capitalists are smarter now ?

[spice756]

Yesterday I was thinking are capitalists smarter now than before? What I mean by that they don't want people to be rich or poor but be middle class so they don't start a revolution and the people go to store and buy stuff !!

They don't want people to be poor they want people to have money and buy stuff so the capitalists can all get more money do to people buying stuff.

They also what a middle class so a revolution does not start.So the smart capitalists in Canada ,UK and US .Well most other countries the capitalists do not care.

Does this mean there will be no revolution ? And capitalists will not allow it?

Why are there smart capitalists ? The capitalists in Canada started to pay more money in the 80's and 90's to stop the left movement.

[Bud Struggle]

Of course we're smarter--we're posting on RevLeft now. ;):)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yesterday I was thinking are capitalists smarter now than before? What I mean by that they don't want people to be rich or poor but be middle class so they don't start a revolution and the people go to store and buy stuff !!
They might want it (though I doubt that), but it sure isn't happening. The gap between rich and poor is growing and the middle class is shrinking.

[Oneironaut]

I feel like us on the revolutionary left can have a tendency to underestimate the adaptability of capitalism as we know it. We have a tendency to be reductionist and assign variables as extremely significant to the demise of capitalism when in reality they may not be. Capitalism has adapted up to this point in history. On the same note, revolutionary leftists must make their alternatives public in light of the current economic crisis so that capitalism doesn't have the support to adapt.

But yes, capitalists are very smart. The big-wigs know exactly the implications of their policies. They know full well that capitalism has arrived at yet another detrimental crisis that very well could take the entire system's knees out. Capitalists will argue their point very well. This sets the task for us to expose all of the contradictions in their arguments.

[Killfacer]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

[Oneironaut]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

It is not a secret base but instead an extremely deceptive government whose interactions are at the very least "shady". They are not necessarily explicitly saying that "we must make more middle class people" but instead only show allegiance to their own interests. It is in the interests of the capitalists to keep people content enough in their modern-day slavery so that the oppressed don't rebel- by giving the illusion that they actually are on the side of the middle class!

[Plagueround]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

Isn't that just called the Senate? :lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

It's not that consistent; look at how aristocrats responded when their wealth/authority was challenged. For the most part they didn't like staying in cahoots with each other, but when a challenge came from below, a group would organize to put it down.

Capitalists recognize that the state benefits them (as Buffet has pointedly admitted when he said class warfare is occurring), but it's not about "harming others" as much as it is "saving themselves." What better way to win in a system of competition than utilize the state, or some other method of force? Prior to the New Deal, businesses would regularly hire spies and micro-armies just to keep their workers in line, and in some instances corporal punishment was used against disobedient laborers. It's all done for the almighty $.

[AAFCE]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

Thats what I was thinking :lol:

[spice756]

Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

It has nothing to do with secret base .If you a capitalist do you make a middle class to be counterrevolution or allow the workers to be poor and pro-revolution?

Did the capitalists before the 30's not understand this but capitalists now do?

[timbaly]

Did the capitalists before the 30's not understand this but capitalists now do?

Some certainly did. This is not a new phenomenon, capitalists did not simply become smarter recently. Henry Ford had the idea to provide workers with health care long before that was considered normal. He had a plan called the "American Plan" after WWI that explained how it would work and why it should.

1880s
George Pullman was another guy who tried to give his workers more comfort. He owned a passenger train car factory in what is now Chicago and decided to build a town around it where his workers would live. The homes were made with a lot of state of the art technology. He hoped that if he treated the workers well he would not have to fear work stoppages and strikes. He also would not have to fear violence breaking out since he thought he would never have to use the police or national guard to put down strikes. Sadly it didn't work out as planned in the long run and a strike occured anyway.

Here's info on the town he built: http://tallskinny.com/pullman/history.html

John B. Stetson, the man famous for selling cowboy hats started his factory in Philadelphia in 1885. Stetson provided homes for thousands of his employees nearby his factory. He created a company hospital, employee co-op grocer, english classes and funded an employee baseball team for his employees as well.

[RGacky3]

Its funny to me, how far, how much loss, Capitalists will take to stop ANY type of worker organizing or solidarity, its so scary to them they would take losses to stop it, and really thats a testiment to it.

Capitalists have been getting a lot smarter, especially in America, Europe they are catching up, but American Capitalists got the game down when it comes to stoping labor. Hell they even used labor for their own good.

[spice756]

Its funny to me, how far, how much loss, Capitalists will take to stop ANY type of worker organizing or solidarity, its so scary to them they would take losses to stop it, and really thats a testiment to it.

