Political Change

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

It might help if I make clear what my political ideology is, so that it can be a basis for discussion.

For one, as I'm sure you guessed, I am a socialist (however you wish to define that). I am anti-capitalist (the system...not persons). I hold many beliefs that other socialist do but a lot they don't.

So let us start from the beginning.

1) I think that human society should be based on equality, no class divisions, no castes, and certainly no discrimination.

1A) Please explain your definiton of equality. Does that mean just equal rights (voting, speech, etc.), or equal wealth distribution (which I can see being achieved only by taking from one and giving to another). In modern capitalistic democracies the first part is I believe covered fully, the second part to some extent (medicare, education) too.

1B) No discrimination. Quite a vague one too. Does it include only bussiness and employment, so I am effectively forced to make contract with someone I do not want to - reasons (that might be biased or not) aside? That is also kind of like it is now in most states, even though it sometimes leads to absurd endings.

Or does this in your definition extend to marriage, taking hitchikers or making cartoons of other social/religious groups for example?

2) I believe in a form of democratic socialism, though a form that does not exist today (or at least that I am aware of).

OK, I'll read your other posts, which are probably explaining it in detail. I apologize I did not catched much as I was overwhelmed by things Spokesperson wrote.

3) I think there should be a weak central government, mainly for foreign affairs, diplomacy, etc run by community representatives, not career politicans. Lobbying should be outlawed as well as any form of contributions to candidates. The government should be responsible for production only so much as necessities are concerned. Education, health care, defense if deemed needed, infrastructure, etc. Local communities will hold the rights to the rest of production as they determine fit (as illustrated in my posts).

Almost all career politicans started as community representatives. I do not believe term limits from 4) would make much difference. The instant man does have control over other's lives makes him prone to corruption. To the rest I will return as I read your other posts in detail.

4) Representatives will be directly elected by communities to be sent to execute government business. Term limits apply and representatives must be community workers.

What does the term community worker exactly mean? I am not able to run as a representative if i am for example pensioneer or rentier (if that is possible in your society) or unemployed (if that is possible in your society - yay for slavery! )? You contradict your own "no discrimination based on class" point.

5) Individuals my begin production of their ideas with some government assistance (means with which to begin and continue production) while it will be the individuals job to gain and retain workers among other things.

May or have to?

6) Internally and ideally, a non-monetary economy. The central government would be responsible for exchange on the international level.

How is the exchange on individual level then conducted?

2 485 789 424 soy beans for a car, or 2 soy beans for a car? Who is going to determine? Market (:evil capitalist grin:)? Central Commitee for Determining Values of Things by Comparing Them to Other Things? What if I do not have soy beans, but peas. Can I compare their value to a car by using the soy bean base? Wouldn't that make soy bean a currency?

7) Unlike other socialists movements, I recognize the inate need for some people to believe in religion or spirtuality (I am a Buddhist). No abridgement of religion would be allowed, however it also would not be allowed to govern community or state policy, at least not where it effects others who do not follow or agree.

That is how it is in most of capitalistic democracies (not all states using market based economy are democratic of course).

[Spokesperson 0]

Baff1,

Where I am from doesn't matter as much as which class I belong to. Nationality doesn't matter. Only what I write does and which interests I'm speaking up for.

Maybe I watched 20 min on the History Channel? Then it should be easy for you to counter what I write. Watching the history channel won't change how capitalism works or its logics. If you want to criticize me criticize my arguments. Prove them wrong.

I don't think education is free in England. If you pay more you also get better education. Is that fair? Wealth instead of merit?

Of course those who produce or work more also get more. That's a socialist principle (in the case when it isn't = communism). Contrary to capitalism you actually got to work to earn something.

You don't advance in class just because you stashed away some money. You'll have to make sure you can live on other people's hard work as an owner before you can call yourself a member of the upper class. The rest of the Worker A and worker B story is partly a fairy tale and partly a misconception based on the presumption that capitalism is fair. That people get paid the same for doing the same job. This is never the case in a market economy. In a socialist system I would agree with your idea though.

There have never been any communist systems. Please use the definitions, and not some info from the capitalist press whose reporters know nothing or get paid for spreading disinformation.

The way socialism works is superior to capitalism seen from the perspective of the working class. But just because a country has a planned economy it doesn't mean money and products appear from nowhere. Cuba is a third world country and it does better than the rest of them, but not necessarily as good as the industrialised countries (definately not in all areas).

In great britain there's no socialism at all. If all people get rich there won't be any rich people at all. The class system hasn't been changed. The way capitalism works is still the same as when it appeared, but in a more refined way.

Eda Mrcoch,

Quote[/b] ]You, in the contrary say, that the theory is right, it was just badly executed. I strongly disagree with that and do think the theory itself is perverse, but at least there is possibility to discuss it with you. I see no point to try to do it with Spokesperson as his opinions do not correlate with reality as I perceive it.

The theory doesn't say how a country is supposed to be run. The theory is nothing you can execute. Marxist theory analyzes and describes the current society. It's no ABC guide for a new better system. The Soviet Union didn't have the best conditions for developing socialism. Fully industrialised countries with developed capitalism are those who got the conditions.

-snafu-

Quote[/b] ]Flats: Right so we just flatten an entire city block, move lots of people and businesses to another area and build some houses. lol. If you have not got enough room to build around you then build up.

Yea, if it's more profitable to build flats that will be done.

Quote[/b] ]The SNP is only one seat ahead of Labour, it is a minority but Salmond is First Minister though. I don't really understand your 'European terms' comment. They are only socialist in some aspects, I have a list of their policies in one of my Politics folders that proves this. Most parties are more or less the same, being of the left wing I thought you would have agreed with me on this one. Yes my education is free for primary, secondary and university. Student flats are profitable. A block of student flats, with 4-6 students to one flat, 70-100 pounds for each student and say about 200 students in one block and say about 15 blocks for one university (this is just an example do not take these figures for fact).

They are no socialists, but they are more socialist than most other UK parties. And yes I agree that most parties are more or less the same. There's no real opposition. Of course student flats are profitable. Nobody wants to run a business that loses money. However, there are other projects that are more profitable that get prioritized because of that.

There are other factors that are inevitable that cause empires to fall. WW1 far from the primary cause. If the UK hadn't participated they would've lost their super power status way before. Prussia and Austria would've defeated its enemies and in the end reduce Britains power. UK didn't fight the war because it was fun. It was necessary to maintain the balance of power in Europe. And as a side benefit it helped the economy. Well, I could say my arguments come from god. You say yours come from Phds. That's an appeal to authority and is a try to bypass the argumentation as a whole, which is bad. If you have sources I'll take a look at those and discuss them.

Socio-economic factors are rational. WW1 was rational. Everything has a reason, therefore everything is rational.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]1A) Please explain your definiton of equality. Does that mean just equal rights (voting, speech, etc.), or equal wealth distribution (which I can see being achieved only by taking from one and giving to another). In modern capitalistic democracies the first part is I believe covered fully, the second part to some extent (medicare, education) too.

Equality, for me, means equality in rights (voting, speech, etc) as well as opportunities (education, health care, state benefits, etc). In the US this is far from covered with the current capitalistic economy, and looking at some recent events in the news, we have a long way to go for racial equality and equality of rights as well. When any proposals for universal health care or education are brought up the inevitable "nanny state" reference comes up, or people start crying about taxes (did you know between federal and state taxes, people in California pay a comparable tax rate to those in Canada while not recieving ANY of the social programs Canada has....namely health care). The government of a people has the responsibility to care for ALL of its citizens...if that means people of greater means need to pay a greater share than so be it.

Quote[/b] ]1B) No discrimination. Quite a vague one too. Does it include only bussiness and employment, so I am effectively forced to make contract with someone I do not want to - reasons (that might be biased or not) aside? That is also kind of like it is now in most states, even though it sometimes leads to absurd endings.

For an example of my definition (applies to the religion comment as well), homosexuals and gay couples would receive all right as heterosexuals...including being able to marry. The religious right is exerting it influence to deny basic rights to citizens based on sexuality. Something that is NOT suppose to happen in this country.

However, regarding your employment question, refer to my post about individual enterprise from earlier. Employers would not be required to hire everyone who applies. Required skill sets would apply of course. Also, ideally since education would be free, workers would receiving the training they want.

Quote[/b] ]Almost all career politicans started as community representatives. I do not believe term limits from 4) would make much difference. The instant man does have control over other's lives makes him prone to corruption. To the rest I will return as I read your other posts in detail.

Ah but term limits (one or two terms for example) limit the amount of influence one person has while at the same time making them far more responsible to the people they represent.

Quote[/b] ]What does the term community worker exactly mean? I am not able to run as a representative if i am for example pensioneer or rentier (if that is possible in your society) or unemployed (if that is possible in your society - yay for slavery! )? You contradict your own "no discrimination based on class" point.

By community worker I mean someone who contributes to the community however that may be. Odd jobs, factory worker, farmer, etc.

Pensioners of course could be, since by definition they contributed work to the community. I am not sure what you meant by "rentier". Unemployment would indeed be possible, but by choice not by circumstance (ideally). If you don't want to work that is your choice, and you would still receive state services (education, health care, basic necessities) but you would have no vote right in the community work. It's not discrimination, its common sense. If you are not contributing to production, why would you have a choice about what is produced? To take a capitalist example, I don't have a choice on the Coke board of directors.

Quote[/b] ]May or have to?

Not sure what you are referring to, but I'll try to elaborate.

Taking my previous example, if you decide you want to make certain clothes based on an idea of yours, the state would provide you with the means with which to produce those clothes (machinery, factory space, etc) while you would be responsible for workers...hiring, retaining, etc. You would be a "boss" of sorts, but far less so than currently.

I am undecided about raw materials...whether the state would provide that. It would probably aid the community more if those materials were localized.

Quote[/b] ]How is the exchange on individual level then conducted?

2 485 789 424 soy beans for a car, or 2 soy beans for a car? Who is going to determine? Market (:evil capitalist grin:)? Central Commitee for Determining Values of Things by Comparing Them to Other Things? What if I do not have soy beans, but peas. Can I compare their value to a car by using the soy bean base? Wouldn't that make soy bean a currency?

That is up to the individuals of course. Market in a non-capitalist sense is a possibility but it would be agreed upon by the two people. Market forces are hard to keep out of individual transactions or community based exchange. But unlike capitalism, the exchange would be not profit based.

