Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I have had enough...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
First, to go back to the OP, we are not all equal. We are created equal. What that means is that each person born has the equal chance to be all that they can be. Some will be street bums, and others will be executives of big corporations. Some will be military generals and some will be buck privates. Others will produce things and make millions and still others will work for the people that make the products. So no, we are not all equal. That, is a fantasy in the mind of those who don't want to make something of themselves on their own using the talents God gave them.

If the people who make the product keep the profits of making the product, the entire system will fail. read about the Mayflower Compact, America's first socialist attempt at utopia. It was the ideal model where community made and shared in the production and profit. The poor were taken care of. The result was that people did less work, the people starved, and the community switched to capitalist ideals. The society prospered, and the population increased.

If I invent a new widget that can do some wonderful thing for people and it sells big time, and I become rich. And if you stay on food-stamps and wait for the next government program and live your life in a housing project. Don't cry that we are equals, because we are not. You, me, and everyone can make the best out of ourselves if we put the effort into it. If we don't, don't blame the rich guy, he did his thing to get there.

This whole equality thing is a very bad concept as it robs people of their self worth. If I am no better than you and you decide to do nothing with your life, how does that inspire me to be something ? It doesn't. My true story goes like this. One day I got sick of having no car, no job, living on food-stamps, and getting kicked out of low income housing. So I took on three jobs and worked almost every day. Went to school and became a paralegal. With that experience I put it into private business. I went from earning zip,nada, nothing, to making over 100K in less than five years. I own a house, I have income property with tenants of my own, and two cars. I started two other businesses for people who are also very successful. And I'm not done. I'm also writing a book and will make money from it, and I am working on a widget for people to use that will make me as rich as Bill gates or better.

The difference between rich and poor, better or worse off, is this. I know I can always be better tomorrow than I am today. I look for success around every corner, and I look for opportunities. Now you can complain if you wish, and believe the " we're all equals" lie if you want to. You can join the 99% and the OWS gang if you want to. Or you can stop envying the rich and successful and be the rich and successful. The choice is yours to make. And no, we are not all equal. We may be created that way, but from there on it's up to you.




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Before I go into this...congrats on your successes. I have a pretty good job and life...but this is not what bothers me...it's not what "I" myself don't have...it's what others don't have that bothers me.

So therefore I disagree with your position.

Your position is based on a smug view of some mid twenties young adult, sitting in a basement playing video games and crying cause he thinks life is tough....you say he was created equal and never tried to make anything of himself. And...you are right...there are many-many like that..

But there are others...some in this country but more so in others that will never get that chance...never get a basic education, never have a snowballs chance in hell of ever rising out of poverty...and why is that?

Partly...it's because there are some people that can never get enough and they are so assured they themselves deserve "plenty" and "excess" they will joyfully deny others the basic fundamentals of life...just so they can say they have "more".

It may also be that there are just too many people and the animal instinct of competitiveness is too attractive to many so therefore they greed it all up and hoard it rather than share...pretty sad too.

If you base your opinion of this thread and the OP's position purely on your own experiences and do not open your eyes to the plight of the millions and billions of this world...then your opinion doesn't carry alot of weight. But the bright side is...the world is slowing opening it's eyes and waking from the slumber...tyrants are being thrown down...at least being pointed out and that is a start.

It's not just the microcosm of this country...there is a whole wide world out there and there are billions literally suffering under the boot of greed, gluttony and lust for more...

I'm happy you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps...the point is...until the "me-me-me" mindset is finally killed...there is are far more times those opportunities are not going to happen...no matter how smart and clever you might actually be.

The goal in the life of true human beings is "extinction of suffering"...those that get it....get it...those that don't...oh well....



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
In the naivety of my youth I saw that the world was filled with inequality. It permeated almost every facet of my life. I was born into a $15k/year household, which is not very much to say the least. My parents divorced when I was very young and my mother's salary was barely enough to get us by. I saw the inequality, and thought, naively that It was by honest means that the wealthy got that way. I am older now and I see that honesty is something that isn't very popular in American business. In fact I see that the very system in which business is conducted is the cause.

