Brad I'm sorry I left you alone on this one again....I had no idea these capitalists were so ruthless....forgive me Comrade Mattox....the revolution shall begin again
I can't believe this thread is still going.....not that I'm complaining.
"Doesn't that imply that you may use your strip of land only in accordance to what the state (i.e. other ppl) sees fit?"
A very valid point, but how is your property protected in a capitalist state? A gov't can legally oust you from your land if they see fit right now. Currently in Canada, the gov't can evict you from your land if they think that it is in the best interest of the country, ie. Large mineral deposits. Also my land is not protected from many of the harmful pollutants that large companies often create. I know you'll probably say that in an ideal capitalist state companies would act socially and environmentally responsible but that's like me saying in an ideal Communist state so would the people.
"So property is not property at all but a loan from a government that can be infringed upon according to their wishes."
If land is a right then why in a capitalist society must I buy it? Why should I have to pay not only to "own" my land that should be a birthright but pay taxes upon it as well? Why should a handfull of people be allowed to dictate the price of this right and the availability of this right?
"Or are you saying that all rights EXCEPT property rights would still be in place? That would imply that nothing you have is yours. The clothes you wear that you bought from your salary too are just rented. In fact the very money in your pocket is just by the good will of the ppl. They can claim it as soon as they seem fit. They can also claim your brain and your very soul as theirs."
Aren't ya just being a little melodramatic Angel J/K, I don't see how you don't think this very same problem occurs in every system of gov't or social philosophy and not only Communism. If something you own is deemed essential for the survival of a society then it will be taken from you. Should a whole country suffer because of one? With capitalism one person could control all the capital within the country if they did so legally (and this is the goal of capitalism, market domination). This could be called a dictatorship. Should one be allowed to dominate the lives of so many? Should 999,999 people be outvoted by one? Who should dictate the direction and goals of society, the few or the many? Should the few tell the many what they're futures will be or should the many tell the few what the agenda is? Who should run the show? Should someone making trendy shoes be allowed to manipulate society as they see fit? How will your voice be heard in a capitalist society? Will you be allowed to help slate which land to use and how it will be developed or will corporations decide? In a communist society cures would emerge where there were only treatments because no longer would a pharmaceutical company be worrying about making money and being accountable to shareholders but would think of their job and the people....well in an ideal communist society. Okay I'm starting to veer all over the place...sorry.
"Should they agree with you, you have no right to run that company as you seem fit but rather have to by law take ppl in who would share in your material and intellectual "property"."
Yes but you would share in theirs as well. You would be paid in full by the efforts of others. You invent a car and someone in return invents a plane. You could still live in a large house, but then again so could everyone else. You could eat fancy food and go to the movies, but so could everyone else and why because they are putting as much effort into your life as your are putting into theirs. Do you think in a communist society people wouldn't want to create and work on luxuries? Also in a communist society, if the work force was large enough you might only have a twenty hour work week in order to do your bit in producing what society wants. The workers may have a say in your inventions but you also have a say in theirs. You can as easily get rid of a slack worker as they can get rid of a bad manager. Also the opportunity for personal growth is emmense in communism...Brad has already brought up the point that in communism one would be able to fish in the morning, fly a plane in the afternoon and paint at night. You could try different careers without worrying about starving. A recent poll in the states indicated that 92 percent of all Americans surveyed stated that they disliked their jobs...so why do they stay instead of finding a new career....because many of them can not afford to take a chance. In communism you'd not only be allowed to change jobs and have choices but occupational diversity would also be a necessity.
"the hand deserves the same credit for turning the pages of a book as the brain that absorbs and re-uses the gained knowledge?"
Ask a parapeligic the same question and see how they answer it. Probably trade their best thought just to be able to have feeling in one finger again.
"Yes indeed workers are needed and work couldn't be done without them. And they should take pride in that and do their jobs as well as they can. Not only for their own monetary benefit but also out of respect to themselves. But to state that they have the right to more than a job and a decent salary (to be got through their best abilities and not just cause they need the paying job), that they have in fact claim on the intellectual property of their employer is so much in breach with human rights that it makes my hair stand up on end."
