Originality Rating for this thread: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast) |
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #2227
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-08 14:02
|
 |
| Politics: Liberal |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
Sounds good on paper... but who runs the state? If the workers truly owned the means of production, the need for these controls would not be as great. State-Socialism is just a means of keeping worker's complaints down while keeping the basic hierarchy of power in tact.
This is not to say that I oppose labour laws. But I think there is a better way... |
I compeletely agree. Too much hierarchy is undesireable, particularly in the political and economic spheres. Glad that you're not opposed to labor laws or tax progressivity. 
| Big Brother wrote: |
| ...That yes, the Soviets allowed people to own personal possession and small shops, but nothing that would allow them to "enslave the masses". All I said is that the same situation would exist under ParEcon as well. I suppose I could have cited specific examples of which property would be owned "collectively" and which property would be owned "privately", but I figured this "oversimplification" would suffice. Am I wrong? |
Sorry if I came off as a little nastier than I meant to be. It's all good...
Anyway...No, you are not wrong. I just thought that, to a less experienced observer (or lurker), that it would appear as though communism's ultimate aim was the seizure of all of a person's property, even the fruits of their own labor. Communists would have strong disagreement with that.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| A Priori wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least? |
That's a classical capitalistic simplification. Economic growth is not a means in itself. After all, the resources of the world are limited. |
There you go again with your "over-simplification" over-simplification. |
I didn't write that! Ingsoc Officer did. 
| After a few paragraphs, Big Brother wrote: |
But I thought you were a capitalist... why am I explaining this to you... Are you just automatically taking the contrary position no matter what? )
|
I agree for the most part with your assessment of the communist system. Indeed I do love to argue, but most of my objections were just raised for the purpose of clarification.
I love taking contrary positions. Opposition prep always makes you better at a debate.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| A Priori wrote: |
Big Brother wrote:
make government subjective; a fair hand. |
Good Luck.
I think it is easier to simply give them as little power as possible. |
It works well if a democracy works the way it's supposed to, with state as the direct reflection of the will of the people.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| All ideologies have some good ideas. |
They sure do.
| Big Brother wrote: |
I was just trying to refute my own rather arrogant claim that I had made up an entirely new economic system. And after looking into it, I discovered that I hadn't.
|
Again, sorry if I came of nastier than I meant to be, but I noticed that no-one had savaged you for being "arrogent" yet.
You have to admit, though, I put up a good fight for a 16-year-old publicly educated kid from the Midwest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2235
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
  
    
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-08 20:17
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
|
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| A Priori wrote: |
| Capitalist apologetics often commit the error of assuming that anti-capitalists do not recognize the alienation of a human's labor through hierarchical exploitation. Quite the contrary. Anti-capitalists recognize, mostly through Marx's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic, that capitalism does indeed promote the alienation of labor, and believe that the sole role of the state is to prevent such alienation from occuring. |
Excellent point, A Priori. The alienation of the worker is one of the main reasons I, sometimes rather reluctantly, label myself Socialist. I've seen it myself during temporary summer jobs: the worker is just another component that can be replaced. I believe the obvious end result is less personal involvement. The worker will become less and less encouraged to work hard and less and less interested in acquiring real skills. This will in turn will decrease the quality and quantity of the total production and, more importantly, decrease the general competence of the population.
Let's face it: the youngsters of today are not really interested in really learning something thoroughly. In my, admittedly politically subjective, view this unfortunate developement is a logical result of our current consumption society.
| A Priori wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| RAKTHEUNDEAD wrote: |
| In the ParEcon system, there IS actually a motivating factor, unlike the Soviet system implemented during Stalin's time. You work harder, you get more back. That "greed" means that if you work harder, you get more back and EVERYBODY else gets more back. That's something that I support. |
I couldn't agree more. One of my main objections against capitalism is that it allows people to get rich and powerful without working hard. |
I completely agree with both of you, but I think such a system can result from economic reforms to a capitalist system. |
Perhaps. As a Social-Democrat I don't rule out this option. I don't think it's the optimal solution, though.
| A Priori wrote: |
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Governments usually like the status quo. And an economy which seeks to maintain the status quo will stagnate. Why bother trying to create new ideas when it won't really do you any good? Why seek to make a process more efficient when it wont benefit you in the least? |
That's a classical capitalistic simplification. Economic growth is not a means in itself. After all, the resources of the world are limited. |
Quite right, Ingsoc Officer. Over-population and environmental deterioration both necessitate a radical new way of thinking. The sustainable economy is possible, but definitely not easy. I don't know about Euorpean ones, but the US economy is structured to thrive only when it grows. |
Well put. The current need of perpetual growth makes the system extremely vulnerable.
| From Biological Productivity Available on this Planet |
Arable land is ecologically speaking the most productive land: it can grow the largest amount of plant biomass. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), nearly all of the best arable land, or about 1.35 billion hectares, is already under cultivation. 10 million hectares of it are abandoned annually because of serious degradation. This means that today, there exist less than 0.25 hectares per capita world-wide of such highly productive land.
(...)
Many people hope that augmented agricultural productivity will be able to save humanity from the ecological squeeze. What they often forget is that high agricultural productivity is mainly possible thanks to massive ecological subsidies such as loss of ground water, loss of top soil and input of fossil fuel consuming fertilisers and other agro-chemicals. The case of hydroponic greenhouses may be particularly telling. There, the yield per square meter greenhouse exceeds by a magnitude that of open-field production. However, once the ecological subsidies are included, the balance turns upside down. Yoshihiko Wada, for example, calculated that the requirement of ecological space for hydroponic greenhouses in British Columbia for the same amount of tomatoes was 10 to 20 times higher than that with more traditional open-field methods. This reflects a sustainability tragedy: humanity becomes increasingly dependent on an energy and resource intensive agriculture, while the resources and energy stocks necessary to sustain this agriculture are getting depleted. |
Since the very core concept of the capitalistic "ideology" is to maximise the monetary gain, the capitalistic system doesn't get the priorities right. More time, effort and resources are spent on developing high-tech gizmos for rich Western kids than on developing new agricultural techniques. 26,000 people die of starvation every day, and we get a new mobile phone with a built-in microwave owen.
Maybe you have heard about the concept "ecological footprints"? If not, you might want to examine this table:
http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm
The worst "footprint crooks": Singapore (-7), Hong Kong (-6,1), Belgium (-3,7), United States (-3.6), Netherlands (-3.6), United Kingdom (-3.5), Japan (-3.4), Germany (-3,4)Switzerland (-3.2), Israel (-3.1). Of course, this is per capita... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2236
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-06-08 20:42
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
|
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But anyway... This is a key difference between a government-run bureaucracy and a one the encourages entrepreneurship and growth. The latter is bound to be more successful. |
Depends on how you define "successful". The living standard is higher than ever in the Western world, and so is the consumption of anti-depressive medicines. Economic growth is hardly a good measurment of how sound a society is.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Take Steve Jobs for instance. Under a communistic system, he would have had to convince the state that his little electronic doo-dads were a good idea. If the state rejected him, that would be the end of it. And who would be in charge of that decision?... some bureaucrat who possessed his current job not on his merits, but because his uncle was a big-shot in the government. |
The only difference is that in the capitalistic system, the decision-maker will have an Armani suit. There will still be an omni-potent idiot in charge.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| What’s the difference?... under capitalism you have new companies popping up to offer new services, and under communism you don't. This may be another over-simplification, but it seems to me that capitalist countries seem to have more in the way of invention and progress than their communistic counterparts. |
First of all, I want to ask you this: Exactly what are you talking about? "Communism" as manifested by Stalin, Marx or this ParEcon guy?
Anyway, I do agree that you are making an over-simplification. To constantly create new companies can't possibly be a means in itself. Do we really need all the products and services we are offered? In many cases, I just think it's a waste of time, labour and resources.
And, of course, progress doesn't require monetary motivators. An obvious example is the invention of penicillin.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I see we agree that small businesses are key. |
But capitalism isn't necessarily good for small businesses! First, capitalistic governments have a tendency to support large corporations. Second, capitalism has a tendency to generate monopolies and oligopolies; Microsoft is a well-known example. Third, capitalism has a tendency to promote standardisation and conformism; for instance, franchise chains are killing many small businesses in USA.
