| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale  High THC Strains  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Depends what you mean by "spending more". More is spent on crumbling school buildings, chairs, leaking roofs. The actual amount spent on the childs education is a tiny fraction of that money. Certainly far, far less than the amount spent on a childs education in a private school. Any teacher wants to find a good salary they go into the private sector not public. Actually, it matters what kind of private school. I remember talking to my public high school teachers about their job-hunting experiences. They said that the public schools paid about twice what the average private school did. But, if you are referring to the super-elite private schools(Phillips Academy in Massachussettes for example), which are rare by the way, then yes, the teachers there are paid very well. Public school teachers(at least the ones in my area), seem to have very good salaries and benefits. But, may I ask, do you see the wisdom of vouchers? They allow students to escape bad public schools, in my opinion. Tell me something, why do you think people would send their kids to private school if they thought you got more spent on your kids education in the middle of Compton? This is going to sound very non-politically correct, but here goes: A community is made up of individuals and it is up to the individuals to contribute to the community that they are a part of. A community is only as good as the people who inhabit it. If the individuals do nothing to make the community nice, the community will then go to hell. No matter how much money the government throws at these schools(where the student body is made up of people who will probably be dead or in prison by the age of 25), it never improves. Why is this? Because, most of the people don't give a shit. No matter how much money you give them, how many neighborhoods you try to rejuvinate, how many public housing projects you have, or how many public service programs you have, they will not do a damn thing because the people they are directed towards don't give a fuck. And, when they receive something that the government gives them, something that they put no effort into obtaining, they don't appreciate it. And, why is this? Because, when you are given something, you will never appreciate it as much as if you had worked to get it. But, even though a lot of our efforts will be fruitless, we need to keep trying. We need to offer opportunities to these disadvantaged kids. We just have to hope that at least some of them will take advantage of it, and do something with their lives. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Actually, it matters what kind of private school.
Sounds like private schools in america are different to private schools in the UK. Are these private schools fundamentalist christian or special catholic private schools? Hiring some redneck to teach that the world is 4000 years old and that God created man in one day? In the UK a private school means perhaps half as many children per class (because they can afford smaller classes) and teachers with far higher salaries than the comprehensive system. A private school in the UK wouldn't attract paying parents if it couldn't prove it was getting the best teachers. how many neighborhoods you try to rejuvinate Not sure in what sense you're using rejuvenate. I come from the north of england which was absolutely devastated by the fundamentalist Thatcher lunatics in the 80's and 90's. The coal industry was destroyed and the people left to rot. Unemployment among the young up around 70 and 80%, constant attacks on welfare, heroin abuse exploding. What the thatcherites term "rejuvenation" is usually allowing some japanese factory to come in and exploit the devastated workers by paying them a pittance instead of a living wage. I don't call that an attempt at rejuvenation - I call it cynically exploiting slave labour. Serious attempts at rejuvenation, based around paying people a living wage, have worked wonders. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Some are christian and/or catholic. Most are just tuition based. Surprisingly, the catholic schools seem to produce the best results. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Actually, it matters what kind of private school. Sounds like private schools in america are different to private schools in the UK. Are these private schools fundamentalist christian or special catholic private schools? Most of the private schools in the U.S. are of a religious nature. There are only three types of kids that go to these places: kids of religious parents, bad kids who have been kicked out of other schools, and kids of modest-income parents who want a "decent private school education". The teachers here are usually not well-paid. But, the students who go to these schools still usually fare better than their public school counterparts. The other type of private school in the U.S. is what is known as a "prep school". These schools are vastly outnumbered by religious and public schools. It is a place for smart kids with money. The teachers here are usually well-paid. It can be disheartening to know that people with money are able to offer their children better educational opportunities than poor people. A few things stand out here though. The public institution that receives ample funds, has no real incentive to do a good job. The private schools that exist solely on their ability to please their customers(the students and their parents), manage to provide a better quality education. Competition offers excellence that is tainted with disparity. Socialism offers equality that is tainted with mediocrity. The U.S.'s public educational system needs to have the benefits of both, while attempting to avoid the problems of both. The only way to ensure that the vast majority of children receive a good education is to make sure that a good quality public educational system exists. Making our educational system work well does not equate to throwing money at it. We have done nothing but spend more and more money on public education and where has it gotten us? Nowhere. We need to make clear cut rewards and punishments for public schools and the students who are in them, so they are more inclined to strive to achieve. Rewards and punishments are the only reason that people do anything, and therefore they would make good incentives for the people involved in the public educational system. how many neighborhoods you try to rejuvinate Not sure in what sense you're using rejuvenate. I come from the north of england which was absolutely devastated by the fundamentalist Thatcher lunatics in the 80's and 90's. The coal