I am a Socialist. I believe that, as a system, capitalism is Institutionalized wage slavery. In all the patriotic songs of my childhood no word is used more than freedom. But what is capitalistic freedom? If it is the freedom to make profits from the sweat of one's brow then it is simultaneously the freedom to steal profits from someone else's sweat.

The socialism that America hears of, such as that of the former USSR (State Capitalism) and Nazi Germany (capitalistic fascism) are NOT at all Socialism. Nor is any form of government which seeks to directly control it's citizens. The usual argument against Socialism is that It will turn us into one of those systems of control.

This is not intended to persuade anyone of the benefits of socialism over capitalism. It is just me venting. I see too many people who believe that socialism will lead them into fascism, or a welfare state of lazy non-production.

The ONLY thing Socialism Wants to do is give control of the means of production to the people who actually produce it. Shouldn't the people who make the things we all use, and greatly take for granted, be the ones who profit from it?

If you would like to be persuaded of the pros of Socialism and the cons of Capitalism I would recommend these books.

The Iron Heel by Jack London

And the Granddaddy of them all...
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx



I was born into the same sort of family you were and I agree with you mate.

I don't know about the US, but we in Britain already live in a country where the government seeks direct control over it's citizens.

DEMOCRACY IS A LIE.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Corruption will kill any system of economy.If sociopaths run companies and they are trying to make us like them via media that would totally explain my existential disgust for the corporate world, having worked for them for about 20 years or so.Honesty is a hazard there.They prefer you ARENT a leader.Manager yes leader no they seem to dislike Alphas with strong hopliphobic tendencies.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Winston Churchill Held some very strong convictions regarding what he saw as the reality of socialism.

Here are a few of his more salient quotes on the subject, they are worth a moments consideration even if you disagree...


"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."


"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."


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


"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."


"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."


"You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer."


"The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong."


Winston Churchill Quotes



Lastly, a personal favorite whose is profundity can only be revealed through years lived...


"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Quotes - Winston Churchill


My two cents, take it for what you will.
edit on 13-3-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I’m a democratic socialist. Unlike boot2theface, my parents belonged to the middle class and I was raised in a comfortable and secure environment. I was strictly conservative on economic and social issues, I was nationalistic and my beliefs aligned with the Christian Right.

I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

When I first read the Bible cover-to-cover, I found that its communistic teachings did not correspond with the teachings of conservative evangelists. When I first studied the history of the United States with interest, I found a disturbing trend of wealthy capitalists oppressing workers. As I’ve traveled around the world, I’ve seen misery perpetuated by imperialist governments and international corporations and the cruel market forces worshiped at the altar of capitalism. And then, when I was thrust into the real world of sweat and pain and anxiety, I found that I could starve and no one would notice and no one would care.

I’m so sick of the smug one-liners and the lame criticisms of socialism and communism from the likes of aristocrats and capitalists. I’m also tired of the cultural conditioning that has blinded the ordinary working and middle class people of the United States to reality.
edit on 14-3-2012 by EktoPlazm because: Grammatical Wonkiness



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Good thread!

Left wing political terms have been appropriated by the capitalist class in order to confuse and divide the population.

Before WWII the working class of the World, were (arguably I guess) mostly left wing socialist, because they new what it really was (the workers ownership of the means of production). WWII wiped out and weakened that generation of working class. After WWII the propaganda machine went into full service and the new right, the new fascism, appropriated left wing terms, such as libertarianism. The new post war generations didn't learn about real socialism, which was pre-war talked about openly on the streets. It was the politics of the working class, not of world leaders hell bent on personal power and glory.

The Spanish Revolution really scared the establishment and they supported the fascists, Hitler/Mussolini/Franco, when they were killing socialists. The European establishment/capitalist class was pro-fascism, it was the ideal system for them. They used those three leaders to destroy the working class, and then established a new form of fascism, using social engineering instead of jack-boots and guns, pretty much world wide.

