|
| Thread: Democracy - Stairway to Heaven or Highway to Hell? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted April 20, 2008 10:31 PM |
|
|
@Mvas
My parallel between the medieval Church and capitalism was based on the fact that they both just fight for their own political and material interests under the mask of saving and helping people.
Another problem is that capitalist systems draw a profit from backwater countries, since they provide them with cheaper labor force (and, let's be real here, the sole goal of capitalism is getting cash with a cheaper labor force).
And if the self-interested elite, since they insist on ruling all the time, informed the masses properly, they would be neither lazy nor uninformed.
About comparing the working class to insane people confined in an asylum, then I just have no idea what to tell you. Seriously. And I sincerely doubt that's the mainstream view in America.  The only similarity is that both workers and the insane are trapped in a madhouse, the difference being that for the insane it's just a building, and for the workers it's the entire planet.
Thirdly, how does a yuppie who spends his entire life in an office have any right to decide what is whose work worth? What gives him a right to say, "my work is more worth than yours"?
And finally, please, please define the term "creative destruction". Which is, in your words, "good".
@SirDunco
Though I agree with you (as usual ), I don't think that a good example of workers' self-management currently actually exists. There were anarcho-syndicalists in Spain somewhere in the 1930s if I recall correctly, and there were a few similar cases perhaps (many anarchists fought on the side of the Bolsheviks in the October revolution), but it was always taken down by a more aggressive and authoritarian political group (civil war by fascists in Spain, communists betraying the anarcho-syndicalists in Russia...). Any form of people's self-management has been systematically destroyed throughout history.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
|
I'll go step by step and as I am not a fan of multiple quotes, you'll have to look up the direct sources.
Masses vs. self interest
This is a question of freedom as well as decentralization, egoism and so on. Direct democracy is very hard to reach on a large scale (still with the progress of the computerized society as well as the internet, the chances are growing again). Let me try to explain as this is a complex issue linked to many others (such as the idea of nation, self identity, the existence of state...). Direct democracy is achieved at best on a small scale (Athens, Swiss Cantons etc.) therefore the emphasis on decision making, must be put on the small, local level, in my opinion that is.
Masses do not necessarily have to be lazy, if they can identify with the issue at hand (again local decision making). People feel involved if the issues touch them. I'm not saying that everyone HAS to be involved in the legislative process, but everyone should have the chance to.
If you want to deal on a larger scale, the main issue is the state of the representatives mandate. If the representative is in little way bound to his voters, in other words the only way to get him from his seat is not voting for him in the next election, then there is little connection between him and the source of his mandate. You may say that is good, but I differ. This is just another way of drawing power away from the voter and into the hands of the ruling elite. The voter, should have some control over his representative.
What I would propose is an imperative mandate. The voters of their local voting district (again decentralization of power) should have the right to recall their representative, that is to kick him out of his seat and elect a replacement.
Centralization of power is a corrupting event, that leads to making the self interest of the single person, who was elected by the voters, the most important aspect in front of the interest of the people who actually elected him.
Worker self management
As Baklava pointed out, the anarcho-syndicalist in Spain in the 1930's , especially in Catalonia and the Basque country, are one example, as well as the Makhno movement in the Ukraine during the 1920's.
As for more recent issues I can recommend you a movie called Zanon - a Factory without bosses. There are other examples from Latin America as well as from Europe.
The thing is, again another point by Baklava, is that the idea of worker management has been destroyed. Worker management can hardly function in hard capitalism, that is based on the maximization of profit as it introduces an alternative economical system.
Capitalism - oppression
The idea of oppression is linked to the idea of the maximization of profit, that causes money, gain and consumption to become the top goals. It throws the individual into a cycle that is dominated by monetary gain, therefore manipulates him or her, into placing money at the top of the pyramid and subjects him to goals that can be reached only by a small chosen elite (the so-called "good life of the glamorous rich"). The never-ending cycle of gaining and spending, consuming money is the oppressive, destructive and manipulative factor, to the individual and to the society as a such.
As I do not want to open the environmental debate again, I'll skip the effect of global capitalism on nature.