industry was destroyed and the people left to rot. Unemployment among the young up around 70 and 80% Although I have said countless times that a controlled capitalism is the best possible economic system, I will acknowledge that in a capitalist economy, some people at times will find themselves in desperate situations. Because of the citizenry's inter-relatedness and inter-dependence on economic issues, a government intervention or an economic occurrence can cause a cascading negative economic effect. Shit happens. It is up to each individual to adapt to, and deal with, the hardships in their lives. Freedom involves some danger, the chance of failure, and possible uncomfortable situations. Serious attempts at rejuvenation, based around paying people a living wage, have worked wonders. I have no problem with attempts at rejuvenation if they are meaningful, logical, and voluntary. But, when you redistribute wealth by force, it is little more than theft. When you guarantee something to someone, and hand it to them for free, you only create a sickening culture of dependency, where the service or good in question is not earned, nor is it appreciated. The state often patronizes the individual when it tries to offer him something or protect him from something. As a citizen who is concerned about the state of my country, I can understand that sometimes it is in the best interest of the country to use public funds to accomplish things of importance. But, in my opinion, America needs to use it's funds much more wisely and frugally. We must be concerned about the general public. But we should never allow ourselves to slide into socialism or communism. There is nothing wrong with gleaning valid points from them and implementing these valid points in our lives, but as a whole these systems of thought are hopelessly flawed, impossible to implement, and an affront to humanity. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!? Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,248 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Nice post RF.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
There are only three types of kids that go to these places:
Ah right randall - that's not what I understand by the term private school. Over here private schools are pretty much totally for rich parents who can afford to give their kids a decent education. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
 Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
A just society would be one based on a egalitarian socialist planned economy.
A socialist society would be based on a more rational economy, and is the only way to liberate the working class and other oppressed peoples. Of course, in order for socialism/communism to work, socialism must spread throughout all parts of the world. This is based on a simple principle, that the working class has no country and that bourgeois governments dont represent them, therefore, all the workers of the world have to unite against the bourgeosie. Furthermore, the matierial resources of the world are what is needed to rapidly industrialize, and satisfy everyone's material needs so that people can work "according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs" as stated in the Communist Manifesto written in 1848. The consequences of "building socialism in one country" are the result of the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam which are deformed workers states with a parasitic stalinist ruling caste on top. "building socialism in one country" in the end means that the country is isolated, and cannot access all the material resources it needs, furthermore it creates a stalinist beaurucracy (secret police..etc) in order to counter imperialist aggression. A deformed workers state simply means a state in which a socialist society exists, however the workers do not have political control, nor do they have workers democracy through workers councils (soviets), which is something that existed in the USSR before the rise of the Stalinist berucracy, which was mainly due to a wave of demoralization that hit the USSR workers after the revolution in Germany in 1923 failed. At times, the stalinist beaurucracy end up having to make concessions to the imperialists so that the country wont be invaded. This is what happened in the USSR, shortly after the October Revolution, the Soviet Union was invaded by imperialist powers such as Britain, Japan, US... This ended when Joseph Stalin made a deal with the imperialists that the USSR would not try to extend the revolution to other countries if the imperialists stopped invading them. This was known as "peaceful co-existance", and is what eventually lead to the counter-revolutionary destruction of the USSR. Hence, Stalinism was a gravedigger of the revolution from its very inception. A socialist society, even in a poor backward country (like Russia) would still get rid of capitalist exploitation and mean enormous gains for oppressed people, even though their material needs would not be met. This is why it is crucial to extend the socialist society worldwide. A planned socialist economy is also more rational in the interests of human needs. Under capitalism, production is basically like business anarchy, which companies trying to put each other out of business, this in the end creates a lot of waste, and means little job security for the workers who toil in the factories. Capitalist production is also done in the interests of profit, and not of human need. For example, if the capitalist figures out that he/she will make more money by producing shoes, then they will produce a large number of shoes, the next day however if its decided that producing poison gas is more profitable, then they will stop producing shoes and make poison gas. Capitalist production is therefore distanced from what is really needed in human society. An egalitarian socialist society does not have to take into account its profits when it produces goods for society, therefore it has more room to manuver to produce what is needed. Furthermore, under capitalism, over-production means that there is too much supply, and no demand, and it means a lost of profits. However, a socialist society would much be in favour of over-production, as it would work to satisfy the needs of the society. This is why communism, is the right way forward to a just, rational, and egalitarian society. Not only would it rid the world of exploitation, but also racism, wars, poverty. It is far from being a utopian ideal fantasyland that wont happen. The Soviet Union showed the world how they were able to rapidly industrialize, as well as use advanced technology, despite the fact that it was a poor backward country when capitalism was first overthrown.
