How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Socialism and its Enemies   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Socialism and its Enemies

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


25 posted 12-14-1999 10:08 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Hello again, everybody.  I just thought I'd pop in and say hi to Angel (hi Angel!) and insert my two drachmas.

Please forgive me if I am exhuming someone else's point but eyes begin to skip when trying to read and scroll down a computer monitor at the same time, you understand.

BRAD and TREVOR:

Both of you seem to be of the mind that Socialism/Communism does not necessarily mean that personal freedoms are to be lost.  I couldn't disagree more.

Trevor, you have made the corporate/government comparison many time in, I think, an attempt to break down the notion of "personal" freedom being a viable attribute of Capitalism.  But there is a major difference between the corporate and government approach to money (economics) that, again I think, tips your fact basket.

Let me illustrate: 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.

So what, you ask, does this mean practically?  It means budgets never shrink ... they grow ... and as they grow the government agencies acquire more power, becoming more intrusive in the private lives of the citizenry, and, as a result, personal freedom is lost.

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).

Corporate spending is most often discretionary, while government spending is arbitrary.  Corporations spend money in hopes of making money.   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).

Governments spend money, among other reasons, to be able to continue to spend atleast the same or greater amount of money in the future.

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).  

ANGEL:

I apologize for not coming to your aid sooner (not that you needed it   ).  I consider myself a pragmatist when it comes to economics.  That does not necessarily make me a Capitalist (although I may be a closet Capitalist) it most certainly means I am not a Socialist.  

Okay everyone ... take aim and shoot!



 Jim

"If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther

Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


26 posted 12-14-1999 11:40 AM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

LOL Hi Jim, thanks for the support. It is very much appreciated. Checked your ICQ lately?  
Angel

 "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


27 posted 12-19-1999 09:26 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I just wanted to say that I'm not done yet.  I haven't had much time to respond to the capitalists but I will be back.  By the way, I'm glad that people are still willing to discuss this.  Usually, you have people roll their eyes at you or just plain think you're insane (or an idiot).  

"I'm not sure what I am but I'm not a Marxist"
Karl Marx
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


28 posted 12-20-1999 08:15 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello everyone,
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.

ANGEL:
"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  

JIM:
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.
Trevor
Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


29 posted 12-21-1999 02:50 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

Hi Trevor,
I am sorry but I am tired of this. I cannot state over and over, again and again that freedom is my primary goal, that making a quick buck by exploitation is neither my nor capitalism's primary goal but that capitalism is the only form of government that will ensure FREEDOM. So this will be the last time I reply to you on this.

