Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 8:17 a.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

130 Comments

130 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by laguy (110) 2 years ago

I believe the more correct term is Plutocracy not capitalism.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Kleptocracy is also very fitting. There are many ways to describe the system we have, but it is a form of state-capitalism that seems to fit more and more other discriptions as well.

[-] 2 points by vpose (5) 2 years ago

Capitalism has turned into a plutocracy!

[-] 2 points by kittakee (9) 2 years ago

capitalism is exhausting itself

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

There's no difference...

Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production are PRIVATELY owned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[-] 1 points by jeffersonjackson1913 (37) 2 years ago

And that's fine. Private property is an essential form of freedom. It has to do with BANKING specifically. Not corporations or capitalism as a whole. Banks should not be controlling our money supply!

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

Nor should private individuals control our means of production for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

There's no difference between a corporatocracy and a dictatorship.

http://gallery.rsp.org.au/main.php?g2_itemId=155

[-] 2 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

Well... and let's not forget that many in the media, and hence those consuming it, mistake Corporatism for Capitalism.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

They´re both awful, though.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

where does wealth come from?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

from work.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

wasn't russia rather well employed?

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 2 years ago

They lived like dogs during the cold war. Unless you were at the top. Read "Animal Farm". Folks had to stand in long lines just to get TP. They all wished they had what we had in the West. I grew up in the cold war. No thanks. What we have now is much better.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

yes, but it was at the same time ruled by dictators crating a huge bureaucracy with enormous military expences. much wealth created by work were therfore wasted and used for destructive causes. But whats your point, do disagree that work is the cause of wealthcreation?

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

i think there's more to it than just work. i can dig a hole and you can fill it in - we're both working.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You just contradicted youself in two small sentences "i think there's more to it than just work.."... yet "we're both working"...

"we're both working."

agreed. There are differnet kinds of work - all contributing to creating a good modern society. We should organize society in accordance to anarcho syndiclist principles in which all humans can contribute based on their own wants, creative urge and capacity. A society thats in accordance to human nature, a society where poeple dont have to fuction as cogs in a machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8

The Society We Should Strive For

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

my statement wasn't contradictory... i was showing us both working but producing no wealth, to point out that merely working does not create wealth.

how can you organize a society based on people contributing based on their own wants? i'd want to be the lotion guy for bikini models. and so would everyone else i know. nobody would want to clean toilets. etc.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Sorry, I misread your example. But again not all work creates wealth, but only work creates wealth.

"i'm not going through that whole interview to fish out the part about how chomsky solves the janitor problem."

it starts a little over half way thru

The issue starts here:

QUESTION: If the basic defense is the political appeal, or the appeal of the political and economic organization, perhaps we could look in a little more detail at that. You wrote, in one of your essays, that "in a decent society, everyone would have the opportunity to find interesting work and each person would be permitted the fullest possible scope for his talents." And then, you went on to ask: "What more would be required in particular, extrinsic reward in the form of wealth and power? Only if we assume that applying one's talents in interesting and socially useful work is not rewarding in itself." I think that that line of reasoning is certainly one of the things that appeals to a lot of people. But it still needs to be explained, I think, why the kind of work which people would find interesting and appealing and fulfilling to do would coincide at all closely with the kind which actually needs to be done, if we're to sustain anything like the standard of living which people demand and are used to.

CHOMSKY: Well, there's a certain amount of work that just has to be done if we're to maintain that standard of living. It's an open question how onerous that work has to be. Let's recall that science and technology and intellect have not been devoted to examining that question or to overcoming the onerous and self-destructive character of the necessary work of society. The reason is that it has always been assumed that there is a substantial body of wage slaves who will do it simply because otherwise they'll starve. However, if human intelligence is turned to the question of how to make the necessary work of the society itself meaningful, we don't know what the answer will be. My guess is that a fair amount of it can be made entirely tolerable. It's a mistake to think that even back-breaking physical labor is necessarily onerous. Many people, myself included, do it for relaxation. Well, recently, for example, I got it into my head to plant thirty-four trees in a meadow behind the house, on the State Conservation Commission, which means I had to dig thirty-four holes in the sand. You know, for me, and what I do with my time mostly, that's pretty hard work, but I have to admit I enjoyed it. I wouldn't have enjoyed it if I'd had work norms, if I'd had an overseer, and if I'd been ordered to do it at a certain moment, and so on. On the other hand, if it's a task taken on just out of interest, fine, that can be done. And that's without any technology, without any thought given to how to design the work, and so on.