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!   Registered: 02/09/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
|
oh lord, the utopians unite!!!
-------------------- 
America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan  Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
I live in the deep south, I can't imagine how comunisim would help end racism considering the culture that I live in. -------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Oh, God here we go again...I have repeated my arguments against
communism a million times. I guess I will have to do it once more. To all who have seen my arguments about communism, I suggest that you not read this post, because you will just be reduntantly wasting your time. A just society would be one based on a egalitarian socialist planned economy. A just society? In a socialist economy you would be controlling the means of production. You will be controlling what people do, what they own, and how they conduct their lives. This does not sound just to me. You would be controlling people's actions and desires. The only way to do this is to institute a dictatorship. A socialist society would be based on a more rational economy, and is the only way to liberate the working class and other oppressed peoples. The "working class" and "oppressed" that are commonly touted as the "victims" of capitalism enjoy roofs over their heads, food on their tables, and clothes on their backs. Why is this? Because capitalism produces goods and services in a competitive environment, where there is an incentive to provide the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. This translates into an excess of reasonably priced goods and services that are available to the general public. As an economic system, socialism/communism comes nowhere near to the productivity and freedom inherent in a monitored and controlled capitalist economy. Of course, in order for socialism/communism to work, socialism must spread throughout all parts of the world. So you feel as if this ideology should be used to rule all people, even the VAST majority of people in this world, who by the way, do not want to live like this. That is tyranny. This is based on a simple principle, that the working class has no country and that bourgeois governments dont represent them, therefore, all the workers of the world have to unite against the bourgeosie. Ugh...straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto or one of Lenin's "works"(I use that term lightly). Both were unreasonable ideological zealots. Whenever someone is so enthralled by a philosophy, as Marx and Lenin were, they never view reality in an objective manner. Furthermore, the matierial resources of the world are what is needed to rapidly industrialize, and satisfy everyone's material needs so that people can work "according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs" as stated in the Communist Manifesto written in 1848. We live in a world of finite resources. We cannot possibly offer every person on this Earth a high standard of living, because we do not have the resources to do so. There are too many people. Our ideas of "needs" have changed over the years. It used to be that the "needs" that all people should have access to were food and shelter. Now these "needs" that people insist every person has to have include high quality health care, access to free and extensive education, and a myriad of other expensive things. We do not have the resources to do this. And, even if we were capable of doing this, I do not feel it is right to take wealth from somebody who has earned it, and give it to someone who has done nothing to earn it. People won't always work "according to their abilities" and people always won't be content to consume "According to their needs". People have a tendency to be selfish, lazy, and greedy. In order for a controlled economy to work, you need all of the participants doing their part. People will not always do their part. If you were to remove all incentive(which is what happens in a controlled economy where all of the fruits of your efforts are taken away from you), people will have a tendency to not put forth as much of an effort. The only way to enforce a controlled economy is through the use of brutal force and the suppression of human nature. The consequences of "building socialism in one country" are the result of the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam which are deformed workers states with a parasitic stalinist ruling caste on top. Funny isn't it? Planned utopias always devolve into dictatorships. I wonder why..... "building socialism in one country" in the end means that the country is isolated, and cannot access all the material resources it needs, furthermore it creates a stalinist beaurucracy (secret police..etc) in order to counter imperialist aggression. In order to counter "imperialist aggression"? "Imperialist aggression" is a way of saying "any actions by a capitalist country". Ardent communists are so possessed by their ideology and so blind to reality, that they scream when a capitalist country does anything. But when a communist country moves in to "liberate"(a euphemism that actually means "take over by force") another country, and