Who owns the world

[peaccenicked]

Who owns the world?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just in case you doubted that the world population is divided between a small percentage who own most of the wealth and the vast majority who must work for them in order to survive, here are some facts:

The world's 358 billionaires, including the Sultan of Brunei and Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, have more assets than the combined incomes of countries representing 45% of the planet's population.(1)

Incomes of the richest fifth of the world population are now on average fifty times the incomes of the poorest fifth.(2)

More than 1 billion people in developing countries live in absolute poverty(3), defined by the Worldwatch Institute as "the lack of sufficient income in cash to meet the most basic biological needs for food, clothing and shelter."

1.5 billion people in developing countries have no access to basic health services.(4) Half a million women die each year due to pregnancy and delivery complications; most without access to care.(5)

One third of children in developing countries under age five - nearly 200 million - are moderately or severely malnourished, and about 13 million still die each year from easily preventable illnesses.(6)

1.3 billion people in developing countries lack safe drinking water and 1.9 billion are without safe sanitation facilities.(7)

In sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, and Southern and Eastern Asia around 30% of the population, nearly one in three, are undernourished and ill.(8)

In response to these facts, many would still respond that the only way for the majority to improve their standard of living is for them to work for increased economic growth. While, for example, income per capita has increased in the so-called 'tiger economies' of South East Asia, which have attained high levels of growth over recent years relative to other states, it is far from clear that more growth necessarily means a higher standard of living for the majority. This view evades the key fact that wealth is produced for the owning class (Why Profit Gets Priority) and this minority gain a disproportionate amount of it. Inequality therefore increases. A recent UN report confirms this:

"Internationally, there has not been a universal trend towards greater inequality in recent years, although this has been the case in the majority of industrialised countries."(9)

Relative inequality has therefore increased. Furthermore, the standard of living is declining in absolute terms for many, with the United States being a notable example:

"According to figures published by the U.S. Dept of Labour, since 1973 real hourly and weekly earnings, in inflation-adjusted dollars, have already dropped respectively by 13.4% and 19.2%"(10)

All of these statistics will come as no surprise to regular readers of our journals. What is remarkable, however, is that these findings came during the International Year of Poverty (1996). Yes, this year was set aside by those who set years aside for special problems, in which the problem of global inequality was supposed to be solved.

"There was plenty for the pessimist," wrote Martin Jacques of the recent United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report (11) - though we would have preferred the term "realist." He pointed out that since 1980 over 100 countries have had stagnant or declining incomes that have reduced living standards for l.6 billion people.

Presumably we are supposed to feel "optimistic" about the 15 countries that have experienced economic growth during this period, even if, like Singapore, freedom of speech has been outlawed. The report also reveals that whereas the world's richest 20 percent were 30 times as wealthy as their poorer counterparts then (1980), they are now 61 times as wealthy.

Commenting on the UNDP report, Victor Keegan, writing in The Guardian, said: "Never in the history of the world have they [the rich] been present in such quantities and in such flamboyant contrast with the poor as now." We might add: "and never has the case for world socialism been so pressing".

Authors: DG & John Bissett

[reagan lives]

I fail to see how these facts constitute an argument for socialism.

Explain it to me slowly, since I am very stupid. Take it step-by-step.

[rebel with a cause]

Here you stupid reagan pagan worshiper. I'll even quote the great Dr. King, A SOCIALIST, with minor commie intentions, nothing but good intentions, a great man and leader who was ultimately killed by the government because they feared the revolution of a better tomorrow for everyone, a man whose birthday was granted as a national holiday by the very president whose name you bare on this board, to which a profound majority of the American society has forgotten who MLK really was and what he stood for. The following to quotes are word for word by the great Dr. King:

"This is a role our nation has taken. The role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the priveleges and pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side fo the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin to shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people; the giant triplets of racism, militarism, and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies... True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look on uneasily upon the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West invest in huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say 'this is not just'. It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say 'this is not just'. Western arrogance of feeling it has everything to teach others, and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

"We are now making demands that will cost the nation something. You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with the captains of industry. . . . Now this means that we are treading in difficult waters, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong . . . with capitalism . . . . There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."

"He gave the power to the have-nots, and then came the shot ...............

Who put the price on his head?"- RATM

[rebel with a cause]

Now you might not be able to understand of how socialism would help, I can't compensate you for your stupidity, but I'm sure it will be easy for most of us to understand what peaceniccked was conveying.

[reagan lives]

Wow, thank you for that completely unrelated quote from Dr. King, which does nothing to explain how socialism relates to the issues brought up in the opening post, except that Dr. King says that it does. I forget, where did MLK get his economics degree from?

