I have had enough...

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Fromabove

 

The whole reason people don't remain equal is because of money. You take away money and the equality remains. No division of classes, no hierarchies, no wars, no greed, no corruption, no starvation and far less violence.

For THE LOVE of money is the root of all evil. That should be the definition of the word truth.

Actually, I must disagree. Did you ever see the movie "Lord of the Flies"? In that movie, all the young boys got to the island safely. They were all arrivals equally. Yet something profound happened. They formed government, society and then division and war. Some were animalistic predators while some were intellectual thinkers. They may have had an equal chance but that was all. They soon became what was in them to become. In the end they nearly destroyed their little island until the arrival of a more dominant power came to stop them, namely the rescuers. The point is, I can give three men one million dollars. One will party till it's gone. Another will invest it in mutual stock on wall street. And another will give it away to everyone who asks for it. In the end, the one who gave it away will return to a life of very little. The one who invested it will retire rich and drive fancy cars. But the one who used it to party with his friends will convince the one who gave it away, that the one who invested and saved it should be forced to fork some of it their way because they were all equal with him. This is not right, nor is it just.

The root of evil is the love of money, true, but it is not the money but selfish greed that is the evil. The Bible says that if you are rich and you turn away from the poor you have done wrong. But it is up to the rich to decide what to do with his wealth, not the government or those who don't have it but want it. And the knife cuts in both directions as it is the money and what it can do that the 99% and OWS crowd are after, not education, skill, and work. It's about the money, and the love of that money that motivate all those people.

reply to post by randyvs


I have no problem giving back and have actually helped more than a few needy and homeless and poor and sick and suffering people... some just down the road and some in foreign countries. Not a problem.

What I do have a problem with is doing for people that are perfectly capable of doing for themselves, but are too lazy, intentionally iggnorant, and unscrupulous to do so. Instead, they chime that I should share the fruits of my hard work with them.

No...

Capitalism, socialism and even communism have attractive qualities. There is no doubt about this. The problem is that all of these systems are open to corruption.

As one poster above said...we must first start by looking in the mirror and judging ourselves as a good, apathetic or bad person. Do you help those weak, elderly, infirm or just less fortunate? Does your eyes just glaze over and find it easier to just ignore them? Or do you actively take advantage of their condition in order to further your own wealth, status and position?

It is the love of money that hurts us all...Greed, gluttony, lust and envy are fine tools to drive profits for the top tier, but it causes discord among the lower ranks. Imbuing that lust for money and "shiny toys" is the ticket to control...we all know this...

It has been suggested in the above posts that "equality and fairness" is not guaranteed...well...this is somewhat true...when we were still swinging in the trees. But as intelligent creatures, we have it within our capacity to overcome the animal instincts to be superior/dominant (in wealth or perception of superiority anyway) to our fellow citizen, neighbor. IT IS an animal craving...one that can and should be discarded like we discarded grabbing a mate and having forced sex by the creek bank tens of thousands of years ago. We are better than this IF WE COLLECTIVELY CHOOSE TO BE.

The reason the world continues to march along as it does is not because it cannot be changed...it's because those that control the most happen to like things just the way things are...there is absolutely no incentive for them to step down from their dais and join the brotherhood of man...why should they?...

I have no illusions that they way things are will ever change by force of will...only a cataclysm that shatters the world and slaps it back to the stone age will afford the opportunity to start over and do it right....

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Damrod

 

In my personal view, those that have plenty need to voluntarily contribute to "helping" others to succeed. Don't give them fish to eat, but teach them to catch their own fish to eat. But that being said. If people believe they should have more, fine. Others do not, but see their prosperity as a blessing. As for the downtrodden, and the poor, well it's the world in which we live. But if you know there is some way you can make your life better, it is up to you, and I to do it. Not everyone will succeed, that's just the way it is in this life. But it is not the fault of those that do, nor is it just or right to take what they have worked for and give it to others who have not.

See that's just it tho. This world is a product of mens hearts. I believe it's cruelty's, immoralities and rigid injustices are equal to those in the heart of man. When humanity changes inside as a collective it will show in the world in which he lives, collectively.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
reply to post by randyvs

 

I have no problem giving back and have actually helped more than a few needy and homeless and poor and sick and suffering people... some just down the road and some in foreign countries. Not a problem.