QUESTION: I put it to you that there may be a danger that this view of things is a rather romantic delusion, entertained only by a small elite of people who happen, like professors, perhaps journalists, and so on, to be in the very privileged situation of being paid to do what anyway they like to do.

CHOMSKY: That's why I began with a big "If". I said we first have to ask to what extent the necessary work of the society -- namely that work which is required to maintain the standard of living that we want -- needs to be onerous or undesirable. I think that the answer is: much less than it is it today. But let's assume there is some extent to which it remains onerous. Well, in that case, the answer's quite simple: that work has to be equally shared among people capable of doing it.

(theres more read the link for continued interview)

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

this seems to be a really romantic notion of how to run an economy. my example of wanting to lotion up some ladies is not that far off. what if i wanted to just paint all day? or solve simple problems? what if i wanted to work on complicated ones but, well, i was really quite bad at it? how do we even tell who is bad or good? what if there's a very large amount of work people don't want to do like the toilet cleaning? what if it's a skilled job, say we need 500k project managers, only 400k enjoy doing it, only 300k have any skill? this seems rather dreamy.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"i was showing us both working but producing no wealth, to point out that merely working does not create wealth."

Well, not all work creates wealth, but only work creates wealth. Also remembere that not all work pays off right away - all the differnet Inventions didnt create wealth right after they were invented. It sometimes takes time to make impact. That pond you and I created could potentially become something of value like a swimming pool or something...

"i'd want to be the lotion guy for bikini models. and so would everyone else i know."

That would be kind of pathetic, dont you thik..?

"nobody would want to clean toilets. etc."

work that nobody wnats to do has to be shared in some way: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

we didn't build a pond, i just dug a hole, put the dirt to the side, and you scooped it back in. i actually did this in real life with some machines once...

i would care not whether you thought my job was pathetic sir! all i know is that job satisfaction would be through the roof. however there are likely to be too few models and far too many lotioners. and again, far too few toilet cleaners. market price for labor would seem to arrange these resources more properly. although that would seem to contradict your view where we just kind of work on what we would all like to?

i'm not going through that whole interview to fish out the part about how chomsky solves the janitor problem.

[-] 1 points by bettersystem (170) 2 years ago

replant your garden of eden, this spring plant food all over the earth and free yourselves.

watch http://www.hulu.com/watch/151119/the-end-of-poverty

[-] 2 points by GarnetMoon (424) 2 years ago

Well said...

[-] 2 points by Thinking (3) from Lake Como, PA 2 years ago

It is very interesting to realize how much we are 'brainwashed' to accept capitalism or even democracy in the present financial system as the only way to go (incentive, creativity, etc.) Nobody ever asks the simple question: Can American society (the whole population) or even the total human population of the world (now 7 billion) produce what they need? Without any financial system at all?

Taking an 'extraterrestrial' view: We have this dirt ball here, with seven billion people - human beings - and growing. The total surface of the earth is around 510 million km square (including water); if you divide the population on this surface, each and every one newly born has a 'birth right' to around 13 hectare (which will shrink of course as more are born). Now just take a one km deep layer of this dirt ball and 'calculate' the mineral wealth it contains - including the water. Just the top one km!! Why isn't every newborn a millionaire? Because we are all working for 'ourselves' rather than for humanity. So each individual in the human race 'races' to grab as much of the wealth this dirt ball offers as s/he can. And therein lies the problem ...

We all know Bill Gates made billions (and give him the recognition for it), and now he 'gives' it mostly away for 'humanitarian' efforts. But let's look at an other aspect of the price he charged for his programs: There has to a few million geniuses in that 7 billion out there who are mostly uneducated poor bastards. If Bill just charged half the price he charged billions more could have afforded the computer and 'educated' themselves - to the benefit of all humanity! And instead of the 'Ivy League' educational bastions which so few can afford, the Internet provides the opportunity (even today) to educate millions (if not billions) of people ... see the UC experiment in free lectures for which 80 K people signed up.

So, if we could share resources, make everything we need, why do we need money? And millions of 'been counters', bankers, brokers, government bureaucrats (and all those economists!) who are not adding an iota of goods to the human race? In my estimation (and I'm neither a mathematician nor an economist), if we could get everybody to 'work for humanity', 20 hr/week would be more than sufficient to produce everything humanity needs - and use the rest of the free time anyway they want: education, entertainment, you name it. But everybody would have to put in that 20 hr 'work' - from the Pope, President, to the Preacher on the block. Now this I would call a true Democracy. Every human being being equal, free, and pursue the dreams of a better life, irrespective of class, birth, national origin or color.

