Charity and Unions.

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Both are tools of capitalism.I notice that many people think these are good things. They are not. Charity and Unions are bad things. Under socialism we will not need them. I know that many people that work for charities are great people with good hearts that are doing positive things. I mean no offence to these people by pointing out that they do more harm than good.I know many people that are involved with unions have good intentions and are working for the rights of the worker. I mean no offence to these people either.

Lets start with Charity.

The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

www.marxists.org...

The good people that give their time and money to 'charity' are simply perpetuating the problems that they are trying to fix. They nurture these problems and help them grow. They never achieve real genuine solutions but instead they accept the false futility of these problems and are happy to do 'what they can'. Happy to walk away with the intrinsic validation that they gain from at least trying. This is not good enough.There are real solutions to every problem. The capitalist has fooled us.People like Bill Gates love charity. It allows him to fool the public into thinking he is some great guy.Charity provides Bill Gates with access to massive tax write offs. Charity allows Bill Gates to present a positive public image when in reality Bill Gates exploits poor people ruthlessly in his quest for demonic profit margins and personal gain. People like Bill Gates are the real problem,not the kind people that mean well. People like Bill Gates make chumps of us all. The capitalist does not want to fix anything with their charity. Capitalism relies on exploitation as a means of generating profit. If the capitalist fixed all the worlds problems there would be nobody left to exploit. Charity from the capitalist is flim-flam aimed at perpetuating problems and making profit from them. Capitalist charity is designed to prevent real solutions.

Foreign Aid. Many of you would assume Foreign aid is a good thing. No it isn't. Foreign aid is the devil. Organisations like the IMF are tools of Imperialism,nothing more.The IMF is there to ensure that corrupt and incompetent governments remain complicit to the Imperial Empire. They keep people in power that have no right to be there.The IMF only wants to ensure these countries will play by the rules of the Banker and the Corporatist.The IMF does not care about people in need. They care about profit,nothing more.I know that many people like Ron Paul. He explains the whole Foreign Aid scam very well.

The real purpose of the IMF is to channel tax dollars to politically-connected companies. The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF, as both used IMF funds – taxpayer funds – to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It's a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion for the poor.

www.la.org.au...
And this is a good quote on 'Foriegn aid' - “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” -- Douglas Casey - classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
The Bankers and Corporatist are laughing at us chumps.

Capitalism also claims to encourage 'upward mobility' yet they fight it at every turn.Imperialism relies on keeping the competition down,not pulling them up.
"Imperialism-the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist,policies.
'Upward mobility' is a scam. China and India have only been allowed to get where they are because it was in the interest of the Bankers and Corporatist to allow them to.However,in relation to China and India,the Bankers and Corporatist have over played their hand. But the Bankers and Corporatist have no sovereignty and they know that they can quite easily jump ship when the time is right and simply move their wealth and assets from Delaware to China when they need to after they have destroyed the West. Most of us cannot.

I could go on but lets leave it there.