Monopolies, better said the monopolization of the market and it's effect are linked to the growing economical globalisation of capitalism as only a few selected have enough strength power and resources to compete on such a large scale. And with such a position it is very easy for them to overtake almost any opposition.
To make clear I do not oppose the idea of a market, which can be a very positive factor.
Baklava
I guess it's a normal thing that we agree with each other  On most and the main points atleast...
As for the role of the anarchist movement in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, well that is an interesting topic, but not one for this discussion. The thing is, Bolshevism as it was theoretically formulated before the revolution was a thing agreeable, by Russian anarchists especially, but the reality of it had an impact on them as well.
And the Spanish Civil War is a whole other subject...
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 12:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Another problem is that capitalist systems draw a profit from backwater countries, since they provide them with cheaper labor force (and, let's be real here, the sole goal of capitalism is getting cash with a cheaper labor force).
And how is this a bad thing? Sweatshops are, I admit, terrible places. But the average pay in a Vietnamese (to pick some country) sweatshop is twice the average national wage. Obviously, the poor workers are then better off. The companies are better off as well, since they get a cheap labor force.
Who, then, is harmed?
Firstly, it's important to recognize that economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone's situation is improved doesn't mean that someone else's situation is made worse. Remember that at its most basic level, capitalism is based on volountary exchange - that is, if both sides don't see a benefit from the transaction, the transaction does not occur.
To return to the sweatshops and companies, the countries where the companies sell their goods benefit as a whole, because the price of goods goes down. There is, however, one group that is harmed: the workers that manufactured the goods in the original country. However, this does not mean that we should protect their jobs, thus harming the rest of the country who wouldn't get the cheaper goods. Instead, we should retrain the workers (or something similar). These workers losing their jobs is what is called "creative destruction". It might not look good initially, but the cheaper goods will allow other people to spend their money elsewhere, thus creating new jobs. Hence the "creative" part.
Quote:
And if the self-interested elite, since they insist on ruling all the time, informed the masses properly, they would be neither lazy nor uninformed.
But the elite perpetuates itself by not informing and sometimes decieving the masses. On the other hand, the elite may know what's best for the masses better than the masses do.
Quote:
About comparing the working class to insane people confined in an asylum, then I just have no idea what to tell you.
Perhaps my analogy was not too apt. What I meant was that (in most cases) there is no way that workers can both work and collectively manage a business at the same time.
Quote:
Thirdly, how does a yuppie who spends his entire life in an office have any right to decide what is whose work worth?
It is not any person that decides that, but the market as a whole. Workers and CEOs alike go from business to business, looking for the best wages. The businesses, on their side, try to pay both groups as little as possible to maximize profits. On the other hand, a business that raises its wages can attract workers from other businesses, thus putting itself ahead. Overall, this process then balances out to where everyone is paid according to what their labor is worth. That's one reason monopolies are so bad: they eliminate this kind of competition.
Quote:
What I would propose is an imperative mandate. The voters of their local voting district (again decentralization of power) should have the right to recall their representative, that is to kick him out of his seat and elect a replacement.
A good idea that I generally agree with. There is, however, one occasional problem: what if the representative supports policies that cause short-term harm to those he is representing, but that have a great long-term benefit?
Quote:
placing money at the top of the pyramid and subjects him to goals that can be reached only by a small chosen elite (the so-called "good life of the glamorous rich").
Not everyone can have everything. But it's something to strive towards.
Quote:
The never-ending cycle of gaining and spending, consuming money is the oppressive, destructive and manipulative factor, to the individual and to the society as a such.
I don't see how it's oppressive or destructive.
Quote:
As I do not want to open the environmental debate again, I'll skip the effect of global capitalism on nature.
Which is why pollution and contribution to global warming have to be punished by various governments.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 11:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And how is this a bad thing? Sweatshops are, I admit, terrible places. But the average pay in a Vietnamese (to pick some country) sweatshop is twice the average national wage. Obviously, the poor workers are then better off. The companies are better off as well, since they get a cheap labor force.