implement a "utopian worker's paradise"(a euphemism that actually means "a strictly controlled society where economic and hence personal freedom is restricted"), they think it is perfectly justified. A deformed workers state simply means a state in which a socialist society exists, however the workers do not have political control, I have yet to see an example of any country that has a completely controlled economy, and that allowed political freedom. The only way to enact and maintain a controlled economy is through strict control that allows no deviation or personal freedom. Any questions and concerns raised by the population are often seen as "counter-revolutionary" and are quickly quashed. A socialist society, even in a poor backward country (like Russia) would still get rid of capitalist exploitation and mean enormous gains for oppressed people, even though their material needs would not be met. Capitalist exploitation would be replaced by economic tyranny. All that you would produce would be taken away from you, with or without your consent. Everyone would be "equal", because every fiber of their being would be controlled. You would be limiting Man's abilities, talents, hopes, dreams, and accomplishments for the sake of an artificial equality. I would rather die. As I said in another post somewhere; Free-market economies(capitalism) and controlled economies(communism) both have positive and negative aspects. Capitalism offers excellence and prosperity that is tainted with disparity. Communism provides equality that is marred by mediocrity and limits on personal freedom. We must learn from both, so that we can implement rules for an economic system that is the most tolerable. This is why it is crucial to extend the socialist society worldwide. If you tried to implement a worldwide socialist society, I and many other people would fight you. A planned socialist economy is also more rational in the interests of human needs. Under capitalism, production is basically like business anarchy, which companies trying to put each other out of business, this in the end creates a lot of waste Admittedly, competition does create waste. But, in order to control an entire economy, it takes a vast bureaucracy. This vast bureaucracy is unwieldy and not efficient. This creates MUCH more waste and inneffiecency than any capitalist economy ever has. means little job security for the workers who toil in the factories. "Anyone who trades freedom for security, deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin Capitalist production is also done in the interests of profit, and not of human need. Profit is an incentive. The only consistent thing that can motivate the average person to action is incentive. That is why communism doesn't work well. You are eliminating the incentive to produce or achieve, because all of the fruits of a person's efforts will be taken away anyway. If the needs of your "fellow humans" concern you, do whatever you want to do in service of them. Just don't force my hand or hijack my resources to do it. Capitalist production is therefore distanced from what is really needed in human society. Not true. If there is a need for something, there will be a demand for it. If there is a demand for something, people are willing to pay money for it. If people are willing to pay money for it, then other people will engage in the manufacturing or offering of this "need". Capitalist production responds to the needs and wants of a society. An egalitarian socialist society does not have to take into account its profits when it produces goods for society, therefore it has more room to manuver to produce what is needed. And they never do produce what is needed because the economic workforce consists of people who have no incentive to work hard. This results in low quality and low production. Furthermore, under capitalism, over-production means that there is too much supply, and no demand, and it means a lost of profits. In a capitalist economy, the loss of profits, and outright economic failure for some people is inevitable. I acknowledge this danger, and choose to live with it. Freedom does not come without peril. This is why communism, is the right way forward to a just, rational, and egalitarian society. Not only would it rid the world of exploitation, but also racism, wars, poverty. Communism is not the answer for Mankind and it never will be. It is too contradictory to human nature. And, the fact that you think that it will magically cure "wars" and "racism" shows how naive you are. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
RandalFlagg,