Yes I would rather own ONE tree completely rather than co-own the world and have everybody own what ever I think I own at the same time. I don't understand how you can believe you own ANYTHING when millions of other ppl own it too. And again, no I do not want other ppl to work for me so that I can go fishing in the evening. THAT would be exploitation to me, to make them work so I can have fun or vice versa. And no, ppl do not hold jobs they hate cause we live in a capitalistic world. And I am sorry that you do not see that I might look down on rich idle parasites as much as look down on idle poor parasites but that I do not see that as a reason to take their freedom away from them by law. Everybody is free to be idle as they wish. But I do not see it as their right to get some of MY money when I WORK for it. And I am sorry for you that you are so naive as to think that socialism breeds hard work. Makes me laugh actually but it is a sad little laugh. I have known many ppl in this socialistic London who quite plainly told me, that they choose not work as the state gave them money anyway. And if you were to say that these are the abusers of the system then I would like to tell you that capitalism knows no legally enforced social benefit taxes and would make such parasites an impossibility. Do not talk to me about how so called capitalistic countries' abuse of the tax payers' money. The very notion of taxes other than the ones I have discussed with you at length, are against the idea of capitalism. And no the parasites that capitalism breeds are of a totally different and far more tolerable sort. You might think that they are exploiting you but I say even if the do not work and still earn money, they also still give something to society: jobs in the companies they own. What does a poor parasite give? And no I am not saying that all poor ppl are parasites and no not all ppl can work. But many can; yet under socialism there is no control as to who can and who for example just breeds children to get more money. Under capitalism the VOLUNTEER charities would organise such help and would be very able to control the legitimacy of a claim. And no, just cause I think doing charity is a good thing, I STILL do not see that it should be made a law. I DON'T want to be told what I am allowed to keep from MY EFFORTS. And NO, factory workers or schoolteachers should not earn the same amount of money as the inventor of penicillin. Why? Cause there would be no children to raise if it weren't for penicillin. And yes the inventor of the microchip should earn more than the ppl who would manufacture it in factories. WHY would they earn as much as him?? By what right do they have a claim on his brain? I do not get your logic there. You don't think that building a company around an idea and therefore providing work for ppl is a good thing but rather that it is some person trying to exploit others??? EHHHH?
What if I invented something that was truly great and would advance society by leaps and bounds? Under socialism I would be faced with two possibilities:
1) Either choose to surrender my idea to the ppl willingly and get paid the same as everyone who didn't have the idea and who are therefore rather than me entitled by law to reaping all the benefits, or
2) I will produce the thing by myself with no help from others. Therefore making my work as exclusive and as expensive as a Patek Philippe (the greatest watches in the world)…
Oh… but then no… I get it... your gov't would take my idea by FORCE and give to those who NEED to benefit from my idea. Give it to those who have a legal right to it by not having had the same idea, no matter if I do condone the transaction or got paid for my inventions, or not. Cause why should I have any right to it? My brain belongs to everyone after all. PLUS giving ppl (who had no job before) a paid job by asking them to build my idea is of course to exploit them if I do not give them the same amount of money I would make. Cause how dare I give them work and not give them an automatic right to any money I make out of MY idea, right? WRONG! Freedom doesn't mean that you have a claim on other ppl's efforts. Freedom means the right to trade goods for goods and to KEEP what you buy. Where is your freedom if you trade something for nothing? How can you say that you are free when you do not even own the product of your brain? NO I am not being melodramatic. This IS what you are advocating. If you cannot understand the fairness in FREE trade between FREE equals then you truly have no notion of what freedom means. Yes we are born equal and yes we are all free. But that means that YOU do NOT own ME and I do NOT OWN YOU. Nor do I wish to. I find it disturbing that you want to have a legal claim on ppl's life and are actually willing to put ppl in jail for daring to not want to share their effort with you. By what right do you claim their efforts?
Do you really want to, BY LAW, work and live and breathe for ALL the ppl in the world rather than choose the company and the boss you want to work for? You really think freedom means having your salary dictated by a gov't rather then negotiating it between you and your boss?? Do you really think you are being exploited when someone asks you to do an office job for a certain amount of money in exchange? That freedom is to not earn less than your neighbour but equally not be allowed to earn more, no matter what your effort is? You really think your individuality is ensured in a society where everybody has a claim on your time and your life? You really think that you give ppl FREEDOM when you say that they are not allowed to judge what to do with their earnings? Where in fact you deny them earnings all together?
And you know what? That little remark about me as a child? You were right! My grandmother bought me some watercolours when I was a kid and I loved that beautiful box. I was super careful with the box and kept it really clean as it meant something to me. When I took it to kindergarten, the other kids wanted to share my colours but judging how they treated the "common property" paint boxes I did not want to share mine with them. There was however one nasty little boy who hit me and pulled my hair and called me selfish and mean and forced me to share my colours with him cause he had none. He destroyed the colours as he unlike me had no value for them. And you know what else? Ever since that day I have observed that ppl do not treat "common property" the way they treat their own property. Ppl pay road taxes, so in a way it is their road but they spit their chewing gum out where ever they feel like it. Do you think they do that in their own garden? I doubt it.
And another thing, your statement about the Russians being first in space is a very poor example. Do you have any idea how the population had to bleed for this to be possible? Did you know that the scientists who built the rockets lived like the tsars yet where under constant surveillance and were about as free as a bird in a golden cage? Did you know that they worked under threat of life? Or did you think that that space rocket got built cause some ambitious free men had a dream and their friendly gov't patted them on the heads and say yes my children you shall have your dream? They were forced to work. Great freedom, great achievement! Did you know that Moscow's subways are made of marble? Did you know that they were built by forced slave labour and that the workers died of starvation? Or did you think that the workers were paid? Did you know that Moscow has skyscrapers built by men who also starved cause they got no money for their efforts? Efforts they did not willingly make btw. And do you know why these things were imposed on the population? Cause the bolshies could not admit that the US had such tall buildings where as they still lived in extreme poverty when their "5 year plan" didn't work out after 10- 20- 30- 70 years. And did you also know that the workers were told that their reward was the honour of working for their fellow men and the prestige of their country and to ask to be paid for that, was to betray "mother Russia"? And no, the US NEVER knew such hardships as the Russians did, not even during the depression.
So please leave these human rights violating countries out of your statements. Unless you want to tell me that they truly are the examples you aspire to?
Do not shout: what right do fat cats have to their inherited money!? Rather tell me by what right you think YOU have a claim to their money? You say their ancestors were looters and therefore they should not be allowed to keep that money, as they did not earn it. And in the same breath you say that YOU have a claim on that money. How so? How did YOU earn it? Just by being alive and having less then them? Is that how money is earned in your opinion?
Enough.
Angel