It's a bad thing because it borders on what Nazi Germany was doing - you had Germans which were the higher race, and received all the benefits and wages, and you had the Poles and other occupied peoples who were the cheap labor force brought in to work on the dirtiest of jobs for a minimal wage, which was still better than living in their occupied country under constant fear of torture and execution.
Quote:
Instead, we should retrain the workers (or something similar).
And how does retraining - or something similar (wtf) - prevent workers to lose their jobs due to cheaper market?
Systematic firing people from their workplaces is creative and helpful. That's novel.
"Hey, now you're fired, and kicked out in the street, but TVs are 5% cheaper. You've done the country a great service, please go now and die in a dumpster."
Do you actually personally know anyone from the working class? Just asking.
Quote:
But the elite perpetuates itself by not informing and sometimes decieving the masses. On the other hand, the elite may know what's best for the masses better than the masses do.
Disinformation and deceit. Yes. That's what all dictators think is best for the masses.
Quote:
Perhaps my analogy was not too apt. What I meant was that (in most cases) there is no way that workers can both work and collectively manage a business at the same time.
Damn right there isn't. Since the government systematically destroys any attempt of it.
Quote:
It is not any person that decides that, but the market as a whole. Workers and CEOs alike go from business to business, looking for the best wages. The businesses, on their side, try to pay both groups as little as possible to maximize profits. On the other hand, a business that raises its wages can attract workers from other businesses, thus putting itself ahead. Overall, this process then balances out to where everyone is paid according to what their labor is worth. That's one reason monopolies are so bad: they eliminate this kind of competition.
But how can you possibly like a system that sees you as a number with a "$" sign in front? And they openly try to pay you as little as possible to maximize their own profits, so that they can buy two Ferraris instead of just one Ferrari and one Mercedes this month.
Those people ARE the market as a whole. They decide people's wages to best suit their own interests, not the interests of those people. History teaches us that those kind of people must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to take control. And capitalism is just that - giving control to the greedy and those who solely follow their own interests.
Quote:
A good idea that I generally agree with. There is, however, one occasional problem: what if the representative supports policies that cause short-term harm to those he is representing, but that have a great long-term benefit?
Then he ought to explain it fair and square instead of lying to the people, perhaps?
Quote:
Not everyone can have everything. But it's something to strive towards.
Yes. And it's really wonderful when children see Paris Hilton as something to strive towards.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 12:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Firstly, it's important to recognize that economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone's situation is improved doesn't mean that someone else's situation is made worse.
Actually, I think it is almost a zero-sum game. Just because the 'poor' will have a lot of money from today's standards, doesn't mean he or she will live happy tomorrow -- usually money values will decrease if the average person tomorrow has more money than the average person yesterday. (note I said usually). Business and those who sell their products want to keep the same gain from their products. That means in percent, since the average people will be 'richer', they will be too. This also means a certain product, being sold at the same price, will gain less to the seller. So usually money value will decrease (i.e the products will become more expensive). The only thing that can sometimes stop this from happening is competition, but that usually fails quickly.
this is, of course, only an approximation, not to be taken as a black (0) or white (100%) thing, but I hope you get the idea.
Also, mvassilev, how do you calculate a worker's worth? Who decides what is more worth than another? Where's the formula? (it's like comparing two complex numbers  )
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a bad thing because it borders on what Nazi Germany was doing - you had Germans which were the higher race, and received all the benefits and wages, and you had the Poles and other occupied peoples who were the cheap labor force brought in to work on the dirtiest of jobs for a minimal wage, which was still better than living in their occupied country under constant fear of torture and execution.
No. You're simply wrong here. If not for capitalism, these people would live as poorly as they did 1000 years ago. These people in poor countries have two choices: either live like you have for hundreds of years or work in a sweatshop. Invariably, many choose to work in a sweatshop. Is it because they're stupid? No, it's because they'd rather get paid twice the national wage.
Quote:
And how does retraining - or something similar (wtf) - prevent workers to lose their jobs due to cheaper market?
Because then it allows workers to find other jobs that aren't outsourced. Plus the increased spending that people are able to make because good are cheaper creates new jobs.
Quote:
Do you actually personally know anyone from the working class?
Yes.
Quote:
Disinformation and deceit. Yes. That's what all dictators think is best for the masses.
