My problem with Union-supporters/communists/tax the rich-types

So, I read a thread on here about how communism may actually be a good thing, and I actually did read it all the way through and thought long and hard about it, and here is my response.

Basically I am supposed to feel guilty for not wanting the government to reign in on the corporations. But my problem with Unions and Union-supporters is if you think the corporations are so evil, WHY ARE YOU WORKING FOR THEM? And don't tell me "well we have to put food on the table somehow" the answer is simple, work for the government. I wouldn't do that, of course, but if you like the government so much and trust them to putting controls on the corporations, you probably should be working for the government. But it just doesn't make sense to me why we should view the corporations as big bad, evil capitalists and yet demand that they give MORE to us. Isn't that hypocritical? We hate the greedy capitalists because deep down we are also greedy and just want more money (capital)? It's kind of like a woman saying she hates rapists yet wants the government to make the rapists nicer. Why not just get rid of them to begin with? Why not just have the government control all business? It just doesn't make sense to me why you would hate corporations and yet demand that they treat you with more respect. Do you demand a bank robber to treat the banks with more respect? Do you demand a mugger to treat you with more respect while he robs you? I'm not saying corporations are evil, that is your position, I'm just saying given your logic that corporations are greedy capitalists who only care about themselves at the expense of the common worker, well then why doesn't the worker quit?

Which is why I have a problem with unions to begin with. Just because you are an entrepreneur and you are wealthy does not mean you are a bad person. In fact if I owned a business that had Unions forcing me to do this and do that, respect this group this much and give more rights to that group, I'd probably just put a sign "out of business" on my door, see how the workers like it when the greedy capitalist closes down shop.

The other thing is, how the poor are supposed to rally together to tax the rich. This is nice in theory, kind of like how the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is nice in theory, but I just have one question for these people: we're supposed to make the rich pay their fair share, right? Fair enough, but what about government contracts like the military industrial complex? Doesn't make much sense to tax the people the government is paying. What's even worse than this is the big banks, they get bail outs of billions of dollars and then pay a few million in SEC violations. So what's the point of taxing them a million or even a billion dollars when they are receiving trillions from the government?

I'd like to think people have just misunderstood the idea of capitalism, but other times I think it's an intentional deception to make people hate the rich so that taxes will be brought in to make people think the rich are being taxed but really they are not. Or just to make people hate millionaires who may have worked hard for their money while the billionaires are hiding out in their government contracted palaces.

It is a hard world out there..

my last Union job paid me 32$ an hour..

and I am really good at what i do..

most Union members know it is a ridiculous wage...

But we like it...

but we all have bills to pay..

we the sheeple and all that...

but i hear what you are saying..

I now make 14$ an hour and miss Union work...

reply to post by filosophia

This reply will be simplistic and will not address the incredible complexity of what does and does not work about unions. But, since you seem to be looking for a philosophical response rather than a political/economic one this should help you to understand the viewpoint of those who support both unions and capitalism.

Domesticated versus undomesticated animals.
Wild=Wolf Outstanding at achieving its own ends. Not so much mine.
Domesticated= Dog Man's best friend. Yay!

Wild=Mustang Truly a thing of beauty but it won't pull a cart or take you for a ride until it has been tamed.

I believe that a good union can tame the beast without entirely breaking its spirit. It can turn the nature of the beast to "better" ends.

You don't have to agree.

Originally posted by watcher3339
reply to post by filosophia

 

This reply will be simplistic and will not address the incredible complexity of what does and does not work about unions. But, since you seem to be looking for a philosophical response rather than a political/economic one this should help you to understand the viewpoint of those who support both unions and capitalism.

Domesticated versus undomesticated animals.
Wild=Wolf Outstanding at achieving its own ends. Not so much mine.
Domesticated= Dog Man's best friend. Yay!

Wild=Mustang Truly a thing of beauty but it won't pull a cart or take you for a ride until it has been tamed.