 "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand


jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


30 posted 12-21-1999 06:02 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

TREVOR:

I'd say she handed you your hammer and sickle on a bed of maple leaves, my friend.  

I'm a little tired after Nan's Sestina Project (made Blair Witch look like the Teletubbies) but I promise to go to bed early so that "your problem child" can help Angel beat back the Reds. (again   )

 Jim

"If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther

Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


31 posted 12-22-1999 05:10 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

Angel, sorry to hear you're getting tired of this discussion and are taking your ball and going home. I will however respond and hopefully inspire you to continue a discussion which I am rather enjoying. Not to try and tell you how to live your life but do you always walk out of a discussion once you have stated your aurgument....Seems someone was sick the day they were teaching communication skills in class  

"I am sorry but I am tired of this. I cannot state over and over, again and again that freedom is my primary goal, that making a quick buck by exploitation is neither my nor capitalism's primary goal but that capitalism is the only form of government that will ensure FREEDOM."

You state that you want to ensure Freedom yet you want us all to live by yours and similar thought lined people's ideals. Does not mine and Brad's freedom of choice of lifestyle count. Obviously both sides presented should be able to choose which form of gov't they want. I'd say a democratic vote but as you've stated before, you do not believe in the majority deciding things for the individual....so that leaves us at a standoff....who should move and who should stay. Should I, who has invested 27 yrs in my country be forced to leave (though that would be a violation of my rights) or another 27 yr old who wants a more true capitalist society?

"Yes I would rather own ONE tree completely rather than co-own the world and have everybody own what ever I think I own at the same time."

So be it then, pick out a star in the sky and it can be yours while the rest of us share in the universe. Sorry you don't think there is a beauty and an inescapable truth of being a part of everything.

"I don't understand how you can believe you own ANYTHING when millions of other ppl own it too."

So if a married couple buys a house is it not owned by anyone? Apply this on a larger scale. It's a shame that you'd rather own the 2 dollar pony then share in owning the million dollar stable.

"And again, no I do not want other ppl to work for me so that I can go fishing in the evening. THAT would be exploitation to me, to make them work so I can have fun or vice versa."

How is it exploitation if an equal effort is put in by all sides? It's the same concept as your visionary capitalism. One person works 40 hours so you may rest 40 hours and then you work 40 hours so they may rest 40 hours.

"And no, ppl do not hold jobs they hate cause we live in a capitalistic world."

Maybe not entirely but do you think it doesn't at least factor into the equation? It must for we live in a capitalist society (though not a true one or one by your definition..perhaps a new name for your capitalism is needed...Angelism  )

"But I do not see it as their right to get some of MY money when I WORK for it."

Wow, that's the same way I feel when my tax dollars go to help some large company develop a new product...I just love having to pay for my right to work.

"And I am sorry for you that you are so naive as to think that socialism breeds hard work."

Not half as sorry as I am for you being so naive as to think capitalism breeds equality and protects citizen's rights (or at least what you've decided should be everyone's rights). I don't think communism breeds hard work and I have stated several times that I don't think true communism could currently work because people aren't responsible enough to look out for one another.

"Makes me laugh actually but it is a sad little laugh."

Do you always laugh at a person's beliefs? Guess ya giggle, but a sad giggle, at the Muslims for being so naive for their different beliefs. I mean you are calling millions of people naive and laughing at their beliefs or do you think that I am the only believer in communism?

"And if you were to say that these are the abusers of the system then I would like to tell you that capitalism knows no legally enforced social benefit taxes and would make such parasites an impossibility."

