Cappies:The ten most successful capitalist nations

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To cappies...

Will you arrange the ten most successful capitalist nations, and, if you can, explain why they are the most successful?

[Febod]

A capitalist nation has yet to exist. America and England got the closest at the beginning of the 19th century, but they were still way off.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:52 PM
A capitalist nation has yet to exist. America and England got the closest at the beginning of the 19th century, but they were still way off.
What do you mean? Maybe you mean a libertarian capitalist nation hasn't existed. Well, even that's false. Somalia has no government and free market. And we all know how well that country is doing. :lol:

[Febod]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 2 2006, 07:03 PM
What do you mean? Maybe you mean a libertarian capitalist nation hasn't existed. Well, even that's false. Somalia has no government and free market. And we all know how well that country is doing. :lol:
No, libertarian/capitalism is not the same as anarchy. Libertarian/capitalism consists of a government that bans the initiation of force between individuals and groups of individuals. This isn't exactly the situation in Somalia.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well it is true that real capitalism hasn't existed, just like true true communism hasn't existed as well. But we regard USA and others as capitalists because we have market economies, just like USSR and Cuba amongst others are regarded as communist because they had planned centralized economies.

anyways, capitalist countries :

Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, UK (Western Europe for that matter), New Zealand, Canada , USA, i mean pretty much every country that is part of the G8 and that has high standard of living.... why are they successful? because market economies harvest one of the human necessities and emotions which is greed. Is it good with distribution? Well, not really, but it's the best proven economic system in the world up to now. The fact is there is always going to be people who are going to be better off than others, nothing in the world will change that, and if you guys admire Marx for looking at history so much, you can tell that the pattern of history has always been this way: that there are poor and there are rich. But the distribution problem seems to be only here in America compared to the ones i mentioned, why? because we have immigration problems, as well as many drug problems that ravage our country.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by Febod+Apr 2 2006, 07:11 PM--> (Febod @ Apr 2 2006, 07:11 PM)
Fist of [email protected] 2 2006, 07:03 PM
What do you mean? Maybe you mean a libertarian capitalist nation hasn't existed. Well, even that's false. Somalia has no government and free market. And we all know how well that country is doing. :lol:
No, libertarian/capitalism is not the same as anarchy. Libertarian/capitalism consists of a government that bans the initiation of force between individuals and groups of individuals. This isn't exactly the situation in Somalia. [/b]
I believe the exact term to describe your theoretical society would be minarchist capitalism.

[Febod]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 2 2006, 07:22 PM
why are they successful? because market economies harvest one of the human necessities and emotions which is greed. Is it good with distribution? Well, not really, but it's the best proven economic system in the world up to now. The fact is there is always going to be people who are going to be better off than others, nothing in the world will change that, and if you guys admire Marx for looking at history so much, you can tell that the pattern of history has always been this way: that there are poor and there are rich. But the distribution problem seems to be only here in America compared to the ones i mentioned, why? because we have immigration problems, as well as many drug problems that ravage our country.
Sure, capitalism creates disparity in wealth, but show me countries with the most controlling economies, and i'll show you countries with an even greater disparity in wealth.

Distribution problems are exaggerated in the United States today not because of capitalism, but because of tax code (capitalism is against all taxes). The tax code in this country has basically created a new aristocracy. This is no surprise, for throughout history aristocracies have always been most prevelant when the governments were the larges (see monarchies).

And the only drug problem the united states has is the problem of politicians banning drugs. Get rid of drug laws and we will see an end to drug problems, aside from a few addicts here and there, similar to alcohol's affect on society.

Again, same with immigration. The only part of immigration that is hurting the US is the existence of immigration laws.

Hey Oh-Dae-Su, through your compromised positions and weak stances, you not only misrepresent capitalism, but you give it a bad name.

[Nicky Scarfo]

The fact is there is always going to be people who are going to be better off than others, nothing in the world will change that, and if you guys admire Marx for looking at history so much, you can tell that the pattern of history has always been this way: that there are poor and there are rich.

Historically, there has also always been struggle between classes. Through those struggles and the advance of technology, many countries, including the capitalist ones you mentioned have been able to reduce wealth and power disparities. I will not answer as to whether such disparities can be wholly eliminated, along with all class structure-- but history has shown in any case that progress towards reducing class disparities can be made, and we can certainly do a lot better than we are now.


But the distribution problem seems to be only here in America compared to the ones i mentioned, why? because we have immigration problems, as well as many drug problems that ravage our country.

I had not yet read anything overtly stupid in your post until I got to those final sentences.

1. Immigration does swell the labor pool, thus depreciating the market value for unskilled and semiskilled labor, that is true. However, the "market value" of labor along neoclassical economic lines is not the only thing which contributes to economic and social disparities. There are several other variables at play--

a. As another user mentioned, the US tax code is fairly regressive at this point in time, with the working-class shouldering most of the revenue burden.

b. Very little of that revenue goes to infrastructure, education or social programs. The lion's share goes to the military and law enforcement. So you can't really say that immigrants are placing a burden on government resources, when the vast majority of resources go to the military, cops and corporate welfare.

c. Immigrant groups have always been the backbone of American organized labor. Latinos are now organizing, just as the Germans, Ukranians, Poles, Hungarians, Irish and Italians did before them. Eventually this will lead to inflation of wages and will solve the immigration "problem" as it relates to the market value of labor.

d. The current status of organized labor in general is a problem. Low union density and lack of labor action are allowing a reversal in wages, benefits, working conditions, employment/labor laws and protections, and other social and infrastructure programs. The high wages, benefits, and governmental social programs and employee protections of the previous decades were built upon the massive labor struggle in the US between 1934-1947.

2. The drug thing is even dumber. Large drug markets tend to be found in areas where traditional industry is no longer present. Baltimore and Detroit are two good examples. Deindustrialized areas where the drug market has filled the void. In some cases, like Miami, for example, the drug trade actually led to general economic revitalization. The building boom there in the 1980s was tainted with coke money. Drug dealing is actually a neoliberal capitalist's wet-dream-- a completely unregulated market.

[which doctor]

What about Sweden? It has some of the highest tax rates, but also has one of the highest standards of living.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

what i mean about immigration is, that when some of the idiot leftists comes and talks about how poor the US is, they are counting the immigrants, who obviously are not rich or even middle class people. And the drug problem is what causes most homeless people here in America, most homeless are drug addicts.

[Nicky Scarfo]

what i mean about immigration is, that when some of the idiot leftists comes and talks about how poor the US is, they are counting the immigrants, who obviously are not rich or even middle class people.

1. How do you define middle class?

2. There are an awful lot of poor native-born Americans too.


And the drug problem is what causes most homeless people here in America, most homeless are drug addicts.

Some are, but many are alcoholics and many more are mentally ill. Homelessness really started to become a problem after the deinstitutionalization of the 70s. A large portion of homeless people are schizophrenics. There are also a good number of homeless people who are runaway kids or are homeless for other reasons. Even with the drug addicts-- ever stop to consider why the US has such a high proportion of non-functioning addicts?

You really should research what you are talking about before typing it on your keyboard.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Some are, but many are alcoholics and many more are mentally ill. Homelessness really started to become a problem after the deinstitutionalization of the 70s. A large portion of homeless people are schizophrenics. There are also a good number of homeless people who are runaway kids or are homeless for other reasons. Even with the drug addicts-- ever stop to consider why the US has such a high proportion of non-functioning addicts?

so how does the government, or the present economy have a fault on what you mentioned?:blink: or are you meaning to tell me that schizophrenics are caused by economic inequality? :lol:



The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.

The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.

Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.

The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2

Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.

Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.

Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

there it is ^^ , the myth has been broken! :D

[Nicky Scarfo]

so how does the government, or the present economy have a fault on what you mentioned?

Did I say that jackoff? You were the one who decided to go on a tangent about the "drug problem", I was simply correcting your information, not making a case for socialism, dumbfuck.


there it is ^^ , the myth has been broken!

Your biased, right-wing source please?


The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

Ah, so basically some right-wing asshole decided to cull these "various" reports and selectively use the information to make their point.


The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian.

That couldn't have anything to do with differing cultures, could it? You ever seen a Tokyo hotel? The rooms are no better than coffins and cost a lot more than an Econo Lodge.


Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.

Yes, because, due to shitty public transportation in most areas of the US, these people need a car to get to their shitty jobs, go grocery shopping or go to the welfare office.


Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.

Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

And in this highly consumerist society, you find it surprising that even poor people own a bunch of technological stuff? Guess what, fuckhead, most of that stuff, being shoved down poor people's throats by the media and society, is paid for on credit, which is part of the reason personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high (though the largest single contributing factor to personal bankruptcy in the US is unpaid medical bills).

And you mean to tell me that in the richest country in the world poor people aren't as bad off as in poorer countries? Shocking. But you know what, they're still poor. Let's stick you in a rowhome in the Badlands of North Philly, complete w/ your A/C, microwave, stereo system, color TV and two VCRs and see how much fun you think it is. Don't worry, I expect you'd be out of your misery pretty soon because I don't think it would take a day for your sorry ass to get clipped.

Speakin of Philly, besides the 400 murders we had last year, we also had several people burn to death in fires b/c they couldn't pay for heat and tried building small fires for warmth. So don't tell me how fuckin good the poor got it.

Yeah, I remember with fondness me and my mom's little one bed apartment crawling with roaches, neighbors who vandalized my mom's car and our apartment door, getting in random fights walking hme from school, having my mom wash the blood out of my clothes, a torn-up matress I slept on. Trading the couch with my mom. The stench of a nearby chemical plant on misty mornings causing me to have chronic bronchitis until we finally moved out of that place.

But we had our A/C, our color TV, our VCR, microwave and our Ford Escort-- man, that was the sweet life!

Compared to being poor in Honduras maybe, but it still sucked, you dumb shit.


The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Horseshit.

[bezdomni]

are you meaning to tell me that schizophrenics are caused by economic inequality?
Actually, studies show that schizophrenia (along with other serious psychological disorders) is much more common amongst those in lower socio-economic brackets than anything else.

"The incidence of serious psychological disorders is doubly high among those below the poverty line" (Centers for Disease Control, 1992)


Horseshit.
Take that capitalists! :lol:

Best argument ever. ;)

[Oh-Dae-Su]

first of all Little Nicky, calm your ass down, your gonna get a warning for flaming if you keep calling me
dumbfuck, fuckhead and whatever other words you use that you think are going to "insult" me..

anyways


Did I say that jackoff? You were the one who decided to go on a tangent about the "drug problem", I was simply correcting your information, not making a case for socialism, dumbfuck.


Some are, but many are alcoholics and many more are mentally ill. Homelessness really started to become a problem after the deinstitutionalization of the 70s. A large portion of homeless people are schizophrenics. There are also a good number of homeless people who are runaway kids or are homeless for other reasons. Even with the drug addicts-- ever stop to consider why the US has such a high proportion of non-functioning addicts?

here is what you said, meaning that this is your view on why Americans are homeless, and what i say is, how the fuck does anyone have a fault for these people ending up like this except for themselves!!!!? because our arguemnts here are about economic policies which cause you to be like this, therefore you have no argument.


Your biased, right-wing source please?

so according to you any source that does not conform to your beliefs are "bias" and "propaganda", OHH PLEASE GET OUTTA HERE!! with those childish comments, but if it makes you feel better, here it is:

http://new.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm



Ah, so basically some right-wing asshole decided to cull these "various" reports and selectively use the information to make their point.

ummm no i don't think anyone decided to "cull" them anything, these are studies done by professionals unlike you buddy. And why don't you prove that they "select" their results in order to make a point!!? just because this was done by a government agency? so than i guess you don't believe on the census' account of how many people live in America as well? in conclusion you don't believe in anything except for what conforms to your ideology :rolleyes:


That couldn't have anything to do with differing cultures, could it? You ever seen a Tokyo hotel? The rooms are no better than coffins and cost a lot more than an Econo Lodge

did you know that Tokyo is the largest city in the world? with the most population? does that ring a bell? :rolleyes: i dont think culturally Japanese people love to be defined to a small square, hahahha thats just rubbish..


Yes, because, due to shitty public transportation in most areas of the US, these people need a car to get to their shitty jobs, go grocery shopping or go to the welfare office.

is it? or is it because they can afford it. Hello!!! if you are so poor than you can't even afford a car!! and prove how our public transport is shitty, im dying to hear this one!! :lol:


And you mean to tell me that in the richest country in the world poor people aren't as bad off as in poorer countries? Shocking. But you know what, they're still poor. Let's stick you in a rowhome in the Badlands of North Philly, complete w/ your A/C, microwave, stereo system, color TV and two VCRs and see how much fun you think it is. Don't worry, I expect you'd be out of your misery pretty soon because I don't think it would take a day for your sorry ass to get clipped.

Speakin of Philly, besides the 400 murders we had last year, we also had several people burn to death in fires b/c they couldn't pay for heat and tried building small fires for warmth. So don't tell me how fuckin good the poor got it.

aight playa, i don wanna get clipped ya mean fo sho! :lol:
first of all, of course some people here have it worst than people in poorer countries, but those other people in those other poor countries are rich over there. The poor in America, are poor by American standards!! get it through your head, not by world standards, if that was the case, only like 2% of the population would be considered poor in the States.....and if you build a fire inside your house, you have got to be the dumbest person in the world!!!