I believe that a good union can tame the beast without entirely breaking its spirit. It can turn the nature of the beast to "better" ends.

You don't have to agree.

I think the only beast that needs to be tamed is the government's never ending plan of doing everything for our own good. You say the Unions can tame the beast, but that means that corporations are by themselves "wolves" which may be true, but if you don't like their style you can work for a different one, it's not so easy to just pick a different government unless you leave the country but that could also have its problems, not to mention where you end up might not be any better. I'm okay with corporations being greedy so long as they aren't writing laws telling me what to do, I think that is the worse greed, the greed or rather lust for power over others.

It's the greed of the corporations that are ruining the U.S. right? Not the "I want too work less and get paid more!" types. That's not greed. They're entitled!

Originally posted by baddmove


most Union members know it is a ridiculous wage...

Do you mean 'ridiculous' as in good or bad? You said 32 $/ hr, which seems good to me, but if you're like a doctor or rocket specialist maybe that's not good. I can understand why people want Unions to pay them more money, perhaps even more than they earn, but that would just mean that they are just as greedy as their corporate bosses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, everyone deserves a chance at making lots of money, it's just silly to say the CEO's are the only ones that are greedy. I'm not saying you're greedy, just making a general statement.

sure unions ain't too kosher nowadays, but thier existance is/was VERY important. without unions 8 year olds would be working in coal mines for a nickel.

seriously, there is more historical good thats came from unions rather then corporate/trickle down.

without unions there wouldn't be.....

1.40 hour work week
2.overtime
3.safety regulations
4.public education


if you can look someone in the eye and tell them the cheap crap we get from other countries for cheap holds a candle to union made goods, you're crazy.

and if you believe allowing the corporate sector to dictate the work system with supposed "free market capitalism" won't result in dire consequences for workers, you're lying. union busting capitalist preached forever on how once we allow the free markets and corporations to bypass unions, all thier success will "trickle down". but now that we live in such times, jobs are shipped to the cheapest bidder, and made of the cheapest grade, and lobbys to political parties have systematically de-regulated industry after industry.

sure some union benefits might be out of line, and sure they even stick together to back thier weakest links in the chain. but in post WWII america, union jobs were the norm. americans made more money, saved more, and spent more. the middle class grew strong and our economy was actually something for other countries to behold. now americans have to fight the lowest bidding foreign labor, on top of a horrid economy, meanwhile the "free market capitalist" make record profit with each passing quarter.

The inherent problem has to do with humanity and human nature,when they get into big groups. Unions, big government and big business are all the same thing--large groups of people that use" Mob mentality" to push their agenda.

The only solution is to support Libertarianism type policies in all sectors, that allow people to make individual decisions, without being coerced into following "group think." Unions are, by their nature, some of the most selfish organizations on the planet. Look at what happened to the auto sector in North America. On the other hand, big government has not bottom line,and politics to add to the mix. Government will support failed programs because they buy votes.

Business is not better, but, they can be reined in with rules, government policies and regulation. They are the least of the evils out there--if kept in bay.

CEO's decide to close up shop eh? i guess the worker will have to find a way to share the factory with his fellow workers himself, and create new currency to pay and recieve on goods, he also should find a way to manage and run the machines. in this day an age if we had the full resources of any country these minor problems could be solved almost instantly. the only things different would be less money siphoned out of the economy and a lack of heiarchy.

also it seems you think that corporations aren't telling you how to live? and that they aren't a threat to the true free market.

America isn't a capitalist democracy, it's a facsist corpratocracy.

We're in a transitional phase between two systems and we're only now getting technology advanced enough to be able to transition fully.

We have one the one hand the Government. These are the elected officials and institutions we entrust to safeguard, protect and develop our societies. Since the government is seen to be of the people it is only natural some people would want the government in control of all resources, intellectual, manufacturing, IT etc. Some see this as being the key for us to be able to look into our societies and position, train and reposition our peoples according to the demands of the time. The communist argument underpinning this is the removal of wealth accumulation that is not in the peoples or societies interests. The two are not necessarily interconnected but the latter does stem from the former in countries where rampant self interest causes harm on the populace and affects their ability to live their lives and provide for their families.

