Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that’s not at all accurate .... you have confused free market capitalism with the Globalist distortion of “crony capitalism”. Free market capitalism does not exist in an environment where the “capital” is controlled by a small private group of Globalist parasites who determine the winners and losers by controlling the flow, availability and cost of capital. In that regard, crony capitalism is just another veiled version of communism, because the cronies direct and controll economic activity from their centralized controll centers.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Or as I often say, a capitalist has no nation, he has no people, he has no culture, he has no language, he has no religion. A capitalist is anything and everything, so long as it will make him money.
Think of the "capitalist class" in America. People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg; In what distorted reality are any of these people Americans?
For that matter, the people who whine about high taxes, what is the claim? That if taxes get too high, businesses will just leave the country/state.
The only reason a corporation pretends to care at all about the city/state/country they are in, is because it benefits them. A sports team from Seattle will pretend to be part of the community, and to love the people. But it will jump to another state the moment it can make more money, where it will make the same claims.
Not only does capitalism have no attachment to anything but money, it is effectively impossible for a capitalist to care about anything but money. "The system" is all about competition, so you must do whatever gives you the greatest economic-advantage. Thus it is fundamentally illegal for a corporation to do anything but exploit as best it can, and to be as ruthless as possible. If it doesn't, it will be out-competed by another corporation who will.
I am not an advocate of socialism by any means, but you have a completely naive and delusional understanding of what capitalism is and why it exists.
You cannot have the modern world without capitalism. But if you think the "New World Order" has nothing to do with capitalism, you're a fool. And your conception of capitalism as a bunch of small farmers and mom-and-pop stores, while noble, has basically never been real, and it will never be real. Because the reason capitalism exists, is for money, power, hegemony, etc.
Capitalism wasn't created by "the people". It was created by the government, encouraged by the government, and protected by the government, for the benefit of the government. And the history of capitalism goes back long before the United States or modern democracy, to the days of absolute monarchs, empires, etc.
With that said, I would gladly be a supporter of Jefferson's small-scale free-market economy, but I am not stupid enough to think it will ever happen.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-16-2018 at 08:52 AM..
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Or as I often say, a capitalist has no nation, he has no people, he has no culture, he has no language, he has no religion. A capitalist is anything and everything, so long as it will make him money.
Think of the "capitalist class" in America. People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg; In what distorted reality are any of these people Americans?
For that matter, the people who whine about high taxes, what is the claim? That if taxes get too high, businesses will just leave the country/state.
The only reason a corporation pretends to care at all about the city/state/country they are in, is because it benefits them. A sports team from Seattle will pretend to be part of the community, and to love the people. But it will jump to another state the moment it can make more money, where it will make the same claims.
Not only does capitalism have no attachment to anything but money, it is effectively impossible for a capitalist to care about anything but money. "The system" is all about competition, so you must do whatever gives you the greatest economic-advantage. Thus it is fundamentally illegal for a corporation to do anything but exploit as best it can, and to be as ruthless as possible. If it doesn't, it will be out-competed by another corporation who will.
I am not an advocate of socialism by any means, but you have a completely naive and delusional understanding of what capitalism is and why it exists.
You cannot have the modern world without capitalism. But if you think the "New World Order" has nothing to do with capitalism, you're a fool. And your conception of capitalism as a bunch of small farmers and mom-and-pop stores, while noble, has basically never been real, and it will never be real. Because the reason capitalism exists, is for money, power, hegemony, etc.
Capitalism wasn't created by "the people". It was created by the government, encouraged by the government, and protected by the government, for the benefit of the government. And the history of capitalism goes back long before the United States or modern democracy, to the days of absolute monarchs, empires, etc.
With that said, I would gladly be a supporter of Jefferson's small-scale free-market economy, but I am not stupid enough to think it will ever happen.
Anyways you have a serious misunderstanding about how capital works and who it belongs to. Private property is not universal, personal property. Into forms that exist as capital you have direct influence over (the house you live in, your toothbrush, etc.) and then for public capital it is based on usage. The duration someone is operating capital is the extent of their claim on that capital, no legal state apparatus can force ownership of something of one man who does not operate that capital at all and protect it with the threat of violence.
You're rambling, and I don't think you read a single thing I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The ownership of the capital lays in the hands of those that operate it, not those that claim ownership of something they don’t operate under. If you have 10 workers operating in a factory, they have claims on ownership and no private capitalist can control these means. Someone could bribe them to do as they see, but the power will always be retained at the bottom. If you give undue power to those who can’t operate by it, you lead to tyranny.
You are spouting too much rhetoric. And I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying.
To have a factory, someone has to own it. It seems you want the workers to own it. But to improve it, requires an investment. And to have an investment, requires an expectation of a return on investment. How many years before an investment should yield a return? And what happens if you make an investment as a worker then you quit working at that factory, or die? What happens to your share? Does the new guy get all your benefits even though he did/paid nothing? Do you retain your share?
If all the workers across society share the entire pool, then what if you invest in improvements to your factory, but the other factory doesn't? Should you all get the same-sized share?
I think what you're imagining could work if applied to a family, especially in small-scale or traditional industries. But thinking you could build an interstate-highway system, or a company with more than a few dozen employees, is just nonsense.
Civilization means authority and hierarchy. Without authority and hierarchy, we would be bands of villages and tribes.
We can debate whether your proposal is "good", but it simply isn't realistic. There is a reason every anarcho-syndicalist attempt was utterly crushed by "states". Anarchy is small-scale, and doesn't have the kind of organization to go up against an organized/hierarchical/authoritarian force like the Soviet Union or the United States.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-16-2018 at 09:30 AM..