If you want to promote small businesses, join the Democratic-Socialists! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #2274
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-06-09 20:13
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| A Priori wrote: |
| I completely agree with both of you, but I think such a system can result from economic reforms to a capitalist system. |
Then why were you arguing against "Libertarian-Syndicalism" in that other forum? All it is is classic libertarian-capitalism with an expanded stock-option program. |
"Libertarian-Syndicalism" isn't the only possible system of reforms. There are others... For instance, liberalism has a successful track record for making Keynesianism work fairly.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But anyway... This is a key difference between a government-run bureaucracy and a one the encourages entrepreneurship and growth. The latter is bound to be more successful. |
Socialism doesn't necessarliy entail the enlargement of the state. I myself used to subscribe to a flavor of anarcho-socialism described by Noam Chomsky, wherein firms would practice workplace democracy while competing on an otherwise free market. Competition wouldn't make or break new markets, and would be sort of like high-school basketball tournaments.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| I see we agree that small businesses are key. |
Yup, sure do (as long as they treat their workers fairly). I see that we also agree that the more stratified a hierarcical system is, the greater the concentration of power.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Excellent point, A Priori. The alienation of the worker is one of the main reasons I, sometimes rather reluctantly, label myself Socialist. I've seen it myself during temporary summer jobs: the worker is just another component that can be replaced. I believe the obvious end result is less personal involvement. The worker will become less and less encouraged to work hard and less and less interested in acquiring real skills. This will in turn will decrease the quality and quantity of the total production and, more importantly, decrease the general competence of the population. |
One thing that capitalist apologetics often ignore is the fact that a worker is distributed capital not by the quality of the fruits of his/her labor, but rather by how much he/she requires to be adequately sustained. Sometimes this definition is narrowed to a point where as long as the worker is kept alive, then he/she is viewed as being compensated fairly enough by capitalism. Rarely is the quality of the laborer's acutal labor allowed to determine the quantity of his compensation.
I believe in a heavily watered-down and regulated form of capitalism. However, describing my position in such a manner often leaves me open for criticism beacuse I described it in a purely negative sense. Often libertarian-capitalists commit the error of viewing government as something that ties down capitalism instead of promoting it.
Perhaps a quote will suffice...
"Once we begin distinguishing the many forms capitalism can take, analytic utility is lost by retaining talismanic terms like "free market." There is no national economy in the world today that is not a mixed economy, which also means that there is no market that is free, or even "mostly" free. Rather, markets are structures that are culturally bounded, always regulated, and genetically dependent on government intervention for their reproduction. Never are they simply 'permitted.'"
-Jonathan Stein
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Since the very core concept of the capitalistic "ideology" is to maximise the monetary gain, the capitalistic system doesn't get the priorities right. More time, effort and resources are spent on developing high-tech gizmos for rich Western kids than on developing new agricultural techniques. 26,000 people die of starvation every day, and we get a new mobile phone with a built-in microwave owen. |
Astute observation. Capitalism tends to focus on short-terms gains, and often needs a second invisible hand (i.e. government) to guide it to more altruistic spheres. One wonders why agricultural companies haven't yet succeeded in irrigating the Sahara Desert, but have succeeded in creating "Never-Mow Lawn Grass."
Interesting concept... One wonders why capitalism privatizes benefits, but socializes the consequences.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| Anyway, I do agree that you are making an over-simplification. To constantly create new companies can't possibly be a means in itself. Do we really need all the products and services we are offered? In many cases, I just think it's a waste of time, labour and resources. |
Resources, such as oil, that could be used to fight starvation around the world are squandered under capitalism for use in useless things like private jets; yet another example of how capitalism excells in production but lags in distribution.
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| If you want to promote small businesses, join the Democratic-Socialists! |
Okay... I've already change my political thingy once. Why not one more time? I like your ideas, and I especially like your website! Onward to democratic-socialism! 
"The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism."
George Soros |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2300
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-06-10 20:58
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
|
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| A Priori wrote: |
| Okay... I've already change my political thingy once. Why not one more time? I like your ideas, and I especially like your website! Onward to democratic-socialism! |
He he.  Well, let's design the political system of the future together; you are certainly an intellectual asset. (I still can't believe that you are so young!  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #2334
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 13:34
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Parecon, Libertarian-Syndicalism, and Other Stuff... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Ingsoc Officer wrote: |
| He he. Well, let's design the political system of the future together; you are certainly an intellectual asset. (I still can't believe that you are so young!) |
Gee whiz, I'm flattered... 
As for designing the political system of the future, let us employ synthetic reason to the highest degree possible. (In that other thread, right?) Onward to objectivity! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2340
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 16:10
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Well, I believe that Democratic-Socialism is the way forward. When I get my vote, I'll be voting Socialist. We need to get rid of the capitalist system as it is now, and replace it with a fairer and more equal system... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2351
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
  
 
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 16:52
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Does Equality=Freedom? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." - Alexis de Tocqueville - "Democracy in America" (1835)
True equality is not my goal. All men are not equal, and would require a Harrison Bergeron-esque government to make them so. Fuck Affirmative Action. And I don't want everybody to earn the exact same wage either. Pure economic equality would require a legion of Denis Moores running around making sure that everybody had the same number of lupines.
Equal opportunity?... Sounds a little better to me. A salary that consists of real permanent ownership in addition to the traditional consumable fiat currency?... hell yes!
Make the workers owners, not just producers and consumers! Redistribute ownership, not currency!... And do not distribute it to everybody... just to the people who have earned it, the Workers! Everybody else can get a welfare check. (A little state-socialism will most likely always be necessary)
"Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." - Dennis Moore |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #2352
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 16:59
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAKTHEUNDEAD wrote: |
| Well, I believe that Democratic-Socialism is the way forward. When I get my vote, I'll be voting Socialist. We need to get rid of the capitalist system as it is now, and replace it with a fairer and more equal system... |
What you fail to remember is that no one is equal to another, someone will always be better at something, and trying people to be equal will result like Hayley Mcdonalds said in Jennifer Government.
| From JenGov |
"Are there any positive aspects to tax?"
She relaxed: a gimme questions. "Some people say tax is good because it gives money to people who don't have any. But those people must be lazy or stupid, so why should they get other people's money? Obviously the answer is no."
The teacher blinked. He made a note. That must have been an impressive answer, Hayley thought. "What about social justice?"
"What?"
"Is it fair that some people should be rich while others have nothing?"
She shifted from one foot to the other. She was just remembering: this teacher had a thing about poor people. He was always bringing them up. "Um, yeah it's fair. Because if I study really hard for a test and get an A and Emily doesn't and fails then it's not fair to take some of my marks and give them to her, is it?... Another thing, in non-USA countrier they want everyoneto be the same, so if your sister is born blind, then they blind you, too, to make it even. But how unfair is that? I would much rather be an American than a European Union... person." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #2358
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 18:37
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Does Equality=Freedom? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| True equality is not my goal. All men are not equal, and would require a Harrison Bergeron-esque government to make them so. |
Social-democrats just want laborers not to be alienated from their labor by compensating them dependent upon the respective quality of their labor. Social-democrats tend to abide by the maxim of "existence precedes essence" regarding labor. Egalitarianism should be instituted as a precursor only. To expect egalitarian results is a threat to democracy.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Equal opportunity?... Sounds a little better to me. |
I agree completely. I just didn't want you tarring democratic-socialism with such an ugly brush (I know; that's a mixed metaphor). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #2361
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 19:05
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
To me, Democratic-Socialism is just a band-aid for the capitalistic system. I won't argue that such a patch in not necessary for the short-term benefit of the poor, but there is a better way. I prefer to focus more on the long-term goal of bringing down the oligarchy. I agree that the rich countries of the west should not allow their citizens to fall over from hunger and disease, but I think that we are selling ourselves short if we do nothing more than ask that our masters to treat us kindly.
Like I've said elsewhere... Democratic-Socialism (state-socialism) seems to be nothing more than a way for the oligarchy to keep their power in tact by keeping the proletariat from becoming too disgruntled. It is not that I want to see people starving in the streets or working 12 hour days for their slave-masters... I just want to get rid of the slave-masters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2365
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-06-11 19:12
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| But we ALSO want to eliminate the slave-masters! I'm also an advocate of freedom, but under a socialist system WHICH IS POSSIBLE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #2405
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-06-12 13:54
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
To me, Democratic-Socialism is just a band-aid for the capitalistic system.
(...)
Like I've said elsewhere... Democratic-Socialism (state-socialism) seems to be nothing more than a way for the oligarchy to keep their power in tact by keeping the proletariat from becoming too disgruntled. |
Interesting. Please answer this: If Democratic-Socialism assists the capitalistic oligarchy, then why do the capitalistic oligarchy fervently oppose Democratic-Socialism? Over here, it's no exaggeration to say that the capitalists really hate Democratic-Socialists.
