| 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:  Cultivation Supplies  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Does this mean that 'every corporate director in America disagrees' with me? NO.
There's no subject on earth that "everyone" agrees on. Enough agree on it to make it an enormous part of government policy and there is absolutely no sign whatsoever of the system changing. Ok? An opinion based on historical evidence of government interference in the economy Strange, you've made many posts saying how successful the western system is - a system based heavily on corporate welfare. Which position are you adopting? There are quite a few expressing their distaste, you just don't listen. Sources please. Directors of large corporations who have been offered welfare and turned it down. One will do.... It is an argument In your opinion. it must take a dollar from another person That's kinda why we all pay tax and national insurance. I may need it, I may not. If i do need it, it's there for me. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I thought I explained to you completely about the withering away of the state. Guess you didnt understand it. Once there is a classless society, and the state withers away (that does not mean there is no government, just that its functions are strictly administrative), the state changes its role from surpression to administrative. By this point it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to exploit a group of people as the people living under that society would not allow it to happen. I should say that hypothetical questions are not really useful, however I am using this information as an explanation. These hypothetical situations are not useful?? How can you say that? These questions and hypothetical situations address possible problems with communism. They are valid concerns. Once the state is purely adminstrative, and is not acting to suppress anybody, you say that it would be impossible for anybody to exploit anybody else. How do you know that all feelings of selfishness will have been erased from mankind? How can you predict that people will not again have desires to engage in selfishness, economic trade, speculation, or outright capitalism? It sounds as if you are saying that after the withering away of the suppressive power of the state, that the people will be the ones to enforce the communist ideal. What if certain members of the commune decide they don't want to do that? What if unsupervised trade and resource collecting begins to occur? It is human nature to acquire. It is definately a part of human nature to be selfish, as your examples of "corporate" and "imperialist" action clearly show. How can you be sure that all people who live in these communes, will follow the ideology properly? When I say that socialism must spread to the world, I am NOT, and I repeat NOT (I think ive made this clear in numerous posts) talking about invasion! After the working class revolution in the USSR, workers of the world looked to it as an example and there were many attempts by other workers to follow the same path. This is the way trotskyists look to in order to "spread the revolution", by democratic means, not military. *Sigh*...how many times do I have to say this. Read Carefully: Some people(even members of the proletariat) will not want to live under a communist economy. What is your opinion of these people? Will you leave them alone, and let them dictate their own economic actions? Or will you force them to partake in your controlled economy? Would you relocate them to their own "reservation" or something? How many fucking times do I have to ask these questions before you will actually answer them? Please don't answer my questions with vague paragraphs that do not actually address my concerns. I have stated my questions in a very easy-to-understand format. Please ADEQUATELY answer my questions in an easy-to-understand format. I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN: Please read and address my former questions (questions 2a, 2b, 2c, and 3a), in a concise and adequate manner. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Corporations provide things(products, employment) Sure they provide "things". Whether they are of any benefit to anyone except the corporation themselves is another matter. A corporation provides services or products that people either need or want. That benefits the general population, because the corporation is providing things that the public demands. And, when they provide these things, they create economic opportunity for the general population by offering jobs. People on welfare create nothing Nonsense. Certainly almost every creative artist, musican, writer and actor in the world has spent long periods on welfare. When I say nothing, I mean people on welfare do not produce enough to meet their basic physical requirements. Which means the tax-payers have to subsidize their living expenses, against my will I might add. If people want to create art, music, or literature, that's great. Just don't ask me to pay their bills for them, because they are unwilling to provide for themselves. And before we even address welfare for the poor we need to end corporate welfare which is many times the budget. As far as your "corporate welfare" argument, I can agree with you in a certain sense. I don't think that money should be given to anybody or any organization for doing nothing, whether it is an individual or a corporation. I can think of nothing more nightmarish than a world where people are working slave labour jobs