'Governing' bodies could consist of some 'wise elders' who are too old to work. Communities would self regulate and regional matters would still be decided by the elders' delegations. No need for national borders, millions of lines of laws and regulations, constantly growing governments, zillions of taxes. Everything would be free - for everybody.

Still would need some system of 'value points' to evaluate each person's contribution to the common good, and let those who don't contribute enough to either educate themselves - or be eliminated from the human race! I'm sure there are better minds out there who can smooth out the 'wrinkles' ...

[-] 2 points by spaniken (6) 2 years ago

El problema es el poder financiero, todo lo quieren para ellos, el mercado no se ha regulado y la avaricia ha roto el saco, ha desequilibrado el sistema. http://ultimasnoticiaspress.blogspot.com The problem is that the system has the financial power imbalance because it wanted all the greed of a 1% wants it all for them. There are resources for all inhabitants of the earth, But neoliberalism does not want to spread the wealth.

[-] 1 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

This financial system is not capitalism! YOU are the one that is 'brainwashed', thinking you have THE answer, and we are wrong.

[-] 0 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

Evolutionary biologists and anthropologists have deduced that humans are "pre-wired" to seek and claim Identity-- most likely through territorial stakes and defense of extended family groups from "others" unrelated. This is the reason so many borders have existed for so long-- not to mention the BIG PROBLEM, religion, which is just a means by which one group can claim to be superior and/or conquer other lands in the name of.

Whether fact or fear, it is predicted that once the domino of religion is knocked over on the human landscape, then people would have no purpose, no morals, and no heavenly payoff for good behaviour in this life.

So rather than philosophise about something that will never happen (no borders, no money, and "no religion too"), I dream of a World Congress of sorts that can look at every system on Earth, determine which policies and parts of systems work the best for the most people under said systems, and attempt to frame something basic on which amendments and adjustments to local conditions (geographical, resource-, and climate-wise, demographic, indigenous skill, etc), and progress can be made.

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

I could not disagree more, we are not ruled by religion any more except in very few small, relatively meaningless countries. So we can stop bashing religion already, it doesn't help anything. Besides, religion is just the fall-guy for tyrants throughout history, taking the blame in the history books for people and events that would not have been done by true believers. People have the right to believe whatever they want. BTW, I'm not religious at all.

Your dream of a world congress is scary at best, unless this body had no power, in which case it would just be a think tank anyway.

But yes, we should have responsible, honest think tanks in the future.

But not a "World Congress"

Maybe in 1000 years..

[-] -1 points by sweetel (6) 2 years ago

Are you living in a fantasy world?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

how about simply fixing All the systems

                    ............

    Americans are more afraid of the word 'socialism' 
      than they are of cancer, hiv or world war III.
        and they will fight it to their graves …

    Calm down people, you are only fighting a 'word' …    
      Neither socialism or capitalism exist in nature 
                  without the other…
           Alone they are mere philosophies…

   Socialism without capitalistic freedom & incentives 
            will fail just as miserably as 
            Capitalism without regulation 
              has just demonstrated...

  We can build a "true democracy" founded on the dreams 
           of all mankind & all ideologies...
                   We are the 99%
[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Socialism without capitalistic freedom & incentives will fail"

I disagree. In Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism each individual can truly live out their true creative potential http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8 Creativity is a part of human nature

[-] 2 points by mbss (35) from Glasgow, Skottland 2 years ago

All systems backed by greed, lacking ethics and some degree of altruism, will fail. It's the man (and sometimes woman)-not the machine.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

".... In Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism each individual can truly live out their true creative potential....", yes I have no problems with that... I just also believe that if ALSO allow for incentive based elements we prosper better over all... we need all systems working in harmony and in solidarity with each-other

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"we need all systems working in harmony and in solidarity with each-other" Im not quite sure what you mean by that. You cant have libertarian socialism and capitalism at the same time working in harmony f.ex.

I would really recommend you to watch these videos http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1317735903_chomsky_explains_libe.html

I think you`ll find them interesting. Yours S.

[-] 2 points by mbss (35) from Glasgow, Skottland 2 years ago

You've not lived in Sweden. It can work and does--but it requires a set of ethical values held by the majority--and not dictated by contradictory authorities represented by diverse religious groups.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

yeah I've looked at previous posted chomsky links.. I liked what I saw... (need more ram to watch them in full)...