Most people don't realise that even the term 'capitalism' is a left wing term, and should not be defined by capitalists. But all left wing terms have been redefined since WWII by capitalists in order to weaken it's power.

'Capitalism' was a term first used by Louis Blanc, a French socialist, and he defined it as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." It was defined by Marx as "the private ownership of the means of production", the system that replaced feudalism.

The most obvious contradictions from this is 'libertarianism' in America. "Libertarian" was originally another term for Anarchism used first by Joseph Déjacque, a French anarchist, in "La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social" (The Libertarian, Journal of the Socialist Movement, aka Anarcho-Socialism, Libertarian Socialism). Anarchism is a form of socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin. (Not French lol)

Traditionally those who demanded government reform were the left wing, the right wing wanted to maintain the establishment, or even increase it's authority. If you take that into consideration, you can clearly see the motive for the right to redefine left wing terms. They have simply removed any real economic opposition they had, taken power away from you and me.

edit on 3/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


The whole reason people don't remain equal is because of money. You take away money and the equality remains. No division of classes, no hierarchies, no wars, no greed, no corruption, no starvation and far less violence.

For THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil. That should be the definition of the word truth.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Shouldn't the people that actually make the things be the ones to profit from it?

Sure... so if I have a business and make a successful product, I should profit from it.

Now... is the converse not true... The people that do NOT make the product should NOT profit from it?

So, why should the successful producer be forced to give his/her profit to someone that has manufactured nothing? In Socialism... I do not have a choice, I have to give to the less successful producer. I have to give to the individual that produces nothing.

In Capitalism I do have a choice... right or wrong, to give some, all, or nothing to the non-producer.

If you are a successful producer.... the demand for your products goes up. For me and many others... the idea is to make money. The more successful the more money. To ensure growth of business, motivation..ie profit, and to ensure the security and stability of the business... you need a profit.

This means you need help and employees. In business... the one controllable expense you have is payroll and wages. You can't control lights and water and maintainance and commodities... but you can control wages and hours worked. To make money you have to have a budget and make more than you spend. So you have to pay the employees at a marginal rate so as to control costs and show a profit.

Next, you have to determine the worth of the skills and abilities displayed by each employee. If anybody could perform a certain task... then that job gets anybody pay... minimum wage. However, if it is a specialized skill that not everyone can do... then the pay will be more as the skill is more valued.

In Socialism...from what I have seen and read... there is no diparity in pay. So a burger flipper is paid in equal and relative terms as a doctor... or an analyst... or a farmer.

So, if my super star employee is paid the same as my lackluster employee... what is the incentive to keep being a super star? Are their ideas and time not worth more pay?

And why would I start and manage a business if my least skilled employees.. that added nothing to the efficiency of the company... were paid the same as the business manager or the super star team member?

If you want to run a business that shows no profit... start a non-profit business or organization. There are provisions for those.

However, for the business person that wants hard work, long hours, lots of time management, critical and skilled thinking... and money... then start a profit driven business.

The business owner/ manager puts in long days... 10-12-14-16 hours.

Many people, customers, employees never see the early mornings planning a calender, meetings, analysing a Profit and Loss...a P+L statement... looking over applications for licenses and renewals for permits, looking at and setting up deliveries and pickups...and then the actual phyical and professionl interaction begins.

And then the evenings... answering e-mails, closing out and completing purchase orders, figuring out invoices not received, balancing books, analysing payroll, ways to cut necessary costs, tracking down parts... looking at maintainance on machinary, etc.

Most of the time the emploees only see the "rich" business owner going off on trips, a few vacations a year, long lunches... not realizing the vacation site is really an opportunity to scan and recon a potential business site, procur a supplier, and throw in some RnR on the side, and have the trip covered on taxes. Same with the long lunches...and business trips.

The employee comes in and works his/her 6-8-10-12 hours and goes home. No worries...