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Workers Unions.Many capitalists will point to Workers Unions and claim that they are corrupt and must be broken. Many workers will fight against this thinking that the Union is the only thing that the worker has to maintain their rights and ensure an acceptable ,safe,fair workplace. This is the genius of the capitalist oligarchy. They have us chasing our tail.
Unions are corrupt. Anybody can see that. Unions are also unreasonable and will take everything they can get. Teachers Unions are a fantastic example of this fact. It is almost impossible to fire a teacher no matter how poor they are at their jobs. The Teachers Union works for its clients,the Teachers. They do not care about the student,or work for the student. They work for themselves. The capitalist oligarchy creates this situation and allows it to happen,knowing that the greedy,self serving teacher will run right into the trap. Once the Teachers are in the trap it is easy for the capitalist oligarchy to present the Teacher and their unions to the public in a bad light. The Teacher has no comeback,they are stuck in the trap. This allows Bill Gates to come along and present himself as a saviour. He shows us 'Charter Schools'. Charter Schools look great to the public. If a teacher gets poor results they are fired. Great. They show us that Charter Schools produce better performing student because the Teacher now cares about doing a good job,every teacher will do their very best or they will be fired. Every teacher loves what they are doing because why else would they be doing it? Great. But here is the catch. Bill Gates is a capitalist. He does not care about the education of public school students as much as he would like us to believe he does. Oh no. Bill Gates cares about profit and Bill Gates cares about his Oligarchy buds. Bill Gates will produce convincing documentaries that prove to us that the Charter School is the way of the future. The only sensible way forward. But Bill Gates simply wants to privatise everything so that he and his Oligarchy buds can make money from it. Bill Gates wants to take the Public Education system and turn it into a profitable business. That's what Bill Gates wants. Nothing more. He laughs while we spin,chasing our tails. Completely bamboozled by him and his oligarchy.
Now the real problem with unions goes way back. Who would create a union? And why? I will tell you. The 'Worker's Union' is an invention of the oligarchy. They created unions to divide the worker. Once upon a time,we were all in it together. The oligarchy exploited us all as ruthlessly as possible.None of us had any rights. We were all just workers being stamped on by the iron heel of the oligarchy.When we realised that we had power together and that the worker was the overwhelming majority,the Oligarchy had to do something to divide us. They could not allow us workers to see through their illusions and bust their Trusts. So they went to the farmers,and they cut them a deal. Gave the farmer just enough to ensure they would support the Oligarchy. Next was Small Business.Again,just enough to remove them from the working majority. Next was the high skilled worker. They gave them a union and gave them better pay and fairer working conditions.Enough to ensure the oligarchy had the support of the high skilled worker. Then a union for the Tradesman.Same thing,they dangle just enough so that they now support the Oligarchy. Now they had solved the problem.The worker was divided. We were no longer the majority. The low skilled worker got nothing. There was no need to give them anything. The job was done. And so were we.

Now if you fast forward to the present. We are at the 'end game'. The Oligarchy is making its final moves.The Oligarchy has fooled all the 'workers; of the West into falsely believing that we are all capitalists.I don't care if you make 200k a year,if you think you are a capitalist you are wrong.You are a worker,just like your brothers earning nothing in manufacturing and the 'services industry' Unless you are a Banker or a Corporatist,you are a worker. Be proud of that. And we are still the majority if we would only see it. We can still bust the Trusts but time is running out. We need to come together.

Greece,Spain,Portugal are right there for us to see. The oligarchy want to privatise everything. The Oligarchy want to force Austerity on the worker. The Oligarchy want to steal our sovereignty and never give it back. Will we just sit back and let it happen? Will we continue to fall for their lies that they pump out from their capitalist duopoly media? Will we continue to be fooled by their duopoly politics? Will we continue to accept their false democracy? I say no. I say [snip] no!

We can beat them peacefully if we just come together. The worker is the majority. The worker is the power. We can beat them if we come together. We will beat them when we come together.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Disclaimer- I understand that it may blow your mind to imagine that Unions and Charity are bad things if you are a 'good person' or a worker. This is my humble opinion and I mean offence to anybody. However,this is not an opinion that I have just plucked out of the air. My opinion is based on my study of capitalism and its problems. I would implore you to look at these things further if you are interested in something beyond the Oligarchy's brand of capitalism. Use my thread as a jumping off point. Nothing is 'black and white',the Oligarchy makes sure of this.They try to confuse and bamboozle us at every turn. In my opinion,Workers Union's and Charity is just that.They are the Oligarchy attempting to confuse us,blur the lines,bamboozle us.I say lets fight fire with fire. The Oligarchy are not as clever as they think.Lets bamboozle them. Lets bust the Unions up. Thank them for it. We don't need Worker's Union's to unsure worker rights. There are better avenue's after we take back control of our governments.But we cannot allow universal privatisation of everything.We must nationalize. Nationalization is the Achilles heel of the Oligarchy. Nationalization is the thing that keeps them awake at night. Nationalization is what makes them shake.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 

All in all I agree with your assessment about the IMF, foreign aid and corrupted capitalism.
I also agree about nationalization being the centralists nightmare.
The rest about unions and capitalism itself however, is based on misconception in my opinion.