Contrary to what you believe, you obviously have no understanding of the Russian Revolution, which was a DEMOCRATIC workers uprising, and it LIBERATED the masses. Russia after 1917 was ruled by the soviets (workers councils) on the principles of WORKERS DEMOCRACY, which existed until Stalin upsurped power from the soviets, which happened because of backwardness, poverty, civil war...etc and other conditions, but it was NOT human nature that this was done. Even in the deformed workers states, china, cuba, ...etc the revolutions there that created the workers states LIBERATED the masses, the chinese revolution ended the barbarious torture of footbinding towards women, and freed the chinese from imperialist rape and exploitation, Cuba was liberated from Fugencio Batista, who was a murderous dictator that the US loved and supported. So, there are all these totalitarian (i really dont like that word, it obscures the nature of things) stalinist regimes, where the workers have no control. How did they appear? and how do the workers get rid of them? Well, if you read Leon Trotsky's The revolution betrayed (which i doubt you will) You will see that he describes the beaurcacy that develops, why it develops and how to combat it. Trotsky fought against stalinist betrayal, and for the principles of proletariet internationalism and workers democracy, which in the end costed him his life.. Now, you must think that the workers that live in these workers states hate their governments, while this may be true to a certain extent, look at where the workers are now after captialist restoration in the USSR.... now there are many people homeless, and life expentacy has been cut by half, why do you think the chinese workers are fighting so hard against capitalist restoration? last year there were some 100 000 REPORTED labour disputes in china, which range from workers petitioning their bosses, to workers tying up their bosses and driving them on the back of a pickup truck. You dont think imperialist agression exists? what about when the USA overthrew a democractically elected leader, and replaced him with the murderous Pinochet, who murdered thousands of leftists? But wait...we dont need to look that far back into history....just look at what the US is doing to Iraq right now! Hypocritically they want to remove Saddam Hussein, and are concerned about his supposed weapons of mass destruction.....pure irony, as it was the US and its allies that put him in power, and helped him develop weapons in the first place.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Not sure skik, if you look at the history of black slaves in america when they initially were brought over the biggest problem for the rich landowners was that the poor whites helped them escape and looked after them. It took decades of vicious legislation and propaganda to put racism into the mass of the population. I think it would be possible to get back to that once the capitalist propaganda was dead.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
I've never heard this, could you give me some references. Besides, how was the conditions in Slavery America comparitive to communisim. I don't see the correlation. -------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
So you feel as if this ideology should be used to rule all people
Certainly communism is the system the rich prefer for themselves. Look at the "free trade zones" corporations establish in third world countries. They pay no tax, the taxpayer pays for all the required infrastructure, the governments sole purpose is to care for their welfare. Why not follow the corporate example and let the government care for everyone like they do the corporations. I don't think you'd have many complaints. I certainly don't hear the rich complaining about the communist paradise they live in. We live in a world of finite resources This is about the biggest argument against capitalism that exists. The basic assumption of capitalism is infinite resources, that you can go on destroying the environment forever in pursuit of short-term profit. There is no short-term profit in caring for your environment, caring for the population, the infrastructure. All the things that make life worth living are anathma to the capitalist. This is why it has no long-term future and is guarenteed to completly wreck the planet. Do you think we can continue with the current capitalist economic method for another 1000 years? We'll be lucky if we last 500. People will not always do their part. If you were to remove all incentive All incentive was removed from corporate directors years ago. If they run the company into the ground they are given golden handshakes worth millions just the same. I don't hear the directors complaining that this has made them lazy. Funny isn't it? Planned utopias always devolve into dictatorships. I don't think Stalin ever planned a utopia. Did he ever say anything of the kind? Capitalism offers excellence and prosperity No evidence for this. Look at the poster children of the free market economies - indonesia and argentina. Both in a state of utter collapse and extreme poverty. No prosperity there. Prosperity is based on a lot of other things besides following free market capitalism. is too contradictory to human nature Look at corporate directors, awarding themselves enormous pay rises, insisting the government spends enormous amounts on their welfare. Who wouldn't want to live in a world like that? If you have the money communism is clearly the route you choose. It's time the poor were given the same choice. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Skikid16 fungus fan Registered: 06/27/02 Posts: 5,666 Loc: In the middle of Last seen: 21 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
You can't hire and fire citizens. -------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
As long as you give them a 1 million payoff I don't think they'd mind!
