The Greenbay Packer's Prove That Socialism Works.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by Germanicus
 


Well maybe you should read this before trying to say the Green Bay Packers are socialists...

en.wikipedia.org...

Public company does not equal socialism. Also they aren't non-profit. Sorry.
edit on 8-5-2012 by thesungod because: You posted something.


From the Wikipedia article:-

Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges. While newly purchased shares can be given as gifts, once ownership is established, transfers are technically allowed only between immediate family members.

In other words, while they're not a co-op, they're certainly not a corporation in truly conventional (or purely Capitalistic) terms, either. Given the above, I'm also not sure how you can call them for-profit.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Hey Petrus.

I am that conceding that they are not socialist


They are different though hey. Seems there is less focus on profit,more focus on the community than what you get with most Pro-sport teams.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
In the modern day Socialist are trying to redefine aspects of capitalism as socialism and take credit for it, in other words, revisionist. They do this in order to make Socialism an attractive option.

Socialism only works when people voluntarily live with it, or on the small scale. And the big problem, of course, is that socialist think that everybody must be a socialist.


Hmmm if you consider the definition of socialism, 'the workers ownership of the means of production', it makes what you say make no sense.

You have it backwards anyway. Left wing terms have been appropriated by the capitalists, socialists are simply taking our terms back.

Yes socialism is voluntary, we don't believe in forcing you to do anything. But what workers would work for a private owner, when they could work at a place where they own their own labour, and have a say in how it's ran?
That would be real choice. As it is workers have no choice but to be exploited by a capitalist owner.

Unless of course you were misusing the term 'socialism' (as appropriated by the capitalists)?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by petrus4
 


Hey Petrus.

I am that conceding that they are not socialist


They are different though hey. Seems there is less focus on profit,more focus on the community than what you get with most Pro-sport teams.


Having read what petrus posted I would agree that they are not capitalist in the true sense either. Only something like a football team could run on this modal though. The public wouldn't finance a manufacturing company without making profit.

Seems like it's not much different than a public TV station, it runs off of donations. Not a good economic model for industry.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


lol...

to answer your question sir no-

as for why?


It seems a little biased that a thread such as your is allowed to stay with sports issues and no conspiracy links whats so ever...

Now if you went on to add that several media outlets and other teams have held this against them. Or say that it has been an attempt to discredit them... then yes


or I'll even throw you a bone...

The superbowl where they lost to the Broncos has been as suspicious (to me) ...


I also disagree with your initial proposal....

Green Bay is a corporation... no socialist intent

The method of picking the initial owners was to lock-down the location...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Crack open a dictionary people...



Definition of SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


www.merriam-webster.com...

Socialism is about government. When the government controls it, owns it, and says whether or not you can have it. It's socialist, save in the context of 2a. In 2a no one owns anything. Even in Marxist theory socialism is something that never works and is only transitional in nature, until either capitalism or communism is attained by the government.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-socialist. Socialist things work and well, when not messed with. Medicare (before it got robbed), Public Education (back when we were on top before we toned everything down instead of building up), road works, most sewer systems, etc. etc. etc. If B-rock had passed Universal Healthcare like he said I'd big one of his biggest fans. But he didn't. And we got the "health care reconciliation act of 2010". How are ya'll's private insurance premiums doing? I'm on TriCare Prime, a sort of socialized health insurance plan and I love it. I have never been denied an appointment or test or screening or procedure ever.

Back to Green Bay...

My Step-Grandfather was born in Fort Atkinson, WI. He was a season ticket holder and stock holder in the Packers until cancer took him. Then my Step-Dad also born in Fort Atkinson inherited the tickets and stock. I have been to many Green Bay games and plan to go to more (Whenever he can't go I get first dibs.) I promise you the republicans (Not many democrats in WI outside Madison and Milwaukee, sorta like Texas with Austin and Houston liberal oasis's) up in the boxes at Lambeau wouldn't be thrilled with being called "social" anything.

As for non-profit...



1-Yr Value Chg. 7%
Ann. Value Chg.2 NA
Debt/Value3 2%
Revenue4 $259 mil
Operating Income5 $12.0 mil
Player Expenses6 $159 mil
Gate Receipts7 $52 mil


www.forbes.com...

Real non-profit huh? #9 on Forbes valuation. They should be dead last if they were a non-profit not get any proceeds beyond operating costs. Listen the city owns the team and takes no profits from the team because they rely on them for the tourism boom during football season, which is huge business up there.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
Socialism is about government. When the government controls it, owns it, and says whether or not you can have it.

Sort of. Socialism is a society in which the means of production are owned by the workers, either directly (co-ops, etc) or by the government on the worker's behalf. Most 'socialist' nations (certainly the ones which have lasted more than a few years) have followed the latter model, although the former has also been tried (arguably more successfully) within a capitalist mixed economy (such as in Spain: en.wikipedia.org... )


Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-socialist. Socialist things work and well, when not messed with. Medicare (before it got robbed), Public Education (back when we were on top before we toned everything down instead of building up), road works, most sewer systems, etc. etc. etc. If B-rock had passed Universal Healthcare like he said I'd big one of his biggest fans. But he didn't. And we got the "health care reconciliation act of 2010". How are ya'll's private insurance premiums doing? I'm on TriCare Prime, a sort of socialized health insurance plan and I love it. I have never been denied an appointment or test or screening or procedure ever.

Likewise, I find the NHS very satisfactory in this country (although it'll be interesting how the propsed reforms transform the thing).

Anyway, if the Green Bay Packers were actually socialist then it would be owned by its players and staff - the workers.