Well I got to give it to ya there. A very valid point but the lop side of this is that it would create a huge amount of crime due to poverty and you'd just be paying for their welfare in a prison. Why not save them and yourself the effort of "forcing" them into crime, then catching them in order to give them just what they asked for in the first place....A way to satisfy their needs. I'd rather live in a communist society where the laziest 10 percent has the same good standard of living as the hard working 90 percent and be able to feel safe in society then live in a capitalist society where the laziest 10 percent are trying to steal from the 90 percent and kill them if they have to in order to try and "get by".

"Do not talk to me about how so called capitalistic countries' abuse of the tax payers' money."

Why did ya already talk to your shrink about that one?  

"The very notion of taxes other than the ones I have discussed with you at length, are against the idea of capitalism."

So your for freedom, eh? So we're all free in a capitalist society yet forced to pay taxes on things we may not feel is necessary? For example, I'm sure you feel roads are a necessity and therefore in your capitalist ideology we'd all be taxed in order to pay for it. Now say the road leads to a place I never want to go, say I don't own a car and have no intention of using it ever but I have to cross it in order to get to my job, should I still have to pay for it? I don't want it, I don't need it, so what's the deal? You've stated before that you do believe that education should be subsidized because it does directly benefit you. If someone believes that it doesn't and won't chip into the pot what should happen? Will you violate this individual's rights? Same with policing...if someone feels that they don't want to have policing for themselves nor prisons should they be forced to pay? Say someone believes that he/she is always responsible for their own protection, will they be forced to pay or will everyone else have to pay even more for policing? It seems you think we should all be free to live by your definitions of freedom? How can we all be free if we are living in a world defined by another?

"You might think that they are exploiting you but I say even if the do not work and still earn money, they also still give something to society: jobs in the companies they own."

You know I honestly really enjoy these discussions but I'd wish you'd address at least some of the questions I ask instead of trying to bend and contort everything to fit your arguement (leave that trick to me please  )...Does the benefit of the creation of jobs by a company outweigh its creation of problems? Sure Bill Gates has created thousands of jobs but at the same time hasn't he also crushed many other competitors both large and small while not fully absorbing its workforce? Doesn't the possesion of 500 billion dollars in assest by one individual create some problems as well?

"What does a poor parasite give?"

An example of how not to be.

"Under capitalism the VOLUNTEER charities would organise such help and would be very able to control the legitimacy of a claim."

Who are these VOLUNTEERS you speak of? I know you're speaking theoritically, you're version of Utopia, just like my version of no corruption, crime or lack of work ethics in communism but I just gotta say the flaw in your system is the same flaw so prevelant in mine and that is human nature. You're assuming that once we switch to a hardline right capitalist society that everyone will just start giving to charities and volunteering their time because now they are not "forced".

"And NO, factory workers or schoolteachers should not earn the same amount of money as the inventor of penicillin. Why? Cause there would be no children to raise if it weren't for penicillin."

Did the gentleman who invented penicillin teach himself all those fancy mathematical and chemistry equations? Did he teach himself how to read and write? There would be no inventor of penicillin if it wasn't for school teachers and then there'd by no children either....so if both points cancel each other out then how are they not equal?

"And yes the inventor of the microchip should earn more than the ppl who would manufacture it in factories. WHY would they earn as much as him?? By what right do they have a claim on his brain? I do not get your logic there. You don't think that building a company around an idea and therefore providing work for ppl is a good thing but rather that it is some person trying to exploit others??? EHHHH?"

But if collectively  all workers come up with the idea of legally striking until everyone is paid the same then why shouldn't they be allowed to profit how they see fit from their idea? How is this exploitation? I'm guessing this was the point (about the workers passively forcing equal wages) you were trying to address with your statement, please correct me if I'm wrong.

" What if I invented something that was truly great and would advance society by leaps and bounds? Under socialism I would be faced with two possibilities:
1) Either choose to surrender my idea to the ppl willingly and get paid the same as everyone who didn't have the idea and who are therefore rather than me entitled by law to reaping all the benefits,"

I'm sorry that you don't see how advancing society by leaps and bounds would directly benifit you. Are you one of them people who live in a bubble away from our shanty shacked world?   So if someone invented the cure for AIDS and wanted only to use it for themselves if needed and was deadfast against sharing it with the rest of the world, should they be forced to share it? Under your definition of capitalism and it's glorious freedom, that person could do so.