The 'director class' has decided it is entitled to fabulous wealth for doing the job badly Britain's top bosses enjoyed a 28% pay increase last year - six times more than the average wage rise. The executives at the top of the league have made most of their money by cashing in on sophisticated performance-related schemes made up of complicated packages of shares and options - at a time when many of the companies they run are starting to tighten their belts in preparation for an economic downturn. Marconi, the electronics company formerly known as GEC, paid its chief executive Lord Simpson ?1m, even as 10,000 of its employees around the globe lost their jobs. Allen Yurko, who is resigning as chief executive of Invensys, has also made 6,000 staff redundant, but himself earned more than ?800,000. Sir Christopher Gent, the high-profile chief executive of Vodafone, whose pay deals regularly court controversy, earned ?9m, the survey found. He was rewarded the largest year-on-year pay rise - some 400% - of all the executives covered by the research, despite running one of the companies which produced some of the poorest returns for shareholders. The raw numbers are pretty categoric. Over the past 12 months, total shareholder return for our top 100 firms has shrunk by more than a fifth. Profits are falling fast. Headline-making announcements on job cuts this year run to about 50,000 positions. At a macro level, since last summer, overall economic growth has collapsed from 3.1% to 0.3%. The manufacturing sector is already in recession. The outlook is bleak. Corporate agendas are defensive. The talk and action now is of cutting investment, reducing risk, protecting market share. Above all, it is about survival. Mr One Million (and we'll stick to "Mr" since the gender ratio is at 100:1) has patently failed to produce the goods. The crowds are walking away rather than scrambling to get in. Britain's bosses have flunked the one test which is supposed to decide their suitability for high corporate office - performance. The numbers here say performance doesn't really matter - the pay still goes up, exponentially. What we seem to be witnessing is a triumph of boardroom bluff over economic reality, in which a select band of men have decided among themselves that they are entitled to fabulous riches as a reward for doing their job badly. As the rules on companies disclosing how much their top managers take home have been tightened over the past decade, so executives have become increasingly adept at hiding the true extent of their rewards. Opacity rules. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
pinky writes, concerning Communism:
pinky, like all of us, would like to think that reasonable people have the same opinions as ourselves, but his answer in this case is just plain wrong. (Does it seem to you that the average American is concerned about individual rights?  )
The average American, as in just about any society, doesn't give enough thought to these issues to truly draw much of a conclusion (COULD THIS CHANGE???). PinkEchoes hits on it much better: Americans are against Communism because for the past fifty years Americans have been taught that a) the Communists were the bad guys. and b) they wanted to destroy us. Communist Russia was our "enemy du jour" for quite a while. Remember that for a time in the U.S. it was basically illegal to be a communist. I have a strong feeling that the average Soviet during the same time had a similar negative opinion of Capitalism and the U.S. for the same reason. In a way, the belief sort of made it true. Why did we invade Vietnam? Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan? To keep the "enemy" in check so they wouldn't destroy us. Edited by hongomon (12/29/02 01:53 AM)
| |||||||
|
hongomon old hand Registered: 04/14/02 Posts: 910 Loc: comin' at ya Last seen: 22 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Randall writes:
The "victims" of capitalism often have no such thing. Apparently you are using the U.S. as your example, in which case you're mostly right, though homelessness is a pretty big problem here. However, unless the society you're using to make that argument is an isolationist society, it just doesn't add up. Where do they get their resources? Maybe Newton's third law of motion doesn't apply exactly here (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: resources move to supply a certain demand, resources are moved away from another demand), but you said yourself there is a finite amount of (some) resources...so what then?
Ignoring "used to rule" (tyranny in any case), I just want to say that this is much the same attitude reflected in the "grand arena" idea of the US. To put it basically, our lifestyle, our whole economy, works less and less effectively the less of the world and its resources we have access to. Same goes for labor. Face it--over the past (how many years exactly?) we've seen a "war" between two ideologies for control of the world. I agree with you, though: no matter how worthy the intentions, and no matter how benevolent the leader(s), a top-to-bottom installation of any ideology is not the way to go.