from 14 to 75. Yeah. That's why living in communist Russia must have sucked. Can I ask you the following question? You repeatedly stress that the American poor do not have access to the things they need in order to survive. Yet do you realize that most poor people have a roof over their head, a car, a television, and ample food(why are the obesity rates among America's poor so high?). Because of the high productivity of a capitalist economy, the market is glutted with products, which makes many things readily available, including things that are necessary for survival(food, shelter, etc..). And many people on welfare have health problems and need assistance from us. There is a difference between offering public assistance to a disabled person, and somebody who just doesn't feel like working or working hard. Please pay attention to the following statement: A democratic government is pretty simple concept. The people vote in their representatives. These representatives put into action the will of the people, and if the representatives fuck up, the people have a right to replace them. The people have a right to elect representatives who have promised to implement certain programs. A program is when you take tax money, that is from the tax-payers, and use it to try to accomplish something or solve a problem. We as citizens have to decide how much the public should be taxed, and where that money should go. If you are interested in throwing money at people who are handicapped, I can admire that. If you are interested in throwing money at people who are perfectly capable, but for reasons of laziness and ineptness do not support themselves, then you will do nothing but feed their dependency and discourage them from making an attempt to support themselves. I guess the only way you can clear up my questions is to tell me what kind of government you want, what kind of economy you want, how the citizenry will be taxed, and how the tax money will be spent. They are parasites. That sounds like a line from mein kampf. They are human beings. Actually, Nazi stands for National Socialism....but I digress. Whenever someone is incapable of supporting themselves, and they take resources away from productive people, they could fit the term of parasite. I am willing to use some of my resources to support people who are genuinely incapable of supporting themselves(the mentally retarded for example). But, should I be forced to give money to people who are of sound mind, and because of their own choices they have put themselves in certain situations where they do not have extensive resources available to them? No, I don't think so. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
So you are admitting that your previous statement was in error. Thank you, this is a first.
Never did I take any position in support of corporate welfare. Please provide the link to a post where I have made any statements in support of this. I have made posts in support of the free-market, corporate welfare is in opposition to the free market.
Expressing distaste doesn't mean they were offered coporate welfare. I don't think it likely that the government offers corporations welfare without them first seeking it out, either individually, as trade groups or through unions. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation CEO TJ Rodgers is a free-market advocate. Here's the proof check, out this link... Declaration of Independence: End Corporate Welfare by T.J. Rodgers
As usual, you are evading. Here is your original statement, "I think we could raise everyones standard of living enormously by taking welfare from those who don't need it and giving it to those who do." You have not explained how taking money from an individual will cause his standard of living to be raised. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
The following is copied from the appendix to full text version of T.J. Rodgers' testimony which I gave a link to. All the corporate executives listed have signed on to Mr. Rodgers' document in support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: END CORPORATE WELFARE The high taxes that our company and its employees pay to support the current local-state-federal government tax burden of 35% of GDP hurts our economy more than any possible corporate benefit from government spending. If an independent commission similar to the military base-closing commission identified a fair and substantial government spending cut in the area of so-called "corporate welfare," I would support that cut, even if it meant funding cuts to my own company. _______________________________________________ Jerry Sanders, CEO, Advanced Micro Devices __________________________________________ AlexBalkanski, CEO, C-Cube Microsystems __________________________________________ Len Perham, CEO, IDT __________________________________________ Jack Gifford, CEO, Maxim Integrated Products __________________________________________ Rodney Smith, CEO, Altera __________________________________________ T. J. Rodgers, CEO Cypress Semiconductor __________________________________________ Wilf Corrigan, CEO, LSI Logic __________________________________________ John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins , Caufield & Byers John East, CEO, Actel Corporation Richard Previtt, President, Advanced Micro Devices Duane J. Roth, Chairman, President, & CEO, Alliance Pharmaceutical Corporation Chuck K. Chan, General Partner, Alpine Technology Ventures James C. Morgan, Chairman & CEO, Applied Materials, Inc. Gene R. Miller, President, Astec Semiconductor Jess