Capitalists have been getting a lot smarter, especially in America, Europe they are catching up, but American Capitalists got the game down when it comes to stoping labor. Hell they even used labor for their own good.

Why Why Why because in the US labour unions are not cool and almost like communism.That is why the people in the US hate labour unions.I don't know what to think about the US now:(:( but it is not getting better at all with that way of thinking.

[RGacky3]

Why because in the US labour unions are not cool and almost like communism.That is why the people in the US hate labour unions.I don't know what to think about the US now:(:( but it is not getting better at all with that way of thinking.

Some labor unions in the US and Europe, and probably everywhere, are ultimately parteners with the Bosses in keeping the workers in line, the Unions doing lead in class war, they are all about class cooperation, which means class subservience but not too harsh.

[timbaly]

Why Why Why because in the US labour unions are not cool and almost like communism.That is why the people in the US hate labour unions.I don't know what to think about the US now:(:( but it is not getting better at all with that way of thinking.

A lot of people in the US think that labor unions are to blame for high costs in products. A lot of people blame the stagehands union for the sky high prices of watching theater in New York. The problem I have with this is that nobody ever blames the owners that make huge profits on consumer goods. Why should we blame the workers for demanding more of the profits? People in the US have a strong sense of intellectual property and tend to think that owners and businessmen deserve their profits more than workers deserve benefits and pay increases that adjust their salaries to current levels of inflation.

[pusher robot]

Why should we blame the workers for demanding more of the profits? People in the US have a strong sense of intellectual property and tend to think that owners and businessmen deserve their profits more than workers deserve benefits and pay increases that adjust their salaries to current levels of inflation.

Well often that's because the owners are making little or no profit, or worse, suffering such enormous losses that the company faces bankruptcy. Funny how many people who demand that profits be redistributed don't feel the same way about losses.

[timbaly]

Well often that's because the owners are making little or no profit, or worse, suffering such enormous losses that the company faces bankruptcy. Funny how many people who demand that profits be redistributed don't feel the same way about losses.

It is true that often companies are making less profit, the American car industry is a good example of that. However when workers take pay cuts that don't even keep up with inflation it's hard to take the side of the bosses. The bosses are the minority and their losses can most likely be absorbed by the money they've already made. The same is not usually the case for the workers, plus there are always more workers than bosses and owners, that means more people suffering from pay cuts. But I do understand that GM employees cannot expect the same benefits they had i 1962 to be given to them now. Their company is in shambles but they aren't the ones who didn't adjust to the new markets. They aren't the ones who chose not to build smaller cars and more fuel efficent models. Those in charge made the mistakes that they're paying for. Of course you can come at me and say that it was the bosses and owners who made the company profitable in the first place with their ideas and deserve more pay than the workers. Of course I think the workers deserve a salary more comparable to the policy makers since they are the ones doing the work by fixing the automated parts and assembling the few pieces that they still do by hand.

[Plagueround]

Well often that's because the owners are making little or no profit, or worse, suffering such enormous losses that the company faces bankruptcy. Funny how many people who demand that profits be redistributed don't feel the same way about losses.

They do. It's called layoffs, paycuts, and loss of benefits.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

1880s
George Pullman was another guy who tried to give his workers more comfort. He owned a passenger train car factory in what is now Chicago and decided to build a town around it where his workers would live. The homes were made with a lot of state of the art technology. He hoped that if he treated the workers well he would not have to fear work stoppages and strikes. He also would not have to fear violence breaking out since he thought he would never have to use the police or national guard to put down strikes. Sadly it didn't work out as planned in the long run and a strike occured anyway.


I think one thing the government is smarter about is not using the troops to squash labor uprisings, as was the case with this strike (and several others in the 19th century).

If we still approached it this way, those Boeing workers would be hanging as an example by now LoL

[pusher robot]

They do. It's called layoffs, paycuts, and loss of benefits.

That's not sharing in the loss, that's just cutting off the gravy train. I.e., before you started working there, you had no job and no benefits from them. Ex post ante, you are returned to the same position. Therefore, net loss = 0.

[Rascolnikova]

They might want it (though I doubt that), but it sure isn't happening. The gap between rich and poor is growing and the middle class is shrinking.

I've heard that, and I believe it, but I don't have a reliable source on it. Do you have one you might share?


Do you genuinly think that there is a secret base in which evil "capitalists" plot the oppression of the workers? A group of super powerful men, who decided "yes, we must make more middle class people!" ?

Perhaps you might read the introduction to Manufacturing Consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) to gain a better understanding of the way classes of people with similar interests act together to form biases in action without the necessity of conspiracy.

[spice756]

I've heard that, and I believe it, but I don't have a reliable source on it. Do you have one you might share?