On the other hand we have the Free Market and Corporatist-ism. This way of assigning resources seeks to remove government limits of the creation and distribution of wealth. The idea underpinning this is that resources are then freed up to go into creating employment. Theoretically this systems means that those who put the most in get the most out. However in practice it leads to the one who manages to make enough money can simply buy intelligence greater then their own along with its associated products and advancements. In this model there is little public view into what happens, no public say in how the goods or services are produced or supplied and little attention is put on the development of the people but is instead put into how to increase raw profit regardless of the individual.

A lot of the problems we have in our world today are as a result of the war between these two competing systems. Neither the Government nor the Market is immune from the pure greed that comes with positions of power. Few people can resist siphoning off a few hundred thousand when they see literally billions moving in front of them with very little knowledge of where its going to or coming from.

As I said we're transitioning. I think we're moving towards an intelligence based economy that will not rely on a conventional material based or paper backed form of money. Instead we'll probably have a mix of the two above systems combined with local/national/international social networking that will allow people to share resources, create materials and products, access training and education and make requests. We've already hit the raw processing power required to surpass the thinking facilities of a human all we really need now is the right AI algorithm to manage the system so it produces abundance.

This may seem a little far out to us but given the radical change in our societies since the advent of advanced computing technology I really believe a system like this is inevitable. It's better to have a consciousness designed for the purpose rather then electing flawed politicians to continue on a culture of cloak and dagger deals and self serving attitudes.

Originally posted by baddmove
It is a hard world out there..

my last Union job paid me 32$ an hour..

and I am really good at what i do..

most Union members know it is a ridiculous wage...

But we like it...

but we all have bills to pay..

we the sheeple and all that...

but i hear what you are saying..

I now make 14$ an hour and miss Union work...

$32 an hour isn't ridiculous. ridiculous is the wealthy paying $7000 for a bottle of wine. or pissing money away on their 15th mansion.

as far as i'm concerned, paying someone $14 an hour is criminal and is a by product of greed.

Originally posted by wingsfan
sure unions ain't too kosher nowadays, but thier existance is/was VERY important. without unions 8 year olds would be working in coal mines for a nickel.

seriously, there is more historical good thats came from unions rather then corporate/trickle down.

without unions there wouldn't be.....

1.40 hour work week
2.overtime
3.safety regulations
4.public education


if you can look someone in the eye and tell them the cheap crap we get from other countries for cheap holds a candle to union made goods, you're crazy.

and if you believe allowing the corporate sector to dictate the work system with supposed "free market capitalism" won't result in dire consequences for workers, you're lying. union busting capitalist preached forever on how once we allow the free markets and corporations to bypass unions, all thier success will "trickle down". but now that we live in such times, jobs are shipped to the cheapest bidder, and made of the cheapest grade, and lobbys to political parties have systematically de-regulated industry after industry.

sure some union benefits might be out of line, and sure they even stick together to back thier weakest links in the chain. but in post WWII america, union jobs were the norm. americans made more money, saved more, and spent more. the middle class grew strong and our economy was actually something for other countries to behold. now americans have to fight the lowest bidding foreign labor, on top of a horrid economy, meanwhile the "free market capitalist" make record profit with each passing quarter.

Wingsfan, thank you for the post. I agree with some of the things you talked about, like child labor laws, but I also have a problem with some of the other benefits you claim came from unions, like the 40 hour work week, obviously you mean this is good because it's not a 70 hour work week, but what if the work only took 30 hours? The corporation would force you to be there an extra 10 hours a week, pretending like you are working, and paying you for pretending to do work, and because of the rules, they won't just let you off on a friday for happy hour. Maybe you'll say "sure, 30 hour work week is better than 40, but good luck getting that without Unions," and maybe you're right, or, people could just choose to work at jobs that only have 30 hours a week with benefits, or a job that is flexible, maybe 40 hours one week, maybe 30 the next, or even 50 the next, I suppose that is what overtime is for, but if a corporation wanted to please its workers it would treat them with respect. I think that's the bottom line: why not just work for a corporation that treats you with respect, and if you can't find one, maybe you shouldn't work for them.