Admittedly, the existing Democratic-Socialistic governments, which don't correspond with my ideal vision of Democratic-Socialistic government, are compromising too much sometimes, but to say that they assist the capitalistic oligarchy is simply not correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Communism and Freedom
Spy
Post #2417
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 129
Total Words: 49,041
Average words per post: 380.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-06-12 15:16
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Arrakis |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
First, a small note: "Democratic Socialism" is a redundant expression, like "CD disk". All socialism (both libertarian and state socialism) must necessarely be democratic (since socialism entails public property over the means of production, and "public property" can only exist under a democratic government - because the property of a non-democratic government is certainly not "public"; it's the de facto private property of the state oligarchy).
This is why I never say "Democratic Socialism". I only say "Socialism", and I assume it's self-evident that it must be democratic.
Now, there are a few interesting things to be said about Equality and Liberty:
First of all, when you hear the word "equality", you must ask yourself "equality in what way?" (just like when you hear "freedom", you must ask yourself "freedom to do what?").
For the most part, Liberty and Equality go together and are indispensable to each other. A lack of liberty means that some people oppress others, so there is blatant inequality between the two groups. A lack of equality means that there are people above and people below, so the people above crush the liberty of the people below.
| Quote: |
| All men are not equal, and would require a Harrison Bergeron-esque government to make them so. |
Wrong. You can't force people to be equal any more than you can force them to be free. In order to force people to be equal, you need someone to do the forcing - and that someone is obviously NOT equal to the rest.
If the government "forces people to be equal", then government officials are obviously NOT equal to the common man. So much for "equality"...
| Quote: |
| "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery..." |
People who are "equal in slavery" aren't equal to their masters, now are they? There goes "equality"...
| Quote: |
| "...than unequal in freedom." |
If some people have more freedom than others, then some of them are kings and lords (they have the most freedom) and others are slaves (they have no freedom). There goes "liberty"...
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Make the workers owners, not just producers and consumers! Redistribute ownership, not currency!... And do not distribute it to everybody... just to the people who have earned it, the Workers! Everybody else can get a welfare check. (A little state-socialism will most likely always be necessary) |
Now we're talking! This is exactly the kind of socialism I want! Big Brother for president!
| Quote: |
| It is not that I want to see people starving in the streets or working 12 hour days for their slave-masters... I just want to get rid of the slave-masters. |
Now do you see why I said I was your ally, comrade? You've practically re-stated an argument I've often made on other forums: That the welfare state sweeps the problems of capitalism under the rug instead of fixing them, and that rather than allowing a huge rich/poor gap to develop and then trying to close it using redistribution, we should prevent the gap from developing in the first place (in other words, we should eliminate the need for redistribution). That is good socialism.
_________________
"[What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because it is more irresponsible, than that of the State."
- George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #2435
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-06-12 23:04
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Yes, Big Brother is a socialist ally. Syndicalism is an allied system to socialism as far as I know. Why else would they have similar goals?
Big Brother, we are not too different politically. We may have different goals, and different ways of getting to them, but we share the same basic philosophy: Give back to the workers. Democratically. Libertarianally.
Don't hate the socialists, BB. We do not have two opposing philosophies. We are striving for a similar common goal. Communism and Freedom is also striving for this, in the short term.
| Quote: |
| It is not that I want to see people starving in the streets or working 12 hour days for their slave-masters... I just want to get rid of the slave-masters. |
As I said, I also want to get rid of the slave masters. I want to see workers get a foothold on their own work.
Off Topic: Apparently, Labour is gaining local council seats... in place of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael! YES! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #3523
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-07-12 20:23
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Syndicalism through taxation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
How the hell did I miss this one?!?!
New ESOP Legislation Introduced
| From Corey Rosen |
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), arguably the most conservative member of Congress, has paired with Bernie Saunders (D-VT), the only Socialist member of Congress, to introduce H.R. 1462, "The Employee Ownership Act of 1999." The bill, drafted by Rohrabacher, would provide that a company that is at least 50% owned by an employee ownership trust, allows each employee one vote on all corporate issues, and includes 90% of all full-time employees to participate in the trust would not pay any federal income tax. Moreover, employees or other current owners selling their stock back to the company would not pay tax, estates could receive a tax credit for transfers of stock to the trust, and non-trust owners would not pay tax on the first 25% of dividends they receive.
The bill has 34 cosponsors, but even its strongest advocates do not believe it will actually pass. Rohrabacher instead sees this as a means of generating discussion of how employee ownership can be made a larger part of America's economic agenda....
|
Syndicalism through the tax code. And again... I thought I had made it up! I am really coming to believe that there is no such thing as an original thought anymore.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #3547
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-07-13 02:01
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Syndicalism through taxation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
A search on THOMAS (legislative database provided by the Library of Congress) reveals:
| From HR 1462 Bill Text |
SEC. 2. OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES.
(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds that--
(1) there is considerable evidence that employee-owned and employee-controlled corporations are more productive and provide more wealth to their employees than corporations not so owned, and
(2) the workplace experience of employee-owned and employee-controlled corporations is proven to foster greater appreciation of the economic system of the United States that relies on ownership of private property and capitalism.
(b) POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that by the year 2010, 30 percent of all United States corporations are owned and controlled by employees of the corporations.
SEC. 3. TAX INCENTIVES RELATING TO EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS.
(a) TRUST OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION EXEMPT FROM TAXATION-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(28.)(A) employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation trust.
`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation trust' means a trust which has as its primary assets the employer securities (within the meaning of section 409(l)) of an employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation.
(2) EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION DEFINED- Subsection (a) of section 7701 of such Code (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(47) EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION- The term `employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation' means a corporation in which--
`(A) more than 50 percent of the voting stock of such corporation is held by a trust for the benefit of the employees of that corporation,
`(B) in all matters requiring the vote of stock, including the election of the board of directors of the corporation, the trustee of such trust is obligated to vote the stock held in trust and allocated to participants in the trust in the manner in which the participants direct, on the basis of 1-employee 1-vote, and to vote any stock not so allocated as if it were so allocated,
`(C) at least 25 employees of such corporation are participants in and beneficiaries of such trust,
`(D) a minimum of 90 percent of the employees who work at least 1,000 hours annually for such corporation are participants in such trust, and
`(E) the trustee administers such trust for the benefit of the employees of such corporation and complies with all requirements of this title relating to employee stock ownership plans (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) pertaining to independent appraisal of shares not readily tradable and distribution of those shares.'.
(b) NO TAX ON CORPORATE INCOME OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION- Subsection (a) of section 11 of such Code (relating to corporations in general) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: `(other than any employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation)'.
(c) EXCLUSION OF INCOME FROM SALE OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION STOCK BY EMPLOYEE OWNER-
(1) IN GENERAL- Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code (relating to items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by redesignating section 139 as section 140 and by inserting after section 138 the following new section:
`SEC. 139. INCOME FROM EMPLOYEE OWNER SALE OF EMPLOYER SECURITIES DISTRIBUTED FROM EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION TRUST.
`(a) IN GENERAL- In the case of an individual, gross income shall not include any proceeds from the qualified sale of employer securities.
`(b) QUALIFIED SALE OF EMPLOYER SECURITIES- The term `qualified sale of employer securities' means the sale of employer securities (as defined in section 409(l)) which were distributed to a participant in the employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation trust to--
`(1) an employee of the employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation which issued such securities,
`(2) such corporation, or
`(3) such trust.'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 139 and inserting after the item relating to section 138 the following new items:
`Sec. 139. Income from employee owner sale of employer securities distributed from employee-owned and employee-controlled corporation trust.
`Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.'.
(d) RECEIPT OF STOCK IN AN EMPLOYEE OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATION DURING 3-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD- Section 83 of such Code (relating to property transferred in connection with performance of services) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(i) RECEIPT OF STOCK IN AN EMPLOYEE OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATION DURING 3-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of an employee, this section shall not apply to the transfer in lieu of compensation of employer securities in an employer owned and controlled corporation during the 3-year period beginning on the effective date of the election of a corporation to become an employee owned and controlled corporation.
`(2) EXCEPTION- If, on the day after the end of the 3-year period referred to in paragraph (1), such corporation is not an employee owned and controlled corporation, paragraph (1) shall not apply and the following sum shall be included in the gross income of such employee:
`(A) an amount equal to the fair market value of all of such securities at the time of transfer (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) to the employee in lieu of compensation for such period, plus
`(B) an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount determined under subparagraph (A).'.