What I do have a problem with is doing for people that are perfectly capable of doing for themselves, but are too lazy, intentionally iggnorant, and unscrupulous to do so. Instead, they chime that I should share the fruits of my hard work with them.

No...

The society I'm thinking of there are no homeless and poor and sick or lazy. There simply isn't any of that.
The thing I see all over the planet is BS. People getting paid outlandish amounts of money and leading extravagant lives right up to the day they die. Why because the can toss a football ? Really ?
Come on. while a fireman or a cop or even a construction worker on a high rise is risking his neck everyday to try and keep his families head above water. While he's given less and less to do it with. Eliminate money and hey I know that's not gonna happen in our lifetime most likely. That doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
In Socialism... I do not have a choice, I have to give to the less successful producer. I have to give to the individual that produces nothing.

This is not true. Under socialism the workers own and control their own labour. If you don't work because you don't want to work then you get nothing. Socialism is not free-hand outs, it simply makes for a more fair distribution of wealth created. What makes the private owner any more important than the labour needed to run their factories? Without labour capitalism can not exist.

Unemployment would be none-existent, because that is part of the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism.
If "jobs" were in abundance workers would have the power to demand higher wages, better working conditions etc., because they would be in a position to easily find alternative work somewhere else.

In Capitalism I do have a choice... right or wrong, to give some, all, or nothing to the non-producer.

Capitalists are none-producers. Labour does the producing.

If you are a successful producer.... the demand for your products goes up. For me and many others... the idea is to make money. The more successful the more money. To ensure growth of business, motivation..ie profit, and to ensure the security and stability of the business... you need a profit.

Yes the goal of capitalists is to make money, profit from exploiting labour. But that profit is created by the workers, who do the actual labour. The capitalists simply owns capital, a lot of it inherited. Private ownership concentrates wealth into smaller and smaller groups of people. As they become more wealthy those at the bottom, who only have their labour by which to make 'money', becomes a larger less financially powerful group.
In the capitalist system private ownership creates a hierarchy of power and 'money' is a tool used to control.

I am listening to KGO 810 right now, a so called left-wing station, and even they fail to understand what capitalism is.

They are talking about China and saying they have either capitalism or stateism, when in fact you can have both at the same time.

Capitalism is NOT a political system. Capitalism is not freedom, it can be totalitarian. 'Private ownership of the means of producing for the market' is not freedom like they try to tell you it is. Capitalism creates the state system, it needs it to protect it's capital, it is the system that allows one class of people to control another. It is only economic freedom for those who earn from their capital by exploiting labour, and for the rest of us it is wage slavery.

Socialism is not big government, in fact it needs no government at all, Anarchism is a form of socialism.

Even Marxists only support a temporary state system, kept in place until production could be increased to the point of making money obsolete, in which time the natural shift to communism is supposed to happen. (and no communism is not government/state control it is an ECONOMIC system where resources are communally and freely distributed, it is essentially anarchist)

There is NO left wing in today's media, it is all right wing of different degrees. The left would never be pro-capitalist.

Until people realise the true definition of these terms and what the real left, not those who claim to be left in government and media, want nothing will ever change. Which of course is what the right wing establishment wants.

reply to post by ANOK


Academic theory of Socialism, Capitalism, Communism is fine...and you are correct...academically.

Capitalist make their money exploiting the labor?

What do we call it when I cut my own firewood, sell my firewood, and put the money in my pocket. Who am I exploiting then.

When I grow tomatoes and corn and raise hogs on my farm... and I till the soil and feed the hogs, and then sell my crops... and put the money in my pocket...I am a Capitalist... who am I exploiting?

And when people see me and my family enjoying the fruits of our labor and demand that we share them because we have so much more than they do.... Who is exploiting whom?

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
reply to post by ANOK

 

Academic theory of Socialism, Capitalism, Communism is fine...and you are correct...academically.

Capitalist make their money exploiting the labor?

What do we call it when I cut my own firewood, sell my firewood, and put the money in my pocket. Who am I exploiting then.

When I grow tomatoes and corn and raise hogs on my farm... and I till the soil and feed the hogs, and then sell my crops... and put the money in my pocket...I am a Capitalist... who am I exploiting?

And when people see me and my family enjoying the fruits of our labor and demand that we share them because we have so much more than they do.... Who is exploiting whom?

What an extremely good point...and shame on me...I grew up on a farm and did not voice this position.

It comes down to right and wrong .

