LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   End of Capitalism and Beginning of Communism? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192870)

Yar-El 10-10-2008 09:31 AM

End of Capitalism and Beginning of Communism?
 
The End of American capitalism?
Market turmoil draining the nation's wealth may claim another casualty

Debating on LucasForums brings a variety of perspectives. Each person has a unique experience based upon where they live. People living in the United States (and in some other countries) structure everything on unregulated systems. Capitalism is what drives the American Dream. You are able to pursue different avenues to secure a house, job, and other necessities. We take it all for granted.

Several of the converations on LucasForums deals with regulating systems. Universal Healthcare (National Healthcare) is such a regulated system. Any type of system in which government has an involvement in is regulated. Some of the systems in place are important, but others are more redundant systems.

Quote:

Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation's wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.

The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.
If the government steps in and nationalizes systems, we will become one step closer to communism. U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness. Your freedom of choice, variety, and other behaviors will be over.

Comments? Thoughts? Theories?

KinchyB 10-10-2008 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2536439)
Capitalism destroyed the American Dream.

Fixed :xp:

...Big Oil...Golden Parachutes...Lobbyists...nuff said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2536439)
If the government steps in and nationalizes systems, we will become one step closer to communism.

Umm...so I'm assuming that you are assuming that communism is bad. Maybe in it's purist form it doesn't work well (Debatable I suppose) or maybe it's also how it was implemented previously and currently for that matter. But any government in a pure form is bad... including democracy. That's why we are not 100% democratic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2536439)
U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness. Your freedom of choice, variety, and other behaviors will be over.

Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.

Also, keep in mind no one is suggesting we have Universal Healthcare in the way that it's suggest here that is government ran. They may say that everyone needs insurance so if you don't have any you get the same insurance congress and the senate have currently, but that is it.

Enjoy :)

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 10:14 AM

You left out groups like ACORN that helped cause the subprime mortgage mess. There are more people to blame for this than just wallstreet and regular lobbyists.

Quote:

Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.
Universal Health Care doesn't work, if it did we wouldn't see Canadians run across the border to the United States to see US doctors.

Yar-El 10-10-2008 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KinchyB (Post 2536462)
Slight exagerration maybe...? Insenuating that if we have Universal Healthcare then all of a sudden the government "will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness" seems a bit of a stretch.

I'm going to let my post speak for itself. You twisted the meaning of my words. I would go back a reread. Keep this question in mind: Is this a topic over National Healthcare, or is it a topic over a heavly regulated society? Keep in mind that this topic is also connected to an article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536464)
You left out groups like ACORN that helped cause the subprime mortgage mess. There are more people to blame for this than just wallstreet and regular lobbyists.

Special interests groups?

El Sitherino 10-10-2008 10:23 AM

I'd rather government limit corporate rule than have a country run on the whims of business men. If you wish to think it as communism, you are free to do so. However it is completely untrue and displays a lack of understanding of communism.

Tyrion 10-10-2008 10:24 AM

I think the problem is that the end of strict Capitalism does not entail the rise of full-blown Communism. What we're likely to see is a mixed socialistic economy, whereby the markets have a degree of both individualistic choice and governmental oversight.

(FYI: Communism isn't an economic philosophy: it's a social one. Socialism is the economic term for governmental oversight of an economy, usually through regulations and controlling a varying degree of the means of production; a vast majority of countries (even the US, pre-bailout - look at the FDA) have socialistic practices in their economies. Socialism can extend from partial regulation and government ownership of only the essential means of production, as in the US' case with the stock market and energy utility companies as examples, to wholly-governmental controlled economies as in Soviet Russia. )

Yar-El 10-10-2008 10:25 AM

I was under the impression that socialism equals communism. Could you flesh out the differences? Maybe I'm loosing something in translation.

I thought communism was a government that had full control over all social aspects.

Tyrion 10-10-2008 10:28 AM

Clarified my above post.

Pavlos 10-10-2008 10:35 AM

To paraphrase Sandi Toksvig on Radio 4's 'News Quiz': What an odd reversal the world is enjoying. America is invading middle eastern countries and nationalising banks while the Russians are oil-rich capitalists.