R. Marzak, Managing Director, BankAmerica Ventures Robert G. Barrett, Managing Partner, Battery Ventures Charles Crocker, Chairman, President, & CEO, BEI Electronics Inc. Don Bell, CEO, Bell Microproducts Bruce Dunlevie, General Partner, Benchmark Capital Edward M. Leonard, Partner, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP Joe Costello, President, Cadence Design Systems Michael L. Hackworth, President & CEO, Cirrus Logic Ted Buttner, President & CEO, Coastcom Mark B. Hoffman, CEO, Commerce One Ray Latham, CEO, Computer Graphics Systems Thomas Van Overbeck, CEO, Cornerstone Imaging Fred Bialek, Director, Cypress Semiconductor Ken Virnig, President, Devine and Virnig, Inc. John Mullen, President and CEO, Dynamic Network Solutions, Inc. M. Kenneth Oshman, CEO, Echelon Corporation Curt Wozniak, CEO, Electroglas, Inc. Norbert Laengrich, CEO, Embedded Performance, Inc. Paul Rogan, President, Equipe Technologies William L. Harry, CEO, Exclusive Design Company Jack F. Nicholson, Managing Partner, Fell & Nicholson Technology Resources Thomas W. Ford, Managing Partner, Ford Land Company Allen Batts, President & CEO, Hello Direct Herman Miller, President & CEO, INET Corporation Samuel D. Colella, General Partner, Institutional Venture Partners Scott Cook, Chairman, Intuit Jim Hawkins, President & CEO, Invivo Corporation Floyd Kvamme, Partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers Stephen R. Knott, Chairman of the Board, Knott?s Berry Farm Michael Troy, CEO, KnowledgePoint Bob Swanson, CEO, Linear Technology John Blokker, President & CEO, Luxcom Del W. Masters, President, Maxstrat Corporation Dubose Montgomery, Managing Director & General Partner, Menlo Ventures Frank DeRemer, President, MetaWare, Inc. Gale Aguilar, President, Mitem Corporation Thomas W. Weisel, Chairman & CEO, Montgomery Securities Robert White, Principal, Montgomery Securities George Still, Partner, Norwest Venture Capital Richard Hill, CEO, Novellus Systems Robert Cohn, Chairman & CEO,Octel Communications Herbert M. Dwight, President & CEO, Optical Coating Laboratory Bryan Sheets, Principal, Paul Capital Partners John M. Richards, Chairman & CEO, Potlatch Corporation Jim Ashbrook, Chairman of the Board, Prism Solutions, Inc. Dado Banatao, Chairman, S3 Incorporated S.S. Fishman, President, Sara Scientific Co. Al Shugart, Chairman, CEO, & President, Seagate Technology Pierre Lamond, Partner, Sequoia Capital James V. Diller, Chairman & CEO, Sierra Semiconductor John A. Sobrato, General Partner, Sobrato Development Companies Garrett A. Garrettson, President & CEO, Spectran Robert M. Stafford, President, Stafford Capital Management Tom Stemberg, Chairman & CEO, Staples Scott McNealy, CEO, Sun Microsystems Robert L. Tillman, President & CEO, Sunshine Medical Instruments, Inc. Larry Israel, CEO, Telesensory Corporation Burton J. McMurtry, Venture Capitalist Lou Tomasetta, President & CEO, Vitesse Semiconductor Michael McCarthy, President and CEO, Web Publishing, Inc. Ronald Swenson, Partner, Western Technology Investment J. Emmett Hammond, President, Wireless Data Corporation Bernard Vonderschmitt, Chairman, Xilinx, Inc. William H. Welling, CEO, Xiox Corporation Phillips Smith, CEO, Zycad Corporation -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/19/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
(re MacDonald's) Really? I thought they recieved half a million through the Agriculture Department's Market Promotion Program which paid for their overseas advertising? I find it hard to believe MacDonald's would need any government money at all to add to their advertising budget. However, rather than ask you to cite a source, let's presume you are correct. Scratch MacDonald's from my list, then. Does your source tell you how much Burger King, Wendy's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Arby's, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, SubWay et al received through the same government program, or was it just MacDonald's? I assume if a credible source was able to provide a figure as specific as half a million for MacDonald's, it would also list how much each of these other fast-food giants received. Your claim is that corporations need government assistance to be successful. That may be true in England or Germany or Sweden, but as Evolving pointed out, the majority of US corporations receive no government assistance at all. Not to mention tax credits for low paid workers? EVERYBODY in the US gets tax credits for SOMETHING. Besides, allowing a corporation to keep some of the money it makes rather than taxing ALL of it away is not welfare. Wait a minute, you are saying the ones who recieve the corporate welfare are the baddies, and yet those who don't recieve any want the government to save them from cheaper producers? What do you want? Make your mind up. Hmm... better than the usual caliber of your attempts to sidestep the point, but still mediocre in absolute terms. The villain in this case is neither the corporation that receives "welfare" nor the corporation that has yet to receive "welfare" but desires to... the villain is the government for using tax money to subsidize corporations. There are corporations who would never think of applying for government assistance, but if a new government program drops some money in their lap, I don't find it surprising that they would keep it. It would at least partially offset their tax burden. Having a government bail you out with massive amounts of welfare whenever you get in trouble is great. I just wish it was applied for everyone and not just the rich. First of all, government bailouts are not equivalent to Communism, which is why I was surprised a master of Marxist theory such as Eric let that whopper slide by for so long. Secondly, on a percentage basis, far more businesses are allowed to die by the US government than private citizens are allowed to starve to death. How many airlines have gone down the tubes in the last decade in the US with no "bailout" from Big Daddy? How many dotcoms? The Chrysler bailout was the exception, not the rule. The poor are kept alive, the businessmen take their chances. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/19/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex123 writes:
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. Could you please explain to us how Thatcher and her government were able to end the demand for coal? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Wow, now you sound like a police interrogator or something.
I could ask you similar questions about capitalism, of course your answer to those who refuse to live under the system is to either "starve or die" right? Working class conciousness differ from time to time, and a workers revolution would NOT happen without the popular support of the working class, so to answer your question, if the workers are hostile to socialism, then there will be no revolution. Its that simple really. However, people who are part of a revolutionary party, it is the job of those people to keep up the struggle, maintain the party, and continue polemicizing against the current system. This is the party with the capibility of educating the working class its historic defeats, victories, its tasks, and which direction it must go for its own emacipation. So whether or not the working class is revolutionary at the current time, has nothing to do with the activities of the party, they will stick to their principles and continue polemicizing until the time is ripe for a workers uprising. In regards to your question about the state withering away, again you fail to understand why it is impossible for capitalism to be "re-implemented" once that high stage is completed. By this time, (called the highest stage of communism) when the state has withered away, the poplulation can work "according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs", all this implies that there is an economic surplus and everyones basic needs are satisfied. By this time it is no longer possible to exploit workers, regardless of how selfish anyone is. It would be like Mcdonalds deciding to charge $45.00 for a hamburger tommorow, because its owner is "too selfish", could that plan suceed for the selfish owners? I think not.
| |||||||
|
Zimzum old wanker  Registered: 04/17/99 Posts: 165 Loc: Sweden Last seen: 22 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
This sound a bit more like religion than politics.... Why is there a name for stage III (or IV) before you've made stage I work. It seems to me that every attempt to test communism in a large scale has turned out bad (...with humans not ants), so why are you so enthusiastic about it. Z
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/19/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Eric writes:
I could ask you similar questions about capitalism, of course your answer to those who refuse to live under the system... What system? In Capitalism there IS no system. Anyone is free to live however he chooses as long as he doesn't fuck with anyone else... and the sole purpose of The State is to ensure that no one is fucked with. People are free to form mini-Communes (or even maxi-Communes) if that is their wish. They are free to produce all their own stuff, to keep all the stuff they make or to trade it with others. No one exploits anyone... all transactions between individuals are accomplished voluntarily. If some one is particularly successful and wishes to give away some (or even all) of his stuff to others, no one will stop him. ... is to either "starve or die" right? Or to work and get fat. Working class conciousness differ from time to time, and a workers revolution would NOT happen without the popular support of the working class, so to answer your question, if the workers are hostile to socialism, then there will be no revolution. Its that simple really. How many of the workers need to be hostile to Socialism in order to prevent their fellow workers from stealing stuff? Fifty per cent? Forty per cent? Thirty per cent? By this time, (called the highest stage of communism) when the state has withered away, the poplulation can work "according to their abilities" and recieve "according to their needs"... Yes, in theory, they could choose to work according to their ability. The question is, will they? Historically the answer has been no, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that has always been the case and why it always will be the case -- it's because Communism penalizes ability and rewards need. It's a lot easier (and safer) to be one of the needy than one of the able, so all attempts at implementing Communism inevitably end up composed of incompetent needy. ...all this implies that there is an economic surplus and everyones basic needs are satisfied. And how do incompetent needy folks manage to produce an economic surplus? What the hell is an "economic surplus", anyway? In the attempts we have seen at Communism to date, apparently a surplus is anything more than a two-room shed for three families living together, a change of socks and underwear, and a refrigerator that works most of the time. By this time it is no longer possible to exploit workers, regardless of how selfish anyone is. It is already impossible to exploit workers in Western Society today without resorting to force or fraud, regardless of how selfish anyone is. Employment offers are not equivalent to indentured slavery. It would be like Mcdonalds deciding to charge $45.00 for a hamburger tommorow, because its owner is "too selfish", could that plan suceed for the selfish owners? I think not. Huh? Could you elaborate on that? pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 18 years, 19 days |