They might want it (though I doubt that), but it sure isn't happening. The gap between rich and poor is growing and the middle class is shrinking


Why would the Canadian government or American government want that? Unless they some how controlled by big businesses? Like why would the Canadian government or American government want the gap between rich and poor ?

Why would the Canadian government or American government want less social programs?

I understand why the middle class will like less social programs but why the government or businesses?

[RGacky3]

I understand why the middle class will like less social programs but why the government or businesses?

Less Social programs, less taxes, less taxes, more profits, less Social programs, more money for business interests.


That's not sharing in the loss, that's just cutting off the gravy train. I.e., before you started working there, you had no job and no benefits from them. Ex post ante, you are returned to the same position. Therefore, net loss = 0.

Nice wordplay, it IS sharing the losses, because the company IS loosing money, whereas the boss doe'snt have too, he'll just cutt someone elses. Also before the worker started working at the company the boss did'nt have that part of the company, considering that the workers produce the vast majority of the profit for the company I think they should have the ability to lay off the boss.

Pusher robot is the KING of sneaky smart wordplay, and circular arguments.


I think one thing the government is smarter about is not using the troops to squash labor uprisings, as was the case with this strike (and several others in the 19th century).

If we still approached it this way, those Boeing workers would be hanging as an example by now LoL

Nower days much of American labor unions play by the bosses rules (unfortunately) and thus the government never does need to intervene. But if there was some more radical type strike, like there was back in the IWW golden ages, things would probably be different, remember Oaxaca? Don't think the US government is so much more noble.

[pusher robot]

Nice wordplay, it IS sharing the losses, because the company IS loosing money, whereas the boss doe'snt have too, he'll just cutt someone elses.
First of all:
If the "boss" is the "owner" then when the company loses money the boss does lose money. If the "boss" is just an employee of the company who happens to be a manager, then his job is just as tenuous as anyone else's - he's not a capitalist but a proletarian, just with a supervisory job.


Also before the worker started working at the company the boss did'nt have that part of the company, considering that the workers produce the vast majority of the profit for the company I think they should have the ability to lay off the boss.

You have an absurd and irrational double-standard: if the company is profitable, it's NEVER the boss's doing and ALWAYS thanks to the workers. If the company is not profitable, it's NEVER the worker's fault and ALWAYS due to the bosses.


Pusher robot is the KING of sneaky smart wordplay, and circular arguments.

I know, I'm such a big old meanie, trying to bring my white male oppressor logic to bear.

[RGacky3]

You have an absurd and irrational double-standard: if the company is profitable, it's NEVER the boss's doing and ALWAYS thanks to the workers. If the company is not profitable, it's NEVER the worker's fault and ALWAYS due to the bosses.

The Boss CANNOT succede profitably without the works, but he can screw things up a lot, without the workers help.

The point is really it does'nt matter whos fault it is, because the workers will take the hit anyway, and the boss will reap the profit anyway. Its an authoritarian system, thats how it works.


If the "boss" is the "owner" then when the company loses money the boss does lose money. If the "boss" is just an employee of the company who happens to be a manager, then his job is just as tenuous as anyone else's - he's not a capitalist but a proletarian, just with a supervisory job.


Well, theres the problem, the bosses ownership is illigitimate because its essencially legalized extortion. He's loosing the companies money, which the workers are a part of in practice, by have no say legally, thats why the Capitalist can just dump them legally, while they can't dump the boss. Because the workers invest most of the time and energy in the company, and produce its product, they have just as much a stake in it as the boss, moreso.

[Robert]

they can't dump the boss.

You never quit a job?


the workers invest most of the time and energy in the company


If you really believe that, then you never worked for a small business or a closely held corporation.

[spice756]

post removed.

[Rascolnikova]

If you really believe that, then you never worked for a small business or a closely held corporation.

Those only account for maybe 30-40% of the US economy these days by jobs, and a much, much smaller percentage by capital. Most of the value put onto corporations through the time and effort of people is put into very large corporations, by low level workers.

[Rascolnikova]

First of all:
If the "boss" is the "owner" then when the company loses money the boss does lose money. If the "boss" is just an employee of the company who happens to be a manager, then his job is just as tenuous as anyone else's - he's not a capitalist but a proletarian, just with a supervisory job.


This assumes the boss justly acquired the company in the first place, which doesn't seem a legitimate assumption.

Edit pertaining to following post: thanks, that's a much clearer way of saying this.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

First of all:
If the "boss" is the "owner" then when the company loses money the boss does lose money. If the "boss" is just an employee of the company who happens to be a manager, then his job is just as tenuous as anyone else's - he's not a capitalist but a proletarian, just with a supervisory job.