If you saw a person in your neighborhood suffering...would you help them? Would you offer the reapings of your farm to them in the goodness of humanity or would you expect something in return? Would yu say "here, enjoy and return the favor when the opportunity comes" or....would you say "you have to do this for me or else"....

there is a difference my friend and....man I am happy this discussion is opening...things are not always cut and dried and it is up to us to figure out the details....

I love to help people and when I am in a position to just absorb the cost...man it feels really good....I hope most of you know that feeling...and now we need to figure out how to do it more often and make it matter....

reply to post by Damrod


As a matter of fact...we have done that very thing. We have dropped off food to complete strangers, we have delivered firewood and toys to families for Xmas, we have had homeless and poor families in our home to share a meal and then offer clothes and money...we have dropped off fresh eggs and sausage and even given away laying hens so they could have frsh eggs everyday.

I do not have a problem helping my fellow man and neighbor. Again, it is the lack of ethics and morality of any system more so than a particular system in and of itself.

I forget if it was Monroe, Adams, or Jefferson... but the quote is that "A demcocracy without a moral and ethical populace is doomed to failure."

Well...here we are.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


Well said and very true....

I just don't know how to make people rally around the cause...it sucks for some to suffer while others prosper...there has to be a way to a middle ground...

I know you are out there...folks that know when something is broken but don't know what to do....stay with us...I have some answers to that question....

Originally posted by redoubt
Oh yes, history shows that socialism does indeed lead to reduced productivity

wrong. by the true form of socialism, which we can simplify to say it is businesses owned and controlled by the workers directly without any bosses or internal hierarchical structure (each worker is also an equal owner; business based on "one person one vote" principle), productivity is far improved in most cases. these are called WORKER COOPERATIVES and they are becoming more common worldwide as they are far more efficient than capitalist firms generally. i'd link several empirical studies on this subject but i am quite exhausted at this point and need to go to bed. if you wish to ask more about this concept just respond to this message and ask me to show you them.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
reply to post by ANOK

 

Academic theory of Socialism, Capitalism, Communism is fine...and you are correct...academically.

Capitalist make their money exploiting the labor?

What do we call it when I cut my own firewood, sell my firewood, and put the money in my pocket. Who am I exploiting then.

When I grow tomatoes and corn and raise hogs on my farm... and I till the soil and feed the hogs, and then sell my crops... and put the money in my pocket...I am a Capitalist... who am I exploiting?

And when people see me and my family enjoying the fruits of our labor and demand that we share them because we have so much more than they do.... Who is exploiting whom?

you are referring to the Homesteading Principle, which both capitalists and socialists support. it is neither capitalistic or socialistic (or rather both capitalistic and socialistic). it is the perfect synthesis of capitalism and socialism. there is a theoretical system based on such a program called "distributism". its supporters consider themselves neither capitalistic or socialistic, but rather directly in between the two principles:

en.wikipedia.org...

other forms of socialism that you probably haven't heard of, such as the market socialist principle called mutualism, go to prove that socialism doesn't oppose the Homesteading Principle either and therefore socialism IS NOT opposed to the private ownership of the means of production as long as that means isn't being used to exploit others for profit:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Capitalist make their money exploiting the labor?

Yes because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for in order for the owner to make profit.

Labour should be treated like any resource, and workers should be paid fully for what they produce, the only way that can happen is if the workers own the means of production (socialism).

"Capitalism is an economic relationship between the exploiter and exploited, the power and right to live by exploiting the labour of someone else, the right to exploit the labour of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both." The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 183
www.spunk.org...

What do we call it when I cut my own firewood, sell my firewood, and put the money in my pocket. Who am I exploiting then.

Nobody, and no socialist would have a problem with you doing that. If you were to hire labour to cut your wood, then you take that wood and sell it, keeping most of the profit for yourself, paying the workers the minimum you can get away with, is the problem.

When I grow tomatoes and corn and raise hogs on my farm... and I till the soil and feed the hogs, and then sell my crops... and put the money in my pocket...I am a Capitalist... who am I exploiting?

Again the exploitation is in the hiring of labour, not selling a product you personally make. No that is not capitalism, it is simply producing for the market. Socialism allows markets and selling your product. As long as it is a voluntary agreement, and you are not monopolizing the distribution of your product, and making it an artificially scarce product by underproduction to keep prices high, there is no problem.