Astor 10-10-2008 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Universal Health Care doesn't work,

It does, actually, but for more I'd suggest seeing the 'Universal Healthcare' thread.

KinchyB 10-10-2008 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2536470)
I'm going to let my post speak for itself. You twisted the meaning of my words. I would go back a reread. Keep this question in mind: Is this a topic over National Healthcare, or is it a topic over a heavly regulated society? Keep in mind that this topic is also connected to an article.

Point taken, however, you are still failing to show how the "U.S. government will be able to tell you how to eat, talk, walk, buy, and how to do buisness." Perhaps some detailed clarification on how we get to that point could help your argument...

Edit...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Universal Health Care doesn't work, if it did we wouldn't see Canadians run across the border to the United States to see US doctors.

How about some numbers? Specifically, how many people cross the border for healthcare from Canada to the U.S.? And vice versa...? Not to mention what are they crossing the border for exactly (healthcare is too broad, narrow it down)? Also, how does this compare to other countries...? This statement can quite literally be made for every country on earth. Without this info... Straw Man... people going across the border is not an indication that their healthcare is inadequate.

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 01:03 PM

Canadians come across the border to see US doctors and US Citizens go to Canada to get cheap prescription medicine.

And my Parents have some friends in Canada that have commented to my parents about this, so I know it's going on.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/r...ml?artId=23230


Also doctors from Canada are heading here too:
http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/...or-better.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/...drop-patients/

We may end up slipping into socialist practices due to simple panic, problem is that Government is usually the worst group when it comes efficiency. Also on that list is Lawyers, and accountants.

Pavlos 10-10-2008 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536560)
We may end up slipping into socialist practices due to simple panic, problem is that Government is usually the worst group when it comes efficiency. Also on that list is Lawyers, and accountants.

Just a question: What's so bad about socialism?

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlos (Post 2536602)
Just a question: What's so bad about socialism?

Aside, from the fact that it doesn't work and doesn't encourage people to do their best?


Socialism looks good on paper but in real life it rapidly turns into a dictatorship.

Pure Capitalism is also very bad as well, that's why there are laws and regulations.

Achilles 10-10-2008 02:58 PM

Would it surprise you to learn that Sweden routinely ranks higher than the U.S. on the Human Development Index?

I think you're comparing to Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism and declaring Capitalism the winner, but in an effort to not appear unbaised concede that Pure Capitalism doesn't work either (as the current financial crisis would indicate). Perhaps more apples-to-apples analysis would be beneficial?

GarfieldJL 10-10-2008 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2536610)
Would it surprise you to learn that Sweden routinely ranks higher than the U.S. on the Human Development Index?

Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

Quote:

I think you're comparing to Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism and declaring Capitalism the winner, but in an effort to not appear unbaised concede that Pure Capitalism doesn't work either (as the current financial crisis would indicate). Perhaps more apples-to-apples analysis would be beneficial?
If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.

Achilles 10-10-2008 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536613)
Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

No it isn't. Population size has nothing to do with it. Your argument is that the system doesn't work. Please stick to your guns or move along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536613)
If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.

I'm not referring to any country. I'm merely pointing out that your comparison is false. If you to compare Pure Communism to Regulated Capitalism that's fine, but realize that both are strawmen because no one is suggesting Pure Communism and the current financial crisis exists because we've become too deregulated. A more truthful comparison would be Pure Communism vs Pure Capitalism (which you alluded does not work in your previous post and we have some evidence for now).

Which leaves us with some sort of "Communism" (I can only assume from your posts that you view gov't involvement to any degree as "Communism")/Capitalism hybrid. Which I think many of us are in favor of. What that looks like precisely probably still needs to be discussed.

SW01 10-10-2008 03:23 PM

You underetimate the potential benefits of somewhat socialist systems. That is the current state of the British system, by and large. To my mind, more than anything else, it is better in some respects than pure capitalism as it introduces a greater degree of public accountability - something is run by the government, so the voters exercise control by booting people out of office.

The way things are going, with the US Treasury possibly being given the power to seize substantial stakes in US banks, I think America is looking at a UK-influenced system to some degree. Really, I doubt it could do any more harm to the US infrastructure than has already been done.

While I don't believe America will move towards Communism (which in it's pure form may be idyllic, but corruption kills it), I think socialism is a real part of its future.