NOW, this is NOT to say that employees should not be compensated. A good wage to maintain a good lifesty is essential to a thriving society and economy... but they are employees. If you want the big bucks... start your own business. Most business owners I know... are rich on paper... but literally hold their business together with duct tape, baling wire, used equipment... and reall don't have that much money in pocket. And they are selling their business 24/ 7.

Such efforts are worthy of the rewards.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 


You are arguing against a fictitious version of socialism that does not exist outside the arguments for capitalism. Socialism does not necessarily promote uniformity of remuneration. Certain forms of socialism may encourage workers to vote upon remuneration and other forms of socialism may recompense according to one’s contributions to production. Thus, a “burger flipper” (that’s kind of demeaning, but whatever) who works 20 hours a week and spends the rest of his time playing video games won’t receive the same remuneration as the manager who works 50 hours a week.

Capitalism, on the other, promotes a system where those who don’t actually contribute to production may nevertheless profit more than those who pour their blood, sweat and tears into production. For example, I believe Kim Kardashian has a perfume line. Did she design the perfume? Did she produce the perfume? Does she sell the perfume herself? No. Other people did those things and yet she profits more than them, simply by virtue of her wealth.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EktoPlazm
 


Many times the person that designs something makes more than the actual production worker because they have the idea and concept... An idea or concept that the majority want and use and is thus in great demand. Further, they continue coming up with ideas that are in demand.

The production worker produces... if they had ideas that were in demand, then they would move up and make more money. The people that run the company contribute as much and sometimes more thasn the production worker because of skill and management and ability to generate profit.

So, my interpetation of socialism is wrong? People that produce do not share by law with those that do not produce?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by EktoPlazm
 


I don't really care for the Kardashians, but they have marketed themselves and have a brand that generates dollars. they have sold their name to a perfume and thus...because of their name...it generates dollars.

No, they didn't make it... but they did market and create a name that some find desirable and willing to pay for a product with their name on it. So they should profit.

If the majority do not feel they are worthy then they will not buy it... the free market dictates the success and failure of a product or product line.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Most people don't realize that capitalism is what got us into this current financial mess.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism - it's the form of it that's wrong. Plus the absence of proper checks and balances. In fact Max Keiser was saying recently that the problem is that it is not proper capitalism!
One might say the same about communism.
Both open to abuse.
We need a new system that doesn't fall into either camp.
edit on 14-3-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 



Many times the person that designs something makes more than the actual production worker because they have the idea and concept... An idea or concept that the majority want and use and is thus in great demand. Further, they continue coming up with ideas that are in demand.


Someone who produces ideas is a producer. Someone who controls resources and/or the means of production is a parasite. There is a major difference between these two individuals; one person contributes and the other is a bloodsucker.


The production worker produces... if they had ideas that were in demand, then they would move up and make more money.


Not necessarily. People may have ideas that are in demand, but they lack the capital necessary to fund those ideas. Thus, they must turn to wealthy capitalists for funding, who then take a slice of the profit. These wealthy capitalists are able to generate money only because they have money.


So, my interpetation of socialism is wrong? People that produce do not share by law with those that do not produce?


In some systems, if you don’t work, you don’t eat. In a social democracy, however, producers may be taxed and that money may be spent upon welfare for the poor, just like in the United States today.


I don't really care for the Kardashians, but they have marketed themselves and have a brand that generates dollars. they have sold their name to a perfume and thus...because of their name...it generates dollars.


Yet, Kim Kardashian wouldn’t be a name brand if she wasn’t already wealthy. She makes money because she already has money. It’s absurd!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The person or persons that controls production or the means of production is not a parasite. If a manager foresees aa downturn in the demand for a product and orders a downturn in production...that person is managing or controlling production.

If a person or persons controls the means of production or even the commodities, and foresees less demand ahead... they may lower their price to encourage the purchase of their product or commodity.

Likewise, if demand increases...they can increase the price.