(e) NO TAX ON GAIN ON SALES OR TRANSFERS TO EMPLOYEE-OWNED AND EMPLOYEE-CONTROLLED CORPORATION TRUST-
(1) IN GENERAL- Part III of subchapter O of chapter 1 of such Code (relating to common nontaxable exchanges) is amended by adding... |
Also...
| From Status of HR 1462 |
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions) (Floor Actions/Congressional Record Page References)
4/15/1999:
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Ways and Means Referral, In Committee |
Oh God... It's in committee!!! Nothing ever gets out of that black hole of legislation!!!
Oh well, it's pretty cool that my congressman sponsored the bill.
| Quote: |
| Syndicalism through the tax code. And again... I thought I had made it up! I am really coming to believe that there is no such thing as an original thought anymore. |
One wonders if Ms. Rohrabacher has ever visited your website... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #3558
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-07-13 06:59
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Syndicalism through taxation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| A Priori wrote: |
| One wonders if Ms. Rohrabacher has ever visited your website... |
Nah... I think she beat me by a few years.
But it is nice to know that at least a few people in congress are thinking along these lines. Perhaps a real libertarian-syndicalist party will exist someday in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #3580
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-07-13 15:21
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| Re: Syndicalism through taxation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| A Priori wrote: |
| One wonders if Ms. Rohrabacher has ever visited your website... |
Nah... I think she beat me by a few years.
But it is nice to know that at least a few people in congress are thinking along these lines. Perhaps a real libertarian-syndicalist party will exist someday in the future. |
OH GOOD GOD NO! Well ok, its better that socialism and communism, but capitalism is still better, a coalitionism... lemme just stop there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Priori
Outer Party
Post #3604
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 254
Total Words: 63,163
Average words per post: 248.67
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-07-13 18:52
|
|
| Politics: Democratic-Socialist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Syndicalism through taxation |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| A Priori wrote: |
| One wonders if Ms. Rohrabacher has ever visited your website... |
Nah... I think she beat me by a few years.
But it is nice to know that at least a few people in congress are thinking along these lines. Perhaps a real libertarian-syndicalist party will exist someday in the future. |
Oh...I forgot that the guestbook posts were dated. Still though, it's quite impressive that you came up with it on your own. It took you just a few years longer than our representatives in Washington, with their unlimited budgets and army-like research staffs.
I have to say, though, you earned yourself another convert to the cause. Initially I was a bit skeptical, but I've finally come 'round. I still favor Keynesianism and dislike anarcho-capitalism, but, if ever a libertarian-syndicalist party were to form, I might join! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Heston
Junior Spy
Post #3624
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 28
Total Words: 4,674
Average words per post: 166.93
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-07-13 21:20
|
|
| Politics: Conservative |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
AP, which type of Keynesianism do you favor? What do you mean exactly when you say Keynesianism?
_________________
Just to give you an idea on my views...
I believe in the politic of prescription and collective tradition.
I believe sin is a disease and hell is the quarantine ward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyrant
Outer Party
Post #11321
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 176
Total Words: 12,792
Average words per post: 72.68
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2005-05-16 23:36
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Canada |
|
| Interesting |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I really like this idea, but I'm wondering a few things. I apologize if I've greatly failed to understand these things or if they've been answered. I also apologize for the thread-necromancy.
- How can individuals who earn their wealth be successful?
- It is unclear to me whether or not this is in favour of equal wages. Does not collective ownership of business lead to equal wage pay? I'm confused as to how the entire company can decide who gets paid what (that is, if this is not a system of equal wages).
- Is ownership of big companies divided into branches? What about McDonalds for example which has spread throughout the world?
- Given that this is a Libertarian system, will the taxes payed by those not unionizing companies just go towards defense, military, etc?
- Is this, other than the fact that the companies are worker-owned, a free market? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #11881
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2005-07-01 19:32
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Interesting |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tyrant wrote: |
I really like this idea, but I'm wondering a few things. I apologize if I've greatly failed to understand these things or if they've been answered. I also apologize for the thread-necromancy.
- How can individuals who earn their wealth be successful?
|
An entrepreneur can still be successful. But, if he has to hire the labour or others in order to achieve greater success he will be faced with two choices:
1) Share a percentage of ownership with his employees.
2) Pay higher taxes.
But, as I pointed out elsewhere, small business (companies with 10 or fewer employees) would be largely unaffected by this since I would propose cutting their taxes altogether anyway. These requirements would be phased in slowly as the company expands and hires more people
| Tyrant wrote: |
- It is unclear to me whether or not this is in favour of equal wages. Does not collective ownership of business lead to equal wage pay? I'm confused as to how the entire company can decide who gets paid what (that is, if this is not a system of equal wages).
|
No. People would still get roughly the same salaries they get paid today. The only difference would be that part of their pay would be in the form of shares in the company. Of course, the longer you are with the company the more shares you will have -- which will in turn get you a larger share of the profits.
But no... "equal pay" is not a goal. (I'm not a communist, for Pete's sake)
| Tyrant wrote: |
- Is ownership of big companies divided into branches? What about McDonalds for example which has spread throughout the world?
|
The current system will largely remain unchanged. People will still be paid wages, and corporations will still sell off shares to those who wish to buy. The only thing I am proposing is offering large tax incentives to companies to hand over control to their employees... and also defining under law what sort of corporate decisions would need to be decided democratically by the "owners".
Notice the word "Libertarian" in the name? That means that a primary goal is to keep government control of the process to a minimum. No corporation will be forced to do anything... other than pay higher taxes if they don't democratize their organization.
But as for as companies with branches overseas... if they pay taxes to the US government or employ American citizens, they will be effected by this. What happens overseas happens overseas. I, like Stalin, have little desire for a "World Revolution".
| Tyrant wrote: |
- Given that this is a Libertarian system, will the taxes payed by those not unionizing companies just go towards defense, military, etc?
|
For the most part, yes. A "Libertarian=Syndicalist" regime probably would spend their money a little differently than the Republicrats, but that really doesn't have any bearing on the question of worker ownership.
| Tyrant wrote: |
- Is this, other than the fact that the companies are worker-owned, a free market? |
It will be just about as much of a "Free Market" as our current system. The only difference is that large corporations will be pressured to install “democratic” elements into it's hierarchy via the tax code.
Corporations currently get tax breaks for all kinds of crap. I don't think including "worker ownership" to that list of "crap" should be very difficult to do.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Therapy Needed
Committee Leader
Post #13290
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2005-09-20 23:48
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
My ethical objections to Libertarian-Syndicalism notwithstanding, I have some questions on the practicality of the system.
1.) How is worker ownership maintained?
You've stated how stock will be distributed (as part of the pay check), but how is it to be kept in the company? This is mainly a problem for high turnover companies, like super-markets and fast food. It's easy to see how difficult it would be to keep such a high percentage in the hands of the workers when people are hiring on and quitting almost right away. This could be solved by giving the stock to a Union, but that's going to cause the same problems this was supposed to correct.
But I'll agree that for most companies, this isn't too much of a problem, and it could probably be sidestepped in the case of those high-turnover companies as well. However, we shouldn't just gloss over this problem, since it could result in an unfair tax on a corporation (and those that have worked there for a long time) just because most people who work there are teenagers.
2.) What about those investors?
What incentive do investors have if they only get to reap the full "benefits" (most companies report losses their first few years of business) of a few years of investment? Investors are a very important part of a capitalist economy, almost as important as entrepreneurs. Take away their drive, and you can say bye bye to your economic drive.
3.) Stock-marketeers?
Although there is a lot of bashing the stock market on this forum, it does serve a rather useful function, albeit a subtle one (subtle, thus the bashing). It lets investors know where best to channel their funds. "Hard investors," a term I like for those who invest for a living, are more likely to go after risky, low priced stock. "Soft investors," or people looking for supplemental income, are more likely to go for safe bets. Now, since almost every company on earth is going to go after 0 taxes, you're effectively reducing the supply of tradable stock by a good 66%. This makes a lot less room for soft investors to have a nice, diverse stock portfolio, and thus ties your supplemental investment earnings to the success of your company. Anyone who's done investing will tell you that a diverse stock portfolio is key. When 66% is worker owned, most of the rest is going towards those who do it for a living. Goodbye reliable supplemental income for most Americans. This is probably the biggest practical flaw with the system. Basically, you're forcing everyone to own stock, and you're also forcing them to put all of their eggs into one basket. That will be good for some, but bad for others.