Tyrion 10-10-2008 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536613)
Sweden is a very bad example because of the size of their population compared to the US.

Most countries, including the US, are socialistic, though. I honestly don't see what the aversion to socialism is: every country in the bloody world has some sort of regulation on their economies, usually to protect the environment, investors, and consumers.

Quote:

If you're referring to China, I'm going to refer you to all the human rights violations.
Communistic, not socialistic. Besides, part of the reason for their massive pollution problem is because of their total lack of environmental regulation - a decidedly unsocialistic decision.

Yar-El 10-12-2008 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion (Post 2536767)
Most countries, including the US, are socialistic, though. I honestly don't see what the aversion to socialism is: every country in the bloody world has some sort of regulation on their economies, usually to protect the environment, investors, and consumers.

Communistic, not socialistic. Besides, part of the reason for their massive pollution problem is because of their total lack of environmental regulation - a decidedly unsocialistic decision.

Wikipedia - Communism

Quote:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] The communist movement has attempted to produce a communist society by setting up political parties, which in some cases have become governments. These attempts have never produced a communist society, and have frequently led to totalitarian states.[citation needed]

Communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.
Wiki is not the most trusted source for information; however, its a quick and fast guide for answers. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and L. M. Findlay's book called The Communist Manifesto may also help. Some people in the United States lock socialism with communism; thus, they have always been interlocked. Socialism may have been adapted by communism; therefore, they became interlinked from adaptation. Some have fused both concepts due to historical events. I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies. Socialism became a symbol of communism not intentionally; however, through a series of historical events. Russia, Germany, and China's past for example.

Inyri 10-12-2008 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2537863)
I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies.

Really? What's the name of it? I'd like to check it out.

Yar-El 10-13-2008 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inyri (Post 2537864)
Really? What's the name of it? I'd like to check it out.

I need to get to know people first. Give me some time to learn about you, and I promise to give you a copy. You see Inyri, my real name is on the cover. Online forums allow me a level of anomynity. I can move around without questions, questions, questions. Private message me sometime. ;) I have two other books out there.

Inyri 10-13-2008 12:19 AM

What's to be afraid of? Certainly as a respected author you should be interested in providing your book to anyone interested (and making some royalties, of course).

Tyrion 10-13-2008 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2537863)
Wikipedia - Communism

Wiki is not the most trusted source for information; however, its a quick and fast guide for answers. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and L. M. Findlay's book called The Communist Manifesto may also help. Some people in the United States lock socialism with communism; thus, they have always been interlocked. Socialism may have been adapted by communism; therefore, they became interlinked from adaptation. Some have fused both concepts due to historical events. I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies. Socialism became a symbol of communism not intentionally; however, through a series of historical events. Russia, Germany, and China's past for example.

In that sense, it's a matter of Communism being intrinsically linked with Socialism, but not necessarily the other way around.

Yar-El 10-13-2008 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion (Post 2537902)
In that sense, it's a matter of Communism being intrinsically linked with Socialism, but not necessarily the other way around.

Yep. Well known example -

Quote:

Buddhists the swastika means ultimate power, the sun, the brightness and the power of the sun, the wheel of life, the rotating aspect of life growing and dying, good fortune and other meanings.
More of the Explination Here

Hitler ended up using it for another reason. Socialism's connnection to Communism is the same thing; however, we connect them through historical establishhments. We relate the two together because of history.

EnderWiggin 10-13-2008 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2537863)
I wrote a book on symbolism eight years ago, and I explored how imagery was adapted across societies.

Pics or it never happened.

_EW_

Yar-El 10-14-2008 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2538212)
Pics or it never happened.
_EW_

EnderWiggin,

I don't know why you give people a hard time, nor can I create a revelation about why you give me a difficult time. This thread is about the possible end of Capitalism. Why does it even matter to you about my successes or lack there of? What is mine belongs to me, and my life should not be important to you.

Lets get back on the road before us. Communism and socialism. I'll wait for a reply from those who want to talk about them.

Det. Bart Lasiter 10-14-2008 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yar-El (Post 2538411)
EnderWiggin,

I don't know why you give people a hard time, nor can I create a revelation about why you give me a difficult time. This thread is about the possible end of Capitalism. Why does it even matter to you about my successes or lack there of? What is mine belongs to me, and my life should not be important to you.