If workers are a necessity for an employer then how can a worker be below their employer who is also a necessity for them? Classifying needs in order of importance is an exercise in futility because a need is something that is essential for survival. Yes one could say that without oxygen you would perish more quickly than if you lacked food, but the end result is the same. So by saying that the inventor (lets call it air) is more important then the worker (call it food) is ridiculous because without either there is no chance of survival, both are a necessity. Are not all needs truly equal in value? If there was one breath left, one glass of water left or one piece of food left which one would you choose? Would it matter?
Perhaps capitalism would work if everyone started from ground zero. Maybe if countries gave back all the land and resources they stole from people. Is it fair that I have to compete for survival against people whose riches were founded on lawful thievery? Should I have to compete against John Doe whose great-great-great-great grandfather helped take the land away from the rightful owners and profited from this and was able to pass this profit down through the generations and also onto those they deemed worthy? Should I have to compete against someone whose only claim to fortune was patronage by a gov't? Should someone of African decent, born in a poor urban society have to compete for survival against someone whose family's wealth is founded on slavery and exploitation and is born into such wealth?
Maybe capitalism isn't such a bad idea if we all started out the same....with nothing, based on nothing, because a lot of the same power and money that floats around now can be traced to some sort of corruption. Take the Kennedys for instance, the American royalty. John and Ted's father made his fortune by bootlegging and other organized crime. Many say he bought his son's way into politics with the use of money and power. Now should I be forced to compete for survival against the Kennedys? Why should they be allowed to benefit from their past when it is a criminal past? Why should their kids be allowed to have a head start in life because their great grandfather was a criminal?
Also in capitalism it is the rich still deciding what should be produced and what shouldn't. They are the ones in office and they keep it that way. How many leaders of a country are poor? So if it is the rich patronizing the rich, who is looking after the poor? You could have the greatest idea in the world and not be allowed to utilize it because a few people deem this so because they don't see how they will profit. No one gets rich without the rich okay'ing it first. They decide how much they will pay you, how well your stocks will do, if you can have a business where you'd like, if you can sell what you like, how much you have to give to them (and not just for social programs...the US spends only a fraction on social programs in comparison to military spending), where you can live, how long you may live, how well you will live. Do you think the gov't would slash most of your taxes if it went full blown capitalism? Do you think this would change in capitalism? Again why should these few people dictate how my life should be? I'd feel much better being controled by billions then being controlled by hundreds. I think we'd all be surprised to see how much really goes towards what you've deemed unnecessary social programs in comparison to everything else.
"What, and if doesn't you're on your own, huh? Or rather yet again rely on those who DO make their businesses work to support you. Where is the incentive here to MAKE it work? If you fail or not, there is no real difference except that when you succeed your earnings and profits are taken away and if you fail you GET money. You really think that ppl should be forced by law rather than by choice as it is now to take on a business partner?"
How many inventions have never seen light because of fear of failure and losing everything you have? Perhaps the lack of fear would inspire new inventions? Was it not a Socialist country that was in space first? Russia proved that it could compete technologically with a capitalist country, however their demise was the few forcing the many to produce what they saw fit and not what the people wanted.
The incentive lies in bettering your life by bettering others. Teach so that you may be taught.
Do you think that running a car company is more important than teaching children to read? How come a CEO of a car company makes more than a teacher? Was the invention of the car more important then the invention of written language and communication? In capitalism would this change? How is this possible if capitalism creates equality? I'm sure you could argue that people could strike until they get what they want but how many people do you know that could survive longer without pay then a company? Should teachers be allowed to strike until they all make as much as the CEO of General Motors? Whose more important in your eyes, the president of Nike or a 65 year old woman whose been teaching elementary students for 40 years how to read, write, do mathematics, delve into arts and helped form their social habits? Do you think she should be making the same as the president of Nike?