"2) I will produce the thing by myself with no help from others. Therefore making my work as exclusive and as expensive as a Patek Philippe (the greatest watches in the world)…"

God bless Patek Philippe for his invention that has progressed society by leaps and bounds.

Do you think that in a theoritical communist country that as soon as you grew a potato that men in dark trenchcoats would come and take it away and then divide it up into 7 billion little pieces. What you share is the work load in production and not in your personal life. You could make watches for yourself as long as you didn't do it at work. Do you think that if you built a kite that all of a sudden you'd have to build a billion more? Of course not. But if you suggested that the people might want kites and then the people voted in agreement then a percent of the workforce would be relocated or activated to meet that new demand. Do you think that if you painted something that the evil red men would bust down your door and take it to a gallery? Of course not unless your job was an artist then what you paint for work would "belong" to everyone and what you paint on your spare time is yours. Just like in capitalism, if you have a good idea at work it belongs to the company but if you have one during personal times then it is yours. How many people have had great ideas "borrowed" by the companies they work for and have never seen an extra cent for it.

" Oh… but then no… I get it... your gov't would take my idea by FORCE and give to those who NEED to benefit from my idea. Give it to those who have a legal right to it by not having had the same idea, no matter if I do condone the transaction or got paid for my inventions, or not. Cause why should I have any right to it? My brain belongs to everyone after all. PLUS giving ppl (who had no job before) a paid job by asking them to build my idea is of course to exploit them if I do not give them the same amount of money I would make."

I'm think I smell a little sarcasm....did someone not get their afternoon nap?  Imagine that forcing a fat man to give a piece of bread to a starving child....ugggg...how revolting.

"Cause how dare I give them work and not give them an automatic right to any money I make out of MY idea, right?"

Yes and how dare the workers ask to be paid a decent wage for building your invention!!!!!! Cause I mean, once you think of something "BOOM!!!" there it appears.

"WRONG! Freedom doesn't mean that you have a claim on other ppl's efforts. Freedom means the right to trade goods for goods and to KEEP what you buy. Where is your freedom if you trade something for nothing? How can you say that you are free when you do not even own the product of your brain?"

How is trading an invention for the hard work of people considered nothing? I'll tell ya what's seems for nothing. Nothing is delivering furniture ten hours a day so you can live sitting on the poverty line while a waitress delivers a plate of Filet Mignon and makes a hundred dollars in tips in five hours. Are both not a necessity? And if they are both needed why aren't they both paid the same. If all NEEDS are equal because of their necessity for survival then why aren't they paid the same, (yes I know I stated this in my previous response but you always seem to conveniently neglect to respond to any valid points I may have)?

"NO I am not being melodramatic."

Said the girl who capitalised all of "NO"
Not even a little over the top Al Pacino-shh melodramatics?????  

"But that means that YOU do NOT own ME and I do NOT OWN YOU. Nor do I wish to. I find it disturbing that you want to have a legal claim on ppl's life and are actually willing to put ppl in jail for daring to not want to share their effort with you. By what right do you claim their efforts?"

You really made me think on this one. I believe we all have claim on the lives and actions of every other person (or more broadly stated, everything) because all actions, or everything, that takes place directly or indirectly effects everyone. Why shouldn't I have a say in how much money Bill Gates makes if his wealth does effect me? Why shouldn't I have a say in what or what shouldn't be invented if it effects me? Shouldn't I have a say in someone building a nuclear bomb even if they probably never intend to use it? Shouldn't I have a say in genetic manipulation of animals and vegetables if I am forced to eat them? Shouldn't I have claim on the forrest that a company is going to cut down if I feel this is going to effect the quality of air I breathe? Shouldn't I have a say in an invention of yours if I feel it is not a benefit to society and vice versa? Say I feel that your personal rights have violate mine...shouldn't I have a say in that? Why shouldn't we have a say in each others lives if each of us always effect one another? Why should I let a corporation dictate what and how much I actually have a say in when everything they, you or I do effects me?

"Do you really want to, BY LAW, work and live and breathe for ALL the ppl in the world rather than choose the company and the boss you want to work for?"