Too often, that is whaat happens. But the masses are self-interested (who isn't?), and can only look into the short-term interest. They aren't really willing to give anything up. That's why, in theory, a politician could lie and deceive for the greater good. But, too often, they lie and deceive for themselves alone.
Quote:
Since the government systematically destroys any attempt of it.
No, because workers are workers. If they could manage, then they wouldn't be workers.
Quote:
But how can you possibly like a system that sees you as a number with a "$" sign in front?
Because that is better that way for everyone.
Quote:
And they openly try to pay you as little as possible to maximize their own profits, so that they can buy two Ferraris instead of just one Ferrari and one Mercedes this month.
"They"? Who are "they"? And I try to maximize my income, so it balances out in the end.
Quote:
They decide people's wages to best suit their own interests, not the interests of those people.
Businesses alone can't decide the market price for labor. If they pay too much, then they forgo profit. If they pay too little, they forgo a working force. A business can only control its own wages, not the market wage. Meanwhile, all the workers are trying to get the highest wages for their labor. Thus, the market wage is established.
Quote:
And capitalism is just that - giving control to the greedy and those who solely follow their own interests.
As I have said before, everyone follows their own interests.
Quote:
Then he ought to explain it fair and square instead of lying to the people, perhaps?
Okay, imagine this scenario: the government is going to research technology that they are sure will wipe out all disease. Except that this technology would be insanely expensive to reasearch. So the representative goes to his constituents.
Representative: We can develop a technology that can destroy all disease!
Constituents: YAY!
Representative: But it requires a 100% tax increase.
Constituents: *throw rocks*
Quote:
And it's really wonderful when children see Paris Hilton as something to strive towards.
I don't know anyone who sees Paris Hilton as a role model. I was talking more about like Warren Buffet.
Quote:
Just because the 'poor' will have a lot of money from today's standards, doesn't mean he or she will live happy tomorrow -- usually money values will decrease if the average person tomorrow has more money than the average person yesterday.
Being rich doesn't come from having a lot of money. Being rich (unless you win the lottery or play the stock market) comes from being more productive. The reason that poor and rich alike are richer now than ever before is not because they have more money but because they are more productive. The day is still 24 hours long, but now we can do far more in those 24 hours.
What you described isn't a society getting richer; it's inflation.
Quote:
how do you calculate a worker's worth?
No one person calculates a worker's worth. When a new business opens, it looks at the wages other workers are being paid for the same kind of labor, and starts paying slightly higher wages to attract more workers, but make less profit from each individual worker. Or it could lower wages and attract less workers, but make a larger profit from each individual worker. The businesses and workers, then, balance this out.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted April 21, 2008 06:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if someone here calls USA a democracy he should look in the mirror and be ashamed.
What do you mean by that?
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 09:22 PM |
|
|
Sigh. Ok, let's play the quote game.
Quote:
If not for capitalism, these people would live as poorly as they did 1000 years ago. These people in poor countries have two choices: either live like you have for hundreds of years or work in a sweatshop. Invariably, many choose to work in a sweatshop. Is it because they're stupid? No, it's because they'd rather get paid twice the national wage.
Exactly what I said. It's pure blackmail that reminds of the Third Reich. Either live in bad conditions at home (occupied Poland), or work some pitiful jobs to get some pitiful money (while the Arian Germans, or in this case members of the capitalist country, get larger amounts of money for same, or easier, jobs). I'm not saying capitalism is the same as national-socialism, I'm saying that there are similarities. Why would someone have a lower wage just because he comes from a poorer country? That's pure chauvinism.
The thing is, capitalist countries cannot help poor countries in any way because they profit if a country is poor. A lot of economy is based on the poorness of other countries. And that's just wrong.
Quote:
Because then it allows workers to find other jobs that aren't outsourced.
Finding jobs is not as easy as you'd think. Look at how many unemployed there are in America. And ask the people from the working class that you said you know how they would feel if they lost their jobs for no apparent reason. And don't forget to tell them, "So what, you can get new jobs. And new ones, when they fire you from those."