You have an absurd and irrational double-standard: if the company is profitable, it's NEVER the boss's doing and ALWAYS thanks to the workers. If the company is not profitable, it's NEVER the worker's fault and ALWAYS due to the bosses.

I know, I'm such a big old meanie, trying to bring my white male oppressor logic to bear.

You're making the presuppositions that the "boss" isn't being paid by the exploitation of other's labor. Especially given most "bosses" are paid in stock. Essentially, they get paid by net rather than gross profit. Hence, they fit the norm of capitalist rather than the worker.

Also, American "bosses" get paid a ridiculously large amount relative to European and Japanese CEOs, but don't show any relative improvement in performance to justify that pay.

[Robert]

Rasco, I am somewhat dubious of your stats on small biz but don't affirmatively dispute them. Yet. I know you are careful with your assertions of fact.

But let's concede your and Gacky's point, and then establish how much the CEO's, CFO's, and managers of major corporations work and then compare them to the average workweek of the laborers.

I know this is going nowhere, for no matter how much executives work compared to labor, compensation will seem disproportionate and inappropriate, even criminal.

Thank you at least for not disputing that small business owners work substantially more than their employees, in many cases double.

[Rascolnikova]

Rasco, I am somewhat dubious of your stats on small biz but don't affirmatively dispute them. Yet. I know you are careful with your assertions of fact.

But let's concede your and Gacky's point, and then establish how much the CEO's, CFO's, and managers of major corporations work and then compare them to the average workweek of the laborers.

I know this is going nowhere, for no matter how much executives work compared to labor, compensation will seem disproportionate and inappropriate, even criminal.

Thank you at least for not disputing that small business owners work substantially more than their employees, in many cases double.

My stats came from this.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=550&pc=By%20Title


Criminality is defined by a given set of laws. That's where we want to go, not where we are, silly.

And I'd love to argue the appropriateness of compensation with you, if you're up for it. :):)

[pusher robot]

You're making the presuppositions that the "boss" isn't being paid by the exploitation of other's labor. Especially given most "bosses" are paid in stock. Essentially, they get paid by net rather than gross profit. Hence, they fit the norm of capitalist rather than the worker.

No I'm not. If the boss is being paid in stock, that makes him a part-owner, and as the company loses money he loses money.


Also, American "bosses" get paid a ridiculously large amount relative to European and Japanese CEOs, but don't show any relative improvement in performance to justify that pay.
What do you think the explanation is?

[spice756]

Less Social programs, less taxes, less taxes, more profits, less Social programs, more money for business interests..

But why would the Canadian government or American government want that? Or want the gap of rich and poor.
It seems in 90's the Canadian government intrest change why or how did this happen?

It seems government does not place the intrest in Canada anymore or the intrest of the people anymore why.

[Rascolnikova]

But why would the Canadian government or American government want that? Or want the gap of rich and poor.
It seems in 90's the Canadian government intrest change why or how did this happen?

It seems government does not place the intrest in Canada anymore or the intrest of the people anymore why.

This strikes me as the same question you were asking in another thread-- How do businesses control governments? Because, after all, businesses are the ones benefiting from this, so it makes sense to check for mechanisms of control.

Of course, it's also good to remember that neither businesses nor governments actually want anything; people want things, and they use disingenuous/unreflective ideologies to mask/justify their use of these organizations to promote their interests.

[spice756]

This strikes me as the same question you were asking in another thread-- How do businesses control governments? Because, after all, businesses are the ones benefiting from this, so it makes sense to check for mechanisms of control.


Of course, it's also good to remember that neither businesses nor governments actually want anything; people want things, and they use disingenuous/unreflective ideologies to mask/justify their use of these organizations to promote their interests.

Kinda but that me use it in a simple way. Before 90's the Canadian government was for the people and country.It was the most progressively left than Europe with lot of social programs.

The 90's they started to cut social programs and pass reform bills they move to trade/globization and Pro-US .The interest of the people or country is not on their list.

Some think happen they change.Just look at NAFTA and the lack of regressive tax :( The decentralization of government to local level to foot the bill for social programs.




Of course, it's also good to remember that neither businesses nor governments actually want anything; people want things, and they use disingenuous/unreflective ideologies to mask/justify their use of these organizations to promote their interests.


Yees they do governments wants to stay in power and the businesses want profit.

[RGacky3]

You never quit a job?

Thats not dumping the boss, thats dumping yourself, I mean the workers telling the boss, "your doing a bad job, we are going to elect another person to do Your job." Its like being on a boat thats going to sink, you can either jump off the boat, or mutiny and have someone run the boat that will run it well.


