true capitalism and free market economies lead to corporate tyrrany - discuss

Originally posted by King Kandy
See, here's where I disagree with you. Mathematically speaking, the fact that there are fewer jobs than people guarantees that some people are going to get stuck with bad jobs or no jobs no matter what they do. Whenever I hear you talk about this idea I just feel like you're being greedy. I don't know, I see things differently then you.

I don't see how it is greedy to want to strive to be the best I can and achieve the most I can in this world through hard work and determination. I find people like yourself to be greedy and tyrannical. I understand living in a world with a few social programs that are necessary, but people like you get greedy and want to take too much from people.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Theoretically nobody would force you to do anything, but if you wanted to go loner while everybody else helped each other, you would probably not get far. I mean if I lived in a world where everybody shared everything I wouldn't be too fond of the ******* down the street who kept everything to himself.

I am not sure if you really answered my question or not, unless I missed it.

In a Marxist or communist world..can I own my own property, my own business, my own land and money?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I mean if I lived in a world where everybody shared everything I wouldn't be too fond of the ******* down the street who kept everything to himself.

If I lived in a world where everybody shares everything I would not be too fond of the bum down the street who doesn't work taking advantage and using all the things that I DO have to work for.

But you don't, you live in a world where a few people horde and steal everything and propogate the myth that those they steal from are simply lazy and anyone can get to their level through hard honest work.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I thought most libertarians were opposed to any and all anti trust laws, it has been the official position of the party in the past

You may be right. I don't know the intricacies of the current party well enough to say. I have seen both libertarians and free market economists endorse anti-trust laws, so it isn't without precedent. I personally think it would need to be a part of a free market system, simply because you would end up with corporate monopolies that would replace the influence of big governments that libertarianism tries to prevent.

inamalist also helped out with this earlier.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
But you don't, you live in a world where a few people horde and steal everything and propogate the myth that those they steal from are simply lazy and anyone can get to their level through hard honest work.

I don't live in that world. I live in a world where he who works the hardest, gets the most.

And funny enough those few who "steal and horde" all the money in this world are usually the ones who give jobs and paychecks to those innocent and hardworking lower-class workers.

Originally posted by inimalist
There are pragmatic choices that could seriously improve the American system, this is true. I was speaking more of your more theoretical ideas, like:

"just" is not the appropriate term in that sentence

Then you can delete the word "just" if it feels better when reading it.

Originally posted by inimalist
and produce the first institution of any size in human history with no inefficiencies, waste, corruption or error.

No. Improving the operational costs and efficiency of the government does not equal = "produc[ing] the first institution of any size in human history with no inefficiencies, waste, corruption or error."

In fact, what you suggest is impossible with the way humans are now.

Originally posted by inimalist
Europe's health care system is the product of hundreds of years of cultural development. That America could "Europeanize" their health care system in such a radical vein would be nearly akin to "democratizing" nations with no history of it?

Sure. Somethings will be painful if they are to be improved and should be expected to be as such.

Examples:

Civil Rights act of 1964.

19th Amendment.

13th Amendment.

Etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
Not that the violence or anything is comparable, but such changes are not normally met with open arms.

If this legislation brings the U.S. closer to true universal care, and no violence occurs of it, I will count us lucky.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not saying it is impossible, at least, the making of an American system more like the Europeans, however, making it, in America, radically, expecting huge change, simply because you expect people to understand that it is "better" isn't going to work, and has been the bane of Utopian thinkers for ever.

If all members of society were dadudemon, it would be easy

You're preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by inimalist
the elimination of all corruption, inefficiency, waste and error in government institutions is both doable and achievable?

can you give me an example?

That's not what I said.

The "first two items" refer to my own post.

Here's what they are directly from the post that my comment referred to:

"massive improvements on projects in every facet of government"

and

"healthcare reform." More specifically, "a system that would be optimal to adapt for the US."

I apologize for the confusion in my post as "two items" is very ambiguous, considering all the things we are talking about.