Quote:
Too often, that is whaat happens. But the masses are self-interested (who isn't?), and can only look into the short-term interest. They aren't really willing to give anything up. That's why, in theory, a politician could lie and deceive for the greater good. But, too often, they lie and deceive for themselves alone.
Too often?
Nothing good ever came out of lies and deceit. Think about it.
With proper education, people would be able to understand that there are things that are better in the long run. Even now a lot of people are able to do that.
Quote:
If they could manage, then they wouldn't be workers.
This is the kind of arrogant thinking that led to the October Revolution.
Quote:
Because that is better that way for everyone.
No. That is better for people obsessed with materialism who can't see further than their own noses.
Quote:
"They"? Who are "they"? And I try to maximize my income, so it balances out in the end.
"They", the ruling elite.
Oh, so in the end they are still able to buy two Ferraris. All is well that ends well.
Quote:
As I have said before, everyone follows their own interests.
Ordinary people, yes. They all seek to feed their families, and get a better future. But a ruler, or a member of the ruling elite, he already has a better future and thus the least he can do is, since he's already ruling, think about the welfare of other people a bit, for a change.
Quote:
Okay, imagine this scenario: the government is going to research technology that they are sure will wipe out all disease. Except that this technology would be insanely expensive to reasearch. So the representative goes to his constituents.
Representative: We can develop a technology that can destroy all disease!
Constituents: YAY!
Representative: But it requires a 100% tax increase.
Constituents: *throw rocks*
1) People's reaction wouldn't be that harsh. They wouldn't really be happy, but most would see the benefit. Unless the entire nation is utterly stupid, which I refuse to believe.
2) There have been far too many misuses of the tax payers' money in the past, and in the present, for the tax payers to actually believe everything they're told. Again, blame it on lies and deceit which you believe that have the power to do so much good.
Quote:
I don't know anyone who sees Paris Hilton as a role model. I was talking more about like Warren Buffet.
Oh, yes, I know millions of children all over the world whose idol is Warren Buffet...
Get real here. People don't want to be like old rich people who earned their money. What they see on TV are young, beautiful people who never did anything hard in their lives and live on the highest social level. And that's what children want to be.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Either live in bad conditions at home (occupied Poland), or work some pitiful jobs to get some pitiful money (while the Arian Germans, or in this case members of the capitalist country, get larger amounts of money for same, or easier, jobs).
Except that: one, it's not capitalism's fault that they're poor, in fact, it's making them better off, and, two, Americans who get paid more for the same jobs get fired because of outsourcing.
Quote:
Why would someone have a lower wage just because he comes from a poorer country?
Because they are willing to work for a (relatively) low wage. Imagine if you offered the average American twice the average annual pay (which would be a pay of $80,000 a year). Who wouldn't jump at the chance?
Quote:
The thing is, capitalist countries cannot help poor countries in any way because they profit if a country is poor.
Nonsense. Rich countries profit from making poor countries richer. If they're poor, then they can't buy stuff that rich countries produce.
Quote:
Look at how many unemployed there are in America.
Do you know why many of them are unemployed? Because their labor isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Quote:
And ask the people from the working class that you said you know how they would feel if they lost their jobs for no apparent reason.
There's no such thing as the "right to work".
Quote:
With proper education, people would be able to understand that there are things that are better in the long run.
This view is too optimistic. Education is often wasted.
Quote:
This is the kind of arrogant thinking that led to the October Revolution.
It's not arrogant, it's realistic. If they could manage, then they'd be managers, not workers.
Quote:
That is better for people obsessed with materialism who can't see further than their own noses.
Tell me, what's wrong with materialism?
Quote:
Oh, so in the end they are still able to buy two Ferraris.
If they pay themselves too much, then they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Quote:
But a ruler, or a member of the ruling elite, he already has a better future and thus the least he can do is, since he's already ruling, think about the welfare of other people a bit, for a change.
They often do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contribute to charity. As for others, they contribute a lot to the economy.
Quote:
1) People's reaction wouldn't be that harsh. They wouldn't really be happy, but most would see the benefit. Unless the entire nation is utterly stupid, which I refuse to believe.
Welcome to America.