In any case though, no single item would be able to become a currency as you suggest as the market would be filled with variable products. Soy beans for cheese, pinapples for wood, carpeting for carpentry work, etc.

However, there are many options available for exchange basis. I've been toying with a few like barter as you suggest. Work credits are another choice but most theories inadequetly work them into the economy. I'm still exploring other options as well.

Quote[/b] ]That is how it is in most of capitalistic democracies (not all states using market based economy are democratic of course).

I wish it were so, but take a look at the US...especially the rise of the religious right and evangelicals and my example above of the denial of rights to a demographic of the citizenry.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]A CEO is more important then the person operating the machine tool in factory.

One is easy to replace. One is not. One is a low skilled job, one is an exceptionally high skilled job. The CEO gets paid more because he is worth more.

He is more important.

Spoken like a true capitalist.

Without the worker, the CEO has nothing to justify 1) his exhorbant pay, and 2) his very existence. Without the worker the company has no product at all. Without the CEO, the company has no mouthpiece.

A worker in a plant is not a low skilled job. Otherwise companies would not spend so much to train workers to maximize their work.

If CEO's are so hard to replace, how do you explain the massive turn over, especially in the last week or so?

Quote[/b] ]None of the self made millionares in my family stayed on in school past the age of 16. Most left at 15.

The political classes all went to futher education which is why they think it is so important. The "uneducated" members of my family, who pay their wages, would obviously disagree.

Again. That would be a viable argument if "wages" was the end all of human existance. But thankfully it is not.

Education is for far more than just maximizing wage potential. Like I said...if all I wanted to do was make a pile of paper notes with a socioeconomic importance placed on them, I guess like your family I wouldn't bother with educating myself. Thankfully I want more for myself and family than monetary exhange that will mean nothing after I'm gone.

And your "...paying their wages..." comment is exactly what we have been saying. Since you "pay their wage" in a capitalist economy, the workers should shut up and be happy with their existence?

Quote[/b] ]Speaking as someone who does live off his money from shares.......... executives are workers too.

The primary reason to float your company on the stock exchange is to gain money for expansion.

Capitalism works.

You are using capitalist actions to justify a capitalist result. That's like using the word you are trying to define in its definition.

As someone who lives off your shares you would of course think capitalism works. As some one who works hourly, I of course think its a crock. But then even beyond that I choose to believe that there is more to life than "floating my company on the stock exchange." I believe that advancing the human race, not my portfolio, is worthy of my energy.

Quote[/b] ]No one lends a company money just so it can pay it's employee's more. This is utter nonsense.

If a company executive asks me to borrow money simply for the purpose of giving himself a pay rise, neither I nor any other investor will be intrested.

I will be checking the accounts and as an owner of a company, I am able to sack the managment should they displease me.

If your company is unable to pay your staff from it's operating revenues, raising their wages is not the answer. Borrowing money at a commercial rate to increase their wages is doubly not the answer.

Not sure what that is in reply too, but we are well aware a company will do little to pay their base workers, but will be happy to dip into profits or "operating revenue" to pay executives a higher wage. There are plenty examples of this, particularly "severance packages."

Quote[/b] ]Creative energy is not stifled in communist societes. The Soviet Union was one of the greatest technological achieving societies of the 20th Century. The Chinese have hardly been slack.

Indeed. And China is also a good example of capitalism run amok. Irreversable environmental damage, sweat shops, low wages, worker dorms, child workers, etc.

Quote[/b] ]Both Communism and capitalism are effective methods of goverment.

The question is not which one is better, but which one is better for you.

That is why we are debating I suppose.

A CEO is more important than a machine operator.

I can qualify to operate machines a in under a week. It takes half a life time to qualify for a CEO job.

A CEO has just as much to justify his pay check as a machine worker. His pay is justified by supply and demand. His skills are much hrrder to find in the employment market place than a machine operators.

He also works much harder for longer hours and with a greater degree of stress and responsabilty to that guy who just drills holes 9-5.

I am also saddened to hear that you don't recognise peoples ability to enjoy life and educate themselves out side of a classroom enviroment.

That you might think that people who have done well for themselves finacially have lived lesser lives than you.

I am not saddened for them, I am saddened for you.

I feel this says more about yourself than it does them.

You can't teach an entrepreneur. He is an explorer. He starts something new. Trys things that have never been done before. He can't be educated formerly. It is anathema.

China is an example of Communism run poetically. 600 million people brought out of poverty in 10 years. A population in number twice the size of Africa.

China is the only country on the planet serious about reducing man made pollution. It has limited it's popuilation to one child per family. In fifty years China will have lowered the population of the planet by almost 1 billion people.

Child workers are a big improvement on starving children. Be thankfully you come from a rich society and try not to judge those poorer than yourself with your own irrelevant standards.

Under Mao, the countries leaders were all replaced every 3 years, never allowing them to be corrupted by their position. A state of permanent revolution. I don't think the world has ever seen a system pf government less corrupt. Pure poetry.

(Had problems with efficiency however, no one stayed inthe job long enough to acquire any skills).

Capitalism works and so does communism. You are just confusing yourself trying to think otherwise. They are two of the most successful social models in the history of mankind.

Once again no share holders will lend money to a company to pay for wage rises.

Severence pay deals are contractually negotiated in advance of employment.

Profits are calculated after all workers have been paid not before.

No one has ever invested money in a company to give the employee's a pay rise. Not ever. There are zero examples of this.

You hate fat cat's because they get paid more money than you. Your ego says they aren't more important than you, more productive, more skilled or more useful to society.  They do not deserve it.

Only they are, and they do. Petty envy is doesn't impress me.

You don't really strike me as the kind of person that is going to "advance the human race" at all mate. I can;t really imagine you advancing anything. Quite the opposite judging from your writings thus far.

I think everyone else measures your worth by the same scale you do.

When it comes to advancing the human race, helping people provide for their children isn't a bad place to start.

Good business benefits all involved in it. Not just the stock holders, not just the CEO's, not just the machine tool operators.

When you recognise the beauty of co-operation, when you understand how a system is working, you can look for a way to contribute yourself.

And then you can contribute to the betterment of the human race along with the rest of us.

[Baff1 0]

Baff1,

Where I am from doesn't matter as much as which class I belong to. Nationality doesn't matter. Only what I write does and which interests I'm speaking up for.

Maybe I watched 20 min on the History Channel? Then it should be easy for you to counter what I write. Watching the history channel won't change how capitalism works or its logics. If you want to criticize me criticize my arguments. Prove them wrong.

I don't think education is free in England. If you pay more you also get better education. Is that fair? Wealth instead of merit?

Of course those who produce or work more also get more. That's a socialist principle (in the case when it isn't = communism). Contrary to capitalism you actually got to work to earn something.

You don't advance in class just because you stashed away some money. You'll have to make sure you can live on other people's hard work as an owner before you can call yourself a member of the upper class. The rest of the Worker A and worker B story is partly a fairy tale and partly a misconception based on the presumption that capitalism is fair. That people get paid the same for doing the same job. This is never the case in a market economy. In a socialist system I would agree with your idea though.

There have never been any communist systems. Please use the definitions, and not some info from the capitalist press whose reporters know nothing or get paid for spreading disinformation.

The way socialism works is superior to capitalism seen from the perspective of the working class. But just because a country has a planned economy it doesn't mean money and products appear from nowhere. Cuba is a third world country and it does better than the rest of them, but not necessarily as good as the industrialised countries (definately not in all areas).

In great britain there's no socialism at all. If all people get rich there won't be any rich people at all. The class system hasn't been changed. The way capitalism works is still the same as when it appeared, but in a more refined way.

Where you are from does matter.

Circumstances are not the same all over the world. What is right for you is wrong for others.

Your idea's don't hold an inherant rightness by warrant of their logic. You are not the voicepiece of god.

You words are only inherantly right for you. In order for us to fully uinderstand them, we must be you. So the more we know about you, the more of what you say we can understand and learn from.

Like it or not your opinion is culturally bias. Without offering us the benefit of where you are coming from, you leave us no choice but to dismiss your philosophy out of hand.

To ignore your ideas.

Education in the U.K. is free.

There is also private education for those who wish to buy more.

Yes this is fair. It is very fair. Why should a person who does not wish to spend to much on eductaion be forced to?

You see, what you call free education isn't free. It has to be paid for. Out of your taxes usually, or out of someone elses perhaps, if you are that sort.

Why should someone have to pay more for his education if he does not want to? I fail to see how this is fair.

And why should I not be able to spend more on my education if I so wish?

If you want to spend your money on DVD's and I on teaching my son Latin, how is this unfair?

We both get to do as we want with our own money. It couldn't be fairer.

What would be unfair, is if I was forced to pay for your values. If I was forced to pay for something I did not want because you thought it would be better for me if I did.

What would be unfair is if I was forced to be less educated than I wished to be, because you don't want me to earn more money than you.

Capitalism is fair. Socialism is theft.

The lazy steal from the productive.

They justify this by demonising those that achieve. The rich are all evil, so it's OK to steal from them.

It isn't OK. It's wrong and it's anti-social.

Great Britain has been ruled by a socialist government for 10 years straight. We invented social security and the national health system. We are the fathers of modern western socialism. We ended slavery and gave women equal rights. No socialism in Great Britain? Righto mate.

If everyone in Britian got rich, then every one in Britain would be rich. (Compared to the world average, most people in Britain already are rich). There is real poverty out there, not just poorer but poor.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]A CEO is more important than a machine operator.

I can qualify to operate machines a in under a week. It takes half a life time to qualify for a CEO job.

A CEO has just as much to justify his pay check as a machine worker. His pay is justified by supply and demand. His skills are much hrrder to find in the employment market place than a machine operators.

As you say. A CEO is determined by supply and demand. Therefore, capitalism invents the importance of a CEO within its own economic structure.

Quote[/b] ]I am also saddened to hear that you don't recognise peoples ability to enjoy life and educate themselves out side of a classroom enviroment.

Where did I say that. I said "education" not "classroom environment."

Quote[/b] ]That you might think that people who have done well for themselves finacially have lived lesser lives than you.

I am not saddened for them, I am saddened for you.

I feel this says more about yourself than it does them.

And I am equally saddened by those that feel getting a bigger house, having a faster or flashier car, or having a "diversified portfolio" is all that is important in life. If that mkes you happier and filled with self worth, than good for you...but after you are dead let me know how that benefited mankind.

Quote[/b] ]You can't teach an entrepreneur. He is an explorer. He starts something new. Trys things that have never been done before. He can't be educated formerly. It is anathema.