Like "ideal" Capitalism, "ideal" Communism actually doesn't want a centralized beaurocracy. Its power is spread through workers' unions, for example. It's actually as founded in democracy as our own system. It also relies as much on the active participation of its constituents, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be an easy task. Look at what's going on in the U.S.: is the Federal Government centralizing power more and more? Why? How is it that they have persuaded us to approve this? And where is this going? (whoops, going a bit off-topic) However, it is true that in the U.S., the government is by far the most wasteful and inefficient component of American society! By the way, Randall, I've appreciated the even-handedness in your posts. hongomon
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Contrary to what you believe, you obviously have no understanding of the Russian Revolution, which was a DEMOCRATIC workers uprising, and it LIBERATED the masses. They liberated themselves from one tyranny only to trade it for another. Russia after 1917 was ruled by the soviets (workers councils) on the principles of WORKERS DEMOCRACY, which existed until Stalin upsurped power from the soviets Things were not all fine and dandy before Stalin took control. Ever hear of the January 18, 1918 incident? On this day, the Bolsheviks fired on a group of pro-democracy demonstrators, because they were "counter-revolutionary". Things which happened because of backwardness, poverty, civil war...etc and other conditions, but it was NOT human nature that this was done. There are many aspects of human nature. The standard human being has the capability of experiencing empathy for his fellow man, but he also has the capability(and proclivity) for extreme selfishness. Selfishness makes people concerned about their own situation more than other people's situations. When people focus on their own situations, disparities will occur. Some people are more capable(because of intelligence, certain skills, or a willingness to put forth effort) of succeeding than others. It is human nature to acquire things. When people make efforts to acquire or produce things, differences and inequalities will arise. This is a natural part of human existence. Even in the deformed workers states, china, cuba, ...etc the revolutions there that created the workers states LIBERATED the masses, It is an oxy-moron to use the word LIBERATED in the same sentence as China and Cuba. the chinese revolution ended the barbarious torture of footbinding towards women, and freed the chinese from imperialist rape and exploitation Only to replace it with the extreme suppression of individual rights, and the torture and imprisonment of large numbers of its own citizens for "disagreeing" with the state. Cuba was liberated from Fugencio Batista, who was a murderous dictator that the US loved and supported. Only to be replaced by another dictator. So, there are all these totalitarian (i really dont like that word, it obscures the nature of things) stalinist regimes, where the workers have no control. The word totalitarian obscures the nature of things? I don't think so. It aptly describes what these regimes are; dictatorships where the citizens enjoy very small amounts of freedom. First of all, there are many different variations of theoretical communism. You seem to be advocating a communist state where the workers all pool their resources, all people receive a basic level of sustenance, and the workers have a democratic voice through worker's councils. You seem to disagree with the concept of totalitarian communist states(as any rational person would). You probably are one of these people who thinks that "real" communism has never been implemented. And, I answer these assertions with my assertions. In a state where the means of production are controlled, and where all resources and representations of effort are taken away from individuals by force and given to the community as a whole, you will experience many many problems. There will be no incentive to achieve because all of your rewards are taken away, therefore(I'm repeating myself here) the system will suffer from low quality and low productivity. You will be dragging everybody down to an equal but low standard of living. People's desire to achieve and innovate will be muzzled. You will control what people produce, what they own, and how they interact economically with their fellow man. No matter how noble the goals of this idea are, you cannot deny that it is a dictatorship. Well, if you read Leon Trotsky's The revolution betrayed (which i doubt you will) You will see that he describes the beaurcacy that develops, why it develops and how to combat it. Trotsky fought against stalinist betrayal, and for the principles of proletariet internationalism and workers democracy, which in the end costed him his life.. Like all social utopians, Trotsky tried his best to come up with a way to implement a fantasy. Real life does not work in the way that he wanted it to. Now, you must think that the workers that live in these workers states hate their governments, while this may be true to a certain extent, look at where the workers are now after captialist restoration in the USSR.... now there are many people homeless, and life expentacy has been cut by half, When going from a strictly controlled economy to a free-economy, there will be many bumps in the road, so to speak. The people are used to a certain way of life, and all of a sudden, a new way of economic interaction is allowed to occur. Of course there are going to be problems. why do you think the chinese workers are fighting so hard against capitalist restoration? In the eyes of the Chinese government, it doesn't matter what the Chinese workers want(isn't that the antithesis of communism? but I digress...). The Chinese government has slowly been instituting capitalist reforms into their economic system, because the higher-ups realized that pure communism DOESN'T WORK. Change, even when it is for the better, is often painful. You dont think imperialist agression exists? You could list a million things that the U.S. has done wrong in it's foreign policy, and you would probably be 90% accurate. I could list a million atrocities and aggressions by communist countries and I would probably be 100% accurate. Imperialism and aggression are not confined to capitalist countries. These traits are inherent in Man because Man seems to have a penchant for acquiring and conquering. No matter what kind of government Man lives under, He will always have ambitions for territory and resources. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