"....You cant have libertarian socialism and capitalism at the same time working in harmony..."

true... but why can't we have the ... goals/ideals of libertarian socialism ...working in harmony...with .... goals/ideals of capitalism .... at the same time...?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Because they are in conflict with each other. The ideals cannot be combined. One of them advocates TYRANNY - private tyranny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk&feature=related, the other one advocates FREEDOM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

".....I just think that there is very little we can take from capitalism/capitalist ideology to make a good society. Capitalism is tyrannical and evil,..."

hehehe.... likely true.... but if we don't want a bloody civil war... we better find something... ;)

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

edited prev remark

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

there are sloppy elements in all ideologies... we need to gain consensus... without solidarity in consensus this movement will not succeed ... and the only way to gain concensus is by including what everyone wants....

think about the freedoms ... why should a philosophy or system rule how someone lives? ...that deny's freedom...

true some have corrupted capitalism to do harm... but that does not mean that the ideals of capitalism is bad... it means that the delivery of how that capitalism is applied is bad...

same hold true for any system... any system can be corrupted... there are answers... if we look at all of the dreams and goals of the people and include them all...

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I`m not saying that the entire OWS has to become libertarian socialist in order for this to work, I agree, we need common goals (short term at least), I just think that there is very little we can take from capitalism/capitalist ideology to make a good society. Capitalism is tyrannical and evil, it must eventually be dismantled.

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

Well at least we agree we need short term goals, but I think your definition of capitalism is pretty biased and rather dishonest. Lets rout out the corruptors then have a real debate about our system with the newly awakened citizens.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"but I think your definition of capitalism is pretty biased and rather dishonest" How so? watch the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpd3grtjkK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

Capitalism does not advocate tyranny. APATHY ADVOCATES TYRANNY!!

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

PS I personally dont trust Noam at all. He makes sense most of the time but hes a leftist, still is, and that fake left-right bullshit is getting old. Both Classical Liberals and True Conservatives are getting the shaft right now.

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

(Capitalism = Private Tyranny) = Nothing is that simple.

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

Corporations are not supposed to exist in Capitalism and were illegal until around the same time that the Fed (and income tax) was created.

[-] 1 points by Wineman77 (2) 2 years ago

So by instituting mob rule you can build a utopian society that encompasses the "dreams of all mankind "? ok...

[-] 0 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

good grief

people rarely vote for their boss

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Just imagine if we had a society that was built on democratically run workplaces and communities:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1317735903_chomsky_explains_libe.html

That´s what we should strive for:)

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 2 years ago

OWH on Sunday was overrun by a protest group against the pipeline from Canada to Texas.. Support for this coertion of the movement"Occupy the White House" was sanctioned in secret by the General assemblyOWS!! It has now become more than speculation that the DNC progressive wing has infiltrated the entire movement and the General Assembly,and that the President may be in the loop. Demand transparency!! You are being taken over in secret. Demand answers for what happened in DC Sunday!

[-] 1 points by TheCloser (200) 2 years ago

Great collection of information. Go Chompsky!

[-] 1 points by kittakee (9) 2 years ago

But I believe that a socialist democracy is really where sustainable national governance sits best. Lots of room within that model for choices about details- but a sound basic structure for a lot more fairness, dignity and health (economic/social/physical/psychological, environmental) in a society. Get rid of the monied manipulators' stronghold-it is sickening us all.

[-] 1 points by kittakee (9) 2 years ago

I agree about restoring real democracy. I can't wait!

[-] 1 points by Oldone (4) 2 years ago

Without the pious pimps blood thirsty bitches of hate of Murdoch the Irag war would not have happen! U.S. Citizens rights to vote are be stripped away without due process, no charge of a crime, no trial and no jury of your peers. The SCOTUS interperts the U.S. Constitution as corporations are people and that that same Constitution requires you to have a state approve voter ID with picture. How many of the orgional voters or framers of the U.S. Constitution have state voter ID! Where does it say in the Constitution about the picture ID?

[-] 1 points by stacythorpe (4) from Hutchinson, KS 2 years ago

I have to ask do we mean to take ownership of these companies or do we want the government to do it for us and if the government does take control of the corporations then it is state socialism. If we are taking the corporations ourselves then we would have to basically remove the government that's in place, completely rewrite the constitution and totally restructure the way the country is ran with no governing body. Is this even possible? There would have to be a civil war and considering the government has nuclear weapons and bombs to wipe us all out, i am wandering if that's even possible. Do we really think the government will actually hand over these companies to the people?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No state/government takeover. Instead workers takover of workplaces and so on.