If you really believe that, then you never worked for a small business or a closely held corporation.

Yes I have, and even though the boss DOES work a lot, ultimately the mafority of the profit making work comes from the workers, and they are paid a lot less than what they are bringing in (if they wern't the boss would'nt be profiting off them).


But why would the Canadian government or American government want that? Or want the gap of rich and poor.
It seems in 90's the Canadian government intrest change why or how did this happen?

It seems government does not place the intrest in Canada anymore or the intrest of the people anymore why.

Because the American government NEEDs to Capitalists to be happy, because they run the countries economy, they ultimately run the country. Less Social programs, more money for subsidies, less taxes more money in Capitalist hands.

The government wants this because the Capitalists want this and the 2 are tied together, based on mutual power sharing.


Before 90's the Canadian government was for the people and country.It was the most progressively left than Europe with lot of social programs.

The 90's they started to cut social programs and pass reform bills they move to trade/globization and Pro-US .The interest of the people or country is not on their list.

Some think happen they change.Just look at NAFTA and the lack of regressive tax :( The decentralization of government to local level to foot the bill for social programs.


The same thing happend in much of western Europe, Social democracy is a VERY VERY hard system to maintain. Because your trying to have your cake and eat it too, its hard to keep the Capitalist investing and STILL be humane.

The Capitalist knows he can make more money in a non Social democracy, where they don't have to worry about high taxes, high wages, workers rights and the such. So they'll invest less, and because Social democracies still rely on Capitalist investment and they start too loose it the governments have to give it up.

You see how Capitalists have such a high influence over government?

Now sometimes Businesses WANT some social democracy, 1 to even the playing field, for their own companies, 2 to keep and social unrest down (social unrest is really bad for business and can threated their system), 3 to make the government pay for stuff rather than them.

But ultiamtely its under teh Capitalists control.

[spice756]

Because the American government NEEDs to Capitalists to be happy, because they run the countries economy, they ultimately run the country. Less Social programs, more money for subsidies, less taxes more money in Capitalist hands.

Than this is like the other thread some how business control government.The government should represent the people.


The government wants this because the Capitalists want this and the 2 are tied together, based on mutual power sharing.

The government are burecrats and should represent anyone.In other words they should not care about the working class or business .The government are a instrument and are not part of any class.




The same thing happend in much of western Europe, Social democracy is a VERY VERY hard system to maintain. Because your trying to have your cake and eat it too, its hard to keep the Capitalist investing and STILL be humane.


Canada was doing better to NAFTA came now we are more like the US.We should be building are own industry like we where before NAFTA , and not allowing the US to set up business in Canada .We should sale or not sale to the US not allow the US to be are masters.We should tell US to do fair trade with us or we will cut off their electricity and water and trade with some one else.

We should tell the US give us the money for softwood lumber or we cut off all trade with the US.

We are pissy around to US and the US are sucking are country dry and we have whip politictions in power.




The Capitalist knows he can make more money in a non Social democracy, where they don't have to worry about high taxes, high wages, workers rights and the such. So they'll invest less, and because Social democracies still rely on Capitalist investment and they start too loose it the governments have to give it up.

You see how Capitalists have such a high influence over government?




It is the governments who chooses to represent Capitalists not the people.

But where are the people at home watching tv go on the streets and protest do not buy at the store or work at all and allow the market to crash this is control over government and Capitalists.

But we are in a country where collective thought is fairy-tale.

Job walk out and not buying at store and removing stock is big control.

[RGacky3]

The government should represent the people.

And Santa should be real, it does'nt matter what the government should be.

Its not a coincidence that every Capitalist country's governments primary interest is the Capitalists.

You think every single one of those governments are just "evil"?

The people choose the government (not really) but the Capitalists RUN THE COUNTRY! THe capitalists OWN the country


But where are the people at home watching tv go on the streets and protest do not buy at the store or work at all and allow the market to crash this is control over government and Capitalists..

The people have no say about the Market crash. Who controls the market, the Capitalists.


We should be building are own industry like we where before NAFTA , and not allowing the US to set up business in Canada .We should sale or not sale to the US not allow the US to be are masters.We should tell US to do fair trade with us or we will cut off their electricity and water and trade with some one else.


REmember its not the US vrs Canada, Capitalism is global. Capitalists are NOT loyal to a country they are loyal to the dollar.


The government are burecrats and should represent anyone.In other words they should not care about the working class or business .The government are a instrument and are not part of any class.


Thats imposible, you hav'nt read a word I wrote, it does'nt matter what the government should do, the Capitalists are in contorl and your right, the government is an instrument, and the Capitalists have the strings.