Compared to being poor in Honduras maybe, but it still sucked, you dumb shit.

so you see, you are poor by American standards, you take things for granted, i don't really think you know what poor is. I suggest you do some research to what poor really is.



Horseshit.

wow , another educated response, which just leaves me dumbfounded because it is such a great response which proves my comment wrong that im speechless :lol:

[Nicky Scarfo]

first of all Little Nicky, calm your ass down, your gonna get a warning for flaming if you keep calling me

Oh dear, I might even get banned! Disciplinary action on internet forums does not concern me in the least. If the admin or mods here choose to sanction me for making an objective statement (referring to you as a "dumbfuck"), then so be it.


here is what you said, meaning that this is your view on why Americans are homeless, and what i say is, how the fuck does anyone have a fault for these people ending up like this except for themselves!!!!? because our arguemnts here are about economic policies which cause you to be like this, therefore you have no argument.

That rambling statement made no sense.


so according to you any source that does not conform to your beliefs are "bias" and "propaganda", OHH PLEASE GET OUTTA HERE!! with those childish comments, but if it makes you feel better, here it is:

http://new.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm


A right-wing think tank. How surprising.


ummm no i don't think anyone decided to "cull" them anything, these are studies done by professionals unlike you buddy. And why don't you prove that they "select" their results in order to make a point!!? just because this was done by a government agency? so than i guess you don't believe on the census' account of how many people live in America as well? in conclusion you don't believe in anything except for what conforms to your ideology

I'd explain it to you again, but if you didn't get it the first time, I highly doubt your limited mental capacity would allow you to get it the second time around.


did you know that Tokyo is the largest city in the world? with the most population? does that ring a bell? i dont think culturally Japanese people love to be defined to a small square, hahahha thats just rubbish..

Objective conditions lead to cultural norms, Einstein. To further explain it so that your pea-brain can comprehend, over time, people get USED to living in a certain way due to circumstances beyond their control, and that often becomes a cultural norm for them.


is it? or is it because they can afford it. Hello!!! if you are so poor than you can't even afford a car!! and prove how our public transport is shitty, im dying to hear this one!!

My lord you are stupid.


The poor in America, are poor by American standards!! get it through your head, not by world standards

No shit, and if you'd bothered to closely read my post, you'd see that I already brought that up.


so you see, you are poor by American standards, you take things for granted, i don't really think you know what poor is. I suggest you do some research to what poor really is.

See above. You really need to improve your reading comprehension skills.


and if you build a fire inside your house, you have got to be the dumbest person in the world!!!

Spoken by an expert on the subject.


wow , another educated response, which just leaves me dumbfounded because it is such a great response which proves my comment wrong that im speechless

At least you understood the response as "Horseshit" is something you get. I didn't want to confuse you with more big words or analysis. Seriously, when I get around to it, I'lll be more than happy to provide numerous links refuting that bullshit claim by the Heritage Foundation.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Dear Oh-Dae-Su

With this quote, you clearly have no idea what you are on about.


And the drug problem is what causes most homeless people here in America, most homeless are drug addicts.

IF homeless people are drug addicts or alcoholics its is because at night when they are sleeping in the cold and its raining and you don’t know if the next person walking by is going to beat the crap out of you or worse, its probably much better you be as far away from reality as possible.

If you have never slept on the streets, you will not know how terrifying it is.

Also, many many rich people use drugs, i dont see many of them as i walk home. funny that.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:52 PM
A capitalist nation has yet to exist. America and England got the closest at the beginning of the 19th century, but they were still way off.
We're talking about in Marxist terms, not your wishy-washy ideological terms.

[Fuzzy_Louster]

Yeah, Oh-Dae-Su, the Heritage Foundation is such a bad source for information that you using it destroys most credibility you might of ever had. It isnt a one side of the political spectrum thing either, they just change facts a lot and lie about them just to get used by people like you who try and prove a point. Also, even if it was a left-wing think tank that you had used that made that article, it never talks about the quality of everything they have. They may own their own home, but what kind of home is it? If it is a tiny shithole that most people grimace at, it probably isnt that hard to "scrounge" the money needed to even buy a place like that. The VCR, Tv, and car part goes the same way my friend. They may own them, but they dont say if those luxuries work or not.

[black magick hustla]

I love how libertarians and anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as either "pure capitalism" or "impure capitalism".

Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.

The USSR was capitalist.
America is capitalist
Cuba is capitalist.

The three countries work through capital accumulation and wages. The bourgeosie will always need a state to protect them.

Somalia is "state-less" officially, but there are regardless warlords who protect private interests. The american state protects the priviliege of the american bourgeosie, the USSR state protected the priviliege of the bureacratic class, etc.

The lack of "statist intervention" would be replaced by a "private police" that protects corporative interests anyway.

Which basically serves the same functions as a state

[Febod]

QUOTE (Febod @ Apr 2 2006, 06:52 PM)
A capitalist nation has yet to exist. America and England got the closest at the beginning of the 19th century, but they were still way off.

We're talking about in Marxist terms, not your wishy-washy ideological terms.

Talking about capitalism as a state where no one is able to initiate force against another is not wishy-washy. It's direct and precise.

Of course no one likes the way america is now, no one likes america's present "capitalism"... except of course for politicians who are fat, happy, and in power.

When you argue against capitalism, and point to modern-day america, or any other western country as a symbol of capitalism, it is a strawman, and arguments will go no where if you, or any other marxist on this forum keeps it up.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:51 AM

When you argue against capitalism, and point to modern-day america, or any other western country as a symbol of capitalism, it is a strawman, and arguments will go no where if you, or any other marxist on this forum keeps it up.


Well, its rather hard to argue about something if we are using different terminology. Marmot's post summed it up pretty well actually. The Marxist definition is a scientific definition based of an analytical inquiry by Marx to see what the fundamental workings of our current society are. He later did this for past societies and labeled these different states of property and class relations as things like "Feudalism" or "Capitalism".

Your definition is nothing but ideological, the way you wish "things should be". And I'm assuming the initator of this topic was asking for capitalist nations in the Marxist sense. I can make up a million versions of "pure capitalism" and this topic wouldn't get anywhere.

Marxism is superior because it is theory, not ideology.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Seriously, when I get around to it, I'lll be more than happy to provide numerous links refuting that bullshit claim by the Heritage Foundation.

until then i will keep taking every piece of garbage that your sorry ass writes in here as such...



We're talking about in Marxist terms, not your wishy-washy ideological terms.

hahahaha funny, yet for you communism hasn't existed!! please :rolleyes:


the Heritage Foundation is such a bad source for information that you using it destroys most credibility

im tired of people that keeps saying how it's all bullshit not credible etc. THAN PROVE IT GOD DAMM IT!! and i swear ill shut up and concede!!!!


The USSR was capitalist.
America is capitalist
Cuba is capitalist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ohh man, so USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam and so on are and were not communist? :rolleyes: funny, i guess historians, scholars, professors, have got it all wrong because of Merlot says so! :lol:

Guys, do your research, read, learn, educate yourselves, America is a mixed economy, it takes both socialist and capitalis ideals, but it doesn't stay true to it's pure principles! get it through your heads people!!!

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 3 2006, 02:56 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ohh man, so USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam and so on are and were not communist? :rolleyes: funny, i guess historians, scholars, professors, have got it all wrong because of Merlot says so! :lol:

Guys, do your research, read, learn, educate yourselves, America is a mixed economy, it takes both socialist and capitalis ideals, but it doesn't stay true to it's pure principles! get it through your heads people!!!
You didn't even read his whole post, did you?

You're the idiot, my fine sir.

You missed this part:


Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.

The USSR was capitalist.
America is capitalist
Cuba is capitalist.

The three countries work through capital accumulation and wages. The bourgeosie will always need a state to protect them.

Maybe you just want to ignore it because you have not the ability to refute it.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.

that is bullshit, capitalism is when the means of production are privetly owned and do it for their own profit, and all decisions are made private as well with no government intervention, therefore NO! capitalism has not existed, that theory on top ^^ is only leftist's.....and you think capitalism has existed because of that ^^ than surely by that interpretation i can say communism did exist in USSR and does exist in Cuba , North Korea etc. because they are planned economies where the means of production are commonly owned by the people (yeah right we all know the oligarchy sorrounding the governments get it all, yet you all support these governments) but they are communist states, and no matter what the heck you guys say, Marxism-Leninism is a school of communism, just like Prebystarians are a branch of Christianism, try telling them their not christians! :rolleyes:

[Intifada]

I think people will find that "debating" with Oh-Dae-Su is like banging your head off a brick wall, over and over again.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:15 PM
I think people will find that "debating" with Oh-Dae-Su is like banging your head off a brick wall, over and over again.
Unfortunately yes, you can't argue with ignorance.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

ironically Intifada, looks like you love banging yours all the time.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:15 PM
I think people will find that "debating" with Oh-Dae-Su is like banging your head off a brick wall, over and over again.
Indeed, the most annoying person ive ever had the displeasure of debating with.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Indeed, the most annoying person ive ever had the displeasure of debating with.

indeed when someone challenges you and does not conform to your ideotic beliefs than it's annoying, well, thats understandable. Anyone in their right mind would find it annoying to be challenged.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:34 PM
Hey Oh-Dae-Su, through your compromised positions and weak stances, you not only misrepresent capitalism, but you give it a bad name.
Even fellow resricted members think you are useless.


indeed when someone challenges you and does not conform to your ideotic beliefs than it's annoying

We have debated many people with the beliefs you hold, but none have been as ignorant as yourself. Indeed, most of the time, debating people with differing opinions is quite fun and worthwhile, something that cannot be said of you.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Even fellow resricted members think you are useless

well ask my fellow restricted member how he can prove me wrong!? or you for that matter, i hate it when you just keep saying, YOUR STUPID! YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG! THATS NOT TRUE! ETC. but you are not proving anything with that!! with that kind of argument anyone can make a damn point!!


We have debated many people with the beliefs you hold, but none have been as ignorant as yourself. Indeed, most of the time, debating people with differing opinions is quite fun and worthwhile, something that cannot be said of you.

well, of course im "ignorant" to many things in this world, like i said what do you think i am? an encyclopedia? i said what capitalism really is, and you guys call me ignorant, well than tell me how i am ignorant of the supposed real defenition!! because the defenition you guys give me, which is in "MARXIST TERMS", is this :

Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.

jesus even feudalism can conform to that defenition!!^^even COMMUNISM! for that matter!! that is such a lame defenition it's not even funny.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 3 2006, 10:02 PM
well, of course im "ignorant" to many things in this world, like i said what do you think i am? an encyclopedia? i said what capitalism really is, and you guys call me ignorant, well than tell me how i am ignorant of the supposed real defenition!! because the defenition you guys give me, which is in "MARXIST TERMS", is this :

Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.

jesus even feudalism can conform to that defenition!!^^even COMMUNISM! for that matter!! that is such a lame defenition it's not even funny.
Well, maybe you should read a word or two Marx wrote before you start trying to critque it. Its like trying to program without knowing math. You can mash the keyboard and come out with alot of things, but none of it is worthwhile.

We see history and society in a radically different view than you. This is why we have different terms. We do not look at things at face value, but analyze things at a deeper level, and construct a whole theory based on our findings.

This is why you can't just come in and start talking about something you have no idea of. If you did know anything, that "definition" is how we look at historical stages in society, each "stage" has had its own conditions of production and the people related to it.

The USSR and the USA essentially had the same conditions of production and the same class structure; the burgeoisie mode of production, hence capitalist.

Now go read a book or two.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

and because Marx made a theory you belive it? so if Marx would have written a dictionary with radical new meanings to words, than thats how they should be defined? dude, capitalism with that defenition os fucking broad it's ridiculous, like i told you even feudalism and every ecomic system used in the history of man kind can fit that defenition for god's sake, "people's relation to means of production", wow even in a futuristc world this can apply!

[amanondeathrow]

Oh-Dae-Su

dude, capitalism with that defenition os fucking broad it's ridiculous, like i told you even feudalism and every ecomic system used in the history of man kind can fit that defenition for god's sake, "people's relation to means of production", wow even in a futuristc world this can apply!

That is not a definition of capitalism; it is a description of the definition.

Obviously in every economic system people relate to the means of productions.

It is implied that the way in which people relate to the means of production is what defines capitalism; I find it hard to believe you cannot understand this.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

It is implied that the way in which people relate to the means of production is what defines capitalism

what is this "way"? and if this is so, than don't freaking call it capitalism, because capitalism is strictly a system in which businesses have 0 control from government agencies, in contrast they are all privetly owned.

[black magick hustla]

oh god oh dae su is amazing

i suggest we start counting kittens and eating cookies with blueberry flavored milk instead of debating with him

http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

OH GOD GHELP WHAT IS THIS


http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

ARGFFSDFSDF I CANNOT USE MY COMPUTER!!
http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

OH GOD GHELP WHAT IS THIS


http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

ARGFFSDFSDF I CANNOT USE MY COMPUTER!!