Pleace Read "The Society We Should Strive For"

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-society-we-should-strive-for/

[-] 1 points by newdawn (11) 2 years ago

Yes! That is the first step, getting a meaningful political democracy back...The next step is to use that to begin to gain traction for economic democracy and community empowerment, sustainability, and self-sufficiency...a new kind of decentralized localization and communities enabled to take care of themselves where companies just can't pick up their warehouses and move to China.

It's a crying shame that our economy is so unbalanced that people who need jobs can't get them, or if they do, they don't pay a living wage for many, and thus we have a system that requires certain forms of government hand-outs to bridge the difference. I'd like to see a society where the wealth of communities aren't extracted from them and the money goes back into investing in 'local' as much as possible, whether it be agriculture, production of the necessary goods being produced as locally as possible to meet local needs.

The major dilemma facing the Occupy Movements is the broader vision: what changes to make, what solutions are really needed, and what is possible? The wall that we all seem to be hitting is that for real change to take place, meaningful change. it almost requires something radical, something which our current system won't accommodate...Just to make democracy meaningful will require something radical, pure, and courageous. Yeah, a major conscious shift in values has to occur, but also a plan, what next? What kind of world do we want to have?

Is it just one where we try to reform the worst of the excesses, or do we want something deeper, something based upon ethical limitations of the concentration of wealth and economic inequality, a more rational use of resources to benefit everyone rather than used primarily for private profit divorced from needs of the community, control over our economic lives? These questions have to be acknowledged and a discussion begun of where our values lie, and what kind of tomorrow we want.

A website is being developed along the lines of ethical limitations, or ceilings of wealth: www.thewealthcap.com

[-] 1 points by vpose (5) 2 years ago

thanks for the youtube link!

[-] 1 points by vpose (5) 2 years ago

Capitalism = the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[-] 1 points by vpose (5) 2 years ago

Capitalism = the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 2 years ago

We need to start with the assumption that all workers own the business and forget the assumption that the investor owns the business. An investor is just another worker whose tools are money and whose product is new ventures. What part of that implies ownership?

[-] 1 points by CancelCurrency (128) 2 years ago

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[-] 1 points by EMunny (82) 2 years ago

Capitalism is a system of economics and democracy is a system of government. What the hell are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

what if we had a democratic economy. Which category would that fall into..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YftlB3AxBws

[-] 1 points by EMunny (82) 2 years ago

That would be considered socialism. Not a good idea in my humble opinion.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

jepp. I want democratic workplaces and democratic communities(socialism in its origianal meaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ ) - a democratic economy, which means capitalism would be dismantled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJnX96id-xI

It´s called libertarian socialism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

LS only means expanding democracy to workplaces and communities. If you like democracy you should favor LS

[-] 1 points by EMunny (82) 2 years ago

Well if this is what "democracy"'looks like, I'm inclined not to favor it. It's looking more and more like mob rule with no respect for individual rights. I'll choose the Republic and the free market, thanks!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

LS is a strong advocate of individual rights: The right to control your own work ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4ThqMEpUQ ), the right to have a democratic say in the affairs that affect you, like your workplace, community ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0 ). LS gives individuals the right to participate in the things theyre a part of and that affects their life.

"Republic and the free market, thanks!"

No thanks, that´s private tyranny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpd3grtjkK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

[-] 1 points by sweetel (6) 2 years ago

Right ON!!!!

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

We're talking about developing an economic system is democratic in the same way that our political system is (or was) intended to be democratic.

Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production are PRIVATELY owned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

The problem of capital and labor

I spent a month in China in 1996. We were guided and watched and led pretty much every waking moment by government representatives (even though our trip was for "civilian" purposes), steered to State stores, sites, and factories that were geared to the foreign visitor.

One day, after much protest from our guides and hotel staff, we dared to take a walk from our hotel by ourselves, simply down the street, exploring the neighborhood, going into a few shops. It was amazing how inexpensive (to us) all the merchandise was. A simple vinyl shaving/make-up bag w/zipper (empty) that had been $4.00US in the tourist store (yes, cheap!) was the equivalent of 30cents in the local store. I had purposely been keeping track of the cost of items like a bottle of Bayer aspirin or a bottle of Johnson's Baby Shampoo. The prices in the local stores were always about one-tenth or less than in the State Stores (we're talking en entirely different scenario than hotel gift shops or other conventional "tourist traps.").

Americans (and Western Europeans and Japanese) are charged more for "things" than