I didn't say you had to. Entrepreneurs come from generally two areas...formal education and inate ability. Either way the entrepreneur is there, and there to benefit either system. He will be there in socialism as well as capitalism...as I said before.

Quote[/b] ]China is an example of Communism run poetically. 600 million people brought out of poverty in 10 years. A population in number twice the size of Africa.

If you say so. But its still a dictatorship which I oppose.

Quote[/b] ]China is the only country on the planet serious about reducing man made pollution.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. China is polluting its own environment at an astounding rate. The only cleaning up it is doing is so the Olympic athelets don't die before their competition.

Here is one good article. Also there is a good article about an environmental crusader in China framed by the government, police, and corporations for trying to expose the amount of pollution and fraud in his village. He is currently in jail.

Quote[/b] ]It has limited it's popuilation to one child per family. In fifty years China will have lowered the population of the planet by almost 1 billion people.

That has nothing at all to with environment considering that policy was put in place long before it became a global issue. The only reason China did enacted that policy was to ease the strain on its own resources. It also was nicely responsible for rural infantcide.

Quote[/b] ]Child workers are a big improvement on starving children. Be thankfully you come from a rich society and try not to judge those poorer than yourself with your own irrelevant standards.

Spoken like a true capitalist. Who said the children aren't starving? They are indeed still starving and working for a pittance of money. Maybe you should move your company there?

And please point out where I "judged those poorer than me." Your accusation is laughable and flys in the face of everything I had said in my posts.

Quote[/b] ]Capitalism works and so does communism. You are just confusing yourself trying to think otherwise. They are two of the most successful social models in the history of mankind.

I'm starting to think you aren't even reading my posts but just throwing your voice out there. Until you have a clearer understanding of what I am saying, please refrain from posting further.

Quote[/b] ]No one has ever invested money in a company to give the employee's a pay rise. Not ever. There are zero examples of this.

Yeah. Thats what everyone has said in this thread. I actually have no idea where the hell you got this notion in the first place.

Quote[/b] ]You hate fat cat's because they get paid more money than you. Your ego says they aren't more important than you, more productive, more skilled or more useful to society. They do not deserve it.

Only they are, and they do. Petty envy is doesn't impress me.

Neither does your petty attempt to belittle me based on what you think is important.

I know this is hard for you to believe, but I really don't care they get paid more. But hate to bust your bubble...they aren't more important to society. They are far less important than the scientists and doctors and teachers. People who contribute to the community as a whole.

I am far more concerned with the homeless man. The child with no health insurance. I realize I am lucky in the society. I have a job, a house, and a vehicle. That is what makes me restless. That is why I think society needs to change.

Not because I have some kind of financial penis envy.

So keep believing what you will if it makes you feel better and more secure.

[baddo 0]

Ok...then let me try and help you to understand from MY point of view.

Good for this man for having a plan and putting work in. You seem to assume that I am saying CEO's don't work, which is not true as I said in my post about executives. However, I do not see him at all more important than the people that ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THE PRODUCT HE IS SELLING.

Let him fly around the world and speak his languages with no one at all to run the drill. These workers that are "easy to replace" are not so easy as you imagine. They hold the power of your company in their hands (even if for the most part they are unaware of it). Witness prolonged strikes and what it does to corporations. Witness the hubris of the executives with the demise of Eastern Airlines.

So no it is not rubbish. It is a simple fact of logic. With no one to make your product at all there is no need for a CEO nor a company. Or do you think that your CEO can market, audit, AND run the machinery for your company? The fallacy of the CEO as Supreme Being has been perpetuated by capitalist economies for the very purpose that you show. A misguided belief that somehow this person is worth more or works harder than the workers in the factory.

EDIT: I wanted to add something about education since you brought it up. I do believe an educated workforce is essential which is why I place such a high importance on it in my ideology. Your CEO did not know these "equations" since birth he learned them through education, and probably his knowledge of running a business. There is no reason to suppose that an educated blue-collar workforce can not run a company just as well as a educated white-collar CEO. Partly it is a matter of inate abilities as well. Perhaps your CEO is just naturally good at running a business. No reason to believe that it would be possible from a blue-collar worker as well.

When I say that the man at the drill is easy to replace compared to replacing the CEO, I actually mean it. The experience I have gathered during my working career stands behind this claim. The CEO is more important. You can easily find another man who can operate the drill as well as the previous man at the drill did, but try to find another man who can run the company as well as the previous CEO... do you seriously think you can take the man from the drill (who has max. a vocational education) to the position of the CEO and the company could then be realistically expected to keep on succeeding as it did earlier?

As I said, this might be a fight against windmills. You have made your mind and refuse to revise your ideas even though people point out serious flaws. One of them being that in a factory, the CEO and the man at the drill should be equal. As human beings they are equal, but in the context of the factory, they are not equal and they never should be.

..............

............

..........

........

.......

.....

....

...

..

.

There was a Civil War in Finland in 1918, soon after we declared independence. Whites against Reds was the theme of our Civil War. You can guess which side was the socialists... The Red side lost and I have been very fortunate to be born and raised in a country of the Whites! I run out of words when I try to express my gratitude towards my grand-grandparents for saving me from the socialists' unrealistic, unnatural view of the World. It happened again in WW II, so I must thank my grandparents too. Edit: I must add that I have to thank the Germans too. They trained our Jägers in the years before the independence declaration in 1917. Those Jägers were of crucial importance in defeating the socialists in our Civil War. Many of the same men were leading our military in WW II (we didn't get invaded by the socialist army even though the odds were in their favour).

This picture here only because it's quite interesting isn't it? Anarchist Russian soldiers in the Finland of 1917.

Best Wishes,

Baddo.

[Baff1 0]

Capitalism didn't invent supply and demand.

It doesn't create supply and demand.

Supply and demand exists. Capitalism recognises this.

Your previous comments about education can be found in your posts above. Feel free to re-read them at anytime.

Similarly I'm sorry to hearyou can't take a little belittlement. I assumed that after you belittled me (and my family) you would be ok if I continued in the tone of debate you had set.

You seem to oppose everything, not just dictatorships. In the end someone must be at the top. Call him king, queen, dictator, president, prime minister, CEO, Emperor, Shah; anything you like.

What's in a name?

You fail to understand the basic problem of pollution.

In order to feed people, house people and cloth people, we must pollute our enviroment.

All species on the planet have the same trouble. This only becomes an issue when the population becomes too numerate.

China is the only society addressing the root issue of man made pollution.

Man.

Yes they pollute to to feed themselves. So do we.

I live in Europe. Where we have already cut down our forests centuries ago. Where we have already industrialised decades ago.

China hasn't even begun to pollute on our scale.

The Pollution output of a westerner is 6 times as great as the pollution output of a Chinese person.

Clearly you feel that they should all starve and die so that you can pollute as much as you like.

You blame them for increasing their pollution to within a 1/6th of your own personal level of pollution. You think it is because of them that you must change your life style.

As long as it's China and America and India doing all the damage we don't have to ever bite the bullet. We don't have to stop having children ourselves.

We don't have to curb immigration or face up to any of that unpleasantness for ourselves. Like the students in the student house who never clean the toilet.

We can just laugh at the ignorant Chinese and blame them.

Please feel free to introduce me to all the starving Chinese children working in factories.

Try and understand that the child mortality rate is greatly reduced in industrialised nations.

That during our own industrial revolutions our own children all worked in factories too.

And that working in a factory is a much easier job for a child than being a subsistence farmer.

It takes a certain kind of mind that can look at great and rapid advancements in culture and civilisation and detect only evil.

Children aren't born with health insurance. Someone has to buy it for them. That you are another member of your society can buy it for your child, or bought it for you when you were a child doesn't make someone else who is too poor to buy it for theirs evil.

I can find injustice in any society on the planet. Loads of it. Why single out China? Why even look at countries and focus only on the evil. Why not look at their acheivements and celebrate them for what they got right not what they got wrong?

So you hate China? So what.

[Spokesperson 0]

A CEO is not very important. There are many companies that turned out to work better witout CEOs. Sure there might be need for a kind of leadership and representation, but then the workers should decide this as it's the most democratic option. And in many cases CEOs are just privileged workers, they don't own anything. But they collaborate with owners because there's a symbiosis between them.

Production should be planned by the people not by a few owners. The people knows best what it needs.

Where I am from doesn't matter to my opinions. I only support the interests of the working class. What's good for the workers is good for me because I'm no owner. My nationality doesn't matter at all to this.

Quote[/b] ]Why should a person who does not wish to spend to much on eductaion be forced to?

You're a bit naive. It's not about wants, who doesn't want good education. It's about can's. If you can't afford something you can't buy/use it. I don't see why some childs are allowed to get better education just because they got rich parents. Sure education has to be paid for somehow, free education means all are free to use it. In a socialist system there's no need for taxes. Production pays education, which is free for all, not just the rich.

Quote[/b] ]The lazy steal from the productive.

They justify this by demonising those that achieve. The rich are all evil, so it's OK to steal from them.

That's capitalism. Workers work, capitalists don't. Capitalists steal.

Great Britain has no socialist government. It isn't even social democratic or social liberal. New labour is a market liberal party. Your society is liberal, not socialist. In a socialist society there's no capitalism. A socialist goverment means a proletarian dictatorship, not a bourgeois. Your liberal party (social liberal) is more to the left than labour even.

The wage slavery still exists in your country. Work for the owner according to their conditions or die. Produce X. Get Paid Y. X-Y is the profit you generate. That's what the owners steal from you. That's theft and slavery.

Socialism nor classes are about rich or poor. It isn't about distributing the fruits of slavery equally either. Socialism is about abolishing slavery and then discussing equality. There can't be equality in a system whose foundation is oppression and class division.

Baddo,

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">There was a Civil War in Finland in 1918, soon after we declared independence. Whites against Reds was the theme of our Civil War. You can guess which side was the socialists... The Red side lost and I have been very fortunate to be born and raised in a country of the Whites! I run out of words when I try to express my gratitude towards my grand-grandparents for saving me from the socialists' unrealistic, unnatural view of the World. It happened again in WW II, so I must thank my grandparents too.

You can guess which side the whites was. Old finnish-russian barons, capitalists, bourgeoisie, landowners, religious people, regular old kaisergerman troops etc. The reds were the oppressed workers. An army of modern day Spartacus'. You're taking sides with slave owners.

Baff1

Quote[/b] ]Capitalism didn't invent supply and demand.

It doesn't create supply and demand.