Originally posted by inimalist
the problem is, people are set on this "Government vs market" issue. This is what I was trying to get at before. The change is fairly moot if a government run system is set up by the same corrupt and inefficient political leaders. Whether it is tax subsidized or paid for directly, what America needs is accessible and affordable health care. That end, and not the theory of whether health should or should not be covered by the government, is what is important.

Oh, I agree.

I am of the opinion, though, that the best way for American to improve healthcare is to leave private healthcare intact, while also offering some sort of single payer system, very much similar to what the Obama administration plans to do. This is also similar to the Swiss option. The Swiss have both private and UHC available...but their system, from what I read, is run better than say, the U.K.'s. (The U.K. also allows for private healthcare...but that was almost a recent thing. I covered that in my paper, too. It would appear that allowing both is better in today's world.)

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure we don't disagree, however, my take on Obama is that he is using health care to try and appease those leftists who elected him, yet he has let down on lots of issues up until this point. I don't know the plan, and honestly, don't care to go over the numbers. I have so little trust for this stuff that I'm clearly biased to expect failure, but rarely does the status quo fail to deliver.

Sort of. It's more like...

We agree on everything that's wrong, and agree completely on what needs to be improved...but we differ slightly on how we should improve those. We don't disagree on how to improve those, that much, either.

We both recongize that we need to improve the U.S.'s foreign relations and how they conduct themselves in the international community, but the how is being debated.

We both know the US healthcare system needs to be improved, and we both know that we need some sort of coverage that is more universal to everyone...but the how is debatable to a certain extent.

We both know efficiency in government needs to be improved and corruption reduced. In fact, I think we agree on everything there. You just mistook my posts for meaning that we could eliminate all of the problems.

Originally posted by KidRock
I don't see how it is greedy to want to strive to be the best I can and achieve the most I can in this world through hard work and determination.

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's exactly what everyone should do...but with forethought to other's well-being.

In other words, make sure you success doesn't directly destroy others and make sure your success is shared with others. (Like, creating your own personal scholarship program for you local highschool graduates, etc.)

Originally posted by KidRock
I understand living in a world with a few social programs that are necessary,

I agree here.

Originally posted by KidRock
If I lived in a world where everybody shares everything I would not be too fond of the bum down the street who doesn't work taking advantage and using all the things that I DO have to work for.

Of this, I agree.

However, in that ideal world, there'd be no such thing as a bum, as this bum would work hard to make food for everyone, or clean things, n'stuff.

Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

I'd recommend works by Engels and Marks for everyone to read - it is little off putting because Marx just made up words for things as he went along, but the idea is actually really good - and it is damn shame it cannot work. (or rather at this present stage in our history/evolution, it cannot)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

Originally posted by dadudemon

However, in that ideal world, there'd be no such thing as a bum, as this bum would work hard to make food for everyone, or clean things, n'stuff.

Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Actually yeah, it is. The first thing they taught me in preschool before we emigrated was "those who don't work, don't eat."

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

If you don't contribute to a communist society (with no extenuating circumstances) they either let you starve or they shoot you.

Rand and Marx were comically similar.

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

This is the problem with trying to summarize Communist Manifesto over the internet and in few sentences.

You need to read the whole thing in order to understand what it is in essence.

This is a MORAL problem that you're citing which roots in capitalism - ie, those who have nothing or little need or demand help/money/charity in order to survive in the world where money determanes quality of life.

Bums and leeches are therefore product of capitalism, according to Marx. They're the by product of the essence of capitalism which is to make rich richer, by exploiting the poor.
It is this race for making more money, or making enough money in order to buy tons of things (much of what you don't actually need) that produces people who are refusing to do it.
Lumpen proletariat are also there because of the rich and SERVE to further the cause of the rich.

They're considered ENEMIES of the working class, and anti revolutionaries. Bums are the opposite of ''working'' right? Right.