Quote:
2) There have been far too many misuses of the tax payers' money in the past, and in the present, for the tax payers to actually believe everything they're told. Again, blame it on lies and deceit which you believe that have the power to do so much good.
No, what I'm saying is that it's possible that the government could deceive for the greater good. But, in practice, it never happens. So I agree with your statement.
Quote:
People don't want to be like old rich people who earned their money. What they see on TV are young, beautiful people who never did anything hard in their lives and live on the highest social level. And that's what children want to be.
Children will learn that the world doesn't work that way.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted April 21, 2008 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Finding jobs is not as easy as you'd think. Look at how many unemployed there are in America. And ask the people from the working class that you said you know how they would feel if they lost their jobs for no apparent reason. And don't forget to tell them, "So what, you can get new jobs. And new ones, when they fire you from those."
No ****! Glad you said it nicely Bak. The economy everywhere is going downhill very fast and in some states (such as mine) it is a right to work state. For you that don’t know what this is, it means that an employer can walk up to you a day before you are set to retire, a year after you have worked with a flawless history, or any other damn time they want and say see ya!!
Quote:
This is the kind of arrogant thinking that led to the October Revolution.
Amen!!
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 12:07 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:09, 22 Apr 2008.
|
@VF
Always nice to see an experienced adult person agreeing with my opinions ^^
Anyways, back to the sentence-by-sentence game.
Quote:
Except that: one, it's not capitalism's fault that they're poor, in fact, it's making them better off, and, two, Americans who get paid more for the same jobs get fired because of outsourcing.
1) Actually, capitalism could help them (or at least try to), but they will not do it since this way they get more profit. And it's always nice to be one of the 'elite' and 'desirable' countries. Why share with others when you can make a profit? Why give a buck to the crippled beggar on the street when that would leave you at a 1 dollar loss?
It's sad that there are so many people who think like that.
2) So you give someone a higher salary and then fire them because of that? Just listen to yourself dude.
Quote:
Because they are willing to work for a (relatively) low wage. Imagine if you offered the average American twice the average annual pay (which would be a pay of $80,000 a year). Who wouldn't jump at the chance?
But why would ANYONE, no matter where he's from or what he wants, have a LOWER salary than someone else for the SAME JOB? It's not like they don't WANT to be paid as an average American.
The fact that he would work for a lower salary shows that the man is modest and comes from a less advanced region. So why is that the reason to punish him with a lower than average payment?
Just try to look at the concept of morality from my angle, for the sake of conversation if nothing else.
Quote:
Nonsense. Rich countries profit from making poor countries richer. If they're poor, then they can't buy stuff that rich countries produce.
They trade with richer countries, and they draw cheap labor force from poorer countries. Trading with richer countries leaves them rich and thus the market is always open, and drawing the most capable workers from poor countries into your own ranks leaves poor countries safely poor and a base for drawing more cheap workers. I don't see how that is nonsense.
Quote:
Do you know why many of them are unemployed? Because their labor isn't worth more than minimum wage.
As judged by the all-powerful Market. Sure.
So the workers actually have to pray to the great Market for it to decide that they are WORTHY of working? Maybe they ought to sacrifice their firstborn children or something?
Quote:
There's no such thing as the "right to work".
But there IS such a thing as a "right to live". And one can NOT live in a capitalist world without a job. Unless his daddy is rich enough.
Quote:
This view is too optimistic. Education is often wasted.
If reformed properly, it wouldn't be. Please read my previous posts in this topic, especially ones relating to education.
Quote:
It's not arrogant, it's realistic. If they could manage, then they'd be managers, not workers.
All hail the higher race of managers.
On the other hand, if managers could actually WORK, they wouldn't be managers, now would they?
Quote:
Tell me, what's wrong with materialism?
It's wrong that people who follow sheer material goals forsake the things that made the society survive in the first place, such as morality. Fanatical materialism nearly brought the planet on the verge of destruction.
Quote:
If they pay themselves too much, then they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Oh not too much. Several million dollars a year usually suffice.
Quote:
They often do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contribute to charity. As for others, they contribute a lot to the economy.