No I don't. But I believe both systems force people to sometimes have to work for people they don't want to and at something they don't want to. Capitalism by availability of jobs and for personal financial needs and communism by dictation of the peoples wants.

"You really think freedom means having your salary dictated by a gov't rather then negotiating it between you and your boss?? Do you really think you are being exploited when someone asks you to do an office job for a certain amount of money in exchange?"

So do you get a raise based on the company that you work for profits each year? Do you get a raise when you want? I've ask this question a few times yet you have never responded....Do you think you are being paid what you are worth and do you think the majority of people feel they are paid what they are worth? If you said no, then how can it be fair if so many people feel they are not getting paid what they are worth?

"That freedom is to not earn less than your neighbour but equally not be allowed to earn more, no matter what your effort is?"

If you bettered society and you live in society then how are you not improving your standard of living?

"You really think your individuality is ensured in a society where everybody has a claim on your time and your life? You really think that you give ppl FREEDOM when you say that they are not allowed to judge what to do with their earnings? Where in fact you deny them earnings all together?"

So I'm here...and I'm beginning to think that you're definition of individuality is a material based thing. I don't think communism totally ensures freedom. In any large gathering of any herd, in any species, there will always be a NEED for some or all to do a few things that they don't want to....maybe you've heard of it by it's technical name...it's called a compromise and it is essential for the survival of societies.

"And you know what? That little remark about me as a child? You were right!"

Oh, oh...call the shrink again...Angel is having a flashback  

"My grandmother bought me some watercolours when I was a kid and I loved that beautiful box. I was super careful with the box and kept it really clean as it meant something to me. When I took it to kindergarten, the other kids wanted to share my colours but judging how they treated the "common property" paint boxes I did not want to share mine with them."

Even though you were free to use those dreadful common watercolour boxes...maybe not but I bet you had lots of fun playing on the swingsets everyone's tax dollars chipped in for....or did your grandmother pack one of those in your lunch bag as well so you wouldn't have to slum on common swingsets   Those beat up old watercolor boxes were probably the introduction to art for many artists, how is that not a thing of beauty. I guess the difference between you and I is that you're concentrating on how beautiful your watercolour box was and the fact that it was yours and I'm concentrating on how useful it could have been and how many artists it could have helped create.

"There was however one nasty little boy who hit me and pulled my hair and called me selfish and mean and forced me to share my colours with him cause he had none."

Did ya call him a dirty little commie??? Or did ya just laugh, a sad little laugh??

"He destroyed the colours as he unlike me had no value for them."

I'd say you both had no value for them. He destroyed it because you didn't want to share and you destroyed it by not sharing. A prime example into the cause of criminal actions....greed by both sides. He'd rather destroy the watercolours than not be able to use them and you would rather destroy the watercolours than have him use it. Sounds like two foolish children.

"And you know what else?"

You never painted ever again???

"Ever since that day I have observed that ppl do not treat "common property" the way they treat their own property. Ppl pay road taxes, so in a way it is their road but they spit their chewing gum out where ever they feel like it. Do you think they do that in their own garden? I doubt it."

So you spit gum out all over the road? Do I? Is it more common to see people not littering or littering? You ever visit a friend whose house is a little dirty? I don't know about over there but here in Canada we don't chuck garbage all over the place in fact you will even sometimes see people clean up after themselves or the few that don't treat "common property" with respect. Perhaps in any society there are just some people who don't care and respect both other's and their own property. Why do you think that everyone would just start trashing everything if we all shared? Are there not little children with privately owned watercolour boxes that have messed it up all by themselves? Perhaps some people are slobs and some people aren't but I can't picture everyone not taking care of the house they live in or the home garden they work on just because of communism. It's not like if society was communism your neighbors could just walk into the house you live in any time they want or go to your garden and spit gum into it or pick tomatoes from it and say that one is theirs.

"And another thing, your statement about the Russians being first in space is a very poor example."

Yeah maybe it wasn't the best example but if the Russians would have followed my plan they still would have been the first in space.  

"And no, the US NEVER knew such hardships as the Russians did, not even during the depression."