[Ol' Dirty]

Here, I'll show you:


Capitalism is a historical stage defined by the conditions of production and the people related to it.


jesus even feudalism can conform to that defenition!!^^even COMMUNISM! for that matter!! that is such a lame defenition it's not even funny.

dude, capitalism with that defenition os fucking broad it's ridiculous, like i told you even feudalismand every ecomic system used in the history of man kind can fit that defenition for god's sake, "people's relation to means of production", wow even in a futuristc world this can apply

:lol: Do you even know what a mose of production is? :rolleyes: A mode of production is thus:

The way a society organizes itself to optimize its productive efficency.

Yes, you're right; Feudalism and Communism are modes of production. In fact, that was what his whole post was about! He wanted to point out what it was; that was all.

You really are a fool. :lol:

[Febod]

I'm gonna try to clear up some confusion here.

I have no problem with any definition of capitalism that any marxist uses on this forum. What bothers me is when they conflate that definition with other definitions, like with Rand's definition, or Mises' definition of capitalism. This is called package-dealing; two definitions or examples are given, and important, key differences are failed to be recognized, and they are grouped into one lump sum.

So, a marxist would say, "Capitalism causes imperialism and nation building like what's going on in Iraq now."

I would say, "I like capitalism." So, do I like the war in Iraq and Bush's policies? No!

My definition of capitalism is not only different from yours, but it gets generalized with yours, thus certain policies that i dont like get attributed to my name.

So here's what i mean by capitalism, and i'll use lasseiz-faire as great libertarian thinkers have done in the past.

Lasseiz-faire Capitalism - a social system ruled by a government that does absolutely nothing besides banning physical force in social relationships.

[amanondeathrow]

capitalism is strictly a system in which businesses have 0 control from government agencies, in contrast they are all privetly owned.

For a country to be described as capitalist, it is not required to have all business untouched by government power or even be all privately owned.

As long as a country is dominated by private enterprise and the government seeks to serve corporate interests, the country is properly described as capitalist.

[cyu]

capitalism is strictly a system in which businesses have 0 control from government agencies

Well, by this definition, if the employees choose to run their companies democratically and stop paying shareholders, it would still be capitalism. After all, the government doesn't own the company, it's privately owned by the employees.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

For a country to be described as capitalist, it is not required to have all business untouched by government power or even be all privately owned.

As long as a country is dominated by private enterprise and the government seeks to serve corporate interests, the country is properly described as capitalist.

ok fair enough, i understand, but what im trying to say is, that under those terms, you can also say that USSR/Cuba/North Korea etc. have been communist societies. Under our defenition they were. ;) this is going nowhere, because under your defenitions communism has not existed while capitalism has, and we are the opposite, although i do know that pure capitalist/communist societies have not existed at all. At least one that follows the true principles of both. But yeah our societies main principles are those of capitalism but not 100%, because like i said, we are a mixed economy, with socialist ideals as well.

and Febod, thanks dude, but i hope you do know that true laissez faire has never existed :blush:

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:09 AM
oh god oh dae su is amazing

i suggest we start counting kittens and eating cookies with blueberry flavored milk instead of debating with him

http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

OH GOD GHELP WHAT IS THIS


http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

ARGFFSDFSDF I CANNOT USE MY COMPUTER!!
http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

OH GOD GHELP WHAT IS THIS


http://www.heyspecialed.com/images/happycat.jpg

ARGFFSDFSDF I CANNOT USE MY COMPUTER!!
:lol:

[LSD]

So here's what i mean by capitalism, and i'll use lasseiz-faire as great libertarian thinkers have done in the past.

Lasseiz-faire Capitalism - a social system ruled by a government that does absolutely nothing besides banning physical force in social relationships.

So then I take it you have no problem with the production and distribution of child pornography?

Likewise, you don't object to industrial trusts forming complete monopolies and gauging consumers?

I don't even have to ask to know that you have no problem with union busting...

Minarchist libertarianism is simply unfunctionable. Its enhancement of economic disparity inebitably leads to a hightening of social classes and bizarre form of neo-feudalism in which the rich exercize near dictatorial powers over the poor.

But, oh well, at least the pedophiles will be happy. <_<

[black magick hustla]

i dont understand why minarchists idoloze 19th century american capitalist monopoly.

there is nothing nice, even to a cappie, about a a bunch of rockefellers constructng gigantic trusts and excersizing absolute power.

[Zingu]

ok fair enough, i understand, but what im trying to say is, that under those terms, you can also say that USSR/Cuba/North Korea etc. have been communist societies. Under our defenition they were.

I think Lazar already went over this with you, sheesh.

Yeah...but we&#39;re the communists...not you....so, what is happening here is you are saying we are y, but we are saying we are actually x, then you go "No&#33;, according to MY definition you are y&#33;"

Its logical, if you wish to critque Marxism, you must use Marxist terminology to critique it. Not anti-Marxist rhetoric, it would be like saying RED IS NOT RED, BECAUSE ITS REALLY BLUE&#33;

I&#39;m giving up trying to debate you if you don&#39;t understand even this.

[KC]

because the defenition you guys give me, which is in "MARXIST TERMS", is this...
jesus even feudalism can conform to that defenition&#33;&#33;^^even COMMUNISM&#33; for that matter&#33;&#33; that is such a lame defenition it&#39;s not even funny.

Actually the marxist definition of capitalism is the socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.


and because Marx made a theory you belive it?

No. We believe it because Marx was right about these things.


so if Marx would have written a dictionary with radical new meanings to words, than thats how they should be defined?

There is a difference between general definitions of words and scientific ones. Most dictionaries can&#39;t even go into enough detail to describe what a word actually means; this is why dictionaries are horrible places to get definitions from for discussions like these.


dude, capitalism with that defenition os fucking broad it&#39;s ridiculous, like i told you even feudalism and every ecomic system used in the history of man kind can fit that defenition for god&#39;s sake, "people&#39;s relation to means of production", wow even in a futuristc world this can apply&#33;


That&#39;s because you posted the wrong definition of capitalism. I posted the correct Marxist definition.



ok fair enough, i understand, but what im trying to say is, that under those terms, you can also say that USSR/Cuba/North Korea etc. have been communist societies.

No you can&#39;t.


Under our defenition they were.

Sure, but I could apply the definition of capitalism to the word communism and say that we&#39;re living in a communist society right now. Of course, I would be wrong.


But yeah our societies main principles are those of capitalism but not 100%, because like i said, we are a mixed economy, with socialist ideals as well.

Mixed economy is a type of economic structure for a capitalist system.



I think Lazar already went over this with you, sheesh.

Numerous times. He just doesn&#39;t get it.

[Febod]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:23 AM
i dont understand why minarchists idoloze 19th century american capitalist monopoly.

there is nothing nice, even to a cappie, about a a bunch of rockefellers constructng gigantic trusts and excersizing absolute power.
Yeah, a lot of the terrible things that happened during the early 19th century aren&#39;t ideal, to be sure. But we must keep the context of the situation in mind.

According to today&#39;s standards, these societies were detrimental. But what came before them were much worse, and you cannot deny the rise in living standards and life expectancy that resulted from "minarchist" societies.

Did people work terrible conditions in terrible conditions? They sure did&#33; But it sure beats the alternative: dying on a farm that can&#39;t produce enough food to keep half the children alive.

[amanondeathrow]

According to today&#39;s standards, these societies were detrimental. But what came before them were much worse, and you cannot deny the rise in living standards and life expectancy that resulted from "minarchist" societies.

Of course living conditions improved, but so have the living standards of today compared to those of the 19th century.

If the living conditions are better now, why can&#39;t you use the same logic and idolize the current capitalist system instead of that of the 19th century?

Your defense makes little sense.

[Febod]

Our standard of living is only increasing today from any residual intellectual integrity displayed by thinkers and policies over 200 years ago. Given current intellectual trends, the living conditions of the western world is transient, not because of economic reasons directly, i&#39;m guessing, but probably over religious intollerance or war for resources, which will stem from bloated governments doing all the wrong things.


So then I take it you have no problem with the production and distribution of child pornography?

Likewise, you don&#39;t object to industrial trusts forming complete monopolies and gauging consumers?

I don&#39;t even have to ask to know that you have no problem with union busting...

No, child pornography should be illegal because children do not have the same rights as adults.



Well, there are two different types of monopolies, natural monopolies and coercive monopolies. The monopoly you speak of is a coercive monopoly, which only arises when governments and businessmen partner up, and businessmen gain political pull. This is a big no-no under lasseiz-faire capitalism. And don&#39;t tell me that it&#39;s impossible; just because it hasn&#39;t happened doesn&#39;t mean it never will.



Unions do more harm that good. But even so, workers are allowed to form a union whenever they want, no capitalist would ever have a problem with that, especially since it usually hurts the workers anyways. Where I have a problem with unions is when they become mandatory.

[amanondeathrow]

Our standard of living is only increasing today from any residual intellectual integrity displayed by thinkers and policies over 200 years ago.

Even if the increase in standards of living was a result of the development of 200 year old ideas (which they most certainly are not), that still does not explain why you would not support this revised version of capitalism as opposed to the one present in America in the 19th century.

If this version has resulted in the best standard of living, then why not hold it in higher regard?

Obviously the capitalism of the 19th century was a development of earlier ideas as well, so why the double standard?


The monopoly you speak of is a coercive monopoly, which only arises when governments and businessmen partner up, and businessmen gain political pull.

Corporations do not necessarily need government support to have complete control over an industry.

All monopolies, whether "natural" or government sponsored, are coercive in some way.


Unions do more harm that good. But even so, workers are allowed to form a union whenever they want, no capitalist would ever have a problem with that, especially since it usually hurts the workers anyways. Where I have a problem with unions is when they become mandatory.

Nonsense; Unions are one of the most important tools the working class has to defend its interests.

In your hypothetical society what would workers use to protect their interests if companies could easily keep them out of unions?

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by Febod+Apr 4 2006, 05:40 AM--> (Febod @ Apr 4 2006, 05:40 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 02:23 AM
i dont understand why minarchists idoloze 19th century american capitalist monopoly.

there is nothing nice, even to a cappie, about a a bunch of rockefellers constructng gigantic trusts and excersizing absolute power.
Yeah, a lot of the terrible things that happened during the early 19th century aren&#39;t ideal, to be sure. But we must keep the context of the situation in mind.

According to today&#39;s standards, these societies were detrimental. But what came before them were much worse, and you cannot deny the rise in living standards and life expectancy that resulted from "minarchist" societies.

Did people work terrible conditions in terrible conditions? They sure did&#33; But it sure beats the alternative: dying on a farm that can&#39;t produce enough food to keep half the children alive. [/b]
19th century America was not "minarchist" nor was it "free market" by Classical Liberal standards.

Monopoly capital was rampant and these monopolies controlled the government from the Federal level on down. When workers tried organizing unions or conducting strikes or boycotts (all of which are permissible exercises of individual rights under tradtional Libertarian presuppositions), these monopolies initiated force against them. Machine gunning down workers with private guards and, when that failed, using the National Guard or even Federal Troops.

I hardly call a few monopolies fixing prices and wages and using the forces of the state to shoot down and jail its own citizens for exercising their rights "minarchist". I&#39;m a former member of the Libertarian Party, so don&#39;t even try to tell me 19th-century America resembled anything but an oligarchy of monopolists. Not even close to the traditional Libertarian ideal. It vexes me that there are so-many self-proclaimed "Libertarians" out there that seem to think that a lack of taxes and governmental regulation on corporations equals "minarchy".

[Nicky Scarfo]

But even so, workers are allowed to form a union whenever they want, no capitalist would ever have a problem with that, especially since it usually hurts the workers anyways

:lol: That&#39;s a good one. Working conditions and wages are directly tied to collective bargaining strength. Any fool can see that. It&#39;s basic economic common sense. All employees together have better leverage to negotiate their wages and working conditions with their employer than they do individually, because it is more difficult for the employer to replace their entire workforce than just one person. That&#39;s why capitalists don&#39;t like unions.

Furthermore, this improves wages and working conditions in union-dense industries and regions even for non-union workers, as non-union employers must offer better wages, benefits and working conditions to attract qualified workers who would otherwise flock to the higher-paid union employers, who then have their pick of the litter. Simple labor market competition along a classical economic model-- no need for Marxist analysis here, just common sense.

Although I&#39;ve seen "studies" by the Von Mises Institute which argue the contrary, they always end up being a convoluted argument that 2+2=5. The unsound arguments uttered by apologists for unbridled capitalism as to why unions are "bad" for workers, in contradiction to the obvious evidence, always end up sounding like bad Scholastic theories of how the sun revolves around the Earth-- like theoretical stubble in need of some Gilette cream and Occam&#39;s razor.


Where I have a problem with unions is when they become mandatory.

Contrary to the propaganda of the Right to Work Committee, there is no such thing in the US. Collective bargaining agreements which mandate payment of union dues as a condition of employment are due to a "union security" clause in the contract. In other words, the union and company are both exercising their right to free contract. Should an employee not like that, they are free to quit and contract with a non-union employer.