In capitalism would everyone be allowed to strike in order to get what they think they deserve? If police decided that they want to make 1 million dollars a year, should they be allowed to strike until they are paid that? Or are they not allowed to be capitalists and help dictate their worth? So if workers wised up and realized that they can, by sheer numbers and the will of the many, be paid the same as the inventor should they strike? Or are they not allowed to capitalize themselves? Why shouldn't everyone just go on strike until they get paid the same as the wealthiest person in the company? The only reason people don't stand up for themselves and take back their equality is because the very people they would have to stand up to also control the supply of their needs. We are the donkeys and they hold the carrot. Perhaps the whole world should go on strike until we all get paid 50 dollars an hour without companies raising their prices? I think that's fair. Or should only the inventors and the rich be allowed to dictate people's worth? Do you think that the masses of workers shouldn't be allowed to dictate how much they get paid? And if we do truly control how much we get paid in today's society then why are there so many more minimum wage jobs than there are executive jobs?
And if all the workers forced a strike until they all recieved equal pay (which could happen) then isn't that just the same as saying that because they can get it they are worth it? And if they are worth equal pay why aren't they getting it? I mean that's the aurgument for the overpaid rich, because Bill Gates can get 500 billion he is worth 500 billion. So if in theory, all workers through striking forced owner to the same pay as their employer, isn't that just the same as stating that we all really are worth the same? So why isn't it already this way? Why don't we all enjoy a comfortable life? Why cripple society by making one have to fight for their equality when you can advance it by giving everyone their equality? I hope one day people will see through the illusion of power and money and realize who really controls our society. I'm starting to babble again....hope this doesn't seem too redundant.
Ppl under socialism of course do not own great works of art, as it is the property of everybody, right? Yet again, what your talent comes up with is not your property but everybody else's. So if you are Picasso you should be glad if a museum gives you some money for your materials so that everybody is able to continuously enjoy the ingenuity of your work of course..."
Is there really a difference between you giving someone 200 dollars for paint supplies so you can do your art and they can finish building their garage or you help building their garage for the same supplies? Why do you think it would be bad for you to paint for your food and your land and your car...isn't that essentially the same as capitalism but without all this fuss about me being worth more than you or you being worth more than me. Communism just cuts out the strain of fighting for equality. Is not the paint as important as the painting? If that is true then isn't the paint supplier as important as the painter? All communism does is help shatter the illusion of worth, helps eliminate the misunderstanding that your 40 hours are worth more or less than someone else's 40 hours. If we are all equal by right of birth then why should someone elses 80 years of life be worth more than my 80 years of life? Why should someone live poorly compared to others when they have made the same effort in life? If a person that invented something becomes a billionaire are they really contributing to society or does the negetive effects of their greed outweigh the benefits of their invention? That is to say do the benefits of Microsoft outweigh the problems caused by one person controlling 500 billion dollars worth of assests? For one to have so much in a capitalist society means that many must have so little. In a capitalist society the world is only worth so much and if that is true then so is the previous statement. So if by having so much money and power it causes negetive things to happen how can one say that the "inventors" are really worth what they get when in fact they may actually be lowering the quality of society, not through their invention but through their greed. Now if you say that someone should be responsible with the money in a capitalist society and should contribute socially then what is the sense of having capitalism? If you say that after 1 billion dollars a person should give back to society then isn't that trying to put a cap on the very idea of capitalism. And if there is no "cap" on capitalism then shouldn't one strive to own everything. If one shouldn't then why bother with capitalism? The whole point of capitalism is to make as much profit as you can....so should one person be allowed to posess all the riches of the world....no of course not and I'm pretty sure you will agree with that....so if they shouldn't then why are you so in love with capitalism? That is to say that one person should be allowed to make as much money legally as they want thereby introducing the notion that one could possess all the wealth in the world yet they should not be allowed at the same time. Also if you tried to stop monopolies then once again you are moving away from capitalism, you are putting a limit on how successful they may be and you are taking away their capitalistic right to play with supply and demand. That would be the same as saying you can only own so much, how can that be true capitalism then??? It would make no sense to create a society where one could have all while many had nothing. To me that is not a society....whoaaa, this is getting to be a long response....sorry.
"So if you want to survive you must first of all give in order to receive?"