You want change in your government? Go to a country club and become friends with very very wealthy big money poeple, CEOs, and CFOs, Big investors, those are the ones that can make a change. But they won't becuase they've got the botton line to worry about.

Stop believing in your government.

[spice756]

And Santa should be real, it does'nt matter what the government should be.


Its not a coincidence that every Capitalist country's governments primary interest is the Capitalists.

But why? why ?why?


You think every single one of those governments are just "evil"?


The people choose the government (not really) but the Capitalists RUN THE COUNTRY! THe capitalists OWN the country

They may run the country and own the stuff but that would be nothing with out the government to pass laws to protect them.



You think every single one of those governments are just "evil


No it is who they represent and why.



The people have no say about the Market crash. Who controls the market, the Capitalists.


The market would be nothing with out consumerism.




Thats imposible, you hav'nt read a word I wrote, it does'nt matter what the government should do, the Capitalists are in contorl and your right, the government is an instrument, and the Capitalists have the strings.


But you need to look at why Capitalists are in control and use the government has a instrument.



You want change in your government? Go to a country club and become friends with very very wealthy big money poeple, CEOs, and CFOs, Big investors, those are the ones that can make a change. But they won't becuase they've got the botton line to worry about.


You want change do not work for a capitalists or do not buy want the Capitalists makes.



Stop believing in your government.


Stop believing in a government and take action.

1 Slavery was abolished do to war north and south
2.civil rights movement do to protest many blacks beaten by police
3.women rights to vote do to women protesting and hunger strike
4 revolution do to rebels

Or

1.job walk outs.
2.not buying
2.hunger strike
3.stikes and protest.
4.not working

Look you want to send a message to the government and Capitalist they are not in charge take action.

The government and Capitalist would be nothing with out the people.



Here is the dam mentality why some do this and other do not:(Why boycott walmart if only 5 or 10 will do it , or job walk out when only 3 will do it:(

Do to this mentality others think this way:(:( and no action taken.Why because we are NOT program to think or work collectively.If we think collectively 3 at IMB or Microsoft will do a job walk out and than 50,000 than will do it.

[RGacky3]

But why? why ?why?

I (and others) have told you a million freaking times, pay attention.


They may run the country and own the stuff but that would be nothing with out the government to pass laws to protect them.

Thats true, but the well being of the country also depends on them, just look at what happend when AIG collapsed. The government needs to hold them up, and they will because the Capitalists control everything.


But you need to look at why Capitalists are in control and use the government has a instrument.

The Capitalists are in control because of Capitalism, and they use the government because they can.


The market would be nothing with out consumerism.


they play off one another, thats the way it works, they are not mutally exclusive.


You want change do not work for a capitalists or do not buy want the Capitalists makes.


YOUR A FREAKING IDIOT, I'm sorry, I want to be polite, but you really don't understand anything about the system. The fact that I have to address this is rediculous, I would hope that the discussion would be boyond these questions by now (How does the capitalists control the government) and (why don't we just not work for the capitalist and buy their stuff).

THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL EVERYTHING STUPID.

[spice756]

I (and others) have told you a million freaking times, pay

THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL EVERYTHING STUPID.


Smarten up.You believe conspiracy stuff ,captitalists control every thing.

Even the conservatives are more believable than you :laugh:political lobbying going to government meetings , being active and giving money.

Michael Moore Sicko , pharmacitical industry giving money to Harry clinton to keep quiet is more believable than your conspiracy stuff.

And congressman working for the pharmacitical industry do to more money yes more money than want congressman get. Why to do the corruption do to money given to the congressman to keep healthcare not free is more believable than you .

Give me a brake captitalists run and control every thing than would be nothing for the laws to protect them.

Or laws telling them if they are allowed to invest or not invest or allowing them to move to other country like China for cheap labour or not :(or laws saying they have right to private property so on.

The captitalists would be nothing with out the government and the government would be nothing with out the police and court.

It is stupid very stupit I come to revleft for advice and have to use liberal stuff for counter arguments do to more believable than the people at revleft .

Think before you post .The people who are pro-capitalism need facts not conspiracy stuff.

I'm well aware government represents business than the people just don't understand the workings why.But it is stupid revleft who uses conspiracy stuff and labels.When the liberals take it apart and explain why.Than we wonder why the left is not taken for real.

[RGacky3]

Smarten up.You believe conspiracy stuff ,captitalists control every thing.

Thats not at conspiracy, as a group, the Capitalists own, thus control, all the resources and industry of ... the world really (most of it), so does'nt it make sense that that control would give them significant weight over the government?