Of course there's supply and demand. Socialism doesn't deny this. Planned economies make sure demand is met at set prices.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the few. The capitalist, owning and ruling class.

[Baff1 0]

A CEO is not very important. There are many companies that turned out to work better witout CEOs. Sure there might be need for a kind of leadership and representation, but then the workers should decide this as it's the most democratic option.

Name one.

The workers aren't educated or trained to make those decisions.

They should not be allowed to make them. The person best qualified to get those decisions right should make them.

Similarly tennis players should get no vote in the operation of nuclear power stations.

Society is a complex enviroment, we all specialise in seperate fields. We have expertise in certain areas.

In maths the solution to a complex equation is not defined as the one most people voted for.

The problem with socialism is that it is also ruled by the few.

Just as capitailsm and every other system is.

Why I prefer capitialism is that the few in question are the high achivers the ones with obvious skills that benefit soceity. Namely the creation of wealth.

It is egalitarian. Any one from any segment of society can be productive.

While under socialism, the few are simply political elites. In power just because they went to the same schools together.

Call me naive if you like, but everyone in Britain can afford good education. I think perhaps you have us confused with the Somalian's.

As a society we have clubbed in and paid for it for all. It's called socialism.

How does any of this make buying extra education unfair?

Why am I rich if I spend my extra money on Education, but poor if I spend it on beer?

The answer is simple, because if I am rich and rich is evil, you can spend all your money on beer and then you can spend all my money on whatever else you want too.

Becasue rich people deserve to be robbed.

They didn't earn their money same as you.

Only they did.

I'm rich if I spend my money on extra education, because you don't. Not because I have more money than you, but because I can't defend myself from you.

You think you have a moral right to spend other peoples hard earned money.

You think it just comes from the magic tree, not from the same hard work you would have to do if you wanted to get it for yourself.

That if you have an idea and want to do something it is everybody elses priviliage and your right to have them pay for you to do it.

"The state provides the factory". Only the state doesn't provide the factory. The people do. And the meals for everybody working for the state. And now you and the politicals are all rich and everyone else is poor. Rich from production you didn't do.

Capitalist, socialist. What difference? In your favoured society, the politicians are the rich, and in mine the workers are the rich.

In my minds eye I know that anytime I want something, I can work harder than everyone else wants to. I can make what I want if I don't have something.

In your society the factory is owned by someone who did not build it. Someone who was friends with a politician.

In my society it is owned by the person who built it. For me this is natural justice.

In your society men with guns come and take the factory away from the person who built it and give it to "the state".

In you minds eye anytime you want something the state will take it from someone and just give it to you.

So I can never live with you.

Because when I want something I will make it. And then you, seeing that I have something you want, seeing that I am richer than you, will just take it.

Only I won't let you just take it. I'll fight you. I'll kill you or die trying rather than be abused in that way.

So you see it does matter where you come from, becuase I can never be your friend. We are enemies and need to live apart from eachother or fight to the death.

BTW, In a capitalist society, "production" also pays for the education. "Production" is not the magic tree.

It is real people going to work and earning a living.

And there are lots and lots of people who are not intrested in getting an education. In my 15 years of teaching experience not to mention my years as a student myself, I would suggest to you that there are abt least 3 people in every class who are not intrested in getting a better education.

And for professions such as Farmers and entrepreneurs there simply isn't any education system capable of teaching them what they need to know. Wasting their time in schools actively disadvantages them in their chosen life paths.

Planned economies that set prices are called "cartels" and "monopolies".

I prefer my economics a little freer than that.  

A little more egalitarian, so that my own personal market forces get their own little say inwhat prices should be. In what standards of quality I should accept.

And my life is not defined and prescribed to by people who have no idea what benefits me most, even if they cared.

"Owners"

in Britain don't steal anything from their workers.

Workers can and do change jobs as often as they please.

It's a free employment market here, just as if the worker is not productive enough or not good enough an employer is able to seek another employee, a worker here is no slave.

If he doesn't like the deal he has made with his employer he is free to either leave or renegotiate it at any time. He has plenty of choice in this current economic enviroment.

He can even choose not to work at all and live on state benefits if he prefers.

Sorry but there is no malignant evil going on.

It is in the nature of business that all sides of the arrangement prosper form it. We call it co-operation. Bad business exists, but good business flourishes and prospers. It is the norm.

The reverse is not true in socialism. The owner or the high producers, are the slaves of the others. They cannot fire a lazy employee at will. They cannot choose to work elsewhere. The state prescribes for them.

If they are more productive, the state takes the fruits of their labours.

They cannot choose to leave this deal. They cannot renegotiate. All jobs have the same deal.

[baddo 0]

The wage slavery still exists in your country. Work for the owner according to their conditions or die. Produce X. Get Paid Y. X-Y is the profit you generate. That's what the owners steal from you. That's theft and slavery.

Wait... did you just say that paying for the un-avoidable expenses of running a company instead of just giving all profit to the worker is equal to stealing from the worker?

If you said that seriously, then I must make a conclusion that you really should do a lot of reading about what kind of costs are involved in having an employee and in running a company in general... it's not exactly free to have a company and to have employees. The profit a worker generates has to cover all sorts of costs, not just the salary of the worker, can you imagine?

If you meant that the un-avoidable costs are already deducted from the profit (doesn't sound like you mean this), then how do you improve the company? How do you develop new and better products? All profit has to be given for the workers or otherwise it is theft and slavery? This idea is crazy!

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Equality, for me, means equality in rights (voting, speech, etc) as well as opportunities (education, health care, state benefits, etc). In the US this is far from covered with the current capitalistic economy, and looking at some recent events in the news, we have a long way to go for racial equality and equality of rights as well. When any proposals for universal health care or education are brought up the inevitable "nanny state" reference comes up, or people start crying about taxes (did you know between federal and state taxes, people in California pay a comparable tax rate to those in Canada while not recieving ANY of the social programs Canada has....namely health care).

My stance as I live in European nanny state is quite the opposite. Guess everyone wants what he doesn't have. What you call equal opportunities in your post is more like "positive rights" i.e. "right to have something someone else pays for". That is quite a different thing than equal opportunity. As for the health care, most of countries have mixed system with government funded basic care and private insurance. Canada is quite an abomination (as is US in the opposite sense).

For an example of my definition (applies to the religion comment as well), homosexuals and gay couples would receive all right as heterosexuals...including being able to marry. The religious right is exerting it influence to deny basic rights to citizens based on sexuality. Something that is NOT suppose to happen in this country.

However, regarding your employment question, refer to my post about individual enterprise from earlier. Employers would not be required to hire everyone who applies. Required skill sets would apply of course. Also, ideally since education would be free, workers would receiving the training they want.

So let me put it blunt. If I refuse to employ someone on the base I am racist/sexist/homophobic/hate blonde people, do I have the right to do it? Can I make a free subjective decision (I am talking about private enterprise, not government funded)? If you're against the private enterprise itself you do not have to answer as it is then pointless.

About the gay marriage, it happened in my country and I think it is wholly different and good thing.

The difference between this two examples of what may be called discrimination is fundamental. Permitting gay marriage does extend the freedom, forcing someone to employ one he doesn't want constricts it in my opinion.

Ah but term limits (one or two terms for example) limit the amount of influence one person has while at the same time making them far more responsible to the people they represent.

Why would that make them more responsible? Two terms means that they'll make populistic claims and waste money to get re-elected (as seen thousand of times). One term is like the old saying "After us, the flood" (Luis XV.). The number I believe is okay is zero. Hope you do not believe that the retired representatives return to the pre-politics standard of living. Even if they would be forced to have minimum wage while being on the term, there are thousands of opportunities to suck the money from state's tit if you're in the power.

By community worker I mean someone who contributes to the community however that may be. Odd jobs, factory worker, farmer, etc.

Pensioners of course could be, since by definition they contributed work to the community. I am not sure what you meant by "rentier". Unemployment would indeed be possible, but by choice not by circumstance (ideally). If you don't want to work that is your choice, and you would still receive state services (education, health care, basic necessities) but you would have no vote right in the community work. It's not discrimination, its common sense. If you are not contributing to production, why would you have a choice about what is produced? To take a capitalist example, I don't have a choice on the Coke board of directors.

That is one thing we can agree upon. However I do count people living from taxpayers money as non-contributors. That makes us both non-democrats (in the sense of universal vote rights). As you probably have figured out I am kinda on the "worse than nazis" side from page 2. The chance of some simple worker being catapulted from worskhop to office is non-existant. It would be the one who got money from the state "for that idea of his" and then used them to get to the power.

Not sure what you are referring to, but I'll try to elaborate.

Taking my previous example, if you decide you want to make certain clothes based on an idea of yours, the state would provide you with the means with which to produce those clothes (machinery, factory space, etc) while you would be responsible for workers...hiring, retaining, etc. You would be a "boss" of sorts, but far less so than currently.

No, you would be more than that. No risks, all money from the stupid taxpayers but not yours. That is one of the main reasons of why state owned means of productions failed to produce dignified way of living for its citizens - absolutely no responsibility. The state supervising authority (which would be massive) can be easily bribed. There is only one way to ensure that you're responsible for the company and that is that you own it.

I am undecided about raw materials...whether the state would provide that. It would probably aid the community more if those materials were localized.

If the state owns it, it is same as above.

That is up to the individuals of course. Market in a non-capitalist sense is a possibility but it would be agreed upon by the two people. Market forces are hard to keep out of individual transactions or community based exchange. But unlike capitalism, the exchange would be not profit based.

I fail to see why would anybody trade if they do not have anything from it. Again I ask, who would determine the prizes (one product/another product ratio)?

In any case though, no single item would be able to become a currency as you suggest as the market would be filled with variable products. Soy beans for cheese, pinapples for wood, carpeting for carpentry work, etc.

Market is filled with zillions of variable products now and I do not see major of transactions being bartering product for product. Money is also commodity - that is why I used the soy beans as an example that currency is inevitable. It simplifies things. If I have the peas and car producer do not want them, what shall I do? I need to exchange them for something else and then hope he'll want it. But only thing i can get in my commune for peas are soy beans for example. He do not want soy beans. He wants bananas. So I either travel the world to find some car manufacturer who wants soy beans or peas, or travel the world to find someone who will give me bananas for them etc. Madness. After a short time people will find some other commodity to use as a currency. And voila - your hated money are back.

However, there are many options available for exchange basis. I've been toying with a few like barter as you suggest. Work credits are another choice but most theories inadequetly work them into the economy. I'm still exploring other options as well.