Don't you have to work first before you get paid in a capitalist society?
" Like if you are a farmer you are not allowed to first take food off your land for yourself but rather have to sell ALL your products and then see what society gives back to you as a little loan for your effort in feeding them?"
You make it sound like there would be two carrots for thousands of people....why would you care about giving out your food if there was an abundance of it? You make it sound like the world can't produce enough food unless people pay for it....Canada alone intentionally rots enough grain each year to probably feed most of the world. We give so much of it away, (but not even close to what we waste), instead of putting it on the market. WHy? Because of foolish trade agreements saying that we'll get lower tariffs on other items if we don't sell so much grain....can ya believe that??? So why do you think that a farmer would struggle so and he be left with nothing? The farmer would also get to share the crops of other farmers. You're looking at communism as the individual working for society when in fact it is actually society working for the individual. Why do you think that everyone wouldn't be well fed and well clothed and have a good roof over their heads? I mean isn't that the large part of the American Dream equation? In communism production could not only be just as high but even more effecient thereby causing lower working hours and more leisure time without a decrease in living standards....isn't that what everyone works for anyways....to be able to make enough money so that they can have the freedom to relax and enjoy life??? Isn't that the American Dream?
Just think of what communism would do...it would eliminate all those pesky telemarketers, junk mail and those stubborn bills would be a thing of the past...isn't that alone enough to make ya wanna switch
"Listen you childless hard working neighbour of mine. I brought into this world a wonderful present to society in form of 15 children. I therefore command you to give me your money for this wonderful gift as a reward for my having these kids and bringing them up in the first place."
But you're forgetting that in a communist country those 15 children will grow up to work for your benefit. Them working for you because you have worked for them. The quality of life for the elderly would be tremendous in a communist society...a lot better than it is today, you wouldn't have the elderly who worked all their life living in poverty.
Also what about crime?...hard to say but in communism why would someone steal something they already have? Why would someone steal something if they knew it would just cause them more work later to replace? Why would someone kill you for something they already have?
"But as to "knowing your idea better than others" I am afraid it doesn't take an Einstein to understand how to run a paper shop."
No Einstein probably couldn't run a paper shop....but he sure used a lot of paper. It does however take a person experienced in paper production to run a paper shop. If you owned a paper production plant would you hire a manager that has never even seen how paper is made or would you hire someone who has mastered all levels of paper production? Why do you think this would change in communism? Why do you think that the people wouldn't want the most effecient person organizing the work detail? Why wouldn't you as a worker want someone there who knows the most about what you are doing?
"Only physicists and mathematicians maybe can claim to understand their idea better than others do."
Then how does one scientist surpass the other?
" what a rosy world you dream of Brad…"
I couldn't agree more
"Yes but only one person had the initial idea. Again, why should an idea become public property just cause it gives other ppl work?"
But why should the work of many become the property of one individual who had a thought that wasn't even totally original. You may say it's because the individual is taking all the risks, but what about the person who goes to work for a company....what if your idea fails and they are out of work as well....the have their livelyhood at stake as well yet they don't always prosper with the company.
"Yeah cause we are all children who need to be given pocket money by our parent "mother state"."
There is no mother state....you are the mother state in a communist society. If you abuse the system in a communist society you are only abusing yourself. You could not get ahead by cheating the system or manipulating the system to your whims because you will not superceed your neighbour as far as monetary worth is concerned. It would be in society's best interest to protect your interests and in your best interest to protect society's interests. You could have your cake and eat it too.
"In capitalism you either work or drown."