I also have a problem with your statement that the free market is a lie because trickle down economics won't work. I don't think of it as trickle down, because not everything depends on the CEO. In a free market economy everyone is the CEO of their own life, so it all depends on success or failure, I'll use one of your turn of phrases back at you and say you are lying if you think success should not depend on work ethic. So my main problem with your statement is that free market capitalism is not dependent on trickle down economics, that I think more is in line with government policy because the top gives money to the bottom, and the bottom may not deserve it, but in a free market economy, businesses would go out of business if their product was deficient or if they had horrible working conditions. It's about a person's individual choice, let them decide if a corporation is evil or not and if they should work for it. But why should we regulate the economy so much that you can't build a barn on your yard without getting approval from the state, that doesn't make for a good economy because now whenever anyone has a product they will have to go through unlimited number of steps to make sure they are legal, corporations spend millions just keeping their business out of the courts. Many of course use the courts to their advantage, so that is a double reason why courts are bad, it stops average people from starting their own business (the goal of communism I would think, self sufficiency throughout the land), and it allows for big corporations to use the law to their advantage (like Monsanto and big Agriculture). And if someone builds a house and it collapses on the owner, guess what, no one will buy a house from that guy again, and if we really put faith in the free market, the home builder will get his just reward (revenge from the family he killed, which is a law that goes back thousands of years, where if you build an inferior building and it collapses you are take revenge on the builder). That may seem barbaric but is it any less barbaric than allowing big corporations like banks to take homes from people all because of some marketing gimick? And then let the state enforce this because it's under the color of law? That's not barbarism of course, but sophisticated thievery. So the lesser of the two evils would view the law of the jungle as better than the law of the politician. Of course at this point people say "well move to Somalia" but that's not exactly accurate because a free market society is not total anarchy but adherence to natural law, which would set limits upon what people ought to do to each other, and if they break these laws, rather than having a corrupt court system allow for the crime to be legalized, instead the people will sort the issues out for themselves. There would also be police and public services even in a free market because it would benefit the businesses to hire security for their assets and for communities to pay to have security for their community, but a security that can be revoked, not like the police departments now where you can't just revoke their "protection" without a lot of knowledge of law. I know it's hard to imagine, but just think of the benefit a truly free market society would have over a society of unjust laws which operates as if it were just.

reply to post by Imhotepsol


I'll definitely agree with you that I'd trust a computer over a politician any day, but I wouldn't necessarily trust a computer over myself, it's a great tool as a reference but I wouldn't want to exchange my consciousness for its artificial consciousness, whether society will be better off run by computers is hard to say, but it seems evident that they will be here regardless.

I'm going to lay an example of not having a union, on the table. I worked for the Federal government for many years. At one point, I transferred to a newly established Federal government office. When I began working there, it wasn't even fully operational yet. Also, a union had not yet been established, whereas in my previous (gov't) office, there had been a longstanding union presence.

We were told from the start, calling out sick was forbidden. The director himself had a meeting with all employees, saying if he was never going to call out sick, neither were his employees. If you needed an upchuck bucket, it would be placed next to you at your desk. He wanted to prove that this new office was better than all others, and he would go to any lengths to achieve that. This was all part of his speech.

Once we became fully operational, we were then told breaks were not permitted, at all. Thirty minute lunch, period. This was for a proposed 8 hour daily shift, however, to appear exceptional, shifts were extended. To the point that many employees were sleeping in the office overnight. A good amount of those employees were from the Welfare to Work program, and were told if they weren't willing to put in the hours (and the overnight bunking that lasted for up to a week at a time) they would be fired, and subsequently ineligible for unemployment or welfare. Several of these employees were parents of small children. Didn't matter.