Give me a brake captitalists run and control every thing than would be nothing for the laws to protect them.

The laws are to protect their control over everything.

Your not getting common sense here, ownership means control, and the Capitalists own pretty much all the resources nad industries of the world (thats why they are Capitalists), because of that the governments of the world are mostly subservient to them.

Just look at the AIG example, that company was so powerful that the government HAD to bail themout, they had so much control over money that if they failed the economy would collapse, so the government had to be subservient to them (unless they want to revolutionize the system, which they don't, because they also benefit from the system).

BTW, if there were no laws on private property there would be no Capitalists, you got it backwards.

Also don't think that regulation is always against the Capitalists interests, a lof of times they want regulation, because it helps business.

[spice756]

Thats not at conspiracy, as a group, the Capitalists own, thus control, all the resources and industry of ... the world really (most of it), so does'nt it make sense that that control would give them significant weight over the government?



Yes the laws allow them to control and run things .The government allows it and represents them.



The laws are to protect their control over everything.


Your not getting common sense here, ownership means control, and the Capitalists own pretty much all the resources nad industries of the world (thats why they are Capitalists), because of that the governments of the world are mostly subservient to them.

Yes the laws allow them free will if they want to invest money or not or where they are going to invest money.

Allow them if they want to move to China or not for cheaper wages..

The laws allow them free will on wages kinda ( not Minimum wage )

The laws allow them to have private ownership but there are laws on monopoly or having kids working.

Laws on firing workers there are some laws on it.

You have free market ,moderate free market ,limited free market ,state control of capitalism or fascism or socialism.

The capitalists may run and control things in the background , but real power if democracy,dictatorship , fascism ,socialism or the % of control of the market or free market is the power of government.




Also don't think that regulation is always against the Capitalists interests, a lof of times they want regulation, because it helps business.


Most capitalists want the government to be pro-capitalists and be a customer to them.Man look at all the tax cuts ,money to capitalists ,bail outs and subsidize money .


Yes they seem to have control but why?

1.The government scared to control the free market ?
2.Money to the government
3.protesting to the government
4.Making a statement you pass this law I'm not investing or I'm moving to China
5.Is it all pro-free market the government you cannot to this or that?

Or having meatings or rally to the government ?

Or you pass this law I'm giving you x money?


%%%%%

Anyways the point is 98% of time the government represents them but 2% of the time you get those social democratic or pro-worker.

[Patchd]

Well we saw Thatcher selling off council houses, and claiming that now because people owned their own house or flat, they were middle class, as if a home was a means of production. It drew attention away from, the Labour party (which at that time still drew most of their voters from the working class), so not necessarily against Socialism or Anarchism as such, however, I believe it had some backlash.

[RGacky3]

Yes the laws allow them to control and run things .The government allows it and represents them.

The government makes the laws, he main law is property rights (there are a million laws on property), first of all understand the government is not seperate, most people in governmetn are Capitalists, most benefit from the Capitalist system, also most accept the system, and want it to run smothely (which means keeping Capitalists happy), if they did'nt accept the system, chances are they won't be in government, not allowed.


1.The government scared to control the free market ?

Then it would'nt be the free market, and as soon as they start controling it, if the Capitalists don't like it, they'll pull their money, and thus the lifeline of hte counry.


2.Money to the government


That and money to the Capitalists, people in government are generally of the Capitalist class, or they accept hte system and want it to keep running.


4.Making a statement you pass this law I'm not investing or I'm moving to China


Thats protectionism and it has many many bad consequences, first, strained relations with outher countries (you stop your capitalists from investing other countries will be pissed and stop investing in yours, they'll cut imports, they'll sell things for higher prices, they'll put more tarrifs). Also your Capitalists will make less money which means less money in your countries system. Also companies will do it anyway, there are a million loop holes, or corporations will just shut down and invest in something else with less rules.

For Socialism to work, on a government level it has to be drastic, which means first of all you need to be sure you have the reasorces to pull it off, and can take a big economic hit, second your government has to be willing to loose a lot of money, and it migt not wor, you have to nationalize major industries quickly and at the same time, and second, even if you do that it will probably fail, because most countries still need outside investment.

Before that you need enough people in government to not accept Capitalism, which is very very very unlikely.

So stop relying on your government.


Anyways the point is 98% of time the government represents them but 2% of the time you get those social democratic or pro-worker.

Thats because social democratic governments are trying to have the best of both worlds, but it does'nt work, because it can't last, and its kind of an oxymoron (either your support Capitalism or you don't, if you do, social democracy makes no sense, if you don't it does'nt either.)