I'll tell that to the middle class who have lost everything due to stock and currency manipulation by the greedy and the wealthy. There are a few people out there who due to their buying power can crush a company with one phone call and control the dollar value of a whole country....and they often play god for a few more dollars. I'll also tell that to the 3200 people who were just laid off by The CIBC (Canadian Bank) as their reward for helping break profit records once again this year, you're right those lazy bastards should drown. Or maybe I'll swing by my old job and apoligize to my boss for not working hard enough...cause that must be the real reason he laid me off....ohhh, I forgot I'd have to fly to Hawai to see him in his new mansion that he bought. Maybe after that we could go to Flint Michigan and tell the people there that the reason GM left was because they weren't working hard enough so they must drown too.....mmmmmm....kinda funny that robbery/murders/substance abuse and all sorts of other goodies skyrocketed after the plants all left town....kinda funny too that GM was posting record profits when they left....Flint went from not even being on the list of "Worst Places in America To Live" to the number one spot in only a few short years, I guess the ranking system must've flooded their market with new companies just waiting to move into that town and they couldn't decide which company to let in so they choose none....what a rosey world you paint....can I borrow those petal glasses please so I may see the beauty you see In communism there wouldn't be the worse place to live because the standard of living would be the same across the board.
"You are rewarded for ability and effort."
Please refer to my examples above.
"In socialism you are rewarded according to your need."
In socialism you are still rewarded by your work...productivity is productivity in both capitalism and communism. One however rewards you with equality and the other rewards you with a rank based on someone else's opinion of your worth.
"Why work if you can just have more kids instead?"
So I take it that is your dream in life....someone to pay you for making babies? Are you the only one with goals? If you lived in a communist society do you think you'd want to just sit around and have babies? Why do you think that is what others would want? You are assuming that all people are lazy and want nothing more out of life other than to sit around.....I guess that's why we all post here without being paid for it.....and I guess that's why Ron has generously set up this place....Yep I guess we are all just motivated by money.
"And yes I agree owners who do not work are as much looters and moochers as the persons living of welfare cause they can."
Then what's the point of capitalism if you can't sit back and enjoy your wealth? I mean if they make enough money off of their idea then why should they work if they don't want to? How are they abusing the system if they are succeeding in the constraints of the system? Why invent a car if you can't sit back and enjoy the wealth from the invention? Your idea of capitalism is kinda getting foggy. In one hand you are saying a person should be allowed to get super rich and enjoy all the benefits of wealth while in the other hand you are saying that you abuse the system if you don't remain as productive as your employees and indulge in the liberties of wealth....basically it sounds like your saying that people should be allowed to get rich and relax but if they do they are bastards??????
"How do they have a say in their own lives if they are neither free nor have the right to own anything?"
Would you rather own a chair or share a house? Would you rather own a tree or share the world? And you do own things in communism...you own a bit of everything in fact....you are an equal partner in everything produced. You are an equal shareholder in the largest company. You own a piece of every house, of every car, of every gold bar, of every restaurant and of every movie studio. There would be nothing in society that you could say that you do not own a piece of.....now who can say that in a capitalist society other than the single theoretical winner.
"Precisely. They are controlled by the state and one individual has no say. You only have a say if you are a collective and unfortunately ppl are starting to resign themselves to that."
Yes we are controlled by the state....but you have neglected to inform us who the state is controlled by or is it just that you do not realize that the gov't is controlled by corporations....these same corporations that you want to unleash fully upon this world. And who controls the corporations....only a handful of people. So if this is true then I guess 5 percent of the population controls ninety five percent of the world....the few individuals control the many and perhaps the problems you refer to are created by the individual and not this loathesome community you are so set against.....The politician says what he needs to say to get elected (have you ever seen one that has kept all their promises???), then they do the minimum to stay in office, they continually give themselves raises and new and improved perks, they lower taxes for big business and the rich (who can actually afford to pay taxes) and raise them for poor and middle class and their campaign is funded by large corporation lobbiests so in essence when you vote you might actually just be voting for a company or an unknown third party. Why else do you think the environment hasn't been cleaned up yet??? Is it because the people don't want that or is it because no matter how loud you scream they won't listen to anything other then the sounds of crisp dollar bills being brown bagged to them by the corporations....How many poor politicians in higher office have you ever seen? I mean even the ones who started out poor seem to be pretty wealthy by the time they make it to the capital. I guess politicians just work harder than the majority....poor souls...I should send them a thank-you bouquet
"Socialism is not a synonym with freedom. Quite in the contrary. It not only makes you a slave to society but also asks you to give up your individuality, your soul and your brain willingly and cheerfully for the "good of society"."