| ||||||
Business OWNERS take their chances, that is true, but corporate executives do not. Executives are not individually liable for their companies' debts. Many corporate executives have run their corporations into the ground and been very handsomely rewarded for it in the process.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/19/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
Many corporate executives have run their corporations into the ground and been very handsomely rewarded for it in the process. Sadly, this is true. I've never understood how someone who has exhibited publicly such massive incompetence is able to persuade others to let him do it all over again with THEIR company. It sure didn't work that way with the corporation I worked for in Canada. In the five years I was there they let go two CEOs, even though each of them had consistently overachieved (not by much, admittedly, but still...) the corporate targets. The guy in charge when I left really WAS excellent, though. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Eric journeyman Registered: 12/28/02 Posts: 61 Last seen: 22 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I know that paragraph sounds utopian without explaining the basis for it, but i did explain that in my previous posts to RandalFlag and was just further clarifying his questions.
Marxism is not utopian, nor is it a religion, it is the ONLY way to end the capitalist system which is based on the exploitation of workers in the interests of a rich minority. A workers revolution is the only way to bring about this system, and destroy the world imperialist system from the inside out. Imperialist interventions, wars, in the interests of capital historically have been costly to mankind and will never end as long as the capitalist imperialist system exists.
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
All the corporate executives listed have signed on to Mr. Rodgers' document in support.
Please read my post again. "Directors who have been offered welfare and turned it down". Not ones who want tax breaks in return for an end to their corporate welfare. I presume you couldn't find one? -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
I find it hard to believe MacDonald's would need any government money at all to add to their advertising budget
'm sure you do. The fact remains that you were wrong. The information is available for anyone with the intelligence to research it. let's presume you are correct I presume you've done the search and found the info?  Scratch MacDonald's from my list Two posts ago you were insisting they never took a dime. Your argument had as much depth as usual i see... but if a new government program drops some money in their lap, I don't find it surprising that they would keep it. Why? In your world accepting welfare makes you lazy and destroys your company? Looks like the directors don't agree with you. First of all, government bailouts are not equivalent to Communism Forget about communism. Lets just concentrate on making peoples lives better for the moment. A good way of doing this would be to give all that corporate welfare to people who need it. Instead of giving mcdonalds half a million it could have gone to a single mom with a handicapped kid and made a real difference to their lives. I don't pay tax so mcdonalds can get free advertising. I don't think many other people do either. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Please read the exchange in context Alex, I explained things but I know you like to do the old socialist two step and try to change topics in mid conversation when they aren't going your way... Alex wrote: Does the corporate system work in America? Evolving wrote: It works, but it is flawed. A three legged dog is mobile, but it isn't as mobile as a four legged dog. Understand? Alex wrote: Clearly every corporate director in America disagrees with you. Otherwise they would reject welfare. Evolving wrote: No they don't, the majority of corporations receive no welfare. Evolving wrote: How can this be a justification for increased government interference in other sectors of society? Alex wrote: Because I've yet to hear corporate directors complain about welfare. Evolving wrote: I have. Just because you are ignorant of the opinions of others, doesn't mean that they aren't expressed. Alex wrote: Well that 171 billion a year is going somewhere. Obviously there arn't too many expressing their distaste. Evolving wrote: There are quite a few expressing their distaste, you just don't listen. Alex wrote: Sources please. Evolving note: Notice the abrubt change, the socialist two step where Alex changes from the concept of business leaders who are opposed to corporate welfare to the following... Alex wrote: Directors of large corporations who have been offered welfare and turned it down. One will do.... Evolving wrote: Expressing distaste doesn't mean they were offered coporate welfare. I don't think it likely that the government offers corporations welfare without them first seeking it out, either individually, as trade groups or through unions. Evolving note: Notice that I try to bring Alex back on topic, because I recognize his usual evasiveness when he knows he can't back up his assertions... The facts stand. Most corporations in the U.S. do not receive corporate welfare. There are officers of corporations who are against corporate welfare and see it as a negative. The existence of corporate welfare cannot be logically used as a justification for communism (two wrongs do not make a right). -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