The amount of credits workers earn would be based on what? You're not digging out labour theory of value from its grave, do you?

I wish it were so, but take a look at the US...especially the rise of the religious right and evangelicals and my example above of the denial of rights to a demographic of the citizenry.

Well, it is not capitalism fault that religion interferences with state. The Soviet bloc was certainly not capitalistic and they had Marxism-Leninism as the state religion for example.

The problem is that you're taking US-centric issues and then applying them to the capitalism as the whole even if they are in no relation to it (gay marriage, separation of church and state, racism etc.). We should separate these two things.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]The workers aren't educated or trained to make those decisions.

Nonsense. In most cases worker controlled companies turn losses to "profit".

This is a famous documentary about some actual examples by Naomi Klein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take

http://www.thetake.org/

For some other examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

You're just echoing liberal lies. Do you think you can keep the workers oppressed forever? And you want to forbid them to run their own companies because they "can't". Apparently they succeed. And do better without capitalist parasites.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with socialism is that it is also ruled by the few.

So these socialist managed companies are ruled by a few? Where are you getting your information from? Liberal media or school books?

Quote[/b] ]Why I prefer capitialism is that the few in question are the high achivers the ones with obvious skills that benefit soceity. Namely the creation of wealth.

It is egalitarian. Any one from any segment of society can be productive.

Oh comon do you live in a glass cage? Without money =freedom and power, you can't go anywhere even if you want. Certainly there's a few who have succeeded in turning themselves into parasites. But it's much more likely to win a lottery. And it doesn't solve the problem.

Quote[/b] ]Call me naive if you like, but everyone in Britain can afford good education. I think perhaps you have us confused with the Somalian's.

As a society we have clubbed in and paid for it for all. It's called socialism.

No far from everyone can. Welfare does not mean socialism. Normal (social) conservatives are usually very much pro-welfare (help the poor, charity etc). It doesn't mean they are socialists.

Quote[/b] ]How does any of this make buying extra education unfair?

It's unfair that wealth is more important than merit when it comes to education. Before wealth it was blood. When freedom is limited to a few in one single place, those who've got money, there's no freedom anywhere at all.

Quote[/b] ]Planned economies that set prices are called "cartels" and "monopolies".

No because the prices are set in a way so everyone can afford them. Bus tickets don't cost more than people can afford. There's no need for profit to some owners. Owned and controlled by the people is the most free option. Private ownership means accumulation of power in the hands of a few, apart from exploitation.

Quote[/b] ]"Owners"

in Britain don't steal anything from their workers.

Workers can and do change jobs as often as they please

Yea sure, that's why there's unemployment? They just have to change to some other job, there are loads of them. No competition about jobs at all. The choices are limited, and no matter what job you choose you'll subject yourself to capitalist exploitation logics. You'll be robbed no matter what you do or what you pick because this system is based on theft supported by police, military and private media.

Quote[/b] ]The reverse is not true in socialism. The owner or the high producers, are the slaves of the others. They cannot fire a lazy employee at will. They cannot choose to work elsewhere. The state prescribes for them.

If they are more productive, the state takes the fruits of their labours.

They cannot choose to leave this deal. They cannot renegotiate. All jobs have the same deal.

You don't seem to have a clue what socialism is. There are no private owners in a socialist system. Lazy workers get less money. Those who produce or work more get more. And no profit is made. No parasites.

Baddo,

Quote[/b] ]Wait... did you just say that paying for the un-avoidable expenses of running a company instead of just giving all profit to the worker is equal to stealing from the worker?

No, I'm talking about the profits. The money that goes to share holders (the owners) who do nothing.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]When I say that the man at the drill is easy to replace compared to replacing the CEO, I actually mean it. The experience I have gathered during my working career stands behind this claim.

And you think I'm just being metaphorical? You think my working experience doesn't support me? Or financial news that you can gather for yourself? Or historical evidence from the early 1900's on?

Quote[/b] ] You can easily find another man who can operate the drill as well as the previous man at the drill did, but try to find another man who can run the company as well as the previous CEO... do you seriously think you can take the man from the drill (who has max. a vocational education) to the position of the CEO and the company could then be realistically expected to keep on succeeding as it did earlier?

You think I'm talking about taking the man from the drill and making him a CEO? Then you are not understanding what I am saying about my personal ideology. Leaders emerge from any economic system. However, you assume every CEO will be a leader, or benefit their corporation and that is patently false. Have you paid attention to how many CEO's this week alone have been removed or resigned...mostly because of horrible business decisions regarding sub-prime mortgages. Is that running the company well?

Quote[/b] ]You have made your mind and refuse to revise your ideas even though people point out serious flaws. One of them being that in a factory, the CEO and the man at the drill should be equal. As human beings they are equal, but in the context of the factory, they are not equal and they never should be.

Bit of a moot point given that there would be no CEO in the first place. But if you are talking about an individual needed to make production decisions, the workers and the local community themselves, would best determine what products would need to be made for that particular community. A community does not need a million dollar executive to determine what they need.

But regardless, as I pointed out in a previous post, I am still in the process of concreting this ideology. You might have missed that. But I see no reason to revise it based on capitalist ideas that continue to separate and discriminate.

Quote[/b] ]Capitalism didn't invent supply and demand.

It doesn't create supply and demand.

Supply and demand exists. Capitalism recognises this.

As I mentioned in my post regarding market forces. However, as I said, capitalism invented the need for a CEO, not supply and demand. A person interested in profit and personal gain (and the gain of those who can afford to invest) and not worker security or benefit.

Quote[/b] ]Your previous comments about education can be found in your posts above. Feel free to re-read them at anytime.

Lets see:

Education for all, as individuals deem necessary or desirous, and no discrimination based on economic standing.

Yep thats lunacy there.

Quote[/b] ]Similarly I'm sorry to hearyou can't take a little belittlement. I assumed that after you belittled me (and my family) you would be ok if I continued in the tone of debate you had set.

Please feel free to point out when that happened.

However, if you are talking about my calling your family "uneducated," I only used the term you yourself coined. I don't know your family or you, so can only go by what you share.

If some how that offended than I apologize as that wasn't my intent. As I said, I only followed your cue.

Quote[/b] ]You seem to oppose everything, not just dictatorships. In the end someone must be at the top. Call him king, queen, dictator, president, prime minister, CEO, Emperor, Shah; anything you like.

What's in a name?

No I oppose a lot of the capitalist system. However, I understand the importance of democracy and personal choice, and that is why I oppose dictatorial socialist and communist regimes. They will always fail if the people are not behind it. Sweden has a history of socialist programs because the people support it. While I watch Hugo Chavez with interest, I'm not entirely convinced yet that he is another tinpot dictator.

No one person need be in total control. There may be a "diplomat" to deal with international issues under guidance of a representative council, but they need not

Quote[/b] ]You fail to understand the basic problem of pollution.

In order to feed people, house people and cloth people, we must pollute our enviroment.

All species on the planet have the same trouble. This only becomes an issue when the population becomes too numerate.

China is the only society addressing the root issue of man made pollution.

Man.

Yes they pollute to to feed themselves. So do we.

I live in Europe. Where we have already cut down our forests centuries ago. Where we have already industrialised decades ago.

China hasn't even begun to pollute on our scale.

The Pollution output of a westerner is 6 times as great as the pollution output of a Chinese person.

Clearly you feel that they should all starve and die so that you can pollute as much as you like.

You blame them for increasing their pollution to within a 1/6th of your own personal level of pollution. You think it is because of them that you must change your life style.

First point. You don't know my polluting habits, so don't attempt to make assumptions.

Second point. I never excused Western society, but then again we weren't talking about them were we? We were addressing your contention that China is the "only" (your word) country to be addressing pollution by using a policy that was implemented for no reason regarding pollution. It was implemented before China even started seriously polluting. Your correlation is false and misguided.

In fact it came about when China was trying to economically compete. The policy started in the 50's until its present form from the 1970s. The policy was before China became an economic powerhouse...not during and not after. Pollution was NOT a factor.

So it is you who fail in understanding basic Chinese history.

And give me a break. Yes I want us all to starve and die. Great argument from the guy that oked child labor.

You also labor under the ridiculous assumption that we are as clean as we possibly can be. Bull. Hard choices need to be made that is for sure. One solution may not be as environmentally sound as we would like but does the net gain justify it? Bio-fuel for example.

Any capitalist corporation worth its profit would see the writing on the wall and significantly increase research and development to clean energy. If only to seize an early market share of the future.

Third point. You don't know my lifestyle nor what I do to try and help my part. So until you do, keep your ill-informed rants to yourself.

Quote[/b] ]As long as it's China and America and India doing all the damage we don't have to ever bite the bullet. We don't have to stop having children ourselves.

We don't have to curb immigration or face up to any of that unpleasantness for ourselves. Like the students in the student house who never clean the toilet.

We can just laugh at the ignorant Chinese and blame them.

If thats what you want to do go ahead.

But I never exclusively blamed the Chinese, but that was who we were talking about. See above.

Quote[/b] ]Please feel free to introduce me to all the starving Chinese children working in factories.

Try and understand that the child mortality rate is greatly reduced in industrialised nations.

That during our own industrial revolutions our own children all worked in factories too.

And that working in a factory is a much easier job for a child than being a subsistence farmer.

It takes a certain kind of mind that can look at great and rapid advancements in culture and civilisation and detect only evil.

It takes a certain kind of mind to think that a child working heavy factory machinery without controls or supervision is A-ok.

Here ya go. Here's your companies new worker:

Quote[/b] ]Children aren't born with health insurance. Someone has to buy it for them. That you are another member of your society can buy it for your child, or bought it for you when you were a child doesn't make someone else who is too poor to buy it for theirs evil.

What kind of absolutely ridiculous assumption is this?

No shit someone has to buy it for them, and if someone in their familial unit can't why shouldn't the state? It's their responsibility to aid their citizens right? Or are children not citizens and don't require protection? Don't you want healthy children to work in your factory?

I do believe that we as a society do need to make sure our children are cared for which is why I donate to that purpose.

Yeah I think they are evil. How long did it take you to squeeze that outta your ass?

Quote[/b] ]I can find injustice in any society on the planet. Loads of it. Why single out China?

Well hmm...lemme see.

Maybe because that was the topic we were discussing?

Quote[/b] ]Why even look at countries and focus only on the evil. Why not look at their acheivements and celebrate them for what they got right not what they got wrong?