"Right to work" laws are anti-Libertarian by their nature because they restrict contract rights. Not to mention that such State Laws are horribly unjust as they provide for "freeloaders", as Federal Law mandates the union, as exclusive bargaining representative for all employees in the "bargaining unit" MUST represent those employees whether they pay dues or not. Talk about theft-- the Feds basically force the union to expend resources on non-members in right-to-work states.

[theraven]

On what do you base the top 10? as in the top 10 most purely capitalist(least taxes/regulations)? GDP/GNP/highest median income? what? not knowing this its impossible to answer.

re: the union debate

Unions only work when their is a shortage of workers or the workers have a skill that is not easily replicated. unions which artificially raise wages despite the job being low skill and with no shortage of other workers should not expect to be received by the employer.

this is why wal-mart will not unionize.

[cyu]

unions which artificially raise wages despite the job being low skill and with no shortage of other workers should not expect to be received by the employer.

Management and owners which artificially increase their own salaries and dividends should not expect to be well received by their employees. What&#39;s your point?

It&#39;s class conflict, after all.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:26 PM

unions which artificially raise wages despite the job being low skill and with no shortage of other workers should not expect to be received by the employer.

Management and owners which artificially increase their own salaries and dividends should not expect to be well received by their employees. What&#39;s your point?

It&#39;s class conflict, after all.
no, the managment is above the workers, and the owner/stockholder is above the managment. the only reason the management&#39;s salary goes up is if it increases profits or if the demand for managemnet types goes up, thus makng good managment in more demand.you&#39;ll notice most of managments wages are rise in reaction to:
a) increased effectinves of managment
OR
b) decreased aviablity of good managment

since a rise of poor managemnet occured good managmetn si in more demand.

anyway, managments raisees depend on their relationship with the owners,not the workers. their wages depend on things that are not nessacarily related to the workers wages. and yes worker morale might be taken into consideration when debating a mangamnet raise, but the workers should hardly get veto power.

poor spelling is due to mild intoxicatin, I apologize :)

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:05 AM
re: the union debate

Unions only work when their is a shortage of workers or the workers have a skill that is not easily replicated. unions which artificially raise wages despite the job being low skill and with no shortage of other workers should not expect to be received by the employer.

this is why wal-mart will not unionize.
No sir, unions work when they have economic leverage over an employer (or better yet an industry). Job skills and a tight labor market are just two factors in that leverage. Were they the only factors, unions would not have been so successful in the middle of the Great Depression, when surplus labor was high and the majority of the workers organizing during that period were unskilled or semiskilled.

As to whether you consider the employees wages to be "artificially inflated", well that all depends on the presupposition of perfectly functioning markets, which have never existed, and, in my opinion, will never exist. Markets will always be manipulated, whether by individual employers, monopolies, de facto cartels, the state, or labor organizations. People WILL get together to try and manipulate markets in their interest so matter what. That&#39;s why I think minarchist or anarchist capitalism is a utopian vision. I say the same thing about Adam Smith as most people say about Marx... "nice in theory, terrible in practice".

Regarding Wal-Mart-- they are non-union because the UFCW (the union which represents that industry sector) couldn&#39;t organize a stack of CDs, much less a company like Wal-Mart. That union has been using ineffective organizing tactics and attempting to organize on a store-by-store basis, which considering how big Wal-Mart is, is about as stupid as sending a platoon to conduct a direct frontal assault on an enemy batallion. Fortunately, SEIU (another union) has managed to talk some sense into UFCW, and UFCW has abandoned that method. SEIU, UFCW and the Teamsters are crafting a long-term strategic plan for organizing Wal-Mart. I expect it will take 5 to 10 years before the workers are prepared for a frontal assault on that company.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo+Apr 8 2006, 07:31 PM--> (Nicky Scarfo @ Apr 8 2006, 07:31 PM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 06:05 AM
re: the union debate

Unions only work when their is a shortage of workers or the workers have a skill that is not easily replicated. unions which artificially raise wages despite the job being low skill and with no shortage of other workers should not expect to be received by the employer.

this is why wal-mart will not unionize.
No sir, unions work when they have economic leverage over an employer (or better yet an industry). Job skills and a tight labor market are just two factors in that leverage. Were they the only factors, unions would not have been so successful in the middle of the Great Depression, when surplus labor was high and the majority of the workers organizing during that period were unskilled or semiskilled.

As to whether you consider the employees wages to be "artificially inflated", well that all depends on the presupposition of perfectly functioning markets, which have never existed, and, in my opinion, will never exist. Markets will always be manipulated, whether by individual employers, monopolies, de facto cartels, the state, or labor organizations. People WILL get together to try and manipulate markets in their interest so matter what. That&#39;s why I think minarchist or anarchist capitalism is a utopian vision. I say the same thing about Adam Smith as most people say about Marx... "nice in theory, terrible in practice".

Regarding Wal-Mart-- they are non-union because the UFCW (the union which represents that industry sector) couldn&#39;t organize a stack of CDs, much less a company like Wal-Mart. That union has been using ineffective organizing tactics and attempting to organize on a store-by-store basis, which considering how big Wal-Mart is, is about as stupid as sending a platoon to conduct a direct frontal assault on an enemy batallion. Fortunately, SEIU (another union) has managed to talk some sense into UFCW, and UFCW has abandoned that method. SEIU, UFCW and the Teamsters are crafting a long-term strategic plan for organizing Wal-Mart. I expect it will take 5 to 10 years before the workers are prepared for a frontal assault on that company. [/b]
1)yes economic leverage is what they have, but that is mostly a tight labour market and nessacary skills. in the great depression the issue was due to social unrest not economics.

2) employees wages are set in a variety of ways. yes employers, cartels and so forth work to keep wages down, but similiary workers, unions etc. work to keep them up. the real problem emerges when unions et al fall apart

3) unions won&#39;t do well in wal mart becuase wal mart has low skill jobs in high surplus labor markets. thus they can fire workers who try to unionize. the fact is their workers have good conditions and wages that match their skill levels. you are not entitled to a job, nor are intittled to higher wages at said job.

[Nicky Scarfo]

yes economic leverage is what they have, but that is mostly a tight labour market and nessacary skills.

Partly, not mostly. America&#39;s largest and most powerful union is SEIU-- which has a large base of unskilled workers in "throwaway" service jobs. But this union has been strategically very smart in building economic leverage in key gowing and stable industries, which is why they have grown by millions over the last 30 years when most unions were losing millions of members.


in the great depression the issue was due to social unrest not economics.

Economics caused the social unrest, so that statement is silly at best. And regardless of what started the organizing and the strikes, it took economic leverage to win them. It&#39;s not like the employers just threw up their hands and said "okay, we&#39;ll recognize your union and concede to your demands". They used private armies, police and the National Guard to try and break the strikes of &#39;34 and &#39;36/&#39;37. When they failed, they gave into the demands because otherwise they would have lost everything.


unions won&#39;t do well in wal mart becuase wal mart has low skill jobs in high surplus labor markets. thus they can fire workers who try to unionize.

They can&#39;t fire everyone. That&#39;s why the unions need to build strength clandestinely in a majority of shops first, then hit them with a national strike and boycott. They can try to bring in scabs, but my guess is most people will go and shop somewhere else rather than deal with the picket lines.

If Wal-Mart consisted of only one store, and SEIU or some other union that doesn&#39;t have their head up their ass sent in an organizer today, I&#39;d say there would be a good chance that store would be under a collective bargainging agreement within 6 months to 2 years. It&#39;s Wal-Mart&#39;s sheer size that poses the biggest problem.


the fact is their workers have good conditions and wages that match their skill levels.

Not in comparison to unionized grocers and retail facilities, or even in comparison to largely non-union Costco.

And as I alluded to above, there are many unionized jobs which in this country which require low skills but pay substantially higher wages, better benefits and working conditions simply because the union was able to use economic leverage to demand these things. I&#39;ve met unionized dishwashers and housekeepers that make &#036;13 to &#036;18 an hour w/ full medical benefits, pensions, 401(k)s, free ESL programs, temporary disability insurance, life insurance, computer classes, GED classes, mortage assistance programs and a variety of other employer-paid benefits (plus the job security of not being fired without just cause that only comes with a union contract). Unskilled construction laborers in union-dense markets can make up to &#036;45 an hour (total comp package). This is much better than many jobs that require more skill and education.

[theraven]

Partly, not mostly. America&#39;s largest and most powerful union is SEIU-- which has a large base of unskilled workers in "throwaway" service jobs. But this union has been strategically very smart in building economic leverage in key gowing and stable industries, which is why they have grown by millions over the last 30 years when most unions were losing millions of members.

please enleight me as to what economic leverage they posses? I&#39;m curious.



Economics caused the social unrest, so that statement is silly at best. And regardless of what started the organizing and the strikes, it took economic leverage to win them. It&#39;s not like the employers just threw up their hands and said "okay, we&#39;ll recognize your union and concede to your demands". They used private armies, police and the National Guard to try and break the strikes of &#39;34 and &#39;36/&#39;37. When they failed, they gave into the demands because otherwise they would have lost everything.

yes, so it was not the economics but the fact that the unions convinced the people that they should figth on because the people dindt really ahve anything to lose. that is rarely the case.

also a plus was the companies couldn&#39;t send the factory to china




They can&#39;t fire everyone. That&#39;s why the unions need to build strength clandestinely in a majority of shops first, then hit them with a national strike and boycott. They can try to bring in scabs, but my guess is most people will go and shop somewhere else rather than deal with the picket lines.


yes, but convincing people who are mostly
a) poorly educated
b)not the primary wage earner of tiher family(i am basing this on personal experince)
c) not using this as a permant job

to risk their job for something that is not crucial to them will be a tough sell.

also I&#39;m pretty sure there is a limit to how much unions can picket.



Not in comparison to unionized grocers and retail facilities, or even in comparison to largely non-union Costco.

which is why wal mart is the more succesufl then costco


And as I alluded to above, there are many unionized jobs which in this country which require low skills but pay substantially higher wages, better benefits and working conditions simply because the union was able to use economic leverage to demand these things. I&#39;ve met unionized dishwashers and housekeepers that make &#036;13 to &#036;18 an hour w/ full medical benefits, pensions, 401(k)s, free ESL programs, computer classes, GED classes, mortage assistance programs and a variety of other employer-paid benefits (plus the job security of not being fired without just cause that only comes with a union contract.) This is much better than many jobs that require more skill and education.

and thats absurd. I was a dish washer in high school (and a bus boy)and the idea of a union of dish washers almost makes me laugh. those benfits and wages are way above what they should be. I made 9 an hour and that was because they needed somebdoy badly. I would obviously have loved all those things, but seriously why would they pay a high school senior that much money for a menial job.

[theraven]

i saw your edit on construction worker:

almost all construction workers are "skilled" to a certin extent. there isn&#39;t much you can do in construction without a skill.

[Nicky Scarfo]

please enleight me as to what economic leverage they posses? I&#39;m curious.

Too many facets of what are known as "corporate campaigns" or "comprehensive campaigns" to go into right now, but one is the tradtional strike weapon, which, if you have union density in a single employer, large chain, or entire industry, and you are prepared to go to jail if necessary, can be very effective (in combination with the other aspects of a "comprehensive campaign"-- like I said too much to go into).


yes, so it was not the economics but the fact that the unions convinced the people that they should figth on because the people dindt really ahve anything to lose.

Sure they did. It was the Depression. They could lose their jobs. That was a bigger risk back then than today.


also a plus was the companies couldn&#39;t send the factory to china

Yes, true. But retail and most service-sector, construction, hospitality, transportation and distribution jobs (which are the overwhelming majority of jobs today) are at least somewhat location-dependent.


yes, but convincing people who are mostly
a) poorly educated
b)not the primary wage earner of tiher family(i am basing this on personal experince)
c) not using this as a permant job

to risk their job for something that is not crucial to them will be a tough sell.

I&#39;ve got many years of experience in this and all those things you mentioned are minor obstacles. The main obstacles are fear and a lack of awareness. It&#39;s a tough sell no matter what the industry.


also I&#39;m pretty sure there is a limit to how much unions can picket.

A company can get an injunction if picketers are blocking traffic (including scabs and customers) or engaging in violence. The union must then be prepared to violate the injunction. Unions faced much worse consequences than going to jail or being fined in previous decades (like getting mowed down by machine guns). Mass picketing can still be an effective tool if used wisely. You don&#39;t always want to use it and tactics differ depending on the situation.


and thats absurd. I was a dish washer in high school (and a bus boy)and the idea of a union of dish washers almost makes me laugh. those benfits and wages are way above what they should be. I made 9 an hour and that was because they needed somebdoy badly. I would obviously have loved all those things, but seriously why would they pay a high school senior that much money for a menial job.

Um, cause most unionized food-service industry workers are NOT high-school seniors and are raising families on those wages.


almost all construction workers are "skilled" to a certin extent. there isn&#39;t much you can do in construction without a skill.

That&#39;s not true. I worked construction for a short while and I didn&#39;t have ANY skills. The Laborers Union represents unskilled construction workers almost exclusively-- the guys who haul shit from point A to point B, who clean up the work site, etc. Those guys don&#39;t get paid as much as the Electricians, Operating Engineers, Plumbers/Pipefitters, Carpenters or Ironworkers, but they make damn good money if they&#39;re union. And LIUNA is a pretty damn big union too.