Of course not. Those cotton plantation owners worked the land themselves. The slaves were happy to be whipped and hung and raped and make their masters extremely wealthy....ohhh sorry, were you just talking about white USA....cause if you weren't I could continue into the sweat shop labor that was so prevelant once upon a time but now is more well hid from the public. Or the near slave wages and extremely dangerous conditions that the black, chinese, the Irish, and whoever else wasnt' white, worked in while building the railroads. I guess they just did it for the betterment of the States and not because there were no other way to make money.....and I guess the founders and idea men of this great railroad only paid them enough to remain hungry instead of dead because they were poor too and couldn't afford it. I guess forced integration of school systems occured in the 70's because the ethnic minorities didn't want a good education like the white folk but were forced into better schooling for their own good. I'm guessing that they didn't teach you in school about the slaughter of not only the peaceful Aboriginal men of North America but also of the killing of women and children. I guess you never heard the stories of how they were forced of their land in the name of capitalism. I'm guessing (well I've been guessing a lot of things) that you never heard of how some of the black American population were used in the 50's as unknowing human guniue pigs to test the effects of syphillus. I'm guessing you think it was fair that the people to poor to afford a college education were blessed with the privaledge of going to some foriegn land and die in order to protect the investments of the wealthy....You'd think the rich would be the first in line to protect the country that has put them at the top of the social food chain. I'm also guessing you really haven't SEEN North America. I guess you haven't recently visited some of the Indian reserves where after water tests the quality was deemed compatible to that of a Third World Nation. Or you haven't seen the rampant homeless problem. But ya you're right, the white and wealthy America has never seen such hardships.

"So please leave these human rights violating countries out of your statements. Unless you want to tell me that they truly are the examples you aspire to?"

Yes we should, my statements were almost as silly as quoting slave owners on their version of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Even though the application of these words make sense now....they didn't when they wrote it, nor did it have the same meaning to them as it does now to you. It kind of makes a fool look like a hero if I yell out "Everyone should be allowed to be happy!!!" as I beat some old woman with her own cane and two weeks later someone tells a friend about a man who had a great concept of "Everyone being allowed to be happy."

"Do not shout: what right do fat cats have to their inherited money!? Rather tell me by what right you think YOU have a claim to their money? You say their ancestors were looters and therefore they should not be allowed to keep that money, as they did not earn it. And in the same breath you say that YOU have a claim on that money. How so? How did YOU earn it? Just by being alive and having less then them? Is that how money is earned in your opinion?"

I didn't say I had a claim on it, I said we have a claim on it because it was wrongfully earned (something to do with slavery or land barons or stealing). Now why do you think they should be allowed to keep it? I guess the Germans who became wealthy from the "free" work of the Jews shouldn't have to pay up? I guess it's wrong of the Jewish nations to think they have a claim on money earned by their enslavement? Or I guess the black South Africans shouldn't feel resentment towards those really nice and wealthy Dutch Africans who segregated their country and raped the diamond mines? And I guess I shouldn't feel pissed that once upon a time a handful of people told everyone that only they own the land and anything they want has to be paid for first. I guess I shouldn't feel upset that on a planet I was born onto I have no legal right, other than the ones dictated to me, to walk across imaginary lines that seperate imaginary countries in order for the wealthy and powerful to play a giant game of monopoly. I guess I shouldn't be upset at the fact I have little to no say of what goes in the water I must drink or what goes in the land I must eat from or what goes in the air I must breathe. I guess I shouldn't be upset that in a capitalist society we are forced to make one person incredibly rich instead of all of us wealthy (were forced because we can't all own our own businesses can we? And if we can't do the things we want to do then we are FORCED to do an alternate in order to survive.), So how can this be freedom if you don't have a choice?????

Well I know you're tired of this....probably haven't even taken the time to read this anyways so what does it matter?
P.S. please take my friendly ribbings with a grain of salt. I'm only horsing around to try and hold onto the little bit of sanity I have left.

JIM:

"I'd say she handed you your hammer and sickle on a bed of maple leaves, my friend."

Actually it's "our hammer and sickle", and the "people's maple leaves".  

Take care everyone, ....I just realized I could say just about anything about Angel and there will be no repercusions by her to suffer for she is through with this thread....or at least just with responding to anything I have to say.....tempting but I'm just crazy for that sweet gal of mine....or wait a second....sorry she just makes me crazy.  

Once again, take care and lets break some records in longevity with this thread.
Trevor  




 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Socialism and its Enemies   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors