environment, it's no wonder crime is so rampant.


edit on 2/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx2112
 


thanks for the post. it's good to hear it from the perspective of an actual business owner. i just want to start by saying that, even though i am a socialist, having actually been a republican for most of my life i naturally still somewhat sympathize with small business owners. i am actually a Crossfit trainer and the lady that i work for is the most wonderful person both as an employer and just as a person. i am currently just interning for her so no money yet, but even if i never got paid i'd still enjoy working for her. that's how good of a boss she is. i have no problem with small business owners, and while i think i'll leave the specifics of my economic theories out of this discussion i will say that i don't necessarily oppose capitalist firms existing as long as workers have an equally viable option of being employed through worker cooperatives and other similarly worker controlled firms. i still do not like capitalist firms on principle, however, i feel that given proper education and a more fair free market, based on the studies i posted links to above, more worker cooperatives will come about and the worker cooperatives will out-perform capitalist firms and so we would naturally see cooperatives become the norm in the business world. as it is worker ownership is on the rise with various types of worker ownership becoming more prominent every day. unfortunately there are various barriers to entry in the US and other problems that prevent worker cooperatives from coming into existence more readily. this is the essence of socialism.

as for these comments:


I like roads, bridges and public buildings and so forth


this is not socialism. read the discussion above. socialism is not government ownership. that has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. there is no actual word or term for that beyond "government". again, to keep it simple:

socialism is "workers' control of the means of production".
communism is a form of socialism that is based on distribution of goods according to need.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


I hear ya... I'm using the term socialist government loosely...

Worker controlled firms...hmmm... This worker controlled firm would have as its working body, all workers I am assuming? Not the CEO or management, right?

Who will manage this worker controlled firm? How will the managers/leaders be picked to manage this worker control firm? Will there be a speaker, a treasurer and all that jazz?? I am tasting union here..

Will this firm charge the company for its existence and workers?

Will there be dues from the workers to pay the workers controlled firm?

Only curious that's all.

I just come from a mindset that the human spirit is phenomenal and the "individual" should not be ignored, or given up on. People say, oh others aren’t like you, not all employees will have the same opportunity to work for a good employer... I reply with, then go to the public library, read, master what it is you love to do, and become your own boss. And learn from what you didn't enjoy working for a unfair ahole and avoid that practice... Or master your craft and go get a better job, demand more of yourself... That is all I am saying.. I will never throw in the towel on my fellow man/woman...

Nor do I want to control anybody or anything… I will pay an employee what they are worth. I will pay an employee more than another employee when they finally come to me and say, hey this is what I am worth and you've seen what I can do. Either I walk or you pay me, then I caugh it up the mulah. I will not pay for foolishness or pay person who has an I don't give a sh-t attitude.

I get your idea of socialism, I truly do… As long as your idea won’t infringe on my ability to master and utilize my skill trade with an end result of “personal” profit, then I am all for it… Either by owning a biz or working for a company….

The people I will help are the people who truly need assistance (the ill).

I will not help a person who just chooses not to work. I do conclude that some people just choose not to work… I think they find reasons, because they just don’t have it in them to work, they haven’t found the fire, the drive or hide behind past issues…. Before you come back at me for being cold, let me quickly say this: (lived in a car as a child, when in a house we went weeks with no electricity, physical abuse, divorce and so on, bad stuff that I won’t ever wish on anybody.) You see there was no reason for me to live this way. My father was a union man (no I am not blaming unions) had a union level paying job. What it was, was my dad was lazy and lacked the drive. He would not show up to work for weeks (very little hours means very little pay in paycheck.), but couldn’t get fired due to the union protecting him… You see where I am going with this, my father felt it was owed to him, he felt that the companies CEO owed him, he got so caught up in what is owed to him, that he stopped looking for the greatness in himself and neglected to raise his family, he would not give 100% at his job because he was protected.. He got lost in the drink, woman and just did not ever come around… He was lost… Now years later, we are the best of friends and he says to me, WTF was I thinking… He found his greatness, he’s a hells angel now.. I’m kidding..
For real, he is doing what he loves and is a great man. He told me the other day, I wished I knew we are all our own winning lottery ticket, we just have to go get it...

Again in a hurry, so I am typing really fast so I can wash some dishes with a smile (hope I am not jumping around too much with my thoughts.) btw: One of my bartenders just finished her biz plan to open up her own bar (she's 42), I reviewed it and I felt like a 5 year old on Christmas eve, I am really excited for her…. She has a great idea and she’s loving it… She asked me, why didn't I do this 15 years ago? I replied "you tell me" She gave me a very true answer....

edit on 8-2-2012 by syrinx2112 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx2112
 


en.wikipedia.org...

usworker.coop...

economix.blogs.nytimes.com...


This worker controlled firm would have as its working body, all workers I am assuming? Not the CEO or management, right?



Who will manage this worker controlled firm? How will the managers/leaders be picked to manage this worker control firm?


the idea is that there would be no CEO or management. some worker coops have different methods of handling jobs that require "management" decisions, such as rotating different workers through management type jobs on a regular basis, but for the most part they try to hold to the principle of one worker, one vote. each worker is also an equal owner.


Will there be a speaker, a treasurer and all that jazz?? I am tasting union here..


again, it's usually up to the firm, and if there are any such positions they would still hold to the policy of equality of decision making power and one worker one vote, so if they did those positions would be very limited in power, but as far as i know, none of the coops have such positions. all workers are equal in their power. the only authority is according to expertise and experience.

as for unions, i will agree that today's unions are horrible as they have been co-opted and have become the monsters they once set out to defeat. however, the unions of times past were actually run on the same principles as the worker coops. in fact, there is still one union in the US, and a few throughout Europe and the rest of the world, that hold to the true principles of the original unions:

www.iww.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


Will this firm charge the company for its existence and workers?


why would it do that? it operates just as any capitalist firm, except it is owned directly by its workers.


Will there be dues from the workers to pay the workers controlled firm?


worker-owners, just as shareholders in capitalist firms, make money off of profit sharing. so basically, the company's income goes to cover expenses first, then any profit left over is shared by the worker-owners based on whatever pay scale they come to a consensus on.

and again, it's not "will X happen", it is "does" it. these firms exist and actually operate in society today in competition with capitalist firms. these aren't just theoretical. this pdf (and many others like it) go into pretty extensive detail on the pros and cons of worker cooperatives, how they operate, etc:

www.extension.iastate.edu...


I just come from a mindset that the human spirit is phenomenal and the "individual" should not be ignored, or given up on.


no form of socialism ignores or intrudes on the right of the individual. the examples of communism and socialism around the world that you are accustomed to hearing about aren't actually socialist. if anything, socialism is FAR more conducive to individual wants and needs than capitalism is as capitalism allows the bourgeoisie to step all over the individuals in the proletariat.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
62 pages say capitalism is extinct like a dinosaur. The next stage is cooperativism. And my spell checker doesn't like the the word cooperativism so I'll say it again - COOPERATIVISM.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
reply to post by ANOK
 


Risky for me to post this here...


You're not taking any risk from me, at least.



As cold and uncaring as this may sound, my goal as a business owner/CEO is to maintain and increase my revenue.


The problem is, that if you're not a psychopath, but the CEO over the road from you is, he's going to get the business, and you're going to go broke. So that is one dynamic via which contemporary Capitalism is unavoidably a race to the bottom, in moral terms. It isn't intentionally that way; at least, not in the minds of the non-psychopaths. That's just how it ends up.

I think there probably are a lot of altruistically minded people whose work is organised according (to a greater or lesser degree) to Capitalist economic theory. I truthfully am inclined to view Milton Friedman as having been a demoniac, but that doesn't mean I'm going to think you, or a lot of other people are.

Also, you might want to read an earlier thread of mine about Capitalism. I have no issues at all with paying someone for a product I value, but I do have certain preferred circumstances where that is concerned.

a] I prefer paying the individual producer of the item; personally if possible. Part of this has to do with accountability; but I feel that it is good for social cohesion in other ways if the person who is selling something, and me as a buyer, are on a face to face basis. I don't mind extending that to other people in the event that I am selling something, either.

b] I don't like corporations. I think they reduce accountability, and that when a person forms one, they start experiencing pressures towards populism which they would not have experienced otherwise. Popularity becomes more important than the real integrity of the product. So again, for the most part (although not always) I try to avoid large corporations when I make purchases.

c] There is no human system in existence, the efficiency of which, is not inversely proportional to its' size; and Capitalism is no exception. I personally don't view the use of fiat currency as being divisible from Capitalism as an ideology, either. ANOK might argue with me, here; but to me, barter and Capitalism aren't really compatible with each other. Money economies also need to be small even more than Capitalist systems (that is, where workers and managers/owners/organisers of distribution aren't the same people) need to be.