Except you brought it up to lend your words more credibility than just the average poster here. You dragged it into the conversation and he has every right to call you on it and ask you to prove it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by vanir
reminiscent of apes fighting for tribal dominance.

:iceburn:

ET Warrior 10-14-2008 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2536464)
There are more people to blame for this than just wallstreet and regular lobbyists.

Like Barack Obama amirite?

I am calling shenanigans on the premise of this thread, that somehow adding some more socialistic oversight into our economy is suddenly going to erase our liberties. (Certainly no more than things like the Patriot Act have already done). There is no logical progression from socialism to evil dictatoring.

Exiled Raya 10-28-2008 10:09 AM

Isn't regulated capitalism where we are now? It seems to be a fairly big reason for some of our problems, as opposed to the purer form of capitalism that this nation enjoyed when it was first founded.

It seems we flourished with fewer regulations, but the more regulations the government puts in place the harder it becomes to do business and be economically viable.

I'm in no way saying that companies should be able to mistreat workers, or do extensive environmental damage, so please don't think I am. I'm just curious as to why our government feels the need to impose unconstitutional laws on we the people, and even more perplexed as to why any citizen would be okay with that?

Darth_Yuthura 11-05-2008 10:21 PM

I think Communism has had a bad rep because it was implemented poorly in the Soviet Union. The USSR is probably the face of communism because it was just a superpower only two decades ago and could challenge the US since before WWII.

China has a Communist system of government and it is now a direct threat to the US... economically. Because of our free market economy, the US has overextended its resources and its own citizens are becoming increasingly self-destructive to the very system that allowed such freedoms in the past.

If you look at who really has the power within our state, it's those with the wealth to influence the system to best suit them. The Bush administration is proof that our free-market economy and government are easily corruptible.

vanir 11-07-2008 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrion (Post 2536477)
I think the problem is that the end of strict Capitalism does not entail the rise of full-blown Communism. What we're likely to see is a mixed socialistic economy, whereby the markets have a degree of both individualistic choice and governmental oversight.

(FYI: Communism isn't an economic philosophy: it's a social one. Socialism is the economic term for governmental oversight of an economy, usually through regulations and controlling a varying degree of the means of production; a vast majority of countries (even the US, pre-bailout - look at the FDA) have socialistic practices in their economies. Socialism can extend from partial regulation and government ownership of only the essential means of production, as in the US' case with the stock market and energy utility companies as examples, to wholly-governmental controlled economies as in Soviet Russia. )

Not strictly true. The diametrics are socialism and capitalism and either wholly relate to economic policy. Communism tosses in collectivisation, which I personally disagree with and feel does contravene the intention of democracy as epitomising the inalienable rights of the individual, however it does this by approach, that is, via economic policy alone. It is neither necessarily a totalitarian nor absolutist state but depends upon the political outlook of the governing body (whether representative, select or dictatorial). In the case of Soviet communism this was the soviets of course, a Russian term for a type of union body (workers councils).
This was not necessarily however the original Bolshevik ideal, collectivisation was most certainly not the dream of Lenin, though how talented he was in terms of constructing a workable system is open to debate.
There was also the Menshevik diametric to the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of which either were Marxist but interpreted differently how this should be enacted in government. Stalin forced his own ideas shortly after the death of Lenin, whilst it was the army which were mostly responsible for the succession of the Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks. The soviets (based in St Petersberg at the time) were also heavily involved in the initial Russian Revolution and represented a third interest, less revolutionary and in fact more conservative, quite like the way the Nazis in Germany claimed to be revolutionary but were in fact strict conservatives with little originality and few ideals not directly associated with personal greed.

As far as the OP is concerned, the very assertion a delapidation of capitalism as a default governing body lending to the rise of (Stalinist) communism with any attempt to satisfactorily address the situation with benevolence is completely ridiculous.
It is no more than the argument, "if you are not with me (personally, all the time) you are against me (and I am justified abusing your ideals)." It is mindless banter with no political value, reminiscent of apes fighting for tribal dominance.