Employees who dared to call out sick were harassed for the duration of their sick time. One coworker had a hysterectomy, extended time off was denied, and she was told to report to work the day after she was released from the hospital. Which she did, as her retirement was looming on the horizon, and she didn't want to jeopardize that. A call from her surgeon to the director, requesting additional recuperation time, went ignored. Similar things occurred with others scheduled for various surgeries.

These are just a handful of things that occurred, I could go on for quite a while. The turnover in this office was exceptionally high. Many employees begged their previous offices to take them back. Several of my coworkers/friends who transferred with me, did exactly that. Many more opted for early retirement. I resigned eventually.

The main point I'm getting at, is this office was only permitted to get away with all of these things, because there was no union representation at this particular office. Absolutely none of these things would have occurred at my previous office, simply because the union would not have permitted it. This office was aware of that, and exploited it as fully as they could. Unions don't exist simply to screw the employers, they exist so employers cannot do whatever the hell they want to, and make the employees daily work life horrendous.

So yeah, if anyone plans on going to work for the Feds, make sure you have a union available

reply to post by filosophia


Not humanity just resource and economic management. Its about freeing humanity and providing the tools for people to do whatever the hell they want with their life. If you want to be a Doctor fine. You want to smoke weed and play xbox fine. Everything we do has value because everything we do generates feedback and information that can be used to improve what we're doing.

Originally posted by TiggersTheMan
I'm going to lay an example of not having a union, on the table. I worked for the Federal government for many years. At one point, I transferred to a newly established Federal government office. When I began working there, it wasn't even fully operational yet. Also, a union had not yet been established, whereas in my previous (gov't) office, there had been a longstanding union presence.

We were told from the start, calling out sick was forbidden. The director himself had a meeting with all employees, saying if he was never going to call out sick, neither were his employees. If you needed an upchuck bucket, it would be placed next to you at your desk. He wanted to prove that this new office was better than all others, and he would go to any lengths to achieve that. This was all part of his speech.

Once we became fully operational, we were then told breaks were not permitted, at all. Thirty minute lunch, period. This was for a proposed 8 hour daily shift, however, to appear exceptional, shifts were extended. To the point that many employees were sleeping in the office overnight. A good amount of those employees were from the Welfare to Work program, and were told if they weren't willing to put in the hours (and the overnight bunking that lasted for up to a week at a time) they would be fired, and subsequently ineligible for unemployment or welfare. Several of these employees were parents of small children. Didn't matter.

Employees who dared to call out sick were harassed for the duration of their sick time. One coworker had a hysterectomy, extended time off was denied, and she was told to report to work the day after she was released from the hospital. Which she did, as her retirement was looming on the horizon, and she didn't want to jeopardize that. A call from her surgeon to the director, requesting additional recuperation time, went ignored. Similar things occurred with others scheduled for various surgeries.

These are just a handful of things that occurred, I could go on for quite a while. The turnover in this office was exceptionally high. Many employees begged their previous offices to take them back. Several of my coworkers/friends who transferred with me, did exactly that. Many more opted for early retirement. I resigned eventually.

The main point I'm getting at, is this office was only permitted to get away with all of these things, because there was no union representation at this particular office. Absolutely none of these things would have occurred at my previous office, simply because the union would not have permitted it. This office was aware of that, and exploited it as fully as they could. Unions don't exist simply to screw the employers, they exist so employers cannot do whatever the hell they want to, and make the employees daily work life horrendous.

So yeah, if anyone plans on going to work for the Feds, make sure you have a union available

TiggersTheMan, thanks for the story and your experience working with the feds. What I'd like to say is that Unions for the federal government make more sense than unions for corporations, maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, there is such a thing as a union for both right? So let's keep them separated, a union for corporations and a union for the government. In that regard, a union for the government is fine, but it would be quite silly to expect the government to help the union control the government. If anyone told me to put a puke bucket next to my desk I would probably just quit. So I'm somewhat more partial to Unions for government as opposed to unions for corporations.