I like roads, bridges and public buildings and so forth, I appreciate that piece of the socialist pie, I just don't want the entire socialist pie... Both sides have some great ideas, and I don't think taking a little ideology from the left and some from the right would go against any natural law. I am for helping the sick, and I'm for helping people dig deep within themselves and go get what exists, which is greatness within themselves.


ANOK seems to be a lot more one sided about this, but I personally don't always have issues with Capitalism as mentioned. I am primarily against globalism/internationalism, (and that is as much true for me in Socialism's case) and large scale corporatism. Both of those things to me are harmful. It is the psychopathic elements which we primarily need to deal with.

I also don't like it, as mentioned, when a corporation gets formed, and starts doing immoral or otherwise harmful things in order to be popular or purely to please shareholders.


Money isn't the root of evil.


No, it isn't. But it is a technology, and technologies generally have certain inherent biases with their use. Two of those, in money's case, are anonymity and non-locality. In social terms, that can cause serious problems. Sometimes it can be useful, sure; it just depends.


Please don’t misconstrue my ideas as advocacy for Monsanto type corporations… This is where we need to remember, that money doesn’t come with virtue nor greed.


Monsanto's agenda doesn't actually have that much to do with money at all, truth be told.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I would like to quote some passages about this incredible period called the Spanish Revolution, the true workers revolution, the anarchist and libertarian socialist uprising.
Also I want people to understand that Ron Paul is a crook for stealing the term Libertarian and turn it into a capitalist thing.




In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.





I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

en.wikipedia.org...

That was socialism.
edit on 9-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Hello Petrus,

Please share with me “your” experience with starting a business and competing with another owner/CEO and you ended up at the bottom.

Funny you say this: It happened to me some months back:
There is this other sports bar who "was" adamant on taking my customers...
This went on for about 2 months. I headed over to his bar one eve, purchased a beer and talked with the owner. He didn't know who I was. I introduced myself, he looked at me and said "What are you doing here?" I stated, I wanted to meet you and talk with you. He then says, "you here to take some ideas?" I said no, I then said, I was thinking of starting up a pool (billiards) league tournament.. Your house against my house. We swap weeks and share the customers... He looked at me, smiled and didn't think more about it, he said, YES. He then apologized. Now we are actually a team, his house against my house in Volleyball, Pool, Darts, Singing, Poker…. Our workers seem to be happy, wages are great and their tips are awesome, profits are great for the owners… It’s a win-win…. We share ideas and even at times when he is short on staff, we share.... My point is, I could either have become this other guy who is being mean in stealing my customers and do the same back to him (fueled by fear of losing business). But I totally saw it as an opportunity for ALL to enjoy.. You may say “nice and all” but what about others who are not fortunate to find a good situation. I created my situation, go create yours!

You see the situation between he and I in the beginning had a foundation of eat or be eaten without any communications between us.. Once communications and intentions were heard, felt and recognized… The frown on his face turned to a smile.

I totally hear what most are saying about big corp, I truly do…

But I will never, ever NOT try something new because my mind and others are telling me, I will hit the bottom... I don’t care of some MIT/Harvard/Ivy educated person holding 30 degrees said: I wouldn’t do that, all statistics say you will hit bottom… I have to act and give it a go…

I am stressing profit for the individual as long there is value to be measured. It can happen and it does all the time…

Don’t protect me from big corporations, I will protect myself by not purchasing any of their products because the “value” has been tainted…

I go local. Yes it is harder to do these days, but I still act on it.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


The Wiki page you linked is asking for additional citations and verifications (reliable sources.)..



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
reply to post by dadgad
 


The Wiki page you linked is asking for additional citations and verifications (reliable sources.)..


Fair enough.

First quote by French anarchist historian Gaston Leval
freedosphere.wordpress.com...

Second quote by George Orwell
ebooks.adelaide.edu.au...

Happy to assist.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join