I think where you and I agree is not so much on a particular system as we agree in a shortage of integrity and good business ethics.

A good business owner, a good manager... will encourage and empower their people. They will compensate them adequately because a happy employee is a good and productful employee... and a happy and productful employee means better operations, more efficient operations, and in the end... more profit... money.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 





So, if my super star employee is paid the same as my lackluster employee... what is the incentive to keep being a super star?


Nobody wants to do bad or sloppy work. It's just that sometimes other problems in their lives cloud their minds. If everyone who did work was fully compensated for the labor performed then he/she would probably churn out the most quality work possible, and do it with a smile and whistle.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 





So, why should the successful producer be forced to give his/her profit to someone that has manufactured nothing? In Socialism... I do not have a choice, I have to give to the less successful producer. I have to give to the individual that produces nothing.


No money ? No profit, No being forced and nothing to choose. I don't expect this concept to take on the form of a brushfire. I think everyone who says they should profit is completely wrong.. That's the mentality that sends human beings, children even to bed hungary. That's the mentality that sees people go homeless. That's the frame of mind that gets peoples electricity shut off. And that is where starvation has it's roots.

What if when ever something was thought of or invented by someone the honour of making a contribution to society was more than enough. Then like every other day you went home to your comfortable but not outlandish
house and family. Knowing that everyone is going to benefit from your contribution. Because as the rights of humanity go every one is simply entitled to benefit from possess or own everything that humans create.
Because why ? Simply because their human beings and are entitled to everything mankind dreams up to make himself more comfy during his brief stay. A society where everything is free is the only truely free society.
edit on 14-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by boot2theface
 




This is not intended to persuade anyone of the benefits of socialism over capitalism. It is just me venting. I see too many people who believe that socialism will lead them into fascism, or a welfare state of lazy non-production.


Oh yes, history shows that socialism does indeed lead to reduced productivity; the more you do for people, the more they expect done for them.

But before you miss the point, let's also recognize that the same affliction is found in capitalism, too. But, instead of malaise and dysfunction, there is greed and sloth.

So, what is the common ailment that destroys without regard to politics?

It's called the 'human condition' and it assures us that regardless of what path we may choose, it shall indeed always follow. Socialism is a proven failure and capitalism is in the midst of some serious death rattles as well. However, the single truth offered (in both cases) requires that we first look in the mirror in order to understand it.

This is, of course, something that neither socialists or capitalists like to do because it demands an immediate measure of hopeless, retaliatory denial.

In sum, concepts may be worthy or not in concept, but when wielded by people, you can bank on its failure regardless.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


In my personal view, those that have plenty need to voluntarily contribute to "helping" others to succeed. Don't give them fish to eat, but teach them to catch their own fish to eat. But that being said. If people believe they should have more, fine. Others do not, but see their prosperity as a blessing. As for the downtrodden, and the poor, well it's the world in which we live. But if you know there is some way you can make your life better, it is up to you, and I to do it. Not everyone will succeed, that's just the way it is in this life. But it is not the fault of those that do, nor is it just or right to take what they have worked for and give it to others who have not.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by boot2theface
 


Do not make the mistake that I think all employees need to hit home runs everyday. However, an employee needs to come to work on time, be willing to work, be able to function outside of their comfort zone, sometimes take on tasks not specifically assigned to them, and even offer initiative and ideas to make the job, workplace, and company better.

I manage a business. Nothing disturbs me more than a team member saying that "That is not my job." I pretty much take on any task...cleaning restrooms, hauling out trash... to going to the bank, meeting with big customers,and analysing the Profit and Loss sheets to see where we can tweak our business.

People that go beyond expectations get pay beyond expectations... people that do only what is expected will get only what is expected.

We all have problems, myself included. One way of addressing those problems is to ensure steady income... and most overbearing problems go on for a few days...weeks... but lackluster performance from a new hire will only go until 2 months out. I have 90 days to finalize the hire and prior to that, I can terminate the hire without reason.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join