Are you from the United States?
I read a few times that conservative US Americans dislike trade unions, basically because US unions are set up disfunctional (and maybe they are corrupt, I don't know).
In contrast to this, unions in Germany work in a close partnership with the employer associations and the state, as enshrined in our institutionalized settlement of conflicts, outlined in the collective labor law, thus securing good working conditions / wages and high production quality - benefitting all of us. Unions work excellent, if you use them right.
If you used a soup plate upside down it also wouldn't work, but it's not the soup plate that is broken - you're just using it wrong.
edit on 25-4-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 


Hey thanks for reading all that and giving your opinion hey.

I guess my idea's on Union's have been formed from reading The Iron Heel by Jack London. Its an awesome book. Yes I know its fiction but its also a manual for a socialist. I have also looked further,this is a good link.
www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

But I agree with what your saying. I like your soup bowl metaphor. They are certainly not a bad thing entirely. My Grandfather was a Unionist. He had the best interest's of the workers in mind.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I somewhat agree with you.

I never fully understood why people are so against being forced (ie taxed) into giving to charities. The people on the right will say it's the church and nonprofit's role to provide things like medical care and food for families that can't afford it.

Now there is room for debate on whether a cause justifies spending but why shouldn't society have to share the cost of doing things like researching cancer?

People will point to corrupt and ineffective government decisions but there SHOULDN'T be a corrupt and ineffective government.

I think that's part of the reason why they WANT to keep government poorly run and corrupt - to avoid more socialism which would mean less money for the elite.

Same with labor Unions. I think during the 1950-1980's, they let labor unions get corrupt to turn people against them.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 





I think that's part of the reason why they WANT to keep government poorly run and corrupt - to avoid more socialism which would mean less money for the elite.


I think you hit the nail right on the head there



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
What in the world?




Both are tools of capitalism.I notice that many people think these are good things. They are not. Charity and Unions are bad things. Under socialism we will not need them.


Sorry I could not stomach to read the rest of your post. You are so wrong in your first sentence, it is not even funny.

The Labor Unions are a tool of communists and socialists. The socialist party even wants labor unions for prisoners. I suggest you do some more research and don't let any more books hit you on the head when you neglect to read them and try to put them back on the shelf.

Your thread......baseless and cooked to a crisp.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 

I'm not a socialist, as a center-right-conservative (for german proportions that is) I even oppose socialism, but I can see how you came to your conclusions.

Have you ever read about Wilhelm Röpkes model of a social market economy? You might find it interesting because of the historical context it was born in.
It was designed to aim for an economic order compatible with human freedom and is probably the best balanced system and arguably the most successfull around today.
There is no need for socialism nor unfettered capitalism with this system. Even our most conservative or leftist hardliners wouldn't change it in either direction (well, not much at least) simply because it works.
Ze pragmatic Germans care more about the numbers I guess.

*It certainly has its flaws too and its probably not applicable 1:1 to a vast country like the US.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 





Sorry I could not stomach to read the rest of your post.


I did read your post.Thankyou for your input. I sincerely appreciate your opinion. Thankyou for adding to my thread.

If you did find time to read past my first sentence you will see that my thread is not baseless in any way shape or form. I have backed it up with links and explained why I have formed my opinion's.

I can see why you would be turned off by most modern 'socialist's'. Most of them are simply bleeding heart limp wristed liberals(sorry liberals and modern day socialist's,just my humble well informed opinion). Most modern day socialist's do not understand socialism and I also find many Socialist Organisation's very suspicious.

I am the new breed. And we will show the way. If you are a conservative,I assume you will find my brand of 'socialism' to be far more threatening. Please dont be scared.If you are a worker,then we are working for you.