Like Tyrant, I apologise for raising the dead, but I think this system needs some more analysis. I can go in depth about my ethical and philosophical objections later, but right now I have to study for a multi-variate calc. exam.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Therapy Needed
Committee Leader
Post #13291
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2005-09-20 23:51
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Whoops, can't believe I forgot this.
4.) What about not corporate business?
Corporations aren't the only businesses on earth. What about labor-using businesses that don't even have stock? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Therapy Needed
Committee Leader
Post #13296
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2005-09-21 13:55
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: Springfield |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Alright, sorry about the multiple posts, but I have two nasty exams tomorrow, and I want to get this in before the big crunch.
Alright, so I've voiced a few practical concerns, which are more or less able to be sidestepped (I'm granting that they can be sidestepped for the moment).
Now the first question I must ask is this: what's the point? I mean, you're offering up a new system, and I find that cool and all that jazz, but why should it be adopted? What makes one specific factor of production, labor, so darn important that we should change the way society sets itself up just for them? To boil it down, "Why Libertarian Syndicalism?" What problem in society is so damn grave that we feel that the government has the right to tax the shit out corporations which aren't mostly worker owned? Most people who have replied seem to think this is self-evident, so either I'm stupid or it hasn't been explored well enough yet. This point is especially true since in this culture having only one T.V. is considered the depths of poverty. The American system has worked rather well for it's people, and I don't see why we should alter it so fundamentally.
My second question is this: what gives us (society) the right to coerce someone to give their property to another? Quite frankly, I find that immoral as hell. I'm a Kantian, so that whole "Act so that you don't treat men merely as a means" means just a little bit to me. I don't think it's such an objectionable moral outlook. So, why do you think we should treat investors and entrepreneurs as means to their laborers' ends? They didn't do the same (they pay labor wages), so it's definitely not about justice. What's the justification for your system's coercion?
It also seems to be implied that unionization will be encouraged. Does that mean something like a new Wagner Act? If so, then my second question applies to this point too, not to mention that nasty unemployment that accompanies unionization (raise the price and demand goes down down down).
Alright, so I've voiced my main concerns. Hopefully you found them constructive, or at the very least, engaging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #13311
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2005-09-23 05:10
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Lib-Syn Q & A |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| therapyneeded wrote: |
1.) How is worker ownership maintained?
You've stated how stock will be distributed (as part of the pay check), but how is it to be kept in the company? This is mainly a problem for high turnover companies, like super-markets and fast food. It's easy to see how difficult it would be to keep such a high percentage in the hands of the workers when people are hiring on and quitting almost right away. This could be solved by giving the stock to a Union, but that's going to cause the same problems this was supposed to correct.
|
Yes, the unions would own a stock in their member's corporations as well.
But the important thing to point out here is that one of the primary tenets of LibSyn is that the transformation to a world where the "workers own the means of production" should take place with as little government oversight as possible. For the most part, the only change in law that the state will be required to make is to set up the tax code to reward worker-owned businesses at to "punish" corporations which don't share ownership with their employees. It really isn't up to the state to figure out how to make the system work -- That task is left up to each individual corporation. The tax code will push them to set up a system which puts more ownership in the hands of the workers, but it will be up to them to decide exactly how to do it.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
2.) What about those investors?
3.) Stock-marketeers?
|
The stock market isn't going anywhere. And venture capitalist are more than welcome. The process of transferring ownership to the employees is a rather slow one, and provided investors plenty of chance to make a return on their investment.
Back on the old guestbook, I offered the following example.
| From Big Brother: 2003/09/10 |
The transition of ownership will be a slow process. I have already stated that I think it would take 40-70 years to put the ‘pro-anarcho-syndicalist tax structure’ into place. But even this is only a means to and end. It will take several more years for the actual transference of ownership to occur.
Let me use my company as an example.
I work for a relatively young Tech company that employs roughly 500 people. My company’s stock is currently trading on the NASDAQ for about $8 a share, with about 15 million total shares.
Now, 15 Million shares divided between 500 workers would be 30,000 shares per employee, which would be valued at $240,000. It would be nice if the Investors would just hand that over to us (That would be one hell of a Christmas Bonus!), but that would be highly unlikely to occur. Plus I think it would be rather presumptuous on our part to demand it.
A more reasonable expectation would be for each worker to receive 100-200 shares ($800-$1600) per year as part of their salary. Assuming a static environment (no additional employees, investment/share creation, or change in stock value), it would take 75-150 years for the workers to gain a majority stake in my company.
If the employees wanted to speed this processes along any faster, it would be necessary for them to incur a little more risk… they would have to, for instance, forgo $4000 a year in salary for additional 500 shares a year (at 700 shares a year, majority ownership will occur in 22 years). Of course, people have the power to do this right now, simply by buying $4000 a year in stock. But for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, this isn’t and option. And many people are frightened away from this sort of activity by things such as the Enron collapse, in which the employees did have a fair amount invested in company stock.
But there are other reasons to support syndicalism besides the communistic ‘workers own of the means of production’ theory… The primary reason is a good old-fashioned capitalistic one - ‘Stock Options’ improve worker productivity. A recent study by Douglas Kruse and Joseph Blasi at Rutgers University found that over a three-year post-plan period, companies that grant options to most or all employees show a 17% improvement in productivity over what would have been expected had they not set up such a plan.
Capitalist are quick to point out that ‘profit-incentive’ is the key reason that capitalism always out-performs communism. It’s one of the cornerstones of Capitalist theory. Now if we can just get them to realize that if they allow the workers to share in this ‘profit-incentive’ as well..........
But, to get back to the original point – So what if it takes a long time to gain ‘complete control’. The benefits of such a system would begin to be felt right away. Within a couple decades we will live in a world in which the workers own 5%-10% of all corporate stock, instead of where we are now – with workers owning next to nothing at all.
"Where there is a man who does not labor because another is compelled to work for him, there slavery is." - Leo Tolstoy
"I am against slavery simply because I dislike slaves." - H.L. Mencken
|
| therapyneeded wrote: |
4.) What about not corporate business?
Corporations aren't the only businesses on earth. What about labor-using businesses that don't even have stock? |
They would pay higher taxes.
The way it would work is something like this....
I would set up the tax code so that small businesses (with fewer than 10 employees) would pay almost no taxes at all. Or more specifically, the business would pay o taxes at all. The owner (and the workers) would still pay personal income tax.
As the company grows, their tax burden would increase. And it would increase to the point where a private company with a few hundred employees would pay roughly the same amount of tax as they do under the current system. And private business with a over, say, 1000 employees would pay even more. (But there aren't many private companies with that many employees currently in existence.)
The idea is to push these large private companies into sharing ownership with their employees. Because the one way to reduce the companies tax burden as the business grows is to share ownership with the employees. I posted this a while back as a rough outline of how the tax code would be structured.
| From Big Brother: 2003/09/08 |
- If the employees own more than 66% of the company, the company pays no taxes.
- If the employees own more than 50% of the company, the company pays 5%.
- If the employees own more than 33% of the company, the company pays 15%.
- If the employees own less than 10% of the company, the company pays 30%.
- If the employees own less than 1% of the company, the company pays 50%.
|
Again, that's just a rough outline, but I think you get the idea. The idea is to reward small businesses and worker owned corporations, and "punish" lage private companies and corporations that don't allow their workers to participate in ownership. (But really they wouldn't be "punished" much harder than they are under the current tax code.)
The "Supply side" Republicans would be in favor of cutting taxes on business.
The "communistic" labour unions would be in favor of increasing the power of the workers.
Everybody wins.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
Like Tyrant, I apologise for raising the dead, but I think this system needs some more analysis. I can go in depth about my ethical and philosophical objections later, but right now I have to study for a multi-variant calc. exam. |
What kind of "ethical" objections could there be?
It all seems pretty swell to me.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Therapy Needed
Committee Leader
Post #13713
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 556
Total Words: 89,413
Average words per post: 160.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2005-10-12 16:20
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: New World Order |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, the unions would own a stock in their member's corporations as well. |
So is unionization a mandatory feature for these tax free companies to have as well?