However, the whole business about worker rights for the government, see this is the problem we are having as a society, we should not demand more rights from the government, the rights have already been written into law called the bill of rights. Rather than demanding the government to give us a forty hour work week, we ought to demand the government to give us our constitutional rights. Just hearing your story, it makes me think that the federal government acts this way just to appear tough. Ooo, I puke in a bucket rather than miss work, I'm a BIG man, sounds like some kind of farm animal more so than a human. At that point, can a union really save the decency of any job that would stick a puke bucket next to your desk? I don't think so.

reply to post by filosophia


uggh!! sorry, I TOTALLY took your OP the wrong way on a few counts.

you're referring to an actual free market thats influenced from both sides, the company and the employer. then you actually are quite right then. if enough people didn't like so and so companies we don't HAVE to work for them or partake in thier products, in thusly another company would have to appear and take thier place.

in theory I do agree with this, but it would take a bold change from all of us, and then the government would have to butt out to.

Originally posted by wingsfan
if enough people didn't like so and so companies we don't HAVE to work for them or partake in thier products, in thusly another company would have to appear and take thier place.

The problem is that some of those corporations own and control so a large percentage of natural physical resources and politicians.

We need to tax the profits of corporations to create balance.

reply to post by Imhotepsol

...It's better to have a consciousness designed for the purpose rather then electing flawed politicians to continue on a culture of cloak and dagger deals and self serving attitudes.....

The current economic mess was carefully PLANNED! It is not due to "mistakes" on the part of politicians. The politicians were doing what they were told/bribed to do.

The "plan" has been in place for one hundred years or so. To accomplish the goals of "Global Governance" TPTB must first bring the USA to her knees. The USA MUST be shown to be a FAILED experiment since it originally allowed freedom for the individual.

The City of London & the Fabian Society: History & Current Plans

“We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” Arnold Toynbee Fabian Society – City Of London
centurean2.wordpress.com... and anticorruptionsociety.com...

The Fabian Society:

New World Encyclopedia - Organizing knowledge for happiness, prosperity and world peace.

Fabian Society

The Fabian Society is a British socialist intellectual movement, whose purpose is to advance the socialist cause by gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means....

London School of Economics

Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with money left to the Fabian Society, including a bequest of £20,000 by Henry Hutchinson....

The LSE was established to further the Fabian aim of bettering society, focusing on research on issues of poverty, inequality and related issues. This led the Fabians, and the LSE, to be one of the main influences on the UK Labour Party.[4]

The school was founded with the initial intention of renewing the training of Britain's political and business elite...

LSE in this sense must be looked at as the father of modern economics studies. Under Beveridge, Friedrich Hayek was appointed as a professor and he brought about the ascendancy of the LSE through his famous debates with John Maynard Keynes. The famed Keynes-Hayek debates which occurred between Cambridge and the LSE still shapes the two major schools of economic thought today as nations still debate the merits of the welfare state versus an economy solely controlled by the market. LSE's influence upon modern economics is undeniable since it both formed the very basis for economic thought as well as shaped modern perception of free market economics. Hayek's works continue to influence the study of economics across the globe. At the other extreme, during these years Harold Joseph Laski, a professor of political science at the LSE was influential in British politics as an advocate of far left policies. Many renowned world leaders including John F. Kennedy studied under his guidance at the LSE....

Anthony Giddens, the former director of the LSE, was the creator of the 'Third Way' followed by both Tony Blair (who unveiled the Fabian Window at LSE in 2005) and Bill Clinton. His policy created a balance between the traditional welfare state and the belief in total free market economics.

This policy is being put into effect by governments all across the world as free market economies continue to deal with wealth inequalities and bettering the welfare of the general population...