I think we need to clear up some stuff. I have already given a quick
synopsis of what communism is in one of my former posts. What you are advocating seems to be partial redistribution of wealth. That is not communism, that is socialism. If you desire communism, there is no middle ground on that. A communist state allows no economic activity that is not strictly controlled. ALL resources that a person produces are taken away from him given to the community. Socialism is where people are still allowed to engage in free market economic activity, but the industries that are considered very important and essential to public safety(utility companies, transportation facilities, health care) are state owned or state funded. The citizenry are taxed heavily and there are extensive programs available for people of limited financial means to partake in. But, inequalities still exist, because the economy still allows free market competition. Socialism is kind of like communism-lite. Are you advocating socialism? If so, please give me the rough details of your planned socialist state. RandalFlagg
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Selectively picking out lines does not an argument make I'm afraid...
No they don't, the majority of corporations receive no welfare. The majority of poor people don't recieve welfare. So what? The facts stand. They certainly do. Corporate welfare is many times larger than welfare given to the poor (that you complain so much about). Clearly none of the directors recieving welfare consider it makes them weak or lazy otherwise they wouldn't accept it so enthusiastically. These directors clearly consider your arguments nonsense. Most corporations in the U.S. do not receive corporate welfare. Enough do to to soak up 170 billion plus a year. That's enough for all of us. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/26/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
That is not communism, it is socialism
Such labels exist only in theory. Just as capitalism and the "free-market" exist only in theory. That's clear from my posts. If the corporations were so keen on the free market theories they claim to follow they wouldn't be collecting 171 billion a year in welfare. Free market ideas and communist ideas can exist in the same country, in the same town and indeed the same company. A boss takes enormous amounts in welfare, takes a whacking great payoff for failure and yet gives none of these benefits to his workers who must follow the dictats of the "free market". The boss is clearly following the communist principle "To each according to his need" while not sharing this principle with his workers. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Please provide some links to where I complain so much about welfare to the poor. You do not know what the directors receiving welfare think, therefore your are unable to make informed statements as to their thought processes. I never stated that it makes companies weak or lazy, here are my statements... "when you subsidize inefficiency and mismanagement, you will get more inefficiency and mismanagement." "...it has decreased competition and favors established companies, products, processes and political lobbyists to the detriment of new companies, products, processes, improvements in the welfare recipients' operations or products and the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill." "Corporate welfare is wrong, it diminishes competition and causes a misallocation of resources which could be better serve the consumer (the public) by improving products and/or services, it redistributes money from taxpayers to corporations, favors existing or established corporations over start ups and diverts funds to political lobbying as opposed to R&D." Just because those who are on the dole think it's okay, does not make it so. Let me repeat that for you since you have such a problem getting your mind around a thought. Just because those who are on the dole think it's okay, does not make it so. Apparently, from the source I gave you, there are business leaders who agree with me. This you cannot refute, try as incompetently as you may.
The money rightly belongs to the people it was taken from, just because a crook pays off a wealthy man for helping him break into his neighbor's house does this justify, the crook paying off his getaway man? TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Can you understand these statements? Apparently you disagree with them. You give every indication that you believe two wrongs can make a right and it is morally acceptable to take another person's property. My moral stance is in opposition to this. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Cultivation Supplies 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 |
3,632 | 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 |
1,487 | 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 16,205 topic views. 0 members, 46 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