[theraven]

Too many facets of what are known as "corporate campaigns" or "comprehensive campaigns" to go into right now, but one is the tradtional strike weapon, which, if you have union density in a single employer, large chain, or entire industry, and you are prepared to go to jail if necessary, can be very effective (in combination with the other aspects of a "comprehensive campaign"-- like I said too much to go into).

right then. Of couse one major factor is that the number of americans in a union is liek 15% or something like that. and most of those people are government wrokers.



Sure they did. It was the Depression. They could lose their jobs. That was a bigger risk back then than today.

right it was the depression. they had it really shitty already, so they didn&#39;t care.



Yes, true. But retail and most service-sector, construction, hospitality, transportation and distribution jobs (which are the overwhelming majority of jobs today) are at least somewhat location-dependent.

another factor is importance. And really a lot of poele don&#39;t like unions. I know a lot of people who think unionrs are corrupt and such.

and most of those jobs are non-union (not that theres not unions in the fields-just most of the workers in those field are non-union)



I&#39;ve got many years of experience in this and all those things you mentioned are minor obstacles. The main obstacles are fear and a lack of awareness. It&#39;s a tough sell no matter what the industry.

another factor is importance. And really a lot of poele don&#39;t like unions. I know a lot of people who think unionrs are corrupt and such.



A company can get an injunction if picketers are blocking traffic (including scabs and customers) or engaging in violence. The union must then be prepared to violate the injunction. Unions faced much worse consequences than going to jail or being fined in previous decades (like getting mowed down by machine guns). Mass picketing can still be an effective tool if used wisely. You don&#39;t always want to use it and tactics differ depending on the situation.


um yea...I don&#39;t think most workers at wal mart would be interasted in doing this.



Um, cause most unionized food-service industry workers are NOT high-school seniors and are raising families on those wages.

i have worked in a variety of resturants and the dishwashers/cooks were almost universally single childless males. some were college age, some were older, and if they did have kids they had nothing to do with them cept child suport.



That&#39;s not true. I worked construction for a short while and I didn&#39;t have ANY skills. The Laborers Union represents unskilled construction workers almost exclusively-- the guys who haul shit from point A to point B, who clean up the work site, etc. Those guys don&#39;t get paid as much as the Electricians, Operating Engineers, Plumbers/Pipefitters, Carpenters or Ironworkers, but they make damn good money if they&#39;re union. And LIUNA is a pretty damn big union too.

as someone who has been to many a construction site (my dad is a real estate broker and works with a contrater a lot so most of his house selling is done at new consturcutions-hence i know a bit about em) and those guys (the non-skilled movers/cleaners) were a small fraction of construction workers. it is fair generlziion to say most workers are skilled.

[Nicky Scarfo]

right then. Of couse one major factor is that the number of americans in a union is liek 15% or something like that. and most of those people are government wrokers.


15% is about right. Majority are not public-sector, however public-sector has a higher density than the private-sector. If you just include private sector, density is 8-9%. At its high point in the 1950s, union density was around 40% (almost entirely private-sector. Public-sector organizing did not really start in earnest until the 1960s)

The reasons for this decline are numerous, but it was not a mass exodus of workers from the labor movement, and, contrary to popular opinion, it was not due primarily to offshoring of jobs (though that was a big factor). In a nutshell, from the 1950s to the 90s, the workforce expanded, and shifted into other sectors, but the labor movement did not keep up, and unions, with few exceptions, abandoned strategic mass organizing efforts after the 1940s (SEIU being a notable exception and one of the few unions to actually grow substantially from the 1960s onward). There are so many angles to that, I can&#39;t even begin. I couldn&#39;t cover it in one post. I&#39;d probably need to make a series of posts to cover all the reasons for organized labor&#39;s decline.


they had it really shitty already

Not nearly as shitty as they&#39;d have it without a job at all. At the time of the first major strike wave that set off the mass organizing of the Depression Era (1934), there was no Unemployment Insurance, no Social Security, no Food Stamps, no Welfare, no Public Housing, and few jobs to be had. Those workers knew exactly how much they were risking by fighting back against their employers.


so they didn&#39;t care

They cared a great deal which is part of the reason they won.


and most of those jobs are non-union (not that theres not unions in the fields-just most of the workers in those field are non-union)


Yes, although it varies from region to region and subsector to subsector. Healthcare and urban/public construction have high levels of union density in the Northeast. Hotel industry is highly organized in Boston, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Janitorial staff in many major cities is pretty well organized. Industrial food service is decently organized at many college campuses in the Northeast. Grocery stores in the Northeast, West Coast and Upper Midwest are highly unionized (despite the ineptness of the UFCW). Only reason distribution/transportation isn&#39;t more highly unionized is the Teamsters, with the exception of the short-lived Ron Carey administration in the mid to late 90s, haven&#39;t had competent leadership since Jimmy Hoffa got clipped (who although a great organizer brought the mob into the union ehich fucked everything up later on).


another factor is importance. And really a lot of poele don&#39;t like unions. I know a lot of people who think unionrs are corrupt and such.

True, although national polls suggest a majority of workers would prefer a unionized workplace. Also, I can say from experience that although this is an obstacle to organizing workers, it is by no means insurmountable, once you cut through the BS and workers see how organizing a union is beneficial, very few are ideologically anti-union. The big obstacle at that point is just fear.


um yea...I don&#39;t think most workers at wal mart would be interasted in doing this.

People used to say the same thing about housekeepers, dishwashers, transient labor, etc., but they&#39;ve all done it and I don&#39;t think workers at Wal-Mart are that different.


i have worked in a variety of resturants

Same here. Dishwasher for two years. Prep cook for one. Line cook for four years. Even briefly did some front of the house jobs like busboy, barback and host. Skipped from restaurant to restaurant, either when I got in an argument with the bosses or had a fling with a hostess or waitress that went sour.


and the dishwashers/cooks were almost universally single childless males. some were college age, some were older, and if they did have kids they had nothing to do with them cept child suport.


The places I worked it was mostly males and many were immigrants from El Salvador or Colombia. Some were single but others had families either there or their home countriees where they sent money back.

In any case, most unionized restaurant workers are in industrial food service or hotels-- and the demographic is different there than at freestanding restaurants. Trust me, both as a former restaurant worker and someone who professionally organized unions for hospitality.


as someone who has been to many a construction site (my dad is a real estate broker and works with a contrater a lot so most of his house selling is done at new consturcutions-hence i know a bit about em) and those guys (the non-skilled movers/cleaners) were a small fraction of construction workers. it is fair generlziion to say most workers are skilled.

I worked house construction too (back when I was 16) and yes, most workers were skilled at some level. However, most unionized construction workers are on the big projects (public works, skyscrapers, etc.) and that&#39;s a different animal. Though skilled workers are still the majority, these are big construction sites with lots of workers, hence more bullshit tasks and more unskilled laborers. Personally, being a pro-union guy and all I support the construction trades, but I got problems with how those unions operate. You can have 7 or 8 different unions working at one site, which causes problems both from a unionist and employer perspective. Personally, I think they should all merge into one construction union with subdivisions that continue to run the apprenticeships and train the workers for their particular trades.


my dad is a real estate broker

Oh yeah, well my dad is an ex-con, so there&#33; :D

[theraven]

15% is about right. Majority are not public-sector, however public-sector has a higher density than the private-sector. If you just include private sector, density is 8-9%. At its high point in the 1950s, union density was around 40% (almost entirely private-sector. Public-sector organizing did not really start in earnest until the 1960s)

The reasons for this decline are numerous, but it was not a mass exodus of workers from the labor movement, and, contrary to popular opinion, it was not due primarily to offshoring of jobs (though that was a big factor). In a nutshell, from the 1950s to the 90s, the workforce expanded, and shifted into other sectors, but the labor movement did not keep up, and unions, with few exceptions, abandoned strategic mass organizing efforts after the 1940s (SEIU being a notable exception and one of the few unions to actually grow substantially from the 1960s onward). There are so many angles to that, I can&#39;t even begin. I couldn&#39;t cover it in one post. I&#39;d probably need to make a series of posts to cover all the reasons for organized labor&#39;s decline.


right-point is unions delicned a lot.



Not nearly as shitty as they&#39;d have it without a job at all. At the time of the first major strike wave that set off the mass organizing of the Depression Era (1934), there was no Unemployment Insurance, no Social Security, no Food Stamps, no Welfare, no Public Housing, and few jobs to be had. Those workers knew exactly how much they were risking by fighting back against their employers.

right, but the fact remains they succeded via socail unrest not economic factors (and yes the economc factors led to the unrest but ti was not becaus somehow their work was more valued)



Yes, although it varies from region to region and subsector to subsector. Healthcare and urban/public construction have high levels of union density in the Northeast. Hotel industry is highly organized in Boston, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Janitorial staff in many major cities is pretty well organized. Industrial food service is decently organized at many college campuses in the Northeast. Grocery stores in the Northeast, West Coast and Upper Midwest are highly unionized (despite the ineptness of the UFCW). Only reason distribution/transportation isn&#39;t more highly unionized is the Teamsters, with the exception of the short-lived Ron Carey administration in the mid to late 90s, haven&#39;t had competent leadership since Jimmy Hoffa got clipped (who although a great organizer brought the mob into the union ehich fucked everything up later on).

right then (ironiclly there was something janitors unionizing at my college)



True, although national polls suggest a majority of workers would prefer a unionized workplace. Also, I can say from experience that although this is an obstacle to organizing workers, it is by no means insurmountable, once you cut through the BS and workers see how organizing a union is beneficial, very few are ideologically anti-union. The big obstacle at that point is just fear.

well really they just don&#39;t see what the union can get for them. you ahve too remember these people ahve a lto to lose and littelt o gain.



Same here. Dishwasher for two years. Prep cook for one. Line cook for four years. Even briefly did some front of the house jobs like busboy, barback and host. Skipped from restaurant to restaurant, either when I got in an argument with the bosses or had a fling with a hostess or waitress that went sour.

awesome



The places I worked it was mostly males and many were immigrants from El Salvador or Colombia. Some were single but others had families either there or their home countriees where they sent money back.

In any case, most unionized restaurant workers are in industrial food service or hotels-- and the demographic is different there than at freestanding restaurants. Trust me, both as a former restaurant worker and someone who professionally organized unions for hospitality.


perhaps a big factor is location. my area was a middle class suburb.




I worked house construction too (back when I was 16) and yes, most workers were skilled at some level. However, most unionized construction workers are on the big projects (public works, skyscrapers, etc.) and that&#39;s a different animal. Though skilled workers are still the majority, these are big construction sites with lots of workers, hence more bullshit tasks and more unskilled laborers. Personally, being a pro-union guy and all I support the construction trades, but I got problems with how those unions operate. You can have 7 or 8 different unions working at one site, which causes problems both from a unionist and employer perspective. Personally, I think they should all merge into one construction union with subdivisions that continue to run the apprenticeships and train the workers for their particular trades.

I can&#39;t speak to big projects so i&#39;ll take your word




Oh yeah, well my dad is an ex-con, so there&#33; biggrin.gif

i wasn&#39;t braggin about my fathers proffession, i was expaling why i had a long experince with constucion sites.

[cyu]

anyway, managments raisees depend on their relationship with the owners,not the workers. their wages depend on things that are not nessacarily related to the workers wages. and yes worker morale might be taken into consideration when debating a mangamnet raise, but the workers should hardly get veto power.

That&#39;s a good description of capitalism, but this is an anti-capitalist website after all. Employees should have the right to assume democratic control of their companies. If they vote to lower management&#39;s salaries, then they simply give them a lower share of the sales they collect from customers. If they decide they want new management, then they simply elect them and start ignoring the existing management. Of course, as an anarcho-syndicalist, I believe they should simply vote to stop paying the owners any money at all.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:44 AM

anyway, managments raisees depend on their relationship with the owners,not the workers. their wages depend on things that are not nessacarily related to the workers wages. and yes worker morale might be taken into consideration when debating a mangamnet raise, but the workers should hardly get veto power.

That&#39;s a good description of capitalism, but this is an anti-capitalist website after all. Employees should have the right to assume democratic control of their companies. If they vote to lower management&#39;s salaries, then they simply give them a lower share of the sales they collect from customers. If they decide they want new management, then they simply elect them and start ignoring the existing management. Of course, as an anarcho-syndicalist, I believe they should simply vote to stop paying the owners any money at all.
just because this is a leftists site doesn’t mean you have to assume leftist is correct. that’s the whole point of "opposing ideologies" board. we can discuss OPPOSING ideologies.

I disagree on every point you made, and my point was about how capitalism worked.
on your points
1)no employees should not have the right to assume democratic control of their companies., why? because most of them probably don&#39;t know how to run a business, nor does democracy lend itself towards efficient use of resources. if there are 10,000 unskilled workers and 20 top scientists those 10,000 unskilled workers will get more pay and more resources then the scientist, despite the fact that what they want is not better of the company. this is why all the fortune 500 companies are run by a semi-permanent unelected management
2) the idea of the workers just firing and not paying management is absurd. this would not lend itself to efficient running of the company, would make the company very uncompetitive compared to traditional companies and many other problems besides.