Once again you got it all backwards. Communism makes society a slave to the individual for it is the individual who dictates by voting what his or her future will be. You seem to be stuck on this communist image of nine, red clad evil men hatching plans to control your life when it is actually you controlling them. All communism asks of the individual is to give up their greed, put aside theit petty squabbles of who is worth more and work as individuals for the betterment of not only one's self but for the betterment of each other.
" And if you don't then they take you by force."
Yeah I guess in capitalism we can all work for ourselves....I guess we'll all be able to open our own business....how quaint...7 billion little businesses....Now if we can't all open our own businesses then wouldn't it be safe to say we are "forced" to work for someone else? And if we are "forced" to work for someone else then are we truly dictating our worth? and are we truly free? Perhaps the capitalists are Borgs and you have already been assimilated?
"Just ask my primary school teacher on how "willing" I was "to fit in."
I did and she said you used to push the other kids out of the sandbox and charge them a dollar to get back in while stating that you were just expressing your right to own both land and intellectual property. She also said you had a lot of trouble sharing the art supplies with the other kids
It's funny that you mention school, just had a thought on it. If the corporations control the politicians and the politicains control the school's curiculum (sp?) then isn't it actually the corporations that control what our children learn....maybe that's why people now go to University to be able to get a job and not to get an actual education....If you don't believe this statement please go ask some University students why they're in University. We are being breed into corperate complacent drones. Look at the kids today....never been a larger, more eager to be a consumer generation. Not only do corporations control the supply, they now also control the demand. They not only create the products they also create the consumer. People are eager to buy because they're being taught to buy, and whose doing the teaching, the very people supplying the products....how dainty....so sweet. Why do they teach business and marketing in high school but not philosophy. In Canada high school students are forced to take at least 3 business courses yet not a single course in philosophy is offered....I don't think they even allow religious courses anymore. They don't teach philosophy because philosophy teaches free thinking. I better stop here because I'm starting to sound like an Oliver Stone conspiracy movie Sorry for yaking your eyes off
YOu poor misguided creature You are my problem child aren't ya.
"I just thought I'd pop in and say hi to Angel (hi Angel!) and insert my two drachmas."
Why does everything have to be about money with you capitalists
"Government agencies are not driven by the need to make money ... they are driven by the need to justify spending at least as much money as they did the year before so that they do not lose funding. I think "the public good" or "utilitarian" label is more often than not a mere public image statement. What is really important to a government agency is remaining a government agency."
I don't see this as relevant to an aurguement against communism. An irresponsible gov't is an irresponsible gov't. Are you implying that if corporations were allowed to freely roam the range that gov't spending would cease? Or are you just saying that a communist country with a poor system of gov't would fail much like any system with poor management? In communism (theoretically) a gov't agency that was not needed would be disbanded until needed again and the manpower would be dissolved into other areas of production based upon the wants of many individuals (which we call a society).
"But there is a major difference between the corporate and government approach to money"
So true but how is this different in capitalism? In a workable communist model the gov't would be the people, the corporation would be the people and the people would be the individuals so if the gov't was to misuse funds they would only be hurting themselves so it would make no sense. In communism there would be absoluting no gain for anyone to keep a gov't agency going that wasn't needed. However in capitalism there usually is, the reason....someone is making a heaping plate of cash. And in communism you'd actually be losing money (productivity) by irresponsible use of manpower.
"Corporations, on the other hand, are profit driven. If a corporation makes money then some of it finds its way into the hands of its best employees (a good business knows that the best way to keep its best employees is with financial incentive)."
Yep, like I told Angel, I'll run down to the head office of CIBC and thank them for firing those lazy 3200 people who helped them make record billion dollar profits this year....and the thing with banks is that there will always be X amount of dollars in this world, so why should they care whose employed and who isn't.....that cash has still got to be banked....and it's easier and more profitable for them if there are only two people with a billion dollars instead of those pesky masses banking two billion collectively. Maybe one day there will only be three bank employees helping two customers.