[spice756]

Then it would'nt be the free market, and as soon as they start controling it, if the Capitalists don't like it, they'll pull their money, and thus the lifeline of hte counry.


Well if it really bad than yes.



That and money to the Capitalists, people in government are generally of the Capitalist class, or they accept hte system and want it to keep running.


Are you saying the government most of them are capitalists.And why would anyone give the capitalists money?


most benefit from the Capitalist system, also most accept the system, and want it to run smothely (which means keeping Capitalists happy), if they did'nt accept the system, chances are they won't be in government, not allowed.

How does the government benefit ?


, also most accept the system, and want it to run smothely (which means keeping Capitalists happy), if they did'nt accept the system, chances are they won't be in government, not allowed.

Most people in the US support the free-market and pro-conservative and anti-left.



Thats protectionism and it has many many bad consequences, first, strained relations with outher countries (you stop your capitalists from investing other countries will be pissed and stop investing in yours, they'll cut imports, they'll sell things for higher prices, they'll put more tarrifs).


But protectionism worked in the old days.Look at Iran and Pakistan they rich very rich and almost islated.They don't play this globalization game.



Also your Capitalists will make less money which means less money in your countries system. Also companies will do it anyway, there are a million loop holes, or corporations will just shut down and invest in something else with less rules.


I don't think the government tax 70% or more of their money.And even with protectionism capitalists still do well.



Thats because social democratic governments are trying to have the best of both worlds, but it does'nt work, because it can't last, and its kind of an oxymoron (either your support Capitalism or you don't, if you do, social democracy makes no sense, if you don't it does'nt either.)


That or social democratic become corrupted by capitalists some how.The social democratic may want socialism but the people do not.

[ZeroNowhere]

You want change do not work for a capitalists or do not buy want the Capitalists makes.
...The capitalists don't make stuff...


Most people in the US support the free-market and pro-conservative and anti-left.
A large amount of people in the US don't vote. Sounds like some amount of dissent.

[spice756]

...The capitalists don't make stuff...

True but if people do not work for the capitalists that is control.Or people that do not buy from them do to protesting.



A large amount of people in the US don't vote. Sounds like some amount of dissent.

Check any web site or talk radio most do not like the way the government is running every thing .They are pro-free market and small government . Anti-social programs and very very very anti-socialism.

Very conservative and libertarian .With others moderate conservative.:crying:

[RGacky3]

How does the government benefit ?

The economy goes smothely, money stays in their country, they get taxes, and when teh economy is going smothly it reflects well on the government.


Most people in the US support the free-market and pro-conservative and anti-left.

For most its only nominally.


But protectionism worked in the old days.Look at Iran and Pakistan they rich very rich and almost islated.They don't play this globalization game.


Yes they dooooo, the global oil market, in irans case is a big deal.

Plus protectionism has worked your right in the past, mostly this was before the monstrosity of global Capitalism, also protectionism is mostly used for short term protection of local Capitalists, protectionism is'nt anti-Capitalist.


Well if it really bad than yes.

Even if its profitable else where they'll move out, or invest in those places more, the government knows that.


I don't think the government tax 70% or more of their money.And even with protectionism capitalists still do well.

They might, and thats the only reason the government would do it, protectionism is still pandering to the Capitalist, then again, sometimes Capitalist don't want protectionism.


True but if people do not work for the capitalists that is control.Or people that do not buy from them do to protesting.

Thats compleatly Impossible, and rediculous.


.They are pro-free market and small government

Thats because most of these mediums are corporate controlled.

[spice756]

The economy goes smothely, money stays in their country, they get taxes, and when teh economy is going smothly it reflects well on the government.


And the Europe style of more social socialism this is not happening?

What about protectionism is this the same.



Plus protectionism has worked your right in the past, mostly this was before the monstrosity of global Capitalism, also protectionism is mostly used for short term protection of local Capitalists, protectionism is'nt anti-Capitalist.


Can you explain more here.




Plus protectionism has worked your right in the past, mostly this was before the monstrosity of global Capitalism, also protectionism is mostly used for short term protection of local Capitalists, protectionism is'nt anti-Capitalist.


I will like to hear people pro and cons here on protectionism what do you think.Good or bad?



Yes they dooooo, the global oil market, in irans case is a big deal.



What do you mean ? They control and run the oil !!




Even if its profitable else where they'll move out, or invest in those places more, the government knows that



In free trade market yes.Not a controlled market of trade like government laws.



I don't think the government tax 70% or more of their money.And even with protectionism capitalists still do well.
They might, and thats the only reason the government would do it, protectionism is still pandering to the Capitalist, then again, sometimes Capitalist don't want protectionism.


I don't really understand.