[cyu]

because most of them probably don&#39;t know how to run a business

Most citizens don&#39;t know how to run a country either, but democracy works for them.


if there are 10,000 unskilled workers and 20 top scientists those 10,000 unskilled workers will get more pay and more resources then the scientist

If the scientists don&#39;t like the deal they&#39;re getting from the rest of the employees, then they are free to leave and form their own company. But you&#39;re of course forgetting it&#39;s not the scientists that are the most well paid in the company. It&#39;s the shareholder who isn&#39;t even doing any real work and could easily be eliminated.


nor does democracy lend itself towards efficient use of resources.

Actually it does. It is capitalism, with a large gap between rich and poor that does not efficiently use its resources. The larger the gap between rich and poor, the more resources are allocated to serving the rich. So you get people like butlers, drivers, and caddies working to serve one person, while so many others are not provided for. Economic democracy in the form of a market economy where everyone has relative equal amounts of spending power would be an efficient use of resources, because each person would have relatively equal amounts of "votes" on what is produced and what resources are allocated.

[theraven]

Most citizens don&#39;t know how to run a country either, but democracy works for them.

Well I can&#39;t think of many democracies, however republics (like the one I , and probably at least similair to the one you, live in) work because the citizesn elect people who know what their doing.



If the scientists don&#39;t like the deal they&#39;re getting from the rest of the employees, then they are free to leave and form their own company. But you&#39;re of course forgetting it&#39;s not the scientists that are the most well paid in the company. It&#39;s the shareholder who isn&#39;t even doing any real work and could easily be eliminated.

the share holders are the source of the money that pays everyone else. they take te biggest risk since they invest their money and they might just as well lose that money as earn it back. one of the greatest advances in economics in the past 300 years has been the joint stock company. also the idea of one group leaving because their gettign fucked over does not lend itself to a good company.




Actually it does. It is capitalism, with a large gap between rich and poor that does not efficiently use its resources. The larger the gap between rich and poor, the more resources are allocated to serving the rich. So you get people like butlers, drivers, and caddies working to serve one person, while so many others are not provided for. Economic democracy in the form of a market economy where everyone has relative equal amounts of spending power would be an efficient use of resources, because each person would have relatively equal amounts of "votes" on what is produced and what resources are allocated.

first off my point was in refernce to a company, not a nationwide system
second off its is impossibel to ensure everyone has equal access to resoruces, since there is a finite supply
third you should really not take things people say out of context..not nice

[cyu]

the share holders are the source of the money that pays everyone else.

Uh, hello? The customers are the source of the money that pays everyone else. Shareholders just own the productive capital the employees use to produce the goods to sell to customers. Anarcho-syndicalists believe employees should simply assume democratic control over the productive capital - eliminating the need for shareholders, who are just parasites on their production anyway.

As far as whether democratically run companies will be direct democracies or run by elected representatives, that&#39;s up to the employees. The key is that control remains in the hands of the employees. When decisions are made by the many, they are much more likely to benefit the many than decisions made by the few. That&#39;s why democracies improve the lives of their citizens and authoritarian structures do not. America is only where it is today because of the level of democracy it has (limited though that may be) - not because of capitalism.

[theraven]

Uh, hello? The customers are the source of the money that pays everyone else. Shareholders just own the productive capital the employees use to produce the goods to sell to customers. Anarcho-syndicalists believe employees should simply assume democratic control over the productive capital - eliminating the need for shareholders, who are just parasites on their production anyway.

you clearly don&#39;t understand economics. the customers are the source of profits, however if you want to start a company or make an expansion you sell stocks to raise the capital nessacary.



As far as whether democratically run companies will be direct democracies or run by elected representatives, that&#39;s up to the employees. The key is that control remains in the hands of the employees.

your confusing civil government with buisness government.


When decisions are made by the many, they are much more likely to benefit the many than decisions made by the few. That&#39;s why democracies improve the lives of their citizens and authoritarian structures do not.

thats not true, I can&#39; think of some shitty represntative governments and some excellent authoration governments.


America is only where it is today because of the level of democracy it has (limited though that may be) - not because of capitalism.

it was a combination of the two.

[theraven]

PS you didnt adress my point about limited resources

[theraven]

bumb

[cyu]

the customers are the source of profits, however if you want to start a company or make an expansion you sell stocks to raise the capital nessacary.

And then you&#39;ll be forced to give up control and a cut of all your revenue to someone who isn&#39;t doing any real work. Allocation of unused resources should be done democratically by the people living in that area, without a stipulation that they have to lose a portion of everything they earn to someone else. Anarchists do not believe the means of production should be owned by those who don&#39;t actually make any use of it. Rather, those who do use it, that is, the employees, should own it.


you didnt adress my point about limited resources

Not sure what you&#39;re referring to; please repeat it. In any case, a large gap between rich and poor results in poor allocation of resources. The larger spending power of the rich results in a disproportionate amount of resources to be allocated toward serving the rich, resulting in less resources and a lower quality of life for everyone else.

[theraven]

And then you&#39;ll be forced to give up control and a cut of all your revenue to someone who isn&#39;t doing any real work.

their work is providing capital, without which you cannot get the profits. its the way the economy works.


Allocation of unused resources should be done democratically by the people living in that area, without a stipulation that they have to lose a portion of everything they earn to someone else. Anarchists do not believe the means of production should be owned by those who don&#39;t actually make any use of it. Rather, those who do use it, that is, the employees, should own it.

Your beliefs are nice, I dont&#39; see any factual relavance here.



Not sure what you&#39;re referring to; please repeat it. In any case, a large gap between rich and poor results in poor allocation of resources. The larger spending power of the rich results in a disproportionate amount of resources to be allocated toward serving the rich, resulting in less resources and a lower quality of life for everyone else.

becuase its impossibel to equally disturbe resrouces, this is the most logical way to do it. yes its not ideal, but its the best way to work things overall.

[cyu]

And then you&#39;ll be forced to give up control and a cut of all your revenue to someone who isn&#39;t doing any real work.
their work is providing capital, without which you cannot get the profits. its the way the economy works.

It is only because of the current economic system that gives them the right to control capital. If people had the right to assume democratic control over productive capital, then you wouldn&#39;t have the problem of shareholders to deal with.


becuase its impossibel to equally disturbe resrouces, this is the most logical way to do it. yes its not ideal, but its the best way to work things overall.

I agree democratic allocation of resources isn&#39;t necessarily going to provide absolute equality of distribution of resources, but it&#39;s certainly more likely to be more equal than the undemocratic system we have now. You claim capitalism is the best way to distribute resources, yet you provide no reasoning to defend your claim. What is your reasoning?

[theraven]

It is only because of the current economic system that gives them the right to control capital. If people had the right to assume democratic control over productive capital, then you wouldn&#39;t have the problem of shareholders to deal with.

yes, and this right to control capital encouragse the wise use and investment. the only way you have enough excess capital is if its from rich people. how would you get money to expand from workers?

if you suggest getting rid of money what will you use to barter with?



I agree democratic allocation of resources isn&#39;t necessarily going to provide absolute equality of distribution of resources, but it&#39;s certainly more likely to be more equal than the undemocratic system we have now. You claim capitalism is the best way to distribute resources, yet you provide no reasoning to defend your claim. What is your reasoning?

democracy is crappy, a republic governmetn is good, however economcily that doesnt work either

[cyu]

how would you get money to expand from workers?

If you&#39;re talking about expansion of the company, the employees themselves will vote for expansion if they so desire. If they don&#39;t, then they&#39;re free to take home more pay. It&#39;s called freedom. If you&#39;re talking about how new companies will be created, unused raw materials will be allocated democratically. For resources that require money, it could either be through the use of taxes the people agree on or through democratically run banks, whatever they choose.


democracy is crappy, a republic governmetn is good, however economcily that doesnt work either

You like making assertions without backing arguments, don&#39;t you? Please explain why you believe this. The more people involved in making a decision, the more likely the decision is going to benefit a large number of people. The less people involved in making decisions, the more likely those decisions are going to benefit just the few decision-makers.

[theraven]

If you&#39;re talking about expansion of the company, the employees themselves will vote for expansion if they so desire. If they don&#39;t, then they&#39;re free to take home more pay. It&#39;s called freedomIf you&#39;re talking about how new companies will be created, unused raw materials will be allocated democratically. For resources that require money, it could either be through the use of taxes the people agree on or through democratically run banks, whatever they choose.


You&#39;re an Idealist and i suppose thats respectful, however you ideas are not grounded in the slightest bit of reality. the idea of workers jsut peacefully and wisely running buinsess is absurd. I don&#39;t know if you noticed this or not but our government, which is a republic, is incredibly inefficetn. this is becuase getting 250 or more people to agree to something is diffuclt. now imagine trying to goet 100,000 people to do it? 10,000,000? esp. if you do it on every major issue, the workers will sepnd mroe time figuring out what to do with the company then working. its an extremely unproductive system. and what are "democraticaly run banks?


You like making assertions without backing arguments, don&#39;t you? Please explain why you believe this.

because it requries a larger group then is nessacary to run things. republics are ineffeicnt on purpose (or at least ours is) because our founding fathers feared the government. when your objective is effeincy dictatroship is the best idea. yes things migth be more equal in your ideal society, but they probabaly wouldnt have much more, becaue overall less wil be produced


The more people involved in making a decision, the more likely the decision is going to benefit a large number of people. The less people involved in making decisions, the more likely those decisions are going to benefit just the few decision-makers.

see above

[cyu]

when your objective is effeincy dictatroship is the best idea.

This is a joke right? Are you actually promoting dictatorship? What country do you live in? Is it a dictatorship? If not, is there a dictatorship you&#39;d rather live in?


I don&#39;t know if you noticed this or not but our government, which is a republic, is incredibly inefficetn. this is becuase getting 250 or more people to agree to something is diffuclt. now imagine trying to goet 100,000 people to do it? 10,000,000? esp. if you do it on every major issue, the workers will sepnd mroe time figuring out what to do with the company then working. its an extremely unproductive system. and what are "democraticaly run banks?

Do you even know how democracies (or democratic republics) work? Maybe you don&#39;t live in one, so the idea is foreign to you. If not rule by the people, who should make the decisions then? You? Why should one person be the dictator and not another? Who decides who should be the dictator?

[theraven]

You do an excellent job ignoring points, please go back and answer my other questiosn and points




This is a joke right? Are you actually promoting dictatorship? What country do you live in? Is it a dictatorship? If not, is there a dictatorship you&#39;d rather live in?


No, but then again I don&#39;t trust/like the governemnt that much, so i don&#39;t want them to be efficent

I am American btw.



Do you even know how democracies (or democratic republics) work?

yes i do, the question is do you? I think not, because if you did you probably wouldn&#39;t advocate "people control" of buisnesses.


Maybe you don&#39;t live in one, so the idea is foreign to you.

no i live in the oldest republic.


If not rule by the people, who should make the decisions then? You? Why should one person be the dictator and not another? Who decides who should be the dictator?

please reread my post

[cyu]

No, but then again I don&#39;t trust/like the governemnt that much, so i don&#39;t want them to be efficent

I see. Are you saying you&#39;d rather the government be too busy to do anything real at all, because you don&#39;t believe governments are beneficial to the population, no matter what they intend to do? I believe what you call a government is just a group of people. A corporation is also just a group of people as well. The decisions of governments and corporations can be made by a few individuals, unaccountable to the rest of the people in that group, or they can be made either by the group (direct democracy) or people who are accountable to that group (representative democracy). It&#39;s obvious the latter scenario (some form of democracy) is much more likely to benefit the group in general, even if it does take longer to make decisions.

I think you&#39;ll agree strikes are inefficient. Productivity drops when there is a strike. Well, if employees had control over their businesses, do you think there would be nearly as many strikes as there are today?


this is becuase getting 250 or more people to agree to something is diffuclt. now imagine trying to goet 100,000 people to do it? 10,000,000? esp. if you do it on every major issue

Anarchists believe democracy should be decentralized. That means not everyone gets to vote. Who gets a say is determined by who is most affected by the decision. The more the decision affects you, the more control you have over how that decision is made.

[theraven]

I see. Are you saying you&#39;d rather the government be too busy to do anything real at all, because you don&#39;t believe governments are beneficial to the population, no matter what they intend to do?

the government can be effeicent in somethings, but overall it should be inefficent as fuck. the reason is simple (and as an anarchsit you should like this) governemnts abuse their power, thus the less powerful the governmetn the better it is for all of us


I believe what you call a government is just a group of people. A corporation is also just a group of people as well. The decisions of governments and corporations can be made by a few individuals, unaccountable to the rest of the people in that group, or they can be made either by the group (direct democracy) or people who are accountable to that group (representative democracy). It&#39;s obvious the latter scenario (some form of democracy) is much more likely to benefit the group in general, even if it does take longer to make decisions.

just because their a "group of people" doesnt mean their the same. governemts and companys (corporatiosn are a kind of company btw) are different and have different objectives. governemnts purpose is to ensure laws are followed and order is presereved. long standing and powerful governemtsn generally advance and do public works and other things to keep the populace stable. companies point of existance is to produce goods. it produces goods efficetnly so it can sell them cheaply so that people will buy it over its competitors. they then use this profit to reward the initail investos (those who allow them to create the company) and te management/workers. now that understand their differences do you see why they should be run differently?