Well lets see....maybe because thats not what we were discussing? I can come up with a thousand things the Chinese have accomplished...but that wasn't the topic of conversation now was it?

Quote[/b] ]

So you hate China? So what.

Thats the best you could come up with? Some fake assumption that I hate China? Better luck next time.

Quote[/b] ]Name one.

The workers aren't educated or trained to make those decisions.

They should not be allowed to make them. The person best qualified to get those decisions right should make them.

And as I said. That is why an educated work force is essential. As I've been saying. For days now.

Quote[/b] ]Similarly tennis players should get no vote in the operation of nuclear power stations.

Society is a complex enviroment, we all specialise in seperate fields. We have expertise in certain areas.

In maths the solution to a complex equation is not defined as the one most people voted for.

Indeed. And that is why the workers specilizing in their factory would make the decisions. As I said. For days now.

A trained educated work force would be able to make those decisions.

Quote[/b] ]The problem with socialism is that it is also ruled by the few.

Just as capitailsm and every other system is.

Ruled by a few? How do you figure that?

Quote[/b] ]Why I prefer capitialism is that the few in question are the high achivers the ones with obvious skills that benefit soceity. Namely the creation of wealth.

It is egalitarian. Any one from any segment of society can be productive.

How does wealth benefit society outside of the normal capitalist sense of the word? Is wealth solving homelessness? Is it making sure every child has medial coverage? Just the opposite in fact.

And do me a favor. Go to the ghettos of Detroit, or Philly, or the rural South and explain to them how its egalitarian. How everyone is equal and be sure to ask them why they aren't contributing to society by producing wealth for a few bosses.

Lemme know how that goes.

Quote[/b] ]And there are lots and lots of people who are not intrested in getting an education. In my 15 years of teaching experience not to mention my years as a student myself, I would suggest to you that there are abt least 3 people in every class who are not intrested in getting a better education.

And I fully agree with that statement. I didn't say they should HAVE to go to school. As I said before...its as the individual prefers.

Quote[/b] ]And for professions such as Farmers and entrepreneurs there simply isn't any education system capable of teaching them what they need to know. Wasting their time in schools actively disadvantages them in their chosen life paths.

Entrepreneurs I would agree with in some sense, but being British you may not have heard of a number of agricultural societies and schools here (generally with an "A&M" after the school name). There are high school societies called "Future Farmers of America" that do indeed train or at the least educate high school students who already know they will be on a farm working.

Quote[/b] ]in Britain don't steal anything from their workers.

Workers can and do change jobs as often as they please.

It's a free employment market here, just as if the worker is not productive enough or not good enough an employer is able to seek another employee, a worker here is no slave.

If he doesn't like the deal he has made with his employer he is free to either leave or renegotiate it at any time. He has plenty of choice in this current economic enviroment.

He can even choose not to work at all and live on state benefits if he prefers.

Sorry but there is no malignant evil going on.

It is in the nature of business that all sides of the arrangement prosper form it. We call it co-operation. Bad business exists, but good business flourishes and prospers. It is the norm.

The reverse is not true in socialism. The owner or the high producers, are the slaves of the others. They cannot fire a lazy employee at will. They cannot choose to work elsewhere. The state prescribes for them.

And as an employer you would hire someone that has had say....15 or 20 jobs in a few years? Bull.

Workers are not free to leave and just magically find a new job as if someone is just going to hand them one. In a capitalist society workers have worries such as rent, and bills, and expenses that keep them from just up and leaving a job they do not enjoy. I'm not sure what fairy land you live in, but finding a job is never that easy. Especially is somone is uneducated or untrained.

Other than that, how you think socialism works holds not relevance to my particular ideology. I've already addressed those very points. I'm sorry you didn't bother to read them.

Damn that was a long post....

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]

You think I'm talking about taking the man from the drill and making him a CEO? Then you are not understanding what I am saying about my personal ideology. Leaders emerge from any economic system. However, you assume every CEO will be a leader, or benefit their corporation and that is patently false. Have you paid attention to how many CEO's this week alone have been removed or resigned...mostly because of horrible business decisions regarding sub-prime mortgages. Is that running the company well?

At a rough guess approximately 1/1,000,000 of the numbers of unproductive workers worldwide that have been sacked this week have been CEO's of the comopany.

Farcical.

[Baff1 0]

I fail to see why you don't recognise the CEO and company executives as part of the trained workforce.

You want a trained and eductaed member of the workforce to do that job. Which is exactly what already happens. That person has a job title and it is EXEC or CEO.

There is no "workers and CEO's". CEO's are workers everybit as much as machine tool operators.

They are however senior workers, the educated and capable ones.

Some workers are more important to the running of a company than others.

Their paychecks tend to reflect this.

What you are advocating quite simply already exists everywhere.

Quote[/b] ]

And do me a favor. Go to the ghettos of Detroit, or Philly, or the rural South and explain to them how its egalitarian. How everyone is equal and be sure to ask them why they aren't contributing to society by producing wealth for a few bosses.

Lemme know how that goes.

[

Quote[/b] ]And for professions such as Farmers and entrepreneurs there simply isn't any education system capable of teaching them what they need to know. Wasting their time in schools actively disadvantages them in their chosen life paths.

Entrepreneurs I would agree with in some sense, but being British you may not have heard of a number of agricultural societies and schools here (generally with an "A&M" after the school name). There are high school societies called "Future Farmers of America" that do indeed train or at the least educate high school students who already know they will be on a farm working.

Quote[/b] ]in Britain don't steal anything from their workers.

Workers can and do change jobs as often as they please.

It's a free employment market here, just as if the worker is not productive enough or not good enough an employer is able to seek another employee, a worker here is no slave.

If he doesn't like the deal he has made with his employer he is free to either leave or renegotiate it at any time. He has plenty of choice in this current economic enviroment.

He can even choose not to work at all and live on state benefits if he prefers.

Sorry but there is no malignant evil going on.

It is in the nature of business that all sides of the arrangement prosper form it. We call it co-operation. Bad business exists, but good business flourishes and prospers. It is the norm.

The reverse is not true in socialism. The owner or the high producers, are the slaves of the others. They cannot fire a lazy employee at will. They cannot choose to work elsewhere. The state prescribes for them.

And as an employer you would hire someone that has had say....15 or 20 jobs in a few years? Bull.

Workers are not free to leave and just magically find a new job as if someone is just going to hand them one. In a capitalist society workers have worries such as rent, and bills, and expenses that keep them from just up and leaving a job they do not enjoy. I'm not sure what fairy land you live in, but finding a job is never that easy. Especially is somone is uneducated or untrained.

Other than that, how you think socialism works holds not relevance to my particular ideology. I've already addressed those very points. I'm sorry you didn't bother to read them.

Damn that was a long post....

Poor people don't generate wealth for a few bosses in philly and Detriot. They generate it for themselves.

The deep south isn't poor because it is capitalist.

There is no evil boss sucking all the money out of the place. There isn't any money there to suck out. Never has been never will be. It has no natural resources.

Farmers can't be taught in schools, because the academics who spend time in schools are not working all daylight hours on farms for 90 year straight.

The experts in farming have spent every daylight hour of their lives farming. Their fathers who have also spent every daylight hour for the last 90 years are on hand to teach them.

The real experts aren't in schools. Any time spent is school is time spent away from the farm and the time spent away from the greatest experts on farming known to man.

You may learn something about farming at agricultural college, but every minute away from the farm is an educational minute wasted.

We have agricultural colleges here too. They suck.

There are some things but by there very nature an academic can never know very much about.

Scoring goals is another example.

I have no trouble getting work. 15-20 jobs is not a problem for me. I prefer to work short contracts. The labour market here is very flexible.

Where do you live? Your not British are you?

No one said anything about handing people jobs. The world doesn't owe you a living.

Only that there are alternatives available here including unemployment benfits and self employment.

There are however jobs a plenty. More currently availalbe than our own doemstic population can fill.

We have imported 2 million foriegn workers in the last 5 years. There is no shortage here.

Untrained and uneducated labour is the prefered kind.

We have a problem with too many overqualified people for the number of professional job opportunities.

If you are willing to start at the bottom, vacancies are everywhere.

I'm sorry if I missed any of your idealogies too, or if I chose not to comment on them. I tend only to reply when

I feel I have something to add or a relavent opinion to share.

[Akira 0]

Crap...man these responses are gonna be pages long.

Quote[/b] ]My stance as I live in European nanny state is quite the opposite. Guess everyone wants what he doesn't have. What you call equal opportunities in your post is more like "positive rights" i.e. "right to have something someone else pays for". That is quite a different thing than equal opportunity. As for the health care, most of countries have mixed system with government funded basic care and private insurance. Canada is quite an abomination (as is US in the opposite sense).

If you mean someone poor gets to go to college or have health insurance partly from your taxes, then yes. From a US point of view, a black child from rural Mississippi does not get the same opportunity to go to college as a white middle-class or even a black middle-class child.

That is inequality and that is what I am talking about.

Quote[/b] ]So let me put it blunt. If I refuse to employ someone on the base I am racist/sexist/homophobic/hate blonde people, do I have the right to do it? Can I make a free subjective decision (I am talking about private enterprise, not government funded)? If you're against the private enterprise itself you do not have to answer as it is then pointless.

About the gay marriage, it happened in my country and I think it is wholly different and good thing.

The difference between this two examples of what may be called discrimination is fundamental. Permitting gay marriage does extend the freedom, forcing someone to employ one he doesn't want constricts it in my opinion.

I'm not against private initative...far from it. But if you mean private enterprise as in private company for profit sake than yes. But regardless, no I don't think you have the right to refuse employment to someone based on race/gender/sexuality/etc. I find such base discrimination abhorrant.

But as in real life now, it is extremely difficult to prove that some one was discriminated against unless it is an especially egregious case.

I'm not pretending there are easy answers cause there never is. I don't think government legislating who to employ is the answer and not really what I was getting at. What I mean is a fundamental change in the way people percieve each other.

Quote[/b] ]Why would that make them more responsible? Two terms means that they'll make populistic claims and waste money to get re-elected (as seen thousand of times). One term is like the old saying "After us, the flood" (Luis XV.). The number I believe is okay is zero. Hope you do not believe that the retired representatives return to the pre-politics standard of living. Even if they would be forced to have minimum wage while being on the term, there are thousands of opportunities to suck the money from state's tit if you're in the power.

The system I am advocating is not full time representation...ie elected officials would not be representatives full time in whatever mythical capital we are talking about. They would be "representatives as needed" I guess would be somewhat of a descripition.