That is the drivel fed to the masses to convince them that "Socialism" is all sweetness and love. This is from George Bernard Shaw one of the founders of the Fabian Society and gives a much better picture of what is really planned for us....

Quotes from the article "The Real George Bernard Shaw"

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

Unfortunately this was not confined to the UK and it did not die out.

"After WWII and the Nazis’ “supposed” defeat, you would think the world would find the Nazi philosophy abhorrent. However, when Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO, he authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948) in which he revealed that

“even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

This was three years after the founding of the Human Betterment League in 1945 in North Carolina, one of the leading states in forced sterilization (in the late 1970s, Dr. Harmon Smith of Duke University said North Carolina had one of the most thorough involuntary sterilization programs in the U.S.). The League’s director was Alice Shelton Gray who worked with Margaret Sanger. Gray was succeeded as League director by C. Nash Herndon (Carnegie Fellow 1940-41), who became president of the American Eugenics Society from 1952 to 1955..... " www.crossroad.to...

Then there is the founding member of the American branch of the Fabian Society, Father of "progressive education" John Dewey.

Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

"...Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society....."

And the last part:

For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
www.enterstageright.com...

... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”

...the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions....In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework
www.edreform.com...

What has been happening in this country over the last hundred years was orchestrated by people with an agenda that was anti-American at the minimum.

...the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.... The CED set out to completely destroy American culture, economic base and siphon off her wealth. The article documents the sixty years of deliberate destruction and lists four pages of references.

reply to post by crimvelvet


That's a hell of a lot of information to read and reply to so forgive me if I've skipped over something important.

Not to outrightly disagree with you but a lot of the snippets presented seem to show just the controversial points without clarifying or qualifying them, which equates to fear mongering and ignorance. Yes they talk about eugenics and gassing people but ours is not a society which can think clearly about topics such as these. They are a necessity however for any advancing civilization to consider.

Eugenics is defined as

The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as “the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity.” Yet most people draw a blank when they hear the word, or else it conjures up images of swastikas and jack‑booted Nazis. Contrary to this warped image, eugenics has had a long history, extending back to ancient Rome and beyond.

Link. I suggest reading that article to begin with. They go on to cover the main points regarding eugenics.

I take no issue with the Shaw quote that if Man is to Live he will be made to live well. Each one of us has a potential to fill if we do not then we are a burden on the society. This does not automatically mean every person with a disability, every person currently unemployed or anything else will be callously murdered. IT does however mean that we need to recognize when there are times we should have to terminate a life. These considerations are yet to be made and thus we have no real case against them. We see in nature, with something slightly less controversial such as plants that we can cross traits to improve the breed by selective breeding. In the same way higher types of humans would be created by breeding out criminality and other repugnant mutations.

A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. ... In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd Ed. (London: John Murray, 1882), Chapter V, p. 129.

Now as for Socialism. I really don't see any other reason then the residual programing of your grandparents generations during the Cold War for you to be against it. Other than of course a lack of real knowledge as to what Socialism actually is.

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ Noun: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It should be pretty obvious by that definition that the only people who wish to defend the current system of being able to manipulate wealth distribution are those who are fiddling the system. Anyone who cannot understand the value of being able to take a full share for your effort is probably the type of person we'll choose to gas under the argument above There is an excellent article here. Again if you have either the time or the inclination please read it.

See these ideas aren't evil in and of themselves. It is us that has the potential to make them be. There is no real argument to be put forward that we should leave our progression and security to nature and random chance. If we did that we'd be throwing sticks at each other until the next asteroid collision comes. The mark of our advancement is how we learn to integrate these ideas into something that will genuinely benefit the population of this planet with a system that enables them to be all they can be.

We cannot look at these things from the eyes of today with all of the baggage we come to this game with. Very few of us see or think clearly enough to be able to make anything other then emotional judgments based on our own emotional prejudices. I would go on but I want to conclude this in one post.