I think you&#39;ll agree strikes are inefficient. Productivity drops when there is a strike. Well, if employees had control over their businesses, do you think there would be nearly as many strikes as there are today?

I would bet substantiao sums of money the money lost by the occasianl strike comes no where near the amount that would be lost if the employees also had tor un the company and vote on every major issue.



Anarchists believe democracy should be decentralized. That means not everyone gets to vote. Who gets a say is determined by who is most affected by the decision. The more the decision affects you, the more control you have over how that decision is made.

1) who detemirnes if it effects them?
2) who detirmes how much say one has?

[cyu]

now that understand their differences do you see why they should be run differently?

Uh no. You&#39;ve explained pretty well that their goals are different, but you haven&#39;t explained why having different goals means they should be run differently. If a democratic government is more likely to benefit its citizens, then a democratic company would be more likely to benefit its employees - the principles are the same.


I would bet substantiao sums of money the money lost by the occasianl strike comes no where near the amount that would be lost if the employees also had tor un the company and vote on every major issue.

Well, we can&#39;t see the difference unless there was an actual experiment. In any case, money lost by whom? If you&#39;re referring to money lost by employees themselves, it&#39;s clear they would have a lot more money if they never had to strike or pay upper management and shareholders enormous amounts of money. Does a democratic country "lose money" because the citizens have to spend time running the country?


1) who detemirnes if it effects them?
2) who detirmes how much say one has?

The people themselves would. I&#39;d imagine there would be a constitution or set of laws that determines these issues, just like in any country.

[theraven]

Uh no. You&#39;ve explained pretty well that their goals are different, but you haven&#39;t explained why having different goals means they should be run differently. If a democratic government is more likely to benefit its citizens, then a democratic company would be more likely to benefit its employees - the principles are the same.


but see they have different goasl, therfore their styesl of governmetn are different a companies goal is to provide cheap quality goods and make a profit. a differen goal requires differnt governance.




Well, we can&#39;t see the difference unless there was an actual experiment. In any case, money lost by whom? If you&#39;re referring to money lost by employees themselves, it&#39;s clear they would have a lot more money if they never had to strike or pay upper management and shareholders enormous amounts of money. Does a democratic country "lose money" because the citizens have to spend time running the country?

they cant&#39; lose money they never had. and yes if there was a truely democratic country then they would lose a lot of money by thier citizens spending so much time to run the country.



The people themselves would. I&#39;d imagine there would be a constitution or set of laws that determines these issues, just like in any country.

so you have no idea

[cyu]

but see they have different goasl, therfore their styesl of governmetn are different a companies goal is to provide cheap quality goods and make a profit. a differen goal requires differnt governance.

So what is it about democratic companies that would go against the goals of making a living? The goal of employees is to earn a decent living. If they don&#39;t have the right to distribute the revenue from their sales as they see fit, then it fails to meet the goal of making a decent living, especially when people who aren&#39;t doing any real work (shareholders) get rewarded much more. It&#39;s certainly not a lot of incentive to do a good job.


if there was a truely democratic country then they would lose a lot of money by thier citizens spending so much time to run the country.

So they elect representatives if they don&#39;t want to be bothered with making all the decisions. But if the representative turns out to be making a lot of wrong decisions, then they replace him. The same would be true in a democratic company if that&#39;s what the employees want. Of course, if they feel they don&#39;t want representatives and prefer direct democracy, they obviously want to spend extra time running the company and they are free to do so. Don&#39;t you believe in freedom? If they neglect the business too much, then the company will fail and another better run democratic company will take its place. I&#39;m sure that idea is familiar to you.

[theraven]

So what is it about democratic companies that would go against the goals of making a living? The goal of employees is to earn a decent living. If they don&#39;t have the right to distribute the revenue from their sales as they see fit, then it fails to meet the goal of making a decent living, especially when people who aren&#39;t doing any real work (shareholders) get rewarded much more. It&#39;s certainly not a lot of incentive to do a good job.

its a simple risk/reward scenarion

shareholder risks money and he can make/lose on any given invesmnet
if he wins, he winsg big, if he loses he loes big

worker coems in risks little, makes a salary, if it goes bad he goes some where lese, if not he keeps making a sarlay
see the difference?


So they elect representatives if they don&#39;t want to be bothered with making all the decisions. But if the representative turns out to be making a lot of wrong decisions, then they replace him. The same would be true in a democratic company if that&#39;s what the employees want. Of course, if they feel they don&#39;t want representatives and prefer direct democracy, they obviously want to spend extra time running the company and they are free to do so. Don&#39;t you believe in freedom? If they neglect the business too much, then the company will fail and another better run democratic company will take its place. I&#39;m sure that idea is familiar to you.

and eveautly the peoplw ill decdie" why dont we just put these guys who run things well n charge" and then those guys wil want money..and the guy down the street will say "heres your money, in exchange give us a percanage of your proifts"

and then you&#39;ll be bck where you started.

[cyu]

its a simple risk/reward scenarion

shareholder risks money and he can make/lose on any given invesmnet
if he wins, he winsg big, if he loses he loes big

worker coems in risks little, makes a salary, if it goes bad he goes some where lese, if not he keeps making a sarlay
see the difference?

Ah, but rewarding someone as much as shareholders are rewarded under capitalism is detrimental to the general welfare of the society. Since having some people with much more spending power than everyone else makes the average person suffer, then there needs to be a solution to the problem.

Your argument of risk is misguided. Let&#39;s say I bet my life that a coin toss will come up heads. Let&#39;s say I win that coin toss. Does that mean I should now be allowed to do just about anything I want, because I risked so much? Risk makes no difference - it&#39;s how beneficial your actions are to society. Risking your life on a coin toss is of very little benefit. Yes, you can argue that investment benefits society. I won&#39;t dispute that, but investment does not have to be done in the capitalist manner. There are better, less exploitive, and more democratic ways for a society to decide on investment without the drawbacks of traditional shareholders.


and eveautly the peoplw ill decdie" why dont we just put these guys who run things well n charge" and then those guys wil want money..and the guy down the street will say "heres your money, in exchange give us a percanage of your proifts"

and then you&#39;ll be bck where you started.

That&#39;s certainly possible. It is also possible for a democratic nation to vote in a dictatorship or a freed slave to arrange himself to go back to being in a slave-master relationship again. They are free to make that choice, but the key is the choice remains with them. If the people decide later they don&#39;t want the dictator anymore, or if the slave decides later he doesn&#39;t want to be a slave anymore, then their decisions will be defended.

[theraven]

Ah, but rewarding someone as much as shareholders are rewarded under capitalism is detrimental to the general welfare of the society. Since having some people with much more spending power than everyone else makes the average person suffer, then there needs to be a solution to the problem.

how it is it detrematinal? people under yor society woudl be far worse off because of the difficult in trading and such.


Your argument of risk is misguided. Let&#39;s say I bet my life that a coin toss will come up heads. Let&#39;s say I win that coin toss. Does that mean I should now be allowed to do just about anything I want, because I risked so much?

wtf? you don&#39;t get o do whatever you want because of some stupid bet, but you do get what you were supposed to win in that bet. so if you bet your your car against you firends car, if you win you get his car.


Risk makes no difference - it&#39;s how beneficial your actions are to society.

in terms of return on capital it makes a great dela of differnce


Risking your life on a coin toss is of very little benefit.

your analogy sucks/


Yes, you can argue that investment benefits society. I won&#39;t dispute that, but investment does not have to be done in the capitalist manner. There are better, less exploitive, and more democratic ways for a society to decide on investment without the drawbacks of traditional shareholders.

like how?



That&#39;s certainly possible. It is also possible for a democratic nation to vote in a dictatorship or a freed slave to arrange himself to go back to being in a slave-master relationship again. They are free to make that choice, but the key is the choice remains with them. If the people decide later they don&#39;t want the dictator anymore, or if the slave decides later he doesn&#39;t want to be a slave anymore, then their decisions will be defended.

lmao.

[cyu]

Ah, but rewarding someone as much as shareholders are rewarded under capitalism is detrimental to the general welfare of the society. Since having some people with much more spending power than everyone else makes the average person suffer, then there needs to be a solution to the problem.
how it is it detrematinal?

When there&#39;s one person much wealthier than everyone else, he can afford to pay more for labor and other resources. More labor and resources are diverted to serving the rich man. The result is less labor and resources are left for everyone else to compete over. Thus the average person suffers when there&#39;s a large gap between rich and poor.



There are better, less exploitive, and more democratic ways for a society to decide on investment without the drawbacks of traditional shareholders.
like how?

If there are resources that nobody is using, then the people of that region decide democratically how to allocate those resources. If there are new products the people of an area want and no company exists to produce the product, if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company. The return on the investment would not be in the form of a cut of everything the new company earns, nor would it be control over the new company. Instead, the only benefit the people would get would just be the new products they wanted in the first place.

[theraven]

When there&#39;s one person much wealthier than everyone else, he can afford to pay more for labor and other resources. More labor and resources are diverted to serving the rich man. The result is less labor and resources are left for everyone else to compete over. Thus the average person suffers when there&#39;s a large gap between rich and poor.

except the differnce is the majority fo the richs wealth is spent on investing. for all of the wealths houses and butlers and maids and airplanes this accounts for a very small portion of the rich&#39;s wealth usage. far more is used to invest in expanding factories, services and other investments desigend to make thme richer. this creates more jobs and increased technology (this is only the case in wich the enviroemtn exists to saetly invest)



If there are resources that nobody is using, then the people of that region decide democratically how to allocate those resources. If there are new products the people of an area want and no company exists to produce the product, if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company. The return on the investment would not be in the form of a cut of everything the new company earns, nor would it be control over the new company. Instead, the only benefit the people would get would just be the new products they wanted in the first place.

this sounds like a much more complicated and less effient version of what we have now. tis far easie to use capital in exchange of bartering..which si why we use capital

[JudeObscure84]

The East Asian Tigers
The Baltic Tigers
The Celtic Tiger
USA
JAPAN
UK
CANADA
SWITZERLAND
ISRAEL
AUSTRALIA
FRANCE
GERMANY
CHILE

A strong market economy with moderate social benefits and education spending usually lead to a booming country.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

man you can add to that a whoooole bunch, including countries in the Middle East as a matter of fact, like UAR, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait....

[JudeObscure84]

man you can add to that a whoooole bunch, including countries in the Middle East as a matter of fact, like UAR, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait....


no doubt about that. :lol:

[overlord]

Here&#39;s my picks...

1. Switzerland
2. Lichtenstein
3. Monaco
4. Bahamas
5. Caymans
7. Hong Kong
8. Brunei
9. U.S.A, for keeping the dream alive...
10. Britain*

Top 8 have ~10% income tax. Brunei none at all :) . USA falls by the wayside with 33%. :angry:

*Britain should lead this bunch but having been hijacked by communists since the 1870&#39;s liberals their legacy is dead and buried.

[JudeObscure84]

Well most of those nations with the exception of the US and UK have homogenous centered populations with relatively little immigration in comparison. Maybe Hong Kong can be an exception.

But otherwise cappie nations are nearly impecible.

[kingbee]

Britain should lead this bunch but having been hijacked by communists since the 1870&#39;s liberals their legacy is dead and buried.

Lol.

[JudeObscure84]

Britain should lead this bunch but having been hijacked by communists since the 1870&#39;s liberals their legacy is dead and buried.

Actually I think that Tony Blairs New Labour has helped the country reach moderation between both the Socialist government in the 1970&#39;s which almost bankrupted the UK and Thatcher&#39;s ultra-right privitization that widened the gap between rich and poor.

[cyu]

When there&#39;s one person much wealthier than everyone else, he can afford to pay more for labor and other resources. More labor and resources are diverted to serving the rich man. The result is less labor and resources are left for everyone else to compete over. Thus the average person suffers when there&#39;s a large gap between rich and poor.
for all of the wealths houses and butlers and maids and airplanes this accounts for a very small portion of the rich&#39;s wealth usage. far more is used to invest in expanding factories, services and other investments desigend to make thme richer.

All you have to do is walk the streets downtown in a capitalist country and you&#39;ll see the results I described. How else would you explain how giant skyscrapers came into existence right beside people who can&#39;t afford decent clothes or housing? It points to the misplaced economic priorities that results from a large disparity in spending power.



If there are new products the people of an area want and no company exists to produce the product, if the new company needs starting capital, then the people decide democratically what to give the new company. The return on the investment would not be in the form of a cut of everything the new company earns, nor would it be control over the new company. Instead, the only benefit the people would get would just be the new products they wanted in the first place.
this sounds like a much more complicated and less effient version of what we have now. tis far easie to use capital in exchange of bartering..which si why we use capital

What makes you think I was talking about bartering? I have no problem with the existence of money. By the way, capital means more than money. Look it up at onelook.com:

noun: wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value
noun: assets available for use in the production of further assets

[theraven]

All you have to do is walk the streets downtown in a capitalist country and you&#39;ll see the results I described. How else would you explain how giant skyscrapers came into existence right beside people who can&#39;t afford decent clothes or housing? It points to the misplaced economic priorities that results from a large disparity in spending power.

um no, sky skrappers exist because in cities land is expeneive, so you use it as best you can. obviously if you can&#39;t expand horriztnaly you expand vertically.