Also, are there any rules as to how the unions distribute the dividends made from the stock the unions hold? In other words, how do we know that unions will distribute the money "fairly." I'm sure everyone here knows that unions have been fairly prone to corruption, so this is a valid concern.
| BB wrote: |
| It really isn't up to the state to figure out how to make the system work -- That task is left up to each individual corporation. |
So the state is coercing people in society to conform to it's new ideal, but it isn't to be bothered with the details of implementing it? That's like forcing your debt on someone else and telling him or her to "Fuck off and figure it out yourself."
| BB wrote: |
| The stock market isn't going anywhere. |
This is what you say, but if most corporations conform to your ideal, then a rather large percentage of stock will basically be non-transferable. If most stock is fixed, where does this leave investors-to-be? You can still participate in the market, sure, but not to the same extent. Basically, most of your investment will be anchored to your company, whereas now, one can have a fairly diverse stock portfolio (which is a good thing).
| BB wrote: |
| If the employees wanted to speed this processes along any faster, it would be necessary for them to incur a little more risk… they would have to, for instance, forgo $4000 a year in salary for additional 500 shares a year (at 700 shares a year, majority ownership will occur in 22 years). Of course, people have the power to do this right now, simply by buying $4000 a year in stock. But for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, this isn’t and option. |
So, the question begs to be asked: "Why is this system better for the poor worker than the former?" According to you, it's still their choice whether they "receive" (rather than "buy") this stock, and they have to forgo the same amount of money to receive. Will there be no more "lower end" economic actors under this system? How will this system get moving without help from the government if the lower end can't afford to get it moving? How is this new scenario any different for our poor worker than the old one?
| BB wrote: |
| What kind of "ethical" objections could there be? |
What is the justification for your system? I'm still wondering what grave injustice is being committed that it requires the government to take someone's money from him or her just because the workers don't own the company. If a group of people wants to organize their business like this, that's wonderful, I'm fine with that. It could (and has seemed to according to the evidence) work quite well as a business model. But why do you want to force it down everyone's throat? What about average workers who don't want to own stock in their company? They'll be under severe peer pressure to conform to something they don't want to do. Hell, if a company goes under, not only will the workers be unemployed, but they'll be broke too. This is what I mean by the stock "anchors."
I don't believe that you've identified anything so terrible in our society that it requires the government to step in and force this social structure on us. That is my main "ethical" objection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #13715
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2005-10-12 18:30
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Sweden |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Maybe we focus too much on the state enforcing systems. There are, after all, other options.
For instance, libertarian-syndicalism could be implemented in a federation - such as the FRG, the USA or Switzerland - where the different Bundesländer/states/cantons could choose to recognize the Libertarian-Syndicalist taxation laws while others might not. If I'm not mistaken, libertarians often agitate along this lines, although they usually demand that this must be implemented within a society strictly modelled on libertarian-capitalist ideals.
Another possible method of introducing the liberatian-syndicalist system is of course the good old method called general strikes. It would force governmental and capitalistic institutions to either use violence or go bankrupt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #13794
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2005-10-17 15:35
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| therapyneeded wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| Yes, the unions would own a stock in their member's corporations as well. |
So is unionization a mandatory feature for these tax free companies to have as well?
|
It wouldn't be "mandatory". But I think that under such a system of "worker control" that it would be inevitable for the unions to manage (co-opt) some of that control.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
Also, are there any rules as to how the unions distribute the dividends made from the stock the unions hold? In other words, how do we know that unions will distribute the money "fairly." I'm sure everyone here knows that unions have been fairly prone to corruption, so this is a valid concern.
|
That would be up to the unions. The feds could monitor the unions for corruption, and set certain guidelines for how this thing could be carried out, but the union members would ultimately decide the specifics.
Here's one possible scenario:
- A steel worker receives $2,000 a year of stock in his company, SteelCo. The Steel Worker's Union takes 10% of this, and pools it with all the stock collected from other workers. In effect, the union would create a Steel Industry Mutual Fund. When an issue came up for a stockholder vote at SteelCo, each individual worker would have a direct vote, and the steel worker's union would have a vote as well (in addition to all of the other stock holders)
Another scenario...
- The unions hold all worker stock. When an issue at SteelCo comes up for a vote, all the union members vote on the issue as a single stockholder, in a "winner take all" sort of fashion. (i.e. if the union members support a measure 51% to 49%, then 100% of the union's vote goes in support of the issue)
And there is the simplest possibility of all...
- The unions don't get jack shit.
There really is no reason for the government to have to pick between these options. The workers, unions, and employers can work this out for themselves.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| It really isn't up to the state to figure out how to make the system work -- That task is left up to each individual corporation. |
So the state is coercing people in society to conform to it's new ideal, but it isn't to be bothered with the details of implementing it? That's like forcing your debt on someone else and telling him or her to "Fuck off and figure it out yourself."
|
Why should they be worried about the details?
People propose raising cigarette taxes as a means to compel more people to quit smoking, and taxes on alcohol are meant as a means to deter people from drinking. Does this mean that the government has to put every citizen in the country on a 12-step program in order for these "deterrents" to work? Not at all.
Stop thinking like a damn socialist.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| The stock market isn't going anywhere. |
This is what you say, but if most corporations conform to your ideal, then a rather large percentage of stock will basically be non-transferable. If most stock is fixed, where does this leave investors-to-be? You can still participate in the market, sure, but not to the same extent. Basically, most of your investment will be anchored to your company, whereas now, one can have a fairly diverse stock portfolio (which is a good thing).
|
Many companies currently offer their employees stock options. Has this caused the demise of the stock market? All we are talking about doing is providing a little carrot of on a stick to entice corporations to accelerate these programs.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| If the employees wanted to speed this processes along any faster, it would be necessary for them to incur a little more risk… they would have to, for instance, forgo $4000 a year in salary for additional 500 shares a year (at 700 shares a year, majority ownership will occur in 22 years). Of course, people have the power to do this right now, simply by buying $4000 a year in stock. But for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, this isn’t and option. |
So, the question begs to be asked: "Why is this system better for the poor worker than the former?" According to you, it's still their choice whether they "receive" (rather than "buy") this stock, and they have to forgo the same amount of money to receive. Will there be no more "lower end" economic actors under this system? How will this system get moving without help from the government if the lower end can't afford to get it moving? How is this new scenario any different for our poor worker than the old one?
|
The economic benefits can vary with the success of the company. It is not a means of eliminating poverty. But we currently have a system in which the top 1% owns 38% of all wealth, and the top 20% owns 80%. Only 27 percent of households held more than $10,000 in stock in 1997. 57 percent of Americans didn't own any stock at all.
And that is what I would like to see changed. Full 100% worker ownership is not my goal. Not at all. But I would like to see more people included in the process.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
| BB wrote: |
| What kind of "ethical" objections could there be? |
What is the justification for your system? I'm still wondering what grave injustice is being committed that it requires the government to take someone's money from him or her just because the workers don't own the company.
|
They take their money right now. It is called taxes. All I am suggesting is a tax break for worker-owned corporation. The government currently gives tax break to companies for all sorts of crap, so offering a break to companies that "share the wealth" with employees really isn't that big of a deal. (Unless you just don't like tax breaks period.)
| therapyneeded wrote: |
If a group of people wants to organize their business like this, that's wonderful, I'm fine with that. It could (and has seemed to according to the evidence) work quite well as a business model. But why do you want to force it down everyone's throat?
|
how is a tax break "forcing" anybody to do anything? Under the model I am suggesting, only companies that offer no stock options to their employees at all would see a tax hike. Everybody else would see a tax break. There are many LibCaps (and Republican) that would like to see the corporate tax eliminated all together. So what is the problem with eliminating the tax on worker-owned companies? The justification for doing so is that a company that has divided its wealth among the owners has already done a great service to society, so why not cut them some slack on their taxes?
| therapyneeded wrote: |
What about average workers who don't want to own stock in their company?
|
Sell their stock to another employee?... or their Union?... or just sell it.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
Hell, if a company goes under, not only will the workers be unemployed, but they'll be broke too. This is what I mean by the stock "anchors."
|
Yep. That is a drawback.
But for your average worker, theses assets wouldn’t have existed in the first place unless the company had given them to the workers. Nothing gained is nothing lost.
| therapyneeded wrote: |
I don't believe that you've identified anything so terrible in our society that it requires the government to step in and force this social structure on us. That is my main "ethical" objection. |
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. That is what the “libertarian” part of the name is there for. It is just a slight modification to the current system.
Don’t be afraid.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rats
Inner Party Leader
Post #25967
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1007
Total Words: 252,838
Average words per post: 251.08
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-06-12 06:04
|
|
| Politics: United World Government |
Country: Canada |
|
| Speed Bumps |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This seems to be a method of wealth sharing or economic participation for the workers at a corporate unit level.