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Or as I often say, a capitalist has no nation, he has no people, he has no culture, he has no language, he has no religion. A capitalist is anything and everything, so long as it will make him money.
Think of the "capitalist class" in America. People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg; In what distorted reality are any of these people Americans?
For that matter, the people who whine about high taxes, what is the claim? That if taxes get too high, businesses will just leave the country/state.
The only reason a corporation pretends to care at all about the city/state/country they are in, is because it benefits them. A sports team from Seattle will pretend to be part of the community, and to love the people. But it will jump to another state the moment it can make more money, where it will make the same claims.
Not only does capitalism have no attachment to anything but money, it is effectively impossible for a capitalist to care about anything but money. "The system" is all about competition, so you must do whatever gives you the greatest economic-advantage. Thus it is fundamentally illegal for a corporation to do anything but exploit as best it can, and to be as ruthless as possible. If it doesn't, it will be out-competed by another corporation who will.
I am not an advocate of socialism by any means, but you have a completely naive and delusional understanding of what capitalism is and why it exists.
You cannot have the modern world without capitalism. But if you think the "New World Order" has nothing to do with capitalism, you're a fool. And your conception of capitalism as a bunch of small farmers and mom-and-pop stores, while noble, has basically never been real, and it will never be real. Because the reason capitalism exists, is for money, power, hegemony, etc.
Capitalism wasn't created by "the people". It was created by the government, encouraged by the government, and protected by the government, for the benefit of the government. And the history of capitalism goes back long before the United States or modern democracy, to the days of absolute monarchs, empires, etc.
With that said, I would gladly be a supporter of Jefferson's small-scale free-market economy, but I am not stupid enough to think it will ever happen.
Socialism has existed for far longer than capitalism. It was the basis of human evolution.
You're rambling, and I don't think you read a single thing I said.
You are spouting too much rhetoric. And I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying.
To have a factory, someone has to own it. It seems you want the workers to own it. But to improve it, requires an investment. And to have an investment, requires an expectation of a return on investment. How many years before an investment should yield a return? And what happens if you make an investment as a worker then you quit working at that factory, or die? What happens to your share? Does the new guy get all your benefits even though he did/paid nothing? Do you retain your share?
If all the workers across society share the entire pool, then what if you invest in improvements to your factory, but the other factory doesn't? Should you all get the same-sized share?
I think what you're imagining could work if applied to a family, especially in small-scale or traditional industries. But thinking you could build an interstate-highway system, or a company with more than a few dozen employees, is just nonsense.
Civilization means authority and hierarchy. Without authority and hierarchy, we would be bands of villages and tribes.
We can debate whether your proposal is "good", but it simply isn't realistic. There is a reason every anarcho-syndicalist attempt was utterly crushed by "states". Anarchy is small-scale, and doesn't have the kind of organization to go up against an organized/hierarchical/authoritarian force like the Soviet Union or the United States.
1. I did read your post
2. Public ownership and usage are two parts of a whole. Yes a factory (as an example, there are other workplaces) may operate for the common wealth of the community, but its ownership and utilization are limited by the persons who operate it and the regulations applied by any syndicate said union may be a part of. One work place does not have authority over another, so I don't understand the point you're making about all labors getting the same sized share.
For example one workplace that is improved or invested in has no direct bearing on the other being as those workers who operate in the other production center don't have a say in the newly invested one. Everything is public but usage determines control.
As for investment, the forms of expansion you're talking about do not pertain exclusively to market demands. Investment to increase capacity are done with the intention of meeting some profit margin or simply to form some cost reductive environment. Either way, actual improvements on the technological aspects of production are handled through supply chains and shared information. You mistakenly believe that socialism, even local socialism is tribal in nature; it's not. There still would remain most of the state and corporate apparatus that exists today (network of firefighters, geographic mapping, supply chains etc.) but they would be structured horizontally rather than top down.
In the case of current standards, most private and state powers are derived from local functions. Each corporate structure is a network of different offices/production centers (along with different domestic and international relations) while different government departments are formed by a connectivity between separate regional organizations. These connections would remain, but conversely their powers would be derived independently within each connection and the institutions that connect them would be decentralized and handled through some form of direct democracy. Economic institutions (which exist similarly to state power) would also be connected via syndicates (guild system) but the organization wouldn't be handled by one concentration of wealth, as to make sure local production and shared technologies are not designed to benefit one person or a group of people (as our current system is modeled).
3. As for authority and Hierarchy, I discussed this in some other thread. Authority on some certain means of production still exist within some people over others, and some levels of hierarchy that help organize towns and communities would be needed, but their power would be derived from the bottom up. Most hierarchical structures are unnecessary as they exist today, but if some are deemed to have a proper function, they must operate on mutual agreement, along with some forms of checks and balances.
Ownership shares in a company are different than they are in the capitalist model. Rather than the capital itself being sold and distributed like a commodity, mutual ownership means everyone has a say in production, much like the democratic means that exist within political systems today.
4. Socialist societies that aren't destroyed by the state do so by gaining international popularity. Look at the Kurds or the Zapatistas. Both were attempting to be destroyed by the relevant state (Turkey, Syria, Mexico), but they survived on international support. That is the nature of socialism, it is not simply a local movement, but a global one.
As for implementation, it would be a disaster if it happened all at once here. More logically what would have to happen is for worker cooperative and non-state or private economic activity to take up larger shares of capital movement in this country until the point that eventually the need for the welfare state and corporate investment subside.
I have nothing against you personally, but your first response to my post was unnecessarily aggressive without any context to what I was promoting.
Not surprising that many still think civilization did not form outside of state or corporate influence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