Bill Gates is a genius, he gifted the world the Internet, and we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for him. He actually DID something other than paperwork throughout his life. And I fully respect him, and his charity work. Definitely not the average businessman.
But rest simply contributes a lot to themselves, and that just happens to be the economy too, since they ARE the economy.
Quote:
Welcome to America.
No, seriously, I know countless smart and rational Americans. I may dislike and disagree with some of their political and economic policies and attitudes, but I never have anything against a people as a whole since there are always great individuals among the common folk.
Besides, if the American people could put up with wars, mobilization, constant fear of terrorism and whatnot, they could put up with a tax increase in order to cure a deadly disease. Of course, if it's not a scam.
Quote:
Children will learn that the world doesn't work that way.
Usually when it's too late.
And I know countless adults who are obsessed with celebrities and glamour even more than children.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) Actually, capitalism could help them (or at least try to), but they will not do it since this way they get more profit.
Capitalism does help them. It gives them jobs.
Quote:
2) So you give someone a higher salary and then fire them because of that? Just listen to yourself dude.
Someone who is paid $8 an hour for a job had better be 8 times more productive than someone who is paid $1 for the same job. Otherwise, it's wrong to force companies to hire and keep them.
Quote:
But why would ANYONE, no matter where he's from or what he wants, have a LOWER salary than someone else for the SAME JOB?
Because it's the best they can get. They know that if they wanted wages of the kind that Americans get, they would never get a job.
Quote:
So why is that the reason to punish him with a lower than average payment?
It's not punishment. If someone is willing to work for a lower wage, by all means, hire them!
Quote:
They trade with richer countries, and they draw cheap labor force from poorer countries.
Oh? Look at Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. All of these countries became rich thanks to sweatshops. They rose out of poverty. And now they trade with other countries. Besides, in the future, we're not going to need mass labor as much.
Quote:
So the workers actually have to pray to the great Market for it to decide that they are WORTHY of working? Maybe they ought to sacrifice their firstborn children or something?
Laugh if you want, but capitalism works better than any other system.
Quote:
But there IS such a thing as a "right to live".
We shouldn't subsidize people who can't do anything, or there'd be more and more of them. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
You know, this reminds me of a story that's a favorite of my dad's. Masha (a little girl) and her grandma are sitting at dinner. Masha says, "Grandma, I want some jam." "The jam's on the top shelf," grandma replies. "But, grandma, I don't have any legs," Masha complains. Grandma says, "No legs - no jam."
No legs - no jam.
Quote:
If reformed properly, it wouldn't be.
Bad as the education system is in certain areas, reforming it would not solve the whole problem. Some people simply don't want to learn.
Quote:
On the other hand, if managers could actually WORK, they wouldn't be managers, now would they?
They work at the job at which they would put their human capital to best use: management. It would be a waste for them to work.
Quote:
It's wrong that people who follow sheer material goals forsake the things that made the society survive in the first place, such as morality.
This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps better suited for another thread. I'll just say that I don't think morality has done a good job of keeping up with the times.
Quote:
But rest simply contributes a lot to themselves, and that just happens to be the economy too, since they ARE the economy.
What could possibly be better than useful selfishness? You do good for yourself, and in the process do good for others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DarkShadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 07:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh? Look at Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. All of these countries became rich thanks to sweatshops. They rose out of poverty. And now they trade with other countries. Besides, in the future, we're not going to need mass labor as much.
it will exist regardless, especiality in developing countries.
Quote:
Laugh if you want, but capitalism works better than any other system.
Just look into some countries, look how big class differences have become
Quote:
But there IS such a thing as a "right to live".
since when?
Quote:
Bad as the education system is in certain areas, reforming it would not solve the whole problem. Some people simply don't want to learn.
thats why we have to force them
Quote:
This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps better suited for another thread. I'll just say that I don't think morality has done a good job of keeping up with the times.
morality has never been up that much.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 07:39 AM |
|
|
Democracy is a good system, in the right hands. It is very good when everybody gets a voice, and has a right to voice their own opinon. However, corrupt Democracy is worse even then a feudal system. When the voices start being ignored because of what the 'elected' officals can sell their votes for, Democracy starts failing.