The problem with US politics is the abandonment of any independent governing body for the ascendancy of capitalism (an economic policy) as the default government per se. Meanwhile personal agendas and willing ignorance lends itself to the complete abandonment of any semblence to the democratic ideal, which according to the age of Enlightenment was in fact solely and wholly the inalienability of common individual rights, placing such rights at the very pinnacle of all other governing authorities regardless of circumstance.

The US lost democracy shortly after 9/11 and now resembles little more than the Schutzstaffeln fantasy it's fostered ever since it saw those pretty black SS uniforms and Tiger tanks way back in WW2. Bush even sounded like the big H.

Darth Avlectus 11-24-2008 11:24 PM

I thought there was a difference between regulation and socialist oversight but since I haven't information to addequately refute or confirm that, I'll move onto my next point if it's all the same and regualtion equals socialism... (though I have my doubts)...

Food for thought:

What is so bad about socialism? Nothing yet. I'm not saying it would absolutely spill over into dictatorship, however, that's how it starts.
I am saying that if the socio-machine gets too powerful, then we could have a combination of all the wrong freedoms and regulations creating undesirable conditions. Then again, we possibly have that already.

What's really eating me is the more we cede *our* responsibilities to government, the more it would make sense the government would want to have more control over our freedoms. Yet people choose to ignore that.

Where there is centralization of control, I fear that that the control will more and more exclude the people as they are pushed to the outer frey. Oh sure, "oversight comittees" will "overlook the actions of the government", but that's saying the government will watch the government. Like saying corporate will watch corporate. Even if the comitees are not necessarily the same entity but arbitrary...without accountability and transparency to THE people they might as well be entities of either.

Fact: PEOPLE run government, PEOPLE run corporations...a 2 way system where either one or the other reigns. It just isn't working.

So keep in mind, *THE PEOPLE* and our personal rights and freedoms as well as OUR POWER are necessary to keep commerce and government in place.

Unfettered capitalism (NAFTA of more recent years, and recently formulated CAFTA)
is just as bad as unfettered government.

THE people are those not in government, those not running commerce.

Of government: people who run government, in TRUST of THE people.

Of commerce: people who run business, by DEMAND of THE people.

"It will never survive with a corrupt foundation!!!" --Zero, MegaMan X6

If you have to ask what keep THE people in place (you need to get a job and read the law books): We follow the laws, we work in the commerce.

Is this a triad? Maybe.

EDIT: Freedoms and regulations in all the wrong ways...
Freedoms: Clinton supported NAFTA which is now acting as a machine to undermine mom and pop businesses; Clinton did nothing to stop congress from turning over the social security fund into a general fund which got spent--little was left by the time bush got in office. Ironic, the unfettered freedom of funds has robbed us of retirement on the government. HAH-I knew I couldn't count on that...Thanks Bill. Unfettered capitalism has taken the freedom of opportunity FROM innovative people looking to start their own business. I wish I could believe Obama, but it looks like many clinton cabinet members are returning. I wonder if Obama will eject those in his cabinet critical towards the clintons to get hillary on board?

Regulations in the wrong: The attrocious patriot act--many of our rights have/are/are continuing to be dissappearing. R.I.N.O.'s not preserving the governing structure. Look for something that got silently passed through congress 5/19/07 or thereabouts. Gee, thanks Dub'ya bushwhacker.
The new coming taxes on our earnings; Gross or net? Oh sure it's largely INTENDED for NET, but that hasn't been specified yet and also it depends...there are circumstances where it could apply in gross.
The 9/20/08 thing bush signed in for regulations that will be hard to undo once past the 21st... (Obama, hope you caught *that* one), how government regulations can DICTATE TO YOU what your time off is, what your benefits are...

Doesn't affect me because I'm in a mom and pop handyman business? It might if I have to find another job because there isn't enough $$$ to go around for our services!

Allronix 11-25-2008 04:13 PM

Well, folks. I am an American Socialist. The American "dream" is just that - a dream. When 20% of the population controls about 80% of the total wealth of this country? (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html) This kind of wealth distribution hasn't been seen since the Gilded Age, and I frankly find it disgusting.