But how could this possibly affect other so many other problems problems that exist?
Such as those raised by the documentary "thecorporation"?
or
Control and monopolization of the media by single corporations or corporation conglomerates?
or
Existing control and creation of law and the legal system by the corporations eg. current private ownership of parts of nature, ownership of life, the patents to produce life?
or
The alliance in the elite between member of corporation leadership and politicians...indeed often they change jobs form one to the other.
The basic definitions and mission statements of corporations i.e. what is the purpose of making profits eg making enormous profits from drugs but not using them to cure some disease because, although they have a cure, the drug for that disease is not very profitable? (but the expense is very small).
The way to make profits..ecology, morality?
The prevention of monopolization and tricks to squeeze out the Small players which results in decreased quality of goods and services for the consumer?
The promotion of middle and small sized business?
and so on , and so on.. and so so much more...it's mind-numbing.
Of course an answer might be that these other things are not seen as problems.
To force this corporate sharing of wealth how is that possible? Another problem is enforcing an open system of bookkeeping and controls over the access to assets.
_________________
The Web site you seek cannot be located.
But endless others exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rats
Inner Party Leader
Post #25975
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1007
Total Words: 252,838
Average words per post: 251.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-06-12 10:15
|
|
| Politics: United World Government |
Country: Canada |
|
| Wikipedia it? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Are you answering me or just musing?
Is that it? Revival of defunct political movements and trends?
The scope ( Libertarian-Syndicalism ) is not clear to me. Have you thought of making a Wikipedia article, BB?
Found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
_________________
The Web site you seek cannot be located.
But endless others exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josf
Spy
Post #26166
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 141
Total Words: 80,986
Average words per post: 574.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-06-13 18:34
|
|
|
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Discussion,
If there is any confusion concerning the ideal whereby each person is responsible for each person, then, there will be a very big obstacle ending any discussion concerning that principle. The confusion and the obstacle can have one million times one million different word combinations defining the confusion and the obstacle; like a dog chasing its own tail.
If, on the other hand, the confusion concerning the ideal whereby each person is responsible for each person is eliminated, then, that obstacle no longer causes that dog to chase its own tail. The discussion could move on in a commonly understood and mutually agreeable direction whereby each individual recognized each individual's own responsibilities.
The problem remains, as to, how the ideal whereby each person is responsible for each person can be accurately communicated.
The biggest problem, for your consideration, is people who willfully refute the ideal that each person is responsible for each person.
Each person IS responsible for each person as a condition of natural and physical fact and that fact cannot be disputed without ignorance, fraud, or violence.
Accountability is not responsibility and that confusion is as easy to see as day and night. The Twilight Zone is man made.
In physical terms: Each person can fraud and force a transfer of costs, that they alone are responsible for, onto another person or other people and that transfer can be measurable and therefore that transfer can be accounted.
If the discussion fails to recognize the difference between responsibility and accountability, then, the professors have not accounted for their own responsibility.
Ignorance, fraud, violence, and a failure to account for one’s own responsibility is a responsibility forever and always. The accounting of responsibility is subject to discussion – responsibility is subject to falsehood.
One might find reason to chase their own tails around however; my guess is that the general practice of this sort is a function of ignorance concerning responsibility.
An accurate accounting is, possibly, in order.
Who determines one’s own responsibility and who accounts for it?
“Libertarians”, “Anarchists”, and “Socialists” agree that responsibility is individual or there is no responsibility at all.
If one does not agree with that, then, they are willfully failing to recognize their own natural and physical existence. My guess is that we do so because it isn’t easy to be accountable for our responsibilities.
Capitalists may also agree with the ideal, or fact, that each person is responsible for each person however I have yet to find one who does.
The capitalist ideal, as far as I have been able to gather, is to pass on costs from one responsible individual to another by fraud and violence.
The method used to accomplish the fraud and violence is to create a falsehood known as the corporation whereby individuals can act, and therefore be responsible for their individual acts, and pass on the costs of those acts to others with impunity. If a victim of the acts perpetrated by an individual who is ‘protected’ by the corporation is victimized, then, the victim is unable to hold accountable that person causing the harm.
The corporate ‘entity’ legalizes crime.
I’m not the only one who recognizes these facts.
You can see them too and perhaps avoid chasing your own tail.
Here:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
| Quote: |
| But the other kind of charters profess to guaranty to individuals the immunities, (to a certain extent,) of a joint, incorporeal, intangible being. They declare that these individuals shall, in certain contingencies, be deemed to be such a being. And the object is to protect theta severally in the non-performance of their joint contracts. Now it is obviously impossible for legislation to create such a being, or entity, as it here professes to do. For, after all, ‘who are “The President, Directors and Company” of a bank, but real bona fide men, who, in making contracts, consult their own interests like other men--who are as competent as other men to make contracts, and who, so far as the obligations of justice are concerned, are as much responsible for their acts, as if they had never passed through such an operation as that of being fictitiously transformed into an unreal being. Now, it is to be observed, and has been already suggested, that the whole object and effect (if any) of this legislative legerdemain, is to give to these individuals an immunity against all personal liability for the contracts they unity make. The question now is, whether this “contract,” or pledge, on the part of the state, that these individuals shall be regarded, in law, as an imaginary, incorporeal being, or rather as so many imaginary, incorporeal beings, and that they shall be held irresponsible, as men, for the contracts they may enter into, is an obligatory contract? |
_________________
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rats
Inner Party Leader
Post #26741
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1007
Total Words: 252,838
Average words per post: 251.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-06-17 03:24
|
|
| Politics: United World Government |
Country: Canada |
|
| Corporate Accountability and The Everyperson |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Josf wrote: |
The problem remains, as to, how the ideal whereby each person is responsible for each person can be accurately communicated.
The biggest problem, for your consideration, is people who willfully refute the ideal that each person is responsible for each person.
Each person IS responsible for each person as a condition of natural and physical fact and that fact cannot be disputed without ignorance, fraud, or violence.
Accountability is not responsibility and that confusion is as easy to see as day and night. The Twilight Zone is man made.
In physical terms: Each person can fraud and force a transfer of costs, that they alone are responsible for, onto another person or other people and that transfer can be measurable and therefore that transfer can be accounted.
If the discussion fails to recognize the difference between responsibility and accountability, then, the professors have not accounted for their own responsibility.
Ignorance, fraud, violence, and a failure to account for one’s own responsibility is a responsibility forever and always. The accounting of responsibility is subject to discussion – responsibility is subject to falsehood.
One might find reason to chase their own tails around however; my guess is that the general practice of this sort is a function of ignorance concerning responsibility.
An accurate accounting is, possibly, in order.
Who determines one’s own responsibility and who accounts for it?
“Libertarians”, “Anarchists”, and “Socialists” agree that responsibility is individual or there is no responsibility at all.
If one does not agree with that, then, they are willfully failing to recognize their own natural and physical existence. My guess is that we do so because it isn’t easy to be accountable for our responsibilities.
Capitalists may also agree with the ideal, or fact, that each person is responsible for each person however I have yet to find one who does.
The capitalist ideal, as far as I have been able to gather, is to pass on costs from one responsible individual to another by fraud and violence.
The method used to accomplish the fraud and violence is to create a falsehood known as the corporation whereby individuals can act, and therefore be responsible for their individual acts, and pass on the costs of those acts to others with impunity. If a victim of the acts perpetrated by an individual who is ‘protected’ by the corporation is victimized, then, the victim is unable to hold accountable that person causing the harm.
The corporate ‘entity’ legalizes crime.
I’m not the only one who recognizes these facts.
You can see them too and perhaps avoid chasing your own tail.
Here:
|
Good work Josf
Thats a good lesson on the difference between accountability and responsibility. Essentially I like the tone of your thoughts.
I would suppose I would say that I'm a capitalist, but I want to see the basic definition of the corporations legally re-written. And absolutely some accountability for their actions in the Third World.
I really recommend everyone should see the documentary ?"The Corporation". It should be an eye-opener to the basic problems of the corporations structure for any of those unfamiliar with these things.
At www.thecorporation.com are some very good forums. Unfortunately, the forums are closed temporarily for a software update, but keep check it out later and you will be rewarded.
_________________
The Web site you seek cannot be located.