Please read my thread and my links before commenting further. It may help you understand.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColCurious
reply to post by Germanicus
 

I'm not a socialist, as a center-right-conservative (for german proportions that is) I even oppose socialism, but I can see how you came to your conclusions.

Have you ever read about Wilhelm Röpkes model of a social market economy? You might find it interesting because of the historical context it was born in.
It was designed to aim for an economic order compatible with human freedom and is probably the best balanced system and arguably the most successfull around today.
There is no need for socialism nor unfettered capitalism with this system. Even our most conservative or leftist hardliners wouldn't change it in either direction (well, not much at least) simply because it works.
Ze pragmatic Germans care more about the numbers I guess.

*It certainly has its flaws too and its probably not applicable 1:1 to a vast country like the US.


Thankyou for your input. I have not read anything from Wilhelm Ropke.

I appreciate the direction and will look into it.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


You seem like smart of enough person to do research and like me have many questions probably. So I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Yeah labor unions and charity organizations can be bad. I question your reference to Bill Gates though as he seems kinda cross breed as do you, anyhow, I think you might be more capitalist than you realize. Sure some of Marx's ideas were great in theory but when it comes down to it, you don't have a choice what kind of socialism or communism you get. The current structure is not purely capitalist. There is a lot more socialism then most realize. That said, we have been far removed from capitalism so please don't use that in basis for your judgement. I would recommend reading both the socialist party and communist party platforms and see where you stand as opposed to that. There are some things I can agree with, but for the most part it is filled with stuff that I would rather die than live with.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I find the Communist Manifesto to be an arrogant and aggressive appeal to the weak and desperate. But I do agree with Marx on alot. I also think some of his quotes are very funny.

"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope". -Karl Marx

Its less funny when you find that they did indeed hang capitalists. Im not for any of that.I have read alot on socialism,capitalism and communism. Its pretty much all I do.

I think there is alot of things that could work and I like your 'half breed' burn


Corporatism is the first thing that must go. That will solve alot. I know how to do it too.

When the Founding Fathers freed themselves from the British government,they were freeing themselves from the banks and corporations just as much.They knew corporations had to be kept in check.Incorperation is a privilege. Initially all corporations were selected to enable activities that benifited the public.Shareholders were only enabled to profit as a means to an end.Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy and other realms of society.They had alot of other conditions imposed on them as well,like they were not allowed to make any political or charitable donations.

Right now,the US Federal Government could preempt all 'state corporate law' under the courts current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.You could get around the Tenth Amendment and get them all out of Delaware.Corporate Personhood mocks the Bill of Rights and could also be removed.The Founding Fathers would remove it. Its not like your leaders couldnt fix things if they tried. And it could be done within your constitution.

And,I have read some of your posts. You seem like a pretty smart guy yourself.

edit on 25-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


This will be my last post tonight, then Im off to bed. Anyhow, I never understood the argument corporations are not people. They are people, though whatever they don't always serve the countries or the peoples best interest.

The founding fathers were genius though and I think someday soon America will have a similar story for the history books. Anyhow nowhere in the Constitution does it read, that the Federal Government should be the most powerful or wealthy corporation of all. But could you tell that to congress? Because they seem to think that. Apple is a good example as they are now wealthier than the Federal Government. They'd probably run the country a hell of a lot better too. Big tobacco is another example, why do you think they tax the hell out of cigarettes?

I am more of an anarchist than a communist socialist or capitalist even. Just because I believe in less government or none at all. I can take care of myself and the ones I love thank you. I do not need any input from third parties or government intervention.

The problem with democracy is that it becomes mob rule. Which leads to slavery. The problem with socialism is that it leads to communism. The problem with communism is that it is slavery.

I am all for allowing this to happen as long as it weeds out the degenerates who think they can not live without government assistance. But I digress. I believe in natural selection and if anyone is so stupid to believe that they need the government to support and feed them and rely on 24/7 then they are not doing their part and deserve neither freedom nor liberty. Self Reliance needs no government.