Americans now work more hours than the Japanese and what in hell are we getting out of it? Take inflation out of the equation, and the average American has seen the amount of hours they work increase while their salaries decrease (US Dept. of Labor). Fifteen percent of American workers have no insurance to help them when they get sick, and even if you do have insurance? Well, the profit margin rules all, and health care costs are the primary cause of bankruptcy in this nation.

If we, as workers, want anything but endless wage slavery and posterity with dimmer prospects, we're going to have to pry it out of their cold, stiff hands. Workers had to fight to get any kind of safety equipment on the job. Workers had to fight to get an eight-hour day or weekends. Women are STILL fighting for equal pay (Ledbetter v Goodyear).

I'd rather have a government I can kick out of office calling shots than a CEO I can't.

Darth Avlectus 11-26-2008 08:18 PM

I'd like to respond to you Allronix, but my post might just be too big, but your argument is noted. There are some disagreements, but I believe these primarily fundamental and that we will never see eye to eye. As far as
bigwig tycoons? I think they ought to be held accountable. AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Kick out of office? Sure. So would I, Allronix. However, career politicians are all dancing around in their special interest groups. Kick one out, another takes his/her place. You can't tell me *that* doesn't happen. As far as bigwigs I should get this out: Curious that Obama's cabinet has Franklin Rains, the former CEO of Freddie Mack on it...
Rahm Emanuel? Wasn't he on the advisor board of Fannie Mae from 2000 to 2002?

I don't trust either entity Corporation or Government.

What I'd like to get on the table:
I'd like a straight answer as to how MORE government will INCREASE freedoms??? I don't care what anyone says, the reality always works out that THE people are left holding the bag. MY big questions are
1) WHERE is accountability? (for BOTH government AND corporations)
2) WHY are we not enforcing laws already on the books? --Now we want MORE laws? How many times have we amended, appended, added to, taken away from, altered, or otherwise screwed with our constitution and made contradictory laws?

Anyway while controls like max wage cap may sound great in this age of "class jealousy" (After all isn't a couple billion enough???), BUT, consider how it could DRASTICALLY backfire. It is NOT the solution.
There *has* to be a better way than a maximum wage cap, because there is no real way (other than ethical behavior and integrity), to tell if that money will even GO to the little people. These things are decided arbitrarily and are not transparent. Arbitrary parties like power all their own. If I have learned one thing about power, it is (you guessed it) M$NEY. Oh sure thare is power of election and trust from the people...but life doesn't work that way. Sadly you all know that saying: Money talks and (something that stinks) walks. Regardless of whatever system we have.

Worse is that, were there to be a cap put on wages, it may go for the rich FIRST...but that does NOT mean that the wealthy will be the LAST to be capped off. Guess whose next? And guess whose next after that?
There's already trouble with earnings which is bad enough. If it is law there'll be no incentive to work hard whatsoever.

You could put all these arbiter sharks and regulations on it, but, if the governing body is corrupt, it could just become selective and decide what is best is whatever makes it more powerful.

Whatever your thoughts, Just look at Hugo Chavez on how WRONG this could get to be. Whatever you are for, just remember that THIS is something you need to keep an eye on. I'm talking more about not ceding our responsibilities to government so we keep our power? Consider this a responsibility.

The greedy have been irresponsible. Instead of enacting laws, why not build our case at large-on all fronts?

Allronix 11-26-2008 11:31 PM

I keep hearing this "there's no incentive to work hard" argument, and I have to wonder about this; if people are so divorced from the importance of work, that you must threaten them with starvation, illness, and death to get them to do anything, then that's just another form of slavery.

No one walks into their job intending to abuse customers, or do sloppy work. However, it's really easy to take the low road if you're treated as a number, bullied, or seen as a necessary evil.

Darth Avlectus 11-27-2008 01:47 AM

You know what, you're absolutely right. It's NOT fair. It bothers the hell out of me to hear that after I slaved away for hours--but I don't let it get to me: People will *always* have a reason to whine about your work.
I'm sure I'll get more $$$ over time, or with an eduacation (if I can ever get my act together for that).
I'd suggest that if you're in a dead end and you are not particularly respected for what you do, that it's time to move onto something else the next best possible chance. Just something I overheard from a career consultant. I respect that your situation is different--but there is no need to affect everyone else's life bringing down a law.
I'm sorry if that's not possible to move on. (I will have you in my thoughts and pray for your blessing).
There are studies looking into workplace bullying and how counterproductive it becomes after enough time. Who knows? Maybe someone can look into your case?