But endless others exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josf
Spy
Post #26861
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 141
Total Words: 80,986
Average words per post: 574.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-06-17 23:03
|
|
|
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Rats,
Here is a refutation of Usury A.K.A. The Interest/Profit System:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index.html
The promoters of Capitalism as a legal system, and I can't see Capitalism ever existing without the force of law, are unified, as far as I can gather from their silence, unified on legal currency and particularly currency that is backed by Gold i.e. Commodity Money.
Money, rather currency (since money is just currency that isn't moving) is worthless if it doesn't move, except for fraud, so currency is backed by something real or it is backed by something imaginary. The imaginary money can't produce anything more than the activities inspired by it. Real backing of currency is something real like Oil, Gold, human labor, or, contractual agreement, trust, honor, responsibility, and moral conscience i.e. doing the right thing like paying off a debt, if possible, and assuming the cost of a bad investment without resorting to the further expense, passed on to others, of prosecuting the debtor for lack of funds i.e. failure to pay taxes for example.
Here is how Gold money can work (from the above link):
| Quote: |
| In the decade of depression prior to World War II, the so-called Federal Reserve would ship sixty-billion dollars worth of gold annually to Germany to finance the military buildup of Hitler, and even to pay Japanese debts to German munitions makers. |
Oil:
http://wfmu.org/playlists/DX
Scroll down to the following and click on LISTEN
April 11, 2006: FTR 544: Return of the Standard-I.G. Agreement of 1929. | Listen
This may work:
http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=18679
The audio starts Real Player on my computer.
More on Capitalism by Capitalists:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/
It’s the deed not the word.
One thing I've found to be common among capitalists is this:
Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.
If that is not your motto, and I presume that it is not, then, you are a unique capitalist.
I’m reading a book titled: Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787.
Here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1410203638/sr=8-1/qid=1150584557/ref=sr_1_1/103-9427322-7267803?%5Fencoding=UTF8
In short: The Constitution was a fraud perpetrated by ‘moneyed men’ and I’m having a hard time separating the old frauds from the new one’s calling themselves Capitalists.
P.S. I'll check that link; thanks
_________________
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rats
Inner Party Leader
Post #26866
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1007
Total Words: 252,838
Average words per post: 251.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-06-17 23:36
|
|
| Politics: United World Government |
Country: Canada |
|
| Good Stuff |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Thanks Josf,
I'm very interested in studying the hidden secrets of the corporate and monetary system. When that site reopens you will find a lot of posters collected information you might be interested in. I hope they were able to transfer the old posts, there was a lot of valuable info and links there.
I'm multi-paradigmic.
I'm a neo-con on the front lawn, a commie in the kitchen, a fascist in the washroom and a capitalist in the bedroom.
I got real player to listen to many things on the internet, I listened to some recordings about the banking system .
_________________
The Web site you seek cannot be located.
But endless others exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josf
Spy
Post #26911
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 141
Total Words: 80,986
Average words per post: 574.37
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-06-18 15:14
|
|
|
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Rats,
When I read your comments I see an interest that I have worked on for many years and my presumption, false or true, is that my efforts place me further ahead in the process.
I can offer much, in my own deluded mind, that unlocks many of the secrets concerning the corporate monetary system.
There are two systems. One occurs naturally, as a function of agreement, and the other is enforced.
The first enforcer of what is now known as Capitalism – The Interest/Profit System, as far as I have found, is Plato.
The first discoverer of the natural order of currency (specifically not money) is, perhaps, Zeno. Zeno’s writings are lost. Maybe it was one of those book burning parties.
I think that Aristotle was in the middle but I have yet to read from his work.
Here are a few expressions that confirm usage of the Corporate Interest/Profit Monetary System (after you leave your front yard and get out among the rest of the sharks):
If the item is sold, then, the price was too low.
If the item is not sold, then, the price is too high.
Here is the naturally occurring mutually agreeable exchange:
It doesn’t cost me any more than it cost you to exchange the item.
In simple terms:
The Capitalist realizes how cooperation works in society and then the capitalist takes credit for that natural occurrence.
The Capitalist claims:
If it were not for my Capitalism there would be no cooperation.
Once the Interest/Profit System is in place, then, the Capitalist no longer needs the fraud.
Fuck you – Pay me.
That last line is an actual phrase I heard during my time in business.
The problem with Capitalism, and the Interest/Profit System, is that it is a fraud and people eventually see through it. So the Capitalists do more than take credit for cooperation – they spend more on maintaining the fraud. Guess who pays for that?
When Capitalists fraud it can be as simple as this:
Mark up the price and then slash the price as if the item is on sale for half price. Meanwhile the item is priced at double the cost.
Capitalist fraud can be as complicated as the Secret meetings and dirty deals behind closed doors in 1787 Philadelphia or that Special Interest Red Cross Mission to Russian in 1917.
One gem of a book I found on Capitalism or Monopolism (I like to call it Scarcenomics) is this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0839807937/sr=8-1/qid=1150642601/ref=sr_1_1/103-9427322-7267803?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Confessions of a Monopolist by Howe
The labels are changed for a reason.
Monopolist/Capitalist
I just read in the book Secret Proceedings 1787 here again:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1410203638/sr=8-1/qid=1150584557/ref=sr_1_1/103-9427322-7267803?%5Fencoding=UTF8
The Federalists (read Moneyed-Men or Capitalists or Friends of Order or Banking Interests or Industrialists etc.) became Anti-Federalists (or Nationalists, Despots, Criminals, etc) when the open meetings went behind closed doors.
The actual people labeled by the Anti-Federalists in Federalist Clothing were not Anti-Federalists, however the label stuck, these mud slung dripping people with the Anti-Federalist label were not Anti-Federalists; rather they were anti-crime, anti-despot, anti-usurer, anti-taxation without representation, etc. labels change for a reason.
One has to ask: Which of your two faces are talking now?
One might arrive at: Man who speaks with forked tongue.
Note: I’ve read many accounts of Native Indians being led by white skinned people dressed up as Indians before those Indians became “The Indian Problem” and before the final solution to the Indian Problem. That is Capitalism at work:
Fuck you – Pay me.
Some Indians, of course, were good Capitalists themselves. I don’t think you have to have a membership card.
_________________
Joe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rats
Inner Party Leader
Post #26912
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1007
Total Words: 252,838
Average words per post: 251.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-06-18 15:52
|
|
| Politics: United World Government |
Country: Canada |
|
| kokopelli |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
hi Josef,
I'm glad you introduce the subject of native americans. Please, I direct you to look at my avatar. It is Kokopelli from the Anasazi. I take Kokopelli as one of my spiritual guides. I answer you through symbolism.
Have you ever read "Sun Chief: autobiography of a Navaho Indian"? It is very interesting. "Sun Chief" was a very good-hearted and wise person of the solid earth. He was also a spiritual leader.
Snakes , demons and biting things of this earth are legion. We are on a wheel of conflict. Sitting Bull in a waking dream saw his own death yet he could not stop it from happening. So it is easy to lose. Following the Gods of whimsy, creation, fertility, charity and compassion can help us in the war on the monster that has no name. We strategize, we retreat, we wait, we idle, we attack. All are of one action and one tongue if we follow our Gods.
The mysterious Kokopelli character is found in a number of Native American cultures, being especially prominent in the Anazasi culture of the "Four Corners" area. The figure represents a mischievous trickster or the Minstrel, spirit of music. Kokopelli is distinguished by his dancing pose, a hunchback and flute. His whimsical nature, charitable deeds, and vital spirit give him a prominent position in Native American mysticism.
Kokopelli has been a sacred figure to Native Americans of the Southwestern United States for thousands of years. Found painted and carved on rock walls and boulders throughout this region, Kokopelli is one of the most intriguing and widespread images to have survived from ancient Anasazi Indian mythology, and is a prominent figure in Hopi and Zuni legends. Kokopelli is also revered by current-day descendants including the Hopi, Taos and Acoma pueblo peoples.
Kokopelli is considered a symbol of fertility who brought well-being to the people, assuring success in hunting, planting and growing crops, and human conception. His "hump" was often considered a bag of gifts, a sack carrying the seeds of plants and flowers he would scatter every spring. Warming the earth by playing his flute and singing songs, Kokopelli would melt the winter snow and create rain, ensuring a good harvest. Kokopelli often displayed a long phallus, symbolizing the fertile seeds of human reproduction.
"He of the singing reed,
He of the sacred seed,
comes to assure the fertility
and good fortune of our people."
-- Linda Lay Shuler
http://raysweb.net/canyonlands/pages/anasazi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokopelli
_________________
The Web site you seek cannot be located.
But endless others exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