Right now, American Democracy is failing miserably. Which brings us to capitalism. Capitalism also is a good idea, but there should be some limits. Workers rights should be protected also.
In an idea world, businesses would charge an equal amount less when they have to pay less. It is not an idea world however. While paying less for labor does indeed lower prices, it is not an equal ammount of what is saved from the lower wages. Most companies will make as much profit as they can get away with, pure and simple.
Ending minimum wage would only widen the gap between the haves and have nots. The ones with the money already have most of the power, why increase that? People deserve to have a decent lifestyle, regardless of if they were born in a poor family or not.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 10:04 AM |
|
|
@Mvas
We can go on like this forever (like a dozen times before ), but we're straying too far from the subject here. The topic is democracy, not capitalism - and, like someone already said, not all democratic countries are capitalist.
We've presented our points of view, mine is rather moralistic and your rather materialistic. Time to move on and see other people's opinions, don't you agree?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it will exist regardless, especiality in developing countries.
If treated properly, those countries will become richer, and mass labor will eventually cease to exist.
Quote:
Just look into some countries, look how big class differences have become
Regarding class differences: it's not the poor who are getting poorer; it's the rich who are getting richer because their skills are in higher demand. Skills in higher demand get higher wages.
Quote:
thats why we have to force them
You can force people to sit in school, but you can't force them to learn.
Quote:
While paying less for labor does indeed lower prices, it is not an equal ammount of what is saved from the lower wages.
You also have to consider that everyone is becoming more productive, so that drives costs down as well.
Quote:
Ending minimum wage would only widen the gap between the haves and have nots.
Ending the minimum wage would bring some of the have-nots upwards. And would hurt no one. If you're paid above minimum wage, your wages aren't going to change.
Baklava: Perhaps this should be taken into the Economics thread. As for morals vs. materialism, that is also a good subject. But you're right, this thread is about democracy. Let us then return to that subject.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
thats why we have to force them
You can force people to sit in school, but you can't force them to learn.
Someone: "Let's force teens to go to schools, against their most persistent will, it is better in the long run, for I decide".
Nazi (Hitler): "Let's force children to train and become soldiers, fighting in the war! It is better in the long run, for I decide!".
you may think you know what's better for others, but then remember you're one of the 'others' too -- not a divine person.
You know better for them than they do? How about knowing about yourself? Do they know what's better for you?
(this also includes the disease-tax increase, being forced)
also see the analogy with dictatorship -- something which democracy should avoid IMO. But I guess everyone thinks that his opinion is 'best in the long run', heh even Hitler/Stalin thought that 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
|
That's why I think that school attendance should be noncompulsotory. For too many people, school is just a waste of time, so they waste their own time and the taxpayers' money going to school. On the other hand, school keeps them off the streets. So I don't know. Maybe we should make those who don't go to school go to trade school, or something. The only end I see to this is when we wipe out poverty, and then people will stop having so many children.
But, to quote Bush, "This'd be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship. As long as I was dictator." There are not many topics on which I agree with Bush, but I agree here. If I was dictator, things would be a lot better (IMO).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 23, 2008 09:48 AM |
|
|
The keyword there is IMO... 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 23, 2008 10:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If I was dictator, things would be a lot better (IMO).
And therein lies the problem. Everybody thinks that. That they should be the one deciding everything for everybody. Like people who have never had children trying to tell people how to raise their children. (just one example).
Somehow, they just 'know better' how people should live their life. I've known rich, educated people who are dumber then a box of rocks. They went to colledge, earned a doctorate, and have the sense god gave a goose (and I appologize to the geese for that). Being wealthy, or going to colledge does not make you better then ANYBODY.
One of the smartest people I know never went past 3rd grade. He was an old 'african american' that lived nearby. The world lost alot when he passed on. He could just look at a truck (lets say with logs in it) and just know how much the trees would weigh total. Or how much coal was in the truck total, or any number of things.
To be honest I feel sorry for those people who think they are superior because of wealth or a piece of paper (colledge degree). They miss out on some of the simpler things in life...
Ok enough rambling, return to your regularly scheduled mudsl...I mean debate.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