"Corporate spending is most often discretionary, while government spending is arbitrary. Corporations spend money in hopes of making money."
And that's what I want running the world, I'll be glad when all those nasty rainforests are gone so that I can make a buck or two.....who do we compete against if one corporation owns the world? Am I supposed to feel that I must compete against China all my life? Am I their sworn enemy for the sake of corporation competition? Am I supposed to compete against the world all my life???? Or would it be easier to ally with it and work with the world, not against it? Would you have a gov't only build a road for the people if those in power thought they could make money doing it....I mean Christ...they don't just randomly print up money, we give it to them to distribute it how we see fit....or at least that was how it was supposed to work and could work if we were allowed to vote for the best person again. Are you telling me you'd rather have a corporation decide if you can have a road or would you rather have a say in it? Are you saying you'd rather have two people voice what you may or may not have rather than you getting to voice your own opinion?
"If a corporation chooses to exploit its workers by not paying a fair wage, a competitor hires its most skilled workers and the original corporation loses money (a nice checks and balance system, in my opinion. Not perfect but nice nonetheless)."
And what if all companies decide to exploit you? What if there are only a handful of people to work for? Have you heard of price fixing Jim....very common practise in the oil business, gold business, farming, etc. Now if the majority of prices are controlled by a few wouldn't it be safe to say that the same few control the majority of wages? I guess we all are happy with how much money we make then??? Cause if we weren't then we'd all just quit our jobs and go work for those noble competitors who will pay you what you think your worth. It's amazing how all wages seem to be relatively the same for all fields in most corporations, I guess everyone is getting paid the same because we are all getting paid what we think we are worth, because we the people dictate how much we will make and not the corperations deciding such things??? I guess those minimum wage McDonald's workers are dictating how much they get paid, I guess McDonald's has stretched their budget to the breaking point and can't afford a few extra dollars (should I send Uncle Ron a get well card?).....or should they just quit cause as soon as they do that the job market just explodes with opportunity or the companies smarten up and will pay them more? Or should they try and start a union and hope they aren't fired the next day? Have you ever visited the poor side of town (I don't mean that in a hurtful or condenscending way, I'm just trying to illustrate a point), there aren't a lot of job opportunities in an impoverished place. And corporations know this and prey upon these people, and as disparity grows between classes and the middle class becomes extinct...and the lower class is more prevelant then there will be more people to manipulate and control and the few will easily be able to control the worth of the individual...where is that magic freedom capitalism speaks of. If you don't believe me why don't you ask a thousand different people why they work where they do and as much as they do. The majority will say because they can't afford to quit their job or that the job market is so tough now. Which brings me to my next point....If there are fewer jobs than workers in a monetary based society, who controls the worth of the workers? The workers or those supplying the jobs? If companies are making more and more money yet are using fewer employees, what will the forcast call for...more or fewer jobs? What does supply and demand dictate if supply is low and demand high? Kinda perpetuates the "Golden Rule" doesn't it? In a communist society if there were few jobs and a lot of workers there would be more leisure time without a decrease in the standard of living instead of widespread poverty and the social ailments that seem to follow along.
I've heard stories of the depression era where people would kill over jobs....yet the business owner would still be living in his mansion. I once heard that more millioniares were created then dismantled during the depression (though I have no stats to back this up)....why?....because it was easier for the few to exploit the many. Do you think these workers were paid a fair wage? Did they dictate their worth? I guess I'll go to the sweat shops in India and tell them all they're getting paid what they are worth....maybe I'll go to Indonesia as well and tell them not to be so uppity, they're getting paid what they're worth and if they don't like it they should just go over to one of the many other jobs provided by the higher paying competition. Sometimes I wonder what people see when they look at the world today? Do they see the slums or do they just see the shiney, pretty skyscrapers? And why do most seem to want to help those inside the skyscrapers instead of those in the slums? Why do we leave it to the poor to help the poor when it is our very system that has created the poor to begin with. No one wakes up in the morning and decides they want to live in poverty. Now if no one wants to be poor why is there so much widespread poverty? Where is the equality that gives everyone the opportunity to be wealthy? Now if no one wants to be poor and everyone wants to be wealthy, yet there are more poor people than wealthy people, how can one say that capitalism is the answer when it is this very system that has caused such lack of fullfillment of desires? Are there so many poor people because they are the lazy? Do they deserve to be poor? If they don't deserve to be poor why are they still poor? In a society that claims to promote equality, why are there people who don't deserve their fates still suffering? And why are there those who don't deserve their wealth still living like gods?