However, obviously a government would need to be in place already or who know that business needed to be taken care of?

Thats the dilemma. How to get less government while still maintaining at least a framework for when a full government IS needed...

However, I believe that it makes them more responsible to their community because 1) they are not removed from that community, and 2) they still have to live and operate with in that community.

Quote[/b] ]No, you would be more than that. No risks, all money from the stupid taxpayers but not yours. That is one of the main reasons of why state owned means of productions failed to produce dignified way of living for its citizens - absolutely no responsibility. The state supervising authority (which would be massive) can be easily bribed. There is only one way to ensure that you're responsible for the company and that is that you own it.

Quote[/b] ]If the state owns it, it is same as above.

Thats another reason why I think some materials should come from the local community. The local community will not allow you to just waste part of their production, and certainly not some of their resources.

But I do believe that on some level, it would enable further inventivness, as a person is not worried about monetary loss nor do they need to raise a massive amount of capital to begin. What they do have to do is cooperate and work with in the frame work of the community. If there is no exchange for that commodity to other communities, why would the community continue to give you the resources for that production.

The Clapper for example.

Quote[/b] ]Market is filled with zillions of variable products now and I do not see major of transactions being bartering product for product. Money is also commodity - that is why I used the soy beans as an example that currency is inevitable. It simplifies things. If I have the peas and car producer do not want them, what shall I do? I need to exchange them for something else and then hope he'll want it. But only thing i can get in my commune for peas are soy beans for example. He do not want soy beans. He wants bananas. So I either travel the world to find some car manufacturer who wants soy beans or peas, or travel the world to find someone who will give me bananas for them etc. Madness. After a short time people will find some other commodity to use as a currency. And voila - your hated money are back.

Maybe I should call it the Paper Clip Economy as what I am thinking is similiar to the guy who started with a paper clip on eBay and ended with a house.

However, inevitably certain communities will but a higher exchange on certain products, products they particularly enjoy or like. Those products of course will be valued higher to that community but not necessarily other communities, whether it be soy beans or peas.

However one community solution is to exchange for whatever raw resources you require to make the commodity yourself (I speak of luxury items like cars or what have you). However for agricultural products I believe the exchange will be somewhat stabilized as local communities can grow for themselves and trade any surplus to other communities that lack that product for another agricultural product.

I shy away from controls on local production however.

Quote[/b] ]The amount of credits workers earn would be based on what? You're not digging out labour theory of value from its grave, do you?

By its nature, worker credits as a form of exchange would form, in my opinion, the very divisions that capitalism does.

That is why I'm still thinking of a viable option.

Quote[/b] ]Well, it is not capitalism fault that religion interferences with state. The Soviet bloc was certainly not capitalistic and they had Marxism-Leninism as the state religion for example.

The problem is that you're taking US-centric issues and then applying them to the capitalism as the whole even if they are in no relation to it (gay marriage, separation of church and state, racism etc.). We should separate these two things.

Well I take US-centric views as that is where I live and experience life.

But indeed I am not meaning to say that capitalism and religion is tied together. Not at all.

But some cultural by-products are exacerbated by capitalism, if not caused by capitalism. And I do mean racism, crime, etc.

Nothing is ever absolute. There are people that will committ crime regardless of reason. I never work in absolutes.

I do enjoy this dialogue so.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Farmers can't be taught in schools, because the academics who spend time in schools are not working all daylight hours on farms for 90 year straight.

The experts in farming have spent every daylight hour of their lives farming. Their fathers whoi have also spent every daylight hour for the last 90 years are on hand to teach them.

The real experts aren't in schools. Any time spent is school is time spent away from the farm and the time spent away from the greatest experts on farming known to man.

You may learn something about farming at agricultural college, but every minute away from the farm is an educational minute wasted.

There are some things but by there very nature an academic can never know very much about.

I don't think you understood or I didn't explain. These societies and colleges do indeed work on real life producing farms. Students in the FFA for example, go to high school for certain periods getting their standard education, than as part of the credit requirements for graduation, the rest is spent on the farm working, raising animals, etc.

Similarly, A&M schools teach theory and advancments in agriculture. Some have research farms as well...working farms to explore better methods of farming.

Quote[/b] ]I have no trouble getting work. 15-20 jobs is not a problem for me. I prefer to work short contracts. The labour market here is very flexible.

Where do you live? Your not British are you?

No I'm the US of A.

I assume you are self-employed? Consultant or something similiar?

THat is not exactly what I meant when I meant a worker with 15-20 jobs. I meant someone like a standard office worker. Most employers would not hire a person that has had that many jobs by reasoning that that many jobs shows unreliablity.

Quote[/b] ]No one said anything about handing people jobs. The world doesn't owe you a living.

Only that there are alternatives available here including unemployment benfits.

There are however jobs a plenty. More currently availalke than our own doemstic population can fill.

We have imported 2 million foriegn workers in the last 5 years. There is no shortage here.

Untrained and uneducated labour is the prefered kind. We have a problem with too many overqualified people for the number of professional job opportunities.

If you are willing to start at the bottom, vacancies are everywhere.

Ah. Well not so here.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry if I missed any of your idealogies too, or if I chose not to comment on them. I tend only to reply when

I feel I have something to add or a relavent opinion to share.

The balance I am trying to strike is between state responsibility for their citizenry, too much government, personal responsibility, individual growth, and the growth of humans as a species.

It's not easy and its not perfect, but I think there can be more.

[Baff1 0]

I understood.

My point stands.

Research farms as centres of education are moronic in the extreme. A fudging load of scientists. As if training in labs, reading books, and running experiments with test crops has aynthing to do with farming. That lot are oblivious to 98% of all agriculture. They work 9-5 then they go home. And they didn't even start the job until they were 25.

Beaurocracy out of control.

These people who will have you treat them as experts, but they aren't.

There are real experts out there with levels of education and personal experience far beyond anything found in research institutes or agricultural colleges. They have the cumulative reference knowledge of at least 2 generations of theur forefathers who personally taught them the acquired wisdom of 90 years experince in the field.

That is 60 years in manhours on the job. They themselves taught by similarly experienced teachers.

If you want to learn, study with the experts. You won't find them in schools. Not even specialist schools.

With regards to the state paying for childrens health insurance, you seem to have no concept of money.

The state doesn't do magic. Any health insurance the state provides must still be paid for. Clearly you haven't made the connection between the taxes you, your friends and your family pays and the services the state provides. Health insurance is not free.

There is no magic wand that creates medecine out of thin air. That grows hospitals out of pumpkins at midnight. That turns squirrels into doctors and nurses.

We have A  "free" National Health Service here. It costs 2,000 Pounds per person per year, or $4,000 of your dollars. (It's larger and better funded than the U.S. military).

All well and good for soceities that can afford it, but hardly relevant to subsistance farming communites in rural Mongolia now is it?

Just because your state can afford health insurance for all it's children, doesn't mean that poor states who can't afford it are evil.

Sorry mate you just hate China. You are looking for ways in which to find them evil and malign towards children when clearly the opposite is true of all societies everywhere.

You could have thought about it, and worked this out for yourself, but you never bothered. This has no basis in logic or experience. You haven't been to China and witnessed the abuse of children. You don't know any abused Chinese kids.

The Chinese people you have met in your life have not all been abject baby haters.

Its' just Xenophobia

I'm retired.

I live off my investments.

I've had any number of jobs over the years, from dishwasher to consultancies. I was a dancer for six years, a teacher for 15, is till do the odd IT consultancy and TV show for pocketmoney if the job sounds fun enough. Had a few small busineeses in my time, worked for some internationals too.

I've never made any money at anything except the stock exchange.

I get where you are coming from about the job stability, but really that depends on the kind of job you are applying for. No cares how many jobs you have had if you are applying to be a shop assistant.

No one cares if you apply for a job washing up or flipping burgers.

If you want to change your career you can. If you are willing to start at the bottom, employers will take you.

Not being a debtor I have some sympathy for the wage slave concept where the bank owns you. (Not a very big sympathy mind you as I am a substantial investor in banks, the money they lend you is sometimes mine).

At the same time I recognise that the opportunity to get a mortgage is of great benefit to people.

You may be coerced into keeping your high paid job by the fear of losing your house, but you would lose it too if you left your job and were only renting it.

Ultimatly it may feel like a curse at times, but people do this out of their own violition because they see that it benefits them to do so. They do have other options open to them.

But if they keep it together they get a free house after 30 years. For doing what?  Taking responsability for themsleves.

It's free money, everybody wins. The homowner gets a house worth a few hundred thousand and never pays rent again, the bankman gets paid, and so do I.

Capitalism works. It's not slavery. It's mutual gain. Consenting adults all agree to help eachother and themselves in the process by actively co-operating and pooling their resources.

My friend for example is a punk. He is a doctor of philosophy and his philosophy is never own anything, wash dishes for a living and get as drunk as you like whenever you like.

I am a slave to my investments. I can't break the law or emigrate or I will forfeit them. I must maintain my house or it will fall over. I must park my nice car somewhere safe or it will get stolen or vandalised.

He is much freer than me.

But I am not a slave. I could be as free as him. I chose not to.

There are no slaves here. That's not how it is, to suggest otherwise is a missuse of the word slave.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I understood.

My point stands.

Research farms as centres of education are moronic in the extreme. A fudging load of scientists. As if training in labs, reading books, and running experiments with test crops has aynthing to do with farming. That lot are oblivious to 98% of all agriculture. They work 9-5 then they go home. And they didn't even start the job until they were 25.

Beaurocracy out of control.

These people who will have you treat them as experts, but they aren't.

There are real experts out there with levels of education and personal experience far beyond anything found in research institutes or agricultural colleges. They have the cumulative reference knowledge of at least 2 generations of theur forefathers who personally taught them the acquired wisdom of 90 years experince in the field.

That is 60 years in manhours on the job. They themselves taught by similarly experienced teachers.

If you want to learn, study with the experts. You won't find them in schools. Not even specialist schools.

Where the hell do you think agricultural advances come from? The thin air? Farmers that have no time to research nor the means to experiment with crops, methods, or technologies?

You obviously have no idea what in the hell you are talking about so I will leave it at that.

"Beaurocracy"? From what? What the hell are you talking about?

Quote[/b] ]With regards to the state paying for childrens health insurance, you seem to have no concept of money.

The state doesn't do magic. Any health insurance the state provides must still be paid for. Clearly you haven't made the connection between the taxes you, your friends and your family pays and the services the state provides. Health insurance is not free.