So you feel as if this ideology should be used to rule all people Look at the "free trade zones" corporations establish in third world countries. I have said numerous times that pure capitalism(a free market economy with no controls) is not desirable. In order for a controlled capitalist economy to function and to avoid causing excess harm to the environment and to the population as a whole, logical regulations need to exist. I personally think it is wrong to operate in third world countries, where the population is unable or unwilling to institute regulations on the economic behavior that is allowed to occur. Why not follow the corporate example and let the government care for everyone like they do the corporations. An unfortunate byproduct of a democratic nation with a controlled capitalist economy, is that our representatives need money in order to reach voters. Candidates with more money are able to get more exposure, and hence have a greater probability for election. Candidates get their money from donors. It stands to reason that an elected official will pay more attention to a substantial donor's interests. To put it bluntly, this is bribery. We need to seriously address this. I might be willing to agree with publicly funded campaigns(haha! How ironic, this would involve making the political funding system equal and controlled i.e. communist). This is a terribly complex issue that deserves it's own thread. We live in a world of finite resources This is about the biggest argument against capitalism that exists. The basic assumption of capitalism is infinite resource Of pure capitalism, yes. Of controlled capitalism, no. that you can go on destroying the environment forever in pursuit of short-term profit. There is no short-term profit in caring for your environment, caring for the population, the infrastructure. The Soviets were communist and they didn't give a shit about their environment. If everything is owned by the state, including land, what personal incentive is there to protect it? When we have something that is OURS, we are more likely to care for it. When something is NOT OURS, or it is owned communally, we are more likely not to care for it as much. America has laws in place that protect the environment, and we have the capability to institute more. Corporations are powerful, but so are environmental groups. So, environmental concerns are not ignored by lawmakers. Capitalism is not destroying the environment. People are. There are too many people on this world, who are all demanding high standards of living. The amount of resources that this takes is astronomical, and the harvesting, manufacture, and distribution of these resources causes terrible environmental damage. All the things that make life worth living are anathma to the capitalist. I would argue the exact opposite. All things that make life worth living(freedom, ability to strive, personal responsibility, etc..) are anathema to the communist. Do you think we can continue with the current capitalist economic method for another 1000 years? We'll be lucky if we last 500. Never mind capitalism. The human race, no matter what ways of life it tries to subscribe to, is probably doomed. There are too many people. We put too much strain on the world by consuming too much. We are inherently violent. And, we have the technological ability to destroy the world many times over. This is not a good combination. People will not always do their part. If you were to remove all incentive All incentive was removed from corporate directors years ago. If they run the company into the ground they are given golden handshakes worth millions just the same. I don't hear the directors complaining that this has made them lazy. And, the free market will correct this. These overpaid people who ran companies poorly(or fraudulently) will be gotten rid of, because they didn't do a good job. Funny isn't it? Planned utopias always devolve into dictatorships. I don't think Stalin ever planned a utopia. Did he ever say anything of the kind? From all that I have seen and read, it appears as if Stalin seemed more concerned with personal power than with the welfare of his citizens. But, that proves my point beautifully. People are not always going to act in the best interests of the community. They will often act selfishly. A creature as flawed as Man cannot be relied on to consistently care for his fellow human beings. That is why communism defies human nature. Capitalism offers excellence and prosperity No evidence for this. No evidence for this??? Look at America. We enjoy a high standard of living, in comparison to much of the world. Economic freedom allows people the ability(if they choose to take advantage of it) to pursue and achieve pretty much whatever they want. When people are constantly striving and competing, excellence is often touched upon or obtained. Look at the poster children of the free market economies - indonesia and argentina. Both in a state of utter collapse and extreme poverty. No prosperity there. Prosperity is based on a lot of other things besides following free market capitalism. Squalid third world hell-holes have been the way they are for a long time. When you have been in a mode of life for a long time, it can be difficult to escape it. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale High THC Strains Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
6,232 | 132 | 11/18/05 09:09 PM by bukkake |
|
|
marxism. ( 1 2 all ) |
 Anonymous |
3,111 | 37 | 02/04/04 07:53 PM by Tao |
|
|
Communism / socialism ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 overgrower |
5,462 | 58 | 12/18/04 08:04 AM by vampirism |
|
 |
Artificial Desire ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Sclorch |
3,634 | 48 | 01/08/04 10:56 PM by phreakyzen |
|
 |
Karl Marx was wrong ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
Sclorch |
8,553 | 122 | 08/17/03 05:43 PM by d33p |
|
|
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism | lonestar2004 |
1,356 | 10 | 07/28/06 01:40 PM by Vvellum |
|
|
communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state | Anonymous |
1,488 | 12 | 08/31/03 02:35 AM by Malachi |
|
|
Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas |  TrueBrode |
833 | 10 | 11/07/03 04:43 AM by zeronio |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 16,207 topic views. 4 members, 10 guests and 51 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||