"Government redistribution of wealth is arbitrary spending. No one governs the spending process except the "spender" (the government). How is this not a loss of personal freedom? There are no unions or competitors to help police arbitrary, government spending. And this encroachment into personal freedom never stops with financial freedom (again, a lesson learned from history). "
And corporations idea of redistribution of wealth is non-existent. They'll only give you a dollar if you can give them two....with only X amount of dollars available how will this math equate to equality??? Once again you are discussing an irresponsible gov't and its spending habits and not truly addressing communism. In communism the individuals that make up the masses would dictate gov't spending or allocation of manpower. Would you cheat yourself out of money? They are currently not responsible for the people because of a capitalist society. Politicians are only doing what everyone wants from capitalists and that is to make money. Are politicians in a capitalist society banned from making more money than their employers (the people)? No because they are doing what the system dictates, profiting as much as they can. They are not accountable for their actions because they are not taxed like the rest of us, they are neither spending big corporation's money nor their own but rather the working class's money. Why should they care how much they spend....none of it belongs to them...they are not directly affected by tax hikes? Do you think a politician in a capitalist society would begin to work for the people or even more so for the corporations....and do you think the corporations would be working for the people or for themselves??? Where is this freedom you speak of in capitalism?????? Do you think if a politician thought something they'd do would hurt their standard of living that they would still do it? No, and a communist society forces a person to become accountable for their actions because their actions will always effect themselves....or is being held accountable for one's behaviour a violation of an individual's rights
And if you unleash the capitalists who will govern them? You talk of watch dogs for the gov't but if corporations are allowed to dictate policies then who will be watching them? If we are all working for a corporation how will we be able to decide on social policies or the allocation of both money and manpower?
My fingers are now gnarled and permenantly cramped and contorted....I hope both you and Angel are happy now I've gone back and added and erased so much of this post already so I hope it hasn't become too hard to follow.....my apoligize if my rant is all over the place.
I'd like to just take the time to now thank both of you and Brad and actually everyone else whose posted on this thread for keeping such an interesting debate going and inpiring more thought on this topic then I thought possible by myself....hold on a sec I have a phone call from Red Square HQ...."yes Chairman Mao...right away Chairman Mao", I'm sorry but I gotta go, I've just been elected into the Communist Hall of Fame for the longest post on this subject.
One more thingy before I go....I'd just like to say I can't wait till all the big corporations dominate the world and we all work for them....cause we'll have to in order to live....then truly all our great ideas and inventions will solely belong to us and not the company we had to develop them for....cause then and only then will we truly be paid what we are worth. Great ideas will come to light and fantastic inventions, like a car that is reliable or a new cure for diseases.....or have people already done that???? I can't remember...I don't think so because if these people had such great ideas why aren't those ideas still around....Oh well, I guess they couldn't have been all that useful, I'm sure the general population was widely informed that they had the cure for ulcers but decided they didn't want it by "dollar voting"....must by the same reason why the affordable car that could last twenty years without repairs never made it to the market....the people just didn't want it, cause in capitalism we are well informed consumers who dictate their supply and demand. Also I can't wait until the sign at the airport reads...."Welcome to WalMart's Canada"....oh goodey-gumdrops....my parents will be so proud that I'll have a corperate job.
Okay I think that's enough sarcasm from me for one night....hope I didn't peeve anyone off too much....I'm sure you all realize by now that "I come in Peace" and mean you earthlings no harm Plus I just get so angry when I feel my individuality is being threatened by you capitalists
Take care everyone and thanks again for your thoughts and for putting up with me ...like ya have a choice.