You obviously have no concept of how the American system works but keep living in your strange deluded little world.

Our illustrious president just vetoed a measure to expand childrens health care because its "too expensive." Meanwhile trillions are being lost in inept war. I won't bother with the obvious capitalism implications as I'm sure you'll just go off on some senile "You just hate Iraqis" rant.

Quote[/b] ]There is no magic wand that creates medecine out of thin air. That grows hospitals out of pumpkins at midnight. That turns squirrels into doctors and nurses.

We have A "free" National Health Service here. It costs 2,000 Pounds per person per year, or $4,000 of your dollars.

Nice metaphor but completely irrelavent. Whatever your health care costs good for you. I currently have no health care, and if I bought it for myself on the capitalist open market it would cost me FAR more than $4G's a year.

But I'm not even the one I'm worried about as I mentioned before, I'm pretty lucky. I worry about the poor ghetto kid or rural child living in poverty.

Quote[/b] ]st because your state can afford health insurance for all it's children, doesn't mean that poor states who can't afford it are evil.

For one, what in the hell are you talking about. Where did I say anything that REMOTELY came close to that?

And for point of fact, YOU are the only using the term "evil"...not I.

Quote[/b] ]You could have thought about it, and worked this out for yourself, but you never bothered. This has no basis in logic or experience. You haven't been to China and witnessed the abuse of children. You don't know any abused Chinese kids.

The Chinese people you have met in your life have not all been abject baby haters.

Its' just Xenophobia

I don't know what alternate conversation you have had, but its time to put down the pint and step away from the computer.

Your completely dim accusation holds no basis in reality...not in my posts nor anything else I have said.

Go on thinking that. It is no concern of mine.

But I do enjoy your denial of child labor given the numerous evidence to the contrary (Indonesia for example).

Quote[/b] ]If you want to change your career you can. If you are willing to start at the bottom, employers will take you.

Only thing I agree with...I've done it three times. However like I said, my situation is lucky. Others are not so.

Quote[/b] ]But if they keep it together they get a free house after 30 years. For doing what? Taking responsability for themsleves.

The trick isn't only to take responsibility for yourself though. I'm not sure a $150,000 house is free either considering interest and the like.

But good luck trying to get a house being a minority or poor.

Quote[/b] ]Poor people don't generate wealth for a few bosses in philly and Detriot. They generate it for themselves

Wow...you really don't have an conception of reality outside your stock market do you?

The point is they don't generate wealth AT ALL.

Quote[/b] ]I fail to see why you don't recognise the CEO and company executives as part of the trained workforce.

Now I know you don't even have the courtesy to read my posts before reaching for the keyboard. Until you do, I"m done with you, but I'll help you on your way first. A whopping one page back and posted today:

Quote[/b] ]EDIT2: Something I failed to address. I'm aware that executives are workers as well.

So before you continue your ridiculous assumptions and accusations, maybe you should read a little.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

what puzzels me is how some people (im my experiance most) supporting communism take the works of Marx and Engels (great peaces of indivudual philiosophy dont get me wrong - and worth a read) and argue them to be dead on fact, when they are just individual peoples philispohical ideals and beliefs.  It also really bugs me when becuase people disagree with there 'facts' they are dismissed as either being lurred into the Capitalis propaganda and therefor unable to construct there own viewpoint,  or somhow less enligtened as they do not see things your way and as a conciquence unable to contruct there own viewpoint.

come on guys, get a grip.  really.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]It also really bugs me when becuase people disagree with there 'facts' they are dismissed as either being lurred into the Capitalis propaganda and therefor unable to construct there own viewpoint,  or somhow less enligtened as they do not see things your way and as a conciquence unable to contruct there own viewpoint.

It's a two way street.

Because I don't place value on wealth or the collection of wealth, and am for the redistribution of wealth to those less fortunate, somehow I am "jealous" and "envious" of the "fat cats" or am "rebelling against my rich daddy" or some other ridiculous nonsense. They also seem to use the exact same method as you describe...that I haven't thought it out and am incapable of formulating my own view point. It's been formulating for 20 years and is backed by everything I have seen and witnessed.

When I attack some points of capitalism, some people act like I personally kicked them in the jimmy and are incapable of rational discussion.

I am only arguing my personal ideology system that admitedly I am still hammering out. Take it for what it is.

Murdoch I like discussing with...he brings rational statements to the debate that can only enhance the conversation and make the other side think. Since he also comes from a democratic socialist state (I believe), his observations also bear some weight with me.

As I said before, my ideology is socialist based, but not from a theoretical perspective that I have come across...yet. I believe in the democratic socialization of a state, and abhor dictators and similiar institutions.

EDIT: Small addition

[baddo 0]

The whole "theft & slavery" talk sounds like a worker is somehow tied into the company he works for, and can't ever walk away... well, I wanted the job and got it as I was well qualified for it, then I got good salary every two weeks, I got raises often as it was often appropriate, I worked very hard and enjoyed doing it, and then after learning that I could do so much more, I walked away when I wanted to. Theft and slavery just doesn't fit into that picture. I also earned most of the money needed for my first apartment by working in the so-called "slavery". If it was slavery I wouldn't have received any pay, other than the food to keep me alive.

When hired CEO's get sacked, that shows that the system really works well. People who screwed something up big time lost their jobs. Somehow I don't think it works like that in socialist communities... Countries which have advertized being "socialist" countries have showed strong signs of dictatorship (USSR, Cuba, now Venezuela. Others?). So that the people who screw up at the top of their socialist systems won't ever get sacked, but can continue to rip off their people. You can argue that this doesn't happen in a "truly" socialist system... a "truly" socialist system is utopy, it won't happen. It is unrealistic, unnatural. Thus you will never find any holding evidence to back it up. Why do socialist countries end up into dictatorship? Is a question you need to answer to yourself.

Not every CEO is hired, but is often also the sole owner so there things are differently. But the "reward" for screwing up comes for them too, in some form or another.

I'm sensing some ad hominem talk in this thread... please do not go into that.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can argue that this doesn't happen in a "truly" socialist system... a "truly" socialist system is utopy, it won't happen. It is unrealistic, unnatural. Thus you will never find any holding evidence to back it up. Why do socialist countries end up into dictatorship? Is a question you need to answer to yourself.

I don't find it unrealistic, though its interesting you do find it a utopia. Is that not something to strive for? And why is it unnatural? Unnatural because capitalism says it is? There are numerous cultures in this world where sharing and reciprocity are the norm not the exception, where cooperation is valued and encouraged. Some would call them primitive but that only belies a western colonial bias.

I do not think the social democracies of Europe have turned into dictatorships. As I said before, I'm not convinced that Chavez isn't just another dictator masquerading behind socialist ideals. USSR/Cuba are not true socialist societies as has been discussed, nor are they communist in the sense of the original society layed out by Marx. The USSR and Cuba were brought about by armed rebellion and put in place, for the most part, by a minority. In one case it was monarchial corruption that brought it about, and the other capitalist corruption. They are examples of why armed revolution doesn't work. The way is to peaceful democratic change. Working within the system to change it. To get your ideas and ideals out and understood by the other citizens so that they support changes.

Quote[/b] ]When hired CEO's get sacked, that shows that the system really works well. People who screwed something up big time lost their jobs. Somehow I don't think it works like that in socialist communities

I would agree if they didn't get huge compensation packages for their screwing up and leaving the workers in the lurch...and sometimes without even jobs.

I don't agree with some socialist states that have an entrenched working class. If you want to work then work...and do it right. That is how to make society better. If you can't do the job, or are lazy then you should lose your job immediately. The person doesn't deserve to work nor any vote in local community production or decisions, but they also don't deserve to starve and have no place to sleep or no medical coverage.

Edit: Made spelling boo boo

[baddo 0]

It has to be noted that I do believe in some important things which are socialistic, such as having healthcare services provided by the state. I demand it in my country, and I have it. I pay taxes and good public healthcare is something I am given back. It is a good deal I think. I do not want to have to rely on private insurance companies for my healthcare. I can see that people from the USA might not have their public healthcare arranged as well as it is arranged here. So in this light, I see why you want more socialism. Your country is probably the most capitalistic country in the World? It very much looks like it is.

I definitely don't agree with people who think that the poor "deserve" to be in the position they are, and must not be helped. Such statements are too extreme to be agreed with.

I believe though that an individual should have the most power regarding how his life turns out to be. I see that socialism reduces individualism. When people are completely equalled, individualism has no place. You can't step forward and say that you are in some regard better than someone else, if you want to be totally equal with everyone else. As such, the idea of everyone being equal is just unacceptable, it is impossible to achieve in reality and thus I refuse to accept it as being a realistic view of how things should be arranged.

People who go into an unemployment office to get help, often say that they feel like they are treated like they are some sort of criminals. Like their word can't be trusted one bit. What happened? It happened that they got "equalled". They lost their individualism the moment they stepped into the unemployment office. That is how that system treats people. In an equal manner, ordered by the laws of this country. It may be a safe way to treat people in an unemployment office, but it is clear that many people don't like the feeling which comes as a result of getting equalled. They are equalled to the real "parasites" who are not even trying to get a job or education but just want the money from the unemployment office. That is socialism for you. Someone said that capitalists are parasites, but I think the real parasites get to blossom in a socialistic system. Both systems have parasites of course, but I see that the socialistic system is much more suitable for parasites, through the idea of people being equal.

I think that a truly socialistic system is utopy, because of the nature of the human beings. Human beings are competitive by nature. Competitiveness does not fit well into the ideology of socialism, as I see it. When you have a community in which people chant "what is mine is yours, what is yours is mine" competitiveness has no place... because you would then be supposed to share everything. Competing is not sharing. Competing is good! It makes us try harder, opposed to not even trying. Competing makes us advance beyond the limits we thought we had.

Innovation is drastically reduced in socialism, as I see it. A community in which you are given a job, or a profit, for just being part of the community, reduces the amount of effort from your side. This is certainly very obvious. The more we go into socialism, the more the effort from individuals reduce.

As an example of this. I heard a story about what happened in a factory in the USSR. Workers of a factory broke the manufacturing machines of the factory so that they could not work. And they still kept their job and received their salary, despite of them being guilty of breaking the machines and ensuring that they can't do their job until the machines have been fixed/replaced. This story comes from quite a reliable source, from a businessman who used to do business in the USSR in the 1980's. I have absolutely no reason to think his words being lies.