If the whole world is to live in communist Utopia, as the capitalism disappears and the race for money, so would the bums. So, noone has a boss, and noone is a boss. You work in order to better your life and the life of your community/people.
It is hard to explain unless you actually read the whole thing.

As far as Marx is concerned, the main reasons for crime are the social inequalities produced as the result of capitalism (in earlier stages of our history, Marx states, capitalist essence was channelled through feudalism, dictatorships, hence crime...etc.)

Of course, as you will already know, there are different theories on origins of delinquent behaviour and why it happens - including (regardless of how much you agree or disagree), psychological and biological reasons amongst others.

Therefore, if we follow the communist manifesto, the system which it would create would not produce leeches (as the competition for income would be eliminated), but rather rid of them. Religion would be gone too.

Originally posted by KidRock
Is that really the argument that proponents of communism put forth? That in a true Communist society these leeches to society would not exist? There will ALWAYS be people who choose not to work or don't work hard enough and need to depend on others.

I really am not educated at all on any of this besides what I read on the internet and in a few economics classes I took. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

True communism can never exist with the way humans are now, specifically because of what you mentioned. There will be leeches. Stupid stupid leeches...and...because of people like you. Selfish self serving people. (There's nothing wrong with wanting to provide for you and yours. But, because of that, you are also a reason pure communism cannot exist.)

Edit -
Ahh. I didn't see this beautiful post. She says it much better. 😄

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, Karl Marx goes over this in his works.

The 'bum' we're refering to is called 'Lumpen proletariat' and those, according to Marx are counter revolutionaries, and a drain on society.
They're counter revolutionaries because they advance the cause of bourgeoisies by depending on them to survive, ie begging. They, therefore have no place in communism.

Therefore...In the world where communism has triumphed, there wouldn't be any Lumpen Proletariat or 'bums', because, as counter revolutionaries, they too, with the bourgeoisies, would disappear.

Originally posted by KidRock
I don't live in that world. I live in a world where he who works the hardest, gets the most.

So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

I would disagree, strongly, that they don't work hard. They are some of the most intelligent people in the business world. It's a very stressful job with long hours at times...and very few people can do it, else a shit ton of people would work that job.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In fact the hardest workers in the world are some of the worst paid.

✅

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
So hedge fund managers are hard workers?

There are plenty of people who do nothing more than manipulate money and make a lot

The hardest workers are not always the highest paid

I have to agree with you.

I was a Business Manager for a huge Bank in London, and seriously, considering the pay I was getting - you cannot say that someone working at the factory is fairly paid based on the work they and I did.

I had myself latte from Starbucks few times a day, had a cigarette outside now and again, had my own office where if not too busy, I'd surf the internet, meet with clients now and again - most of them were happy to take me for lunch, and I would give them advice on what to do with their money in their business, and they'd all listen to me...and I advised things which would make ME and the bank rich.

My friends were working in Branches near mine, so they used to come over to my branch, or I used to go over there and leave the assistant manager to deal with complaints...then we'd have lunch or coffee...then I'd come back to my office and do nothing some more till its time for home.
I had all my things ready for deadlines, all my clients happy, but the amout of work I did, you can argue does not justify my wage.

But I got paid two and a half times what a personal banker was paid...and I did jack shit all day every day.
In fact, personal bankers worked twice as hard as me...they were there early in the morning WAY before me. I'd stroll in at 9 or 10am (if Im really hung over from the night before, I'd fake a meeting with a client and come in late)

And don't think for a SECOND your investment bankers and business managers do any different. They don't.
This is the people from whom I learned how I should work - target the richest clients, deal with their money, offer commercial mortgages and the returns would be huge.
Small fishes, middle class small business required no special work. They money they would contribute would have not been worth it (in bank greed terms).

Now compare that to some guy in a factory somewhere working his ass off, his fingers bleeding from manual work, and say that the system we have is fair.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Now compare that to some guy in a factory somewhere working his ass off, his fingers bleeding from manual work, and say that the system we have is fair.

The bleedin' b*tch should have gone to college. 🙂

Harsh!