[peaccenicked]

There is a big economic injustice.
People tell lies about it, like you.
I tell the truth about it.
Socialism is about resolving the class contradictions of society
that people who live in the real world know about
why do't just stick to reagan's films? I dont think you are as stupid as you make out. You capitalist and imperial are wasting your minds defending the indefensible.

[reagan lives]

Har har.

Socialism is not about resolving the class contradictions of society, it is about enforcing them. Whoever told you otherwise is either a fool or one who profits from propogating such lies. Socialism, even in its purest form, establishes a culture of dependency. It mandates that all in the society be dependents. As long as people are dependent they can never be free. Capitalism allows those who do not own the means of production to be free to sell their services however they like, and for as much money as they like. Capitalism allows those who do not own the means of production to be nonetheless independent. I suppose you'll say that someone who has to work to feed his family is not independent. If that's your rationale, then nobody, not even the exceedingly rich, is independent. And in any event, independence cannot be found in socialism, which imagines the world as a place where many are subjugated by few and suggests as an alternative a world in which all are subjugated by all.

[Imperial Power]

Reagan is 100% correct. I see that Malte has now started his own private enterprise of selling Che stuff. I thougt that was against the communist ideal, maybe I'm wrong.

(Edited by Imperial Power at 9:19 pm on Jan. 23, 2002)


(Edited by Imperial Power at 9:20 pm on Jan. 23, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

it is sad to see such ignorance from america's finest.
You don't know any thing about communist or socialist theory. The essential texts of our movement are essential the removal of class contadictions from society.
It is no lie, merely that you have not a clue what you are talking about. The idea of independence is dependecy is relative to what country you live in the level of wealth available to your situation and your relationship with the State. You seem ideologically dependent on the droppings of the republican
right. that is serious oppression. the trouble is instead of studying what you are talking about you are throwing half baked notions from the litter bin
of the Wall street journal.

[Imperial Power]

I'd like an article from THE WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE to back that up peace.

[peaccenicked]

at least I read the wall st journal and and all your thoretical heroes. what happened to the debate on Adam Smith. Chomsky to heavy for you.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 10:01 pm on Jan. 23, 2002)

[reagan lives]

You're funny. The best argument you can come up with is "Well, you just don't know what you're talking about. So there." Yeah, Noam Chomsky is too "heavy" for me. If, of course, by "heavy" you mean "worthless." I do not lend any particular weight to the ravings of a lunatic linguistics professor who is guilty of many of the more egregious intellectual crimes that we have a name for. Yeah, peacenick, if you can't defend yourself against my argument just call me an ignorant sheep and go home...this is right out of the leftist playbook. For your information, I don't look to the Wall Street Journal or any other publication to tell me my opinions...I trust my own understanding. You leftists seem to think that "independent thought" means choosing who to follow instead of having it dictated to you. For instance, instead of listening to the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, you give credence to the screeds of Noam Chomsky. But real independent thought means thinking things through yourself. Try it sometime.

[peaccenicked]

you are not presenting any arguments here.
You are just telling lies about Marx.
You don't anwer points about the reality of your
statements.
I only quote a small part of chomsky once to illustrate my
understanding of Adam Smith who I read twenty years ago.
You have not an independent mind . You merely expouse makeshift right wing republican positions and when comes to class you are a liar. Where did get that middle class abolishment of class differences lie from. Is it a truly independent lie?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:11 pm on Jan. 24, 2002)

[vox]

Reagan lies, I gotta say, you're a bigger fool than most, and I'll patiently expain, once again, just why that is. You've always resorted to screaming at me in the past and I'm sure that this time will not be any different, but I don't do this for you. I do this so others may have a good laugh at your expense. :-)

Reagan wrote,

"Socialism is not about resolving the class contradictions of society, it is about enforcing them. Whoever told you otherwise is either a fool or one who profits from propogating such lies. Socialism, even in its purest form, establishes a culture of dependency. It mandates that all in the society be dependents."

Dependent? Upon what? Notice that reagan never says, for he cannot. I've read over, and responded to, several of reagan's recent posts, and dependency seems to be a big issue with him now. Perhaps he read an op-ed about it. Regardless, he hasn't defined upon what everyone would be dependent. Either he's just a very dumb parrot or he's arguing beyond his means. Either way, without definition it's just hot air.

He goes on to say,

" Capitalism allows those who do not own the means of production to be free to sell their services however they like, and for as much money as they like. Capitalism allows those who do not own the means of production to be nonetheless independent."

Well, I would like to sell my services for 100 dollars an hour, please. And pay me daily, if you don't mind.

Obviously, reagan lies has bought into the libertarian notion of "freedom," without regard to the social relations that exist around the individual, and over which the individual has no control. The rich, so I'm told, have just as much right to starve in the street as the poor have. However, it's not utilized very often. It is, however, a good example of the "independence" of which reagan writes.