EDIT (for shortness): There are bosses like that. It's a cop out and a power trip. I don't let it get to me, though.
<snip>
long and short, I have no health insurance, yet I face certain danger. I don't whine about it.

Customers? Yeah, they're douchebags by the lot.

Incentive: I mean to be at least proud of the work I did by day's end. Even where nobody else will be. Nobody can say in good conscience I didn't earn it. That doesn't make me a stupid slave. I guess it all depends how you look at it.

I can support myself on my current wages. How about if I wanted a family but my wages were fixed to a maximum of, say $11/hr gross? I doubt it, but I'd try real damn hard anyway. Or maybe you'd rather children were all ward of the state?
We may never see eye to eye. I don't know your specific situation for a fact.

I've been a worker/boss. Handyman: housekeeper, electrician, contractor's grunt, clean up.
Go on if you will about the way you wish things were: I have no choice but to compete with illegals, immigrants (legalized citizens), and for possibly less than I'm worth. I don't condone it, but I understnad why it happens having seen some schmuck coworkers. Frankly, If you want to throw up your arms in disgust. Fine. I don't qualify for a lot of government aid. Even if I did, I don't think I could live with myself as an able bodied person if I did that. Disabled, it's a different story.

I don't blame others for my lack of success because I chickened out a few years ago--or that I never got along real well with college, it's depressing. I strive to at least be proud of my work, even if I know it won't be appreciated. It sucks. I still try to find something to be happy about. Like sharing with you and other people, here. I never gave up. I still haven't given up on school or finding something better.

I'm sorry if you have given up on yourself.

Slavery. We could very well be headed back to it. At least I don't sit around with my hand out waiting for a check. I try to do something about it. I absolutely agree with you on the point of "fight it". I disagree with a maximum wage cap because I see no way of assuring the money would go back to the benefit of the people, nor a way that maximum wage caps wouldn't end up coming back to haunt us. Perhaps in short order.

I guess the reason we speak of socialsim now?: Trouble is that nobody seems to care about meritocracy anymore. I suppose we've accidentally evolved away from the iron will that once characterized us. And I am a man out of my time. That and conscience has dissappeared. Still, I see innovative people which gives me hope.

jonathan7 11-27-2008 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2558645)
<snip>

You know there is a big massive hole in the mentality that we need to work for success - why? Why put up with all the things you listed? What is the point? What is the point of life? Do those possessions really make you any happier? Does the better job really make you happy? When you get that better car, are you content or do you now want another??

I ask this because, it ultimately if you think life is pointless then why bother working? If we are nothing but a genetic blip in the cosmic drama of the universe that is extinguished quickly why work hard?

Darth Avlectus 11-27-2008 05:48 AM

"""""I ask this because, it ultimately if you think life is pointless then why bother working?"""""

No point? As I suspect you missed it entirely.


WHY do I suffer? So I can be happy. It is not possible to be happy with a sterile life, free from hardships.

"""""If we are nothing but a genetic blip in the cosmic drama of the universe that is extinguished quickly why work hard?"""""

What if I said you were nothing more than property and had no conscience, no soul, no spirit? That you were just my tool? And I decreed you have no right to speak?
You'd be offended; I just denied you something fundamentally yours.

When I hear you say something like that, it makes my blood boil. For a moment I even considered dicing you with my katana. However, I'm not a murderer... But the contempt. Such utter contempt!
I doubt you could understand, johnathan7. There is no way I can make a short explanation of this. To deny me my usefulness, to relegate me like some tool...god-damn it. You make the hairs on my neck stand.

The reasons I am a free marketeer--and I am so adamant about MERIT in capitalism...... Success is something you YOURSELF define. Climbing to the top of some heap may be somebody else's idea for success, but YOU may ultimately wind up VERY unhappy. It is easy to get lost. So you must center yourself.

It is okay to earn as much as you can ON MERIT. At some point, though, you need to be responsible for others. To provide in a mutual relationship. Make a true family-not just flesh and blood. To watch out for others. Like family. Not coddle them--you hold them to their word, and they you.