So anyways I think maybe there is a lot we can agree on too.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 





So anyways I think maybe there is a lot we can agree on too.


For sure. I think there is far more 'middle ground' than we are lead to believe.

Thanks again for adding. Look forward to seeing you around hey.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


An empire is an empire and it's lifeblood is the "value" of the people (in our case, money). So long as you advocate transfusions of this lifeblood into a national system, you are a great servant of the imperial beast. So I will say again that you are missing the point. You cannot effectively pass your responsibility into a commonwealth. Empires are a necessarily failing system. If you don't agree, please give me an example of when the human spirit was satiated by such large systems? And yet, everyone can see that families, friends, these are they who satisfy the desires of our hearts.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Germanicus
 


An empire is an empire and it's lifeblood is the "value" of the people (in our case, money). So long as you advocate transfusions of this lifeblood into a national system, you are a great servant of the imperial beast. So I will say again that you are missing the point. You cannot effectively pass your responsibility into a commonwealth. Empires are a necessarily failing system. If you don't agree, please give me an example of when the human spirit was satiated by such large systems? And yet, everyone can see that families, friends, these are they who satisfy the desires of our hearts.


I know what you are saying. I am a National Socialist. I am for Autarky. I like how Hitler ran Germany before WW2. He said that economy must be secondary. And that an economy must be self sufficient. In four years he turned Germany from a basketcase to the strongest economies in Europe.

I wrote a thread about it. I also wrote a thread about the four tier social system of Feudal Japan. I love that the Samuai considered worrying about money to be beneath them.

And I agree,people are the most important thing. But money does help you out as far as far as satisfying your heart. I think the Sate should do a better job of ensuring a system where all have a chance to really meet their needs.

Edit- And Im not NAZI or racist,I just think National Socialsim is the right way to go. As long as it isnt far-right
edit on 1-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


I understand your position, but it ignores the limitations of human conduct. And presupposing that we can ignore or regulate those limitations is the groundwork for failure. Simply put; When the shepherd (head) is cut off from the sheep (body) the organism ceases to be living. Nationalism of all kinds is headless beastliness.

I should add that I am not capitalist at heart, but since it is the law of nature, it is most truthful to abide by it as a baseline organization. More so, if there is to be a dispensation of equality and godliness, it must come from a system which fosters the growth of wisdom in the sheep and shepherds rather than one which automates/mandates supposedly "good" behavior. Counterfeit forms of the dispensation of godliness and equality are unable to withstand the burden of truth.

I try to emphasize that freedom is condemnation to those who are blind and, yet, is the very cherished welcoming for the wise who submit to truth. We must understand that we are servants of the divine (not to pinpoint a particular deity or doctrine except the general idea of spiritual laws - and even basic laws are spiritual), but in our rebellion, we chain ourselves down into a pig's pen while being proud that we are wearing fine clothing. I would rather live in rags by truth than live in luxury by lies. I suppose that The Matrix comes to mind a bit.

So then, I don't want to dissuade the godliness that is in you to advocate social equality, nor do I want to dissuade you from the notion of submission and unity that there is in Nationalism. My intent is to encourage us all to wisdom in recognizing that we do not need to burden ourselves with entangling man-made laws and political structures, but we should honor what is already law and foster a culture which expresses understanding by "growing" rather than by threats. - and that Nationalism is a pacifier for true unity, just as is flag waiving in general. We should submit to elders and trusted leaders, but so that they are far from us, we are headless despite appearances. We should submit to each other, but so that we are estranged, our equality is an illusion also.

Thank you for your considerate words! I hope you enjoy mine as well.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
And I just witnessed a wonderful analog to wisdom - a hummingbird passed his seed to his mate right outside my office window! Life is so gracious and righteous!



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
And I just witnessed a wonderful analog to wisdom - a hummingbird passed his seed to his mate right outside my office window! Life is so gracious and righteous!


Ha!

Its a beautiful world when you look. You have to look though.





top topics
 
3

log in

join