What makes you think I was talking about bartering? I have no problem with the existence of money. By the way, capital means more than money. Look it up at onelook.com:

noun: wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value
noun: assets available for use in the production of further assets

right, but the way your talking you want to get rid of money. all your exmaples use a barter system

[cyu]

All you have to do is walk the streets downtown in a capitalist country and you&#39;ll see the results I described. How else would you explain how giant skyscrapers came into existence right beside people who can&#39;t afford decent clothes or housing? It points to the misplaced economic priorities that results from a large disparity in spending power.
um no, sky skrappers exist because in cities land is expeneive, so you use it as best you can. obviously if you can&#39;t expand horriztnaly you expand vertically.

You&#39;ve missed my point entirely. The point is that a lot of hard work, raw materials, and other resources goes into building skyscrapers. Where is all the hard work, raw materials, and other resources that should be used to keeping the poor fed and relatively well taken care of? Because rich capitalists can spend a lot of money, they redivert the resources that could have been used to feed the hungry into building things like skyscrapers. It&#39;s the priorities of an economy I&#39;m talking about. Why skip to skyscrapers when there are so many other things that need to be taken care of? The problem is the gap between rich and poor.


but the way your talking you want to get rid of money. all your exmaples use a barter system

I think you need reading comprehension lessons. I have no problem with the use of money.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:15 PM
IF homeless people are drug addicts or alcoholics its is because at night when they are sleeping in the cold and its raining and you don’t know if the next person walking by is going to beat the crap out of you or worse, its probably much better you be as far away from reality as possible.
I&#39;ll have to agree. A friend of mine used to live in San Francisco and was homeless for a number of months. Along with that, he started smoking Crystal Meth and doing other stuff simply because homelessness = shitty and often unbearable.

[theraven]

You&#39;ve missed my point entirely. The point is that a lot of hard work, raw materials, and other resources goes into building skyscrapers. Where is all the hard work, raw materials, and other resources that should be used to keeping the poor fed and relatively well taken care of? Because rich capitalists can spend a lot of money, they redivert the resources that could have been used to feed the hungry into building things like skyscrapers. It&#39;s the priorities of an economy I&#39;m talking about. Why skip to skyscrapers when there are so many other things that need to be taken care of? The problem is the gap between rich and poor.

but see many of those resouces wouldn&#39;t exist without capitslim becuase someone with innitaitive wouldn&#39;t be able to build a factory and profit from it.



I think you need reading comprehension lessons. I have no problem with the use of money.

wel then expaln your ideal world again then, becuse in it you only takl about the exchange of goods.

[cyu]

but see many of those resouces wouldn&#39;t exist without capitslim becuase someone with innitaitive wouldn&#39;t be able to build a factory and profit from it.

Why not? Assuming the people in an area actually want new products, then they&#39;ll simply vote to allocate resources to producing those products. It&#39;s true they won&#39;t get a cut of the new company&#39;s sales since the companies will be democratically run, but they will get new products in the market. Are you saying people won&#39;t be sufficiently motivated to allocate resources to new companies? You seem to imply that someone needs to profit from investment or there wouldn&#39;t be a reason to start new companies. At the same time, you probably think it&#39;s a bad thing if there are no new companies. Well, if it&#39;s a bad thing, then that&#39;s the reason for new companies to be started - you don&#39;t need to have investors taking a cut of the revenue to have a motive - the motivation for the people to start the company is already there, assuming they want a new product or service.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:32 PM

but see many of those resouces wouldn&#39;t exist without capitslim becuase someone with innitaitive wouldn&#39;t be able to build a factory and profit from it.

Why not? Assuming the people in an area actually want new products, then they&#39;ll simply vote to allocate resources to producing those products. It&#39;s true they won&#39;t get a cut of the new company&#39;s sales since the companies will be democratically run, but they will get new products in the market. Are you saying people won&#39;t be sufficiently motivated to allocate resources to new companies? You seem to imply that someone needs to profit from investment or there wouldn&#39;t be a reason to start new companies. At the same time, you probably think it&#39;s a bad thing if there are no new companies. Well, if it&#39;s a bad thing, then that&#39;s the reason for new companies to be started - you don&#39;t need to have investors taking a cut of the revenue to have a motive - the motivation for the people to start the company is already there, assuming they want a new product or service.
thats exactly what I&#39;m saying. i ahve never heard of a company started up by employee finaincin, because that would require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist. your idea sounsd like a perfeclty good idea to just screw up the economy. it would practically halt innovation and would shatter employment.

[cyu]

i ahve never heard of a company started up by employee finaincin, because that would require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist.

It doesn&#39;t happen because in a capitalist economy, vast amounts of resources are not owned by the average person. You need capital to start companies. If capitalism is overthrown, then of course it will happen, because resources would not be in the hands of a few.

Before the modern democratic governments were established, there weren&#39;t any nations run by their people either. People without vision back then probably would have also said democratic governments "require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist."


your idea sounsd like a perfeclty good idea to just screw up the economy. it would practically halt innovation and would shatter employment.

Are you going to provide reasoning to back up your assertion?

[theraven]

It doesn&#39;t happen because in a capitalist economy, vast amounts of resources are not owned by the average person. You need capital to start companies. If capitalism is overthrown, then of course it will happen, because resources would not be in the hands of a few.


but then capital would be to widely disturbtd and it would be difficult to get enough people to invest. also sometimes some popele will get more capitla then others..and we will begin the same thing over again (albeit less stable)


Before the modern democratic governments were established, there weren&#39;t any nations run by their people either. People without vision back then probably would have also said democratic governments "require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist."

and they would, which is why no democracitc governemtn exists. we have republci,s in which people elect a few people to run their country for a set number of years.

v

Are you going to provide reasoning to back up your assertion?

sure: ok lets say i am a brilliant scientiest. in modern soceity i&#39;d go to MIT or harvard or wherever. i would then go work for a large company which will pay me large sums of money to invent things (drugs cars whatever) in your society those rewards would be minimal, so why spend 8 years in school only to get the shitty wages of eh guy who worked in the local factory?

[cyu]

but then capital would be to widely disturbtd and it would be difficult to get enough people to invest.

If the people pool their money, either in the form of taxes or banks, similar to what they do now, there would be no shortage of money that could be used as loans or grants to new businesses.


also sometimes some popele will get more capitla then others..and we will begin the same thing over again (albeit less stable)

Uh, same thing? Maybe you misunderstand the nature of the new companies. They would not be owned in the sense that a shareholder owns part of a company, doesn&#39;t do any real work, yet receives revenue from the company. You would not get the same thing because businesses would be fully owned by their employees.



Before the modern democratic governments were established, there weren&#39;t any nations run by their people either. People without vision back then probably would have also said democratic governments "require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist."
and they would, which is why no democracitc governemtn exists. we have republci,s in which people elect a few people to run their country for a set number of years.

Whether you want to call democratic republics, "democracies" is not the point. I could just as easily say this: Before the modern democratic republics were established, there weren&#39;t any nations run by their people either. People without vision back then probably would have also said democratic republics "require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist."


sure: ok lets say i am a brilliant scientiest. in modern soceity i&#39;d go to MIT or harvard or wherever. i would then go work for a large company which will pay me large sums of money to invent things (drugs cars whatever) in your society those rewards would be minimal, so why spend 8 years in school only to get the shitty wages of eh guy who worked in the local factory?

People will work for awards and titles, but that&#39;s for another discussion on psychology.

While I would argue that relatively equal pay makes for an economy better able to provide for its citizens, there&#39;s no set rule that a scientist will get the same pay as everyone else. If the scientist truly thinks he deserves more, then he&#39;ll have to convince the others he deserves more. If they don&#39;t agree he&#39;s worth what he says he&#39;s worth, then the scientist is free to move to somewhere else where he&#39;s more happy. This, however, is much different from how large shareholders are paid in capitalist economies. They&#39;re paid much more than scientists, but are of less value to the company. While a scientist may be able to convince a democratic company to pay him more, a shareholder would not be able to.

In any case, the rewards for work have to be balanced with the damage it does. Having some individuals earning thousands or millions of times more than the average person, like large shareholders do, causes much more harm than the good they do for society.

[theraven]

If the people pool their money, either in the form of taxes or banks, similar to what they do now, there would be no shortage of money that could be used as loans or grants to new businesses.


this is starting to sound like something else ive heard of..maybe..capitalism?


Uh, same thing? Maybe you misunderstand the nature of the new companies. They would not be owned in the sense that a shareholder owns part of a company, doesn&#39;t do any real work, yet receives revenue from the company. You would not get the same thing because businesses would be fully owned by their employees.

if buisness are wholly owend by the employees then where does the money come from but the employees? if not from the employees then what is the reward for the people who give the money ?



Whether you want to call democratic republics, "democracies" is not the point. I could just as easily say this: Before the modern democratic republics were established, there weren&#39;t any nations run by their people either. People without vision back then probably would have also said democratic republics "require an increidble amount of organziation that doesn&#39;t exist."

and they were right. not concidenatally democratic republics DO take a great deal of orgiznaitn. not to mention that they are not run by their people, but by essaitnaly professianl politicans.




People will work for awards and titles, but that&#39;s for another discussion on psychology.

it depens don the person of course. there are people who care only about the number in their bank account.


While I would argue that relatively equal pay makes for an economy better able to provide for its citizens, there&#39;s no set rule that a scientist will get the same pay as everyone else. If the scientist truly thinks he deserves more, then he&#39;ll have to convince the others he deserves more. If they don&#39;t agree he&#39;s worth what he says he&#39;s worth, then the scientist is free to move to somewhere else where he&#39;s more happy. This, however, is much different from how large shareholders are paid in capitalist economies. They&#39;re paid much more than scientists, but are of less value to the company. While a scientist may be able to convince a democratic company to pay him more, a shareholder would not be able to.

In any case, the rewards for work have to be balanced with the damage it does. Having some individuals earning thousands or millions of times more than the average person, like large shareholders do, causes much more harm than the good they do for society.

shareholders are immesnaily valuable. they provide startup and expanidng capital, if the average worker is the share holders your theory would work out well, but msot workers in facotires don&#39;t have the penal capital to start a factory

[cyu]

If the people pool their money, either in the form of taxes or banks, similar to what they do now, there would be no shortage of money that could be used as loans or grants to new businesses.
this is starting to sound like something else ive heard of..maybe..capitalism?

The difference between this and capitalism is that the people who funded the new company do not have a right to control the new company or get a share of the revenues (unless the money given was a loan instead of a grant, in which case, they would get the loan back, but no perpetual share of the revenues).


if buisness are wholly owend by the employees then where does the money come from but the employees? if not from the employees then what is the reward for the people who give the money ?

First you have to ask the question why new companies are needed. The answer to that question is the reward. Assuming the general public actually wants new products and services not provided by existing companies, their incentive to make grants / loans to start new companies would be because they want the new products / services. Isn&#39;t that obvious?

[theraven]

The difference between this and capitalism is that the people who funded the new company do not have a right to control the new company or get a share of the revenues (unless the money given was a loan instead of a grant, in which case, they would get the loan back, but no perpetual share of the revenues).

1) would their be interast on said loan?

2) don&#39;t yourelieze this greatly lowers the chance someone will invest in said company. now the reason you risk your money in a company is the large return.


First you have to ask the question why new companies are needed. The answer to that question is the reward. Assuming the general public actually wants new products and services not provided by existing companies, their incentive to make grants / loans to start new companies would be because they want the new products / services. Isn&#39;t that obvious?

no its not obvious. because it wont always be obviosu when sometings wanted.if i want a product enough to invest enough it better be a damn good prodcut. however most of the time that won&#39;t be enough of an incentive

[cyu]

1) would their be interast on said loan?

2) don&#39;t yourelieze this greatly lowers the chance someone will invest in said company. now the reason you risk your money in a company is the large return.

no its not obvious. because it wont always be obviosu when sometings wanted.if i want a product enough to invest enough it better be a damn good prodcut. however most of the time that won&#39;t be enough of an incentive

The are plenty of examples of this already happening, except it&#39;s just called something else. People already vote for taxes and then use those taxes to pay for projects, because they see a direct benefit to themselves coming as a result of those projects. The incentive is the same.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:57 PM

1) would their be interast on said loan?

2) don&#39;t yourelieze this greatly lowers the chance someone will invest in said company. now the reason you risk your money in a company is the large return.

no its not obvious. because it wont always be obviosu when sometings wanted.if i want a product enough to invest enough it better be a damn good prodcut. however most of the time that won&#39;t be enough of an incentive

The are plenty of examples of this already happening, except it&#39;s just called something else. People already vote for taxes and then use those taxes to pay for projects, because they see a direct benefit to themselves coming as a result of those projects. The incentive is the same.
you don&#39;t answer my qesiont at all