Caring for the heards amongst you. "Your troops respect you only if you are a man amongst them," as Miyamoto Musashi once said.

A government doesn't do that--it's impersonal. You are a number as far as it cares. I resent the government who would take away a system that rewards incentive, self sustaining, initiative, work ethic. That breaks families. Limiting what I can rightfully earn--yet some slug can get away with a living without working? That's as bad as the fascist.

I resent the greedy pigs who make a bad name for free marketeering and capitalism by getting fat while making everyone else work for them. Cheating and monopolizing. Spoiling themselves. They earned it? Perhaps--but they are also irresponsible. Keeping it all to themselves. They make everyone else that earned something look like tyrants. Similar are the lazy pigs at the wellfare trough.

If I got it of ill doing...I have to get RID of it. If I get things or status and I did not EARN it, then I have this empty feeling I cannot shake. I care for the ACCOMPLISHMENT.

If it is shared or a gift I cherish it, but I admire the thought.
If it is a need, you must earn it.

If it is a want beyond your needs, you must earn it. You can only keep so many before it affects your life negatively, though. Choose wisely.
---------------------------------------

I guess the reason I put myself through such torture for work is to keep perspective. Life wasn't meant to be comfortable. Manual labor is back breaking filthy work, but it's honest. I can relax at the end of the day and not dwell about my hardship. I face it down as it comes. I beat it back.
Maybe I just don't see thigns the same as most. I guess I reacted differently: I grew up and I realized not everyone even has food to eat. However I saw others who get a wellfare check and all they do is watch ESPN all day. That pisses me off. I use it as motivation.

There is much to be said about *achieving* something. Building something. Making things happen. Unless you have done something like it--to do something over a LONG TERM. To pour hours of blood and sweat and tears and FRUSTRATION into something--you don't know exactly what the feeling is like. To pour your LIFE into something and finally achieve it: Victory.

Actually this is a perfect opportunity to tell you about MY OLD car. I learned the hard way walking and biking all around town for years before I ever got a car. This wasn't hard. But I had no real requirements either.

Alas, I had to learn to drive. I grew up. I got a car. Took it for granted. It broke down at the worst possible time.

The car had a problem with a carburaetor. A 1985 honda accord. I wasn't exactly the most technically incline with respect to engines--still not. It was going to cost almost $2,000 to replace or work on it. Nobody wanted to work on it either. I didn't have money. I decided I at least have to try something else--there was NO way I was going to continue to make it by hoofing or renting cars for very long. But I didn't give up or give in. You should NEVER feel sorry for yourself.
What did I do about the car? I fixed it MYSELF. After work and after long transit. I had a resourceful uncle with a few tools and lots of parts. But he didn't do the work, *I* did. It was dirty, confusing, complex. It took me a few weeks. I had to map out all the schematics for the vacuum lines. It was tedious. Bending, torquing, pulling, pushing. I spent hours after work and transit, failure after failure, pain and fatigue, because I realistically had no other choice.

I succeded. The feeling of the victory was unlike anything I ever had before. Able to drive what should have become scrap for 3 weeks. I gave it another 8 months to live. She died on me for the last time and I was crushed.

I guess you have never poured painstaking hours of your life into something. Then find later you can't breathe any more of your life back into it. So you could never understand the thrill of accomplishment.

I know it seems foolish to you: I bought another car by now--so what's the big deal???

The big deal: you never treasure something until you have poured some of your life into it only so it might last a little heile longer. You never know the loss you endure until your own work and toil dies on you. Frankly I am ready to do it again, and again if I must for my current car. The next. My home. Most things I have.

This is why America is what it is.
Work ethic is not something you just 'have' or get. It is YOU.

Ever wonder why grandpa got so upset at having to move from that little old house he built so long ago?
Ever wonder why people act like family has died when something of theirs is destroyed--namely something they built?
Ever wonder why someone gets depressed about having to go into retirement?

You might *know* why...but you have never truly *understood* it until you have ACHIEVED it.
The spirit of the working class.

Destined now to be at the leash of government.

Chevron 7 locke 11-27-2008 10:21 AM

I really don't think America is going to turn to Communism...it just doesnt seem possible with obama as president


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.