Being non-profit is also not a requirement for a company to be considered socialist.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod

Socialism is about government.


No it isn't. The dictionary definition is not very good at explaining what it is.

Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. It is an economic system, not a system of government.


When I say socialism I mean worker ownership of the means of production.

Socialism as the worker ownership of the means of production is quite different from socialism as defined as state ownership of the means of production. The latter differs little from capitalism. Capitalism as well as state ownership of the means of production places the worker in submission to a president, state or authority that owns the association of workers and the product of their labor.

www.gonzotimes.com...

The dictionary fails to explain that there are different forms of socialism including anarchism. If anarchism is a form of socialism then it can not be government.


Socialism is divided into three main trends: reformism, anarchism and Marxism.

www.marx2mao.com...

Even Marxists are ultimately anti-state, anti-government. As the final goal of all left-wing ideologies is free association. In Marxism the state is temporary, the transition period, that will lead to socialism and eventually communism. Marxism is not socialism, it is a political path to get there.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

Marxism is a political path to socialism, and eventually communism. Anarchism is the revolutionary path to socialism and/or communism. They were all socialists, they just disagreed on how to change from a capitalist economy to a worker owned economy, socialism. The final stage when production is raised to the point of meeting peoples needs, then the economy would become irrelevant and all resources communally owned and shared by the community, that is communism. It is stateless and government free...If you want it.

Socialism is about breaking down the authority of the state, and the class system caused by capitalism.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can't have free association with a ruling authority. Capitalism itself, without government, is an authority because it puts the production of needed resources into the hands of a minority, who control that to exploit labour to make themselves wealthy.

Capitalism is why we have government/state. Capitalists require it to protect their capital, and spread their capitalist agenda to control all forms of finance to their advantage.

To really understand socialism you need to read books about socialism, not the dictionary. I mean the dictionary says capitalism is free-market which is not true.

edit on 5/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
...or by the government on the worker's behalf.


That is not actually correct. It comes from a common misunderstanding of Marxism, which calls for temporary government ownership, which is nationalism.

Marxist socialists call for Nationalism of industry as a temporary stage, in order to increase production to overcome the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. Some socialists even believe capitalism was a necessary economic stage we had to go through in order to progress towards socialism, then communism.

The final goal of the Marxists, like all socialists, is free association of workers. You can not have free association while being governed, either by government or the economy.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Here is a good example of a company reducing employees, in order to increase share holders profits...


The direct impetus for this column is IBM’s internal plan to grow earnings-per-share (EPS) to $20 by 2015. The primary method for accomplishing this feat, according to the plan, will be by reducing US employee head count by 78 percent in that time frame.


www.cringely.com...

It's nothing but a redistribution of wealth from the workers to private owners.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
...or by the government on the worker's behalf.


That is not actually correct. It comes from a common misunderstanding of Marxism, which calls for temporary government ownership, which is nationalism.

Marxist socialists call for Nationalism of industry as a temporary stage, in order to increase production to overcome the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. Some socialists even believe capitalism was a necessary economic stage we had to go through in order to progress towards socialism, then communism.

The final goal of the Marxists, like all socialists, is free association of workers. You can not have free association while being governed, either by government or the economy.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

All correct, of course, except that socialism encompasses a broad range of ideologies, some of which involve large scale nationalisations - often intended to be temporary, sometimes not. Marxism is not the be-all and end-all of socialism.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
All correct, of course, except that socialism encompasses a broad range of ideologies, some of which involve large scale nationalisations - often intended to be temporary, sometimes not. Marxism is not the be-all and end-all of socialism.


(I apologize for the long rant, it's not all directed at you personally mate. Just one point leads to another lol)

A lot of broad range of ideologies are socialist, big difference. Socialism is one thing, 'worker ownership'. There are many different ideas of how that should be implemented and controlled. Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, etc., are all political routes to the same goal. Anarchism, in it's many different flavours, is the revolutionary, direct action, path to the same goal. Free association of producers (workers).

Marxism is not even socialism, as I said, it is a political path to socialism and then to communism. The Marxists wanted to create a revolutionary government, and nationalize industry, in order to create change from capitalism to socialism. Socialism eventually would take over from nationalism, and socialism would lead to communism (which is free association essentially). It is why in the UK the Marxists created the Labour Party, in opposition to the Liberal Party, but of course it failed to be revolutionary. The Marxists believed a worker controlled government would naturally, over a period of time, socialize the nationalized industries. A lot of industry was nationalized, public transport, coal mines, aircraft and shipping, steel, and many more, but then all sold off to private entities by the conservatives...

Former nationalised industries of the United Kingdom

Privatisation of British Rail

Of course the "Labour Party" is no longer a Labour Party, but a more liberal version of the conservative right.

People simply don't understand enough of the details of those ideologies to understand exactly what the terms mean, so terms become very generic and broad, as in everyone thinking that Marxism is socialism.

But as I said the ultimate goal of all left-wing ideology is 'free association'. If that is not the goal then it is not left-wing, and certainly not socialist. Nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. If people understood that, they would understand that anything that calls itself socialist, but is not working towards worker ownership, and ultimately free association of those workers, then they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Liberty is not possible without free-association. Anything else is control by an outside authority, state, government, or private entities. There is so much wealth in so few hands, that they become the ones with ultimate control, and capitalism allows that to happen. Then the way society is organized is controlled by a few for their own advantage. The working class is just along for the ride, we have no control over the direction society is moving, or what is happening to our economy.

The only way we can have any control over our lives is if we own the means to produce, and take away the ability for the few to control the many through economic power. The argument has always been, 'How do we do that, through politics, or through direct action?'.

edit on 5/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join