He continues,

"And in any event, independence cannot be found in socialism, which imagines the world as a place where many are subjugated by few and suggests as an alternative a world in which all are subjugated by all."

How, exactly, in a pholosophic sense, is "all" subjugated by "all?" Such things are the dreams of the mad, no doubt--a thing being subjugated by that self-same thing.

What terrors reagan must face, with a mind like that! Of course, it's as mushy as his namesake's.

vox

[Jurhael]

Gods...no shit.

Especially given that if you have a business, you DEPEND on others to buy your services/products.

You rely on workers to make your products/services.

The worker relies on the management/owner for a paycheck and the worker must follow the dictates of the company/business. It helps if they're "flexible" and subserviant. (Can you imagine if these workers were SELF EMPLOYED instead?)

People rely on products for food, clothing, entertainment, etc...

It's a cycle. Nothing happens in a vaccuum.

I've read about Democratic Socialism(a system that the capis here LOVE to hate) and I found that because it requires a TON of self motivation and self direction to attain and MAINTAIN, ESPECIALLY MAINTAIN.

Many Capitalists claim to offer "independance" and "self reliance", but really don't want people to have them. Think about it, if people really were self-reliant, self motivated, self directed, etc, who'd do the less pleasant jobs? Who'd work at a fast food place? Who'd work as a janitor?

And what if people really WERE fiscally responsible? I MEAN REALLY fiscally responsible? No one would be buying novelty items and companies who sell them would either have to sell something else or go out of business...

Things that make you go hmmmm...

[pce]

"Capitalism allows those who do not own the means of production to be free to sell their services however they like, and for as much money as they like."

I don't know about anyone else, but to me that sounds a lot like prostitution. prostitutes can sell their services at any price they want. does that make them free?

[z80x86]

Who the hell is Reagan to say anything. Iran-Contra...

[vox]

Once again, Reagan Lies has no reply. Perhaps he thinks that we forget his lies. I do not.

vox

[vox]

Remember this one, Reagan Lies?

Still no response? It's been WEEKS!!!!

Nothing to say? That's typical.

HEE!!!!!

You're a JOKE, Reagan Lies. In you aren't, where's you response? Where's your ANYTHING?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Nowhere.

vox

[MindCrime]

Quote: from reagan lives on 4:23 pm on Jan. 23, 2002
I forget, where did MLK get his economics degree from?


Thats right everyone, we must remeber that if the system doesnt issue you a piece of paper making you an expert, then you have no right to speak. We should be thankful to the system, without it we would never know how stupid we really are.

[vox]

Perhaps Reagan Lies will now use the "don't talk to vox" excuse, but the fact is that he hasn't answered. I don't believe that he can, as I've said before.

When the going gets tough, the right-wingers start a new thread! Hee!

Now, perhaps I'm lacking in credibility, as Reagan suggests, but if I am shouldn't it be very easy for him to point out the flaws in my post? Of course. Shouldn't it be easy for any of the right-wingers here? Of course.

They don't, however. They can't.

Thanks, right-wingers, for giving me another laugh at your expense. Seems like the vox resolution is the "golly it's too hard" resolution!

vox

[reagan lives]

You asked for it...nay, you begged for it.

"Dependent? Upon what? Notice that reagan never says, for he cannot."
I'm sorry, I give you too much credit. I'll connect the dots for you, vox...just be quiet for a minute and drink your juice box like a good boy. One of your primary criticisms of capitalism is that the working class is subjugated by the upper class, and they have no choice but to adhere to the whims of the owners of the means of production. In abstract, you're saying that the upper class imposes its will on the working class, ergo the upper class has independence (a will of its own) and the working class does not. The distinction between classes is based as much on this fact as it is on monetary wealth, as one is a function of the other.
Now, communists falsely claim that their program would make everyone middle class. I argue that, in a communist society, everyone is dependent, not on a fraction of the society, but on the whole society. Nobody has what could be properly called a will of one's own. It is inconcievable that a man living under a communist system could be completely free to make his own life decisions. It creates a culture of codependency.

"Well, I would like to sell my services for 100 dollars an hour, please. And pay me daily, if you don't mind."
No, not until you make me believe that you're worth it.

"Obviously, reagan lies has bought into the libertarian notion of "freedom," without regard to the social relations that exist around the individual, and over which the individual has no control. The rich, so I'm told, have just as much right to starve in the street as the poor have. However, it's not utilized very often. It is, however, a good example of the "independence" of which reagan writes."
Where is the freedom in communism?

"How, exactly, in a pholosophic sense, is "all" subjugated by "all?" Such things are the dreams of the mad, no doubt--a thing being subjugated by that self-same thing."
This is either pretty good sophism, or you really believe this, in which case you're just stupid. I'll give you a nice "pholosophic" analogy. Imagine three people standing in a circle holding two guns each, and pointing them at each of the other two people. All are being threatened by all. Come on vox, even toddlers understand the member/group distinction.