The problem is when resources are under the control of a minority group, and people are denied those resources because that groups interest is making money for themselves. That is exploitation of the community. If the means to produce those resources are owned collectively by the workers then we would be self sufficient, not relying on a private owner to provide 'jobs'. What keeps people in poverty is a lack of the means to produce.

Before capitalism people lived off the land, they didn't need 'jobs'. Capitalism came about from a change in the law that allowed land owners to deny the use of their land to the 'commoners'. This forced the commoners into factories and mills, and they became exploited labour for rich land owners to make products to sell to other rich land owners. They ONLY reason workers have any rights since then is because of the left-wing, unions, and workers demanding better pay and conditions. Unions brought you weekends, 40 hour week, payed vacations, safe working conditions. What they don't have in China and other exploited third world economies.

And when people see me and my family enjoying the fruits of our labor and demand that we share them because we have so much more than they do.... Who is exploiting whom?

Socialism is not forcing anyone to share anything. It is simply a system whereby the workers, as apposed to a private owner, own the place they work at. Worker cooperatives/collectives. If you are an independent producer working by yourself you can do what you want with your product.

The idea of socialism is to take away the right of private owners to use their capital to gain personal wealth at the expense of those they hire. This causes a multitude of economic, and social problems, because capitalists tend to have their own interests at heart, and not the interests of the communities they live in.

A good example of this right now is the lack of jobs due to labour being sent overseas, where capitalists can make more profit by paying lower wages, but still sell their product at a high price to you. This is the cycle of capitalism, exploit a country/region making it temporarily wealthy, workers ultimately demand better pay and conditions, profits go down, capitalists look for other areas to exploit, leaving the area they just left to fall back into poverty again. America has had a long run, but for capitalists to invest in America again would mean workers accepting Chinese level wages and conditions. Chinese workers are already demanding better pay.

China today is synonymous with vast sweatshops and the most brutal exploitation of labour by domestic and global capitalism. The majority of the ‘new’ industrial working class, mostly rural migrants who are the legal equivalent of ‘paperless’ immigrants in Europe or America, work twelve hours a day or longer, for pitiful wages, in unsafe factories, under a military-style regime of fines and petty rules. This edifice of super-exploitation is built around the repressive one-party state of the CCP, which viciously crushes strikes and all attempts to build free trade unions.

www.socialismtoday.org...

"The working man cannot. . . repurchase that which he has produced for his master. It is thus with all trades whatsoever. . . since, producing for a master who in one form or another makes a profit, they are obliged to pay more for their own labour than they get for it." Proudhon "What is Property", p. 189

We are not only exploited by the wage system, but also because we pay the profit when we purchase the goods we produce. We pay twice for everything in order to make a minority group ever more wealth while the rest of us fall more and more into poverty.

reply to post by ANOK


You clever fellow you....I was going to quote you but It was too big and didn't leave room for me to comment...what a wonderful....



I agree....people need to open their eyes and their minds and actually try to understand the subtle differences in one system from another....sometimes...on the surface...they seem minor...but the impacts are far greater than they first appear....sometimes...it's hard to tell unless you totally review intent....which is also hard to do....

Thank you for a well worded and thought out response...even though a whole buncha folks are going to wail and gnash their teeth....it's very basic and well thought out and very much about how things seem to work....

Originally posted by Damrod
I agree....people need to open their eyes and their minds and actually try to understand the subtle differences in one system from another....sometimes...on the surface...they seem minor...but the impacts are far greater than they first appear....sometimes...it's hard to tell unless you totally review intent....which is also hard to do....

I wish they would. The problem is capitalism promises so much, and the young have no experience to not buy into it.

Thanks for the kind words, guess I killed the thread though lol?

I have seen people who get a job then get angry at the supervisor for telling them to do it,and they do it badly yet stay employed.I just quit a job for a hospital housekeeping outfit that gave ALL of its employees too much to do,no one could meet standards and the manager just kept riding them until they quit.Professionalism is no longer a guarantee of employment.Nor is doing ones job well.Until we gut the business practices that have gone rampant ala "Mad Men",the Corporate structure will simply continue to take and use as they see fit.Products that please the company not the consumer.Progress itself has been obstructed by these practices. Witness planned obsolescence.Do you think any car made today will last 10 years?Styrofoam bumpers!!!?
In the Army all tanks are modularized for repair and maintenance.Why hasn't a durable car been made like that? Everything is disposable, wasting material time and endangering humanity because of it.