That wasn't so hard after all. Hee!

[vox]

After a long bit of garbage, Reagan Lies finally says, "I argue that, in a communist society, everyone is dependent, not on a fraction of the society, but on the whole society. Nobody has what could be properly called a will of one's own."

Again, Reagan Lies equates capital with will. How odd, but he does it without apology.

Somehow, though he blatantly ignores the question, people are "dependent" upon, hmmm, what, exactly? "All of society," he says, meaning that all are equally dependant upon each, but if that is the case, then none depend on any, for if all depend on each where is the line to be drawn? Reagan Lies demands a line that separates the more dependent and the less, but he can't draw it.

Reagan leaves it to a "will of one's own," a will that, under Reagan's terms, cannot empathize but only dominate. Copming from this perspective it's no wonder why the right-wing fools believe as they do. They are to narrow minded to think anything else.

Reagan Lies asks, "Where is the freedom in communism?"

The freedom is in the very functioning of Marxist Communism. You and I, Reagan Lies, both object to Stalin. You don't, and cannot, go further than that, and in this manner you are pathetic.
"Imagine three people standing in a circle holding two guns each, and pointing them at each of the other two people. All are being threatened by all. Come on vox, even toddlers understand the member/group distinction."

Reagan Lies presents us with a three-headed "Mexican standoff."

It's funny, though, because his argument is one-sided, not three-headed.

Indeed, he seems to be making the case that he should give up, as well he should beneath my obvious superiority. Fact is, Reagan Lies prays for a standoff, one that he won't receive from me.

Wassa matter, Liar? Too tough? Your points, so far, are sophomoric. You've said nothing more than that you misuderstand your own dillemas.

You wish to equate the "All" being subjugated by the "all," which is a notion that YOU introduced, with some absurd notion about a gun-yielding standoff.

You lose, again.

Your foul kind will never beat me, Reagan Lies. Don't you know that yet?

vox (Is far better than you)

[Guest]

I am impressed.

That was one of the more phenomenal loads of bullshit that I've ever seen. Honestly, man, do you expect people to take your wordplay seriously?

"Again, Reagan Lies equates capital with will."
I'm sorry, I missed that. Could you quote him on this point, please?
"Somehow, though he blatantly ignores the question, people are "dependent" upon, hmmm, what, exactly? "All of society," he says"
He blatantly ignores the question, and at the same time directly answers it.
"meaning that all are equally dependant upon each, but if that is the case, then none depend on any, for if all depend on each where is the line to be drawn? Reagan Lies demands a line that separates the more dependent and the less, but he can't draw it."
Actually, I thought he did a pretty good job. And you do a good job of trying to obfuscate his meaning.
"Reagan leaves it to a "will of one's own," a will that, under Reagan's terms, cannot empathize but only dominate."
That's a narrow reading. Or should I say, a biased reading.
"Reagan Lies asks, "Where is the freedom in communism?"

The freedom is in the very functioning of Marxist Communism. You and I, Reagan Lies, both object to Stalin. You don't, and cannot, go further than that, and in this manner you are pathetic."
Q: Where is the freedom in communism?
A: In communism. You are pathetic.

And then we have the coup de grace, your hack job on his "pholosophical" analogy. He pummelled your argument, and instead of responding you pulled some bullshit about a one sided argument and a standoff with you. Then, naturally, you said that his analogy was flawed just because you say so. This is real good stuff, vox.

Do you really believe that you're smarter than anyone here? Do you know that you're just playing with words, instead of making points? Do you know that you're obscuring the truth, rather than preaching it?

[Supermodel]

I'm still not beleiving that poverty is caused by others' wealth. The fact that people are poor doesn't immediately lead me to conclude that the solution is to ban wealth.

[TovarishAlexandrov]

What do Capitalists have against Commies anyway?

[MindCrime]

Quote: from Supermodel on 6:01 pm on Feb. 25, 2002
I'm still not beleiving that poverty is caused by others' wealth. The fact that people are poor doesn't immediately lead me to conclude that the solution is to ban wealth.


Communism doesnt seek to ban wealth, it seeks to redistribute it. No matter what the Capitalist Dogma preaches, there is absolutly no reason why one person should live better than another. You are only as good as the sum of your parts, a CEO could be rich as bejezzus, but without a farmer somewhere producing food, without merchants shipping it, and without clerks selling it, he's going to starve. He only survives because everyone does their part. People working together is what makes a society productive, and so everyone should reap the fruits their society produces. That is whatthe Capitalists have against the Communists, TovarishAlexandrov, we threaten to give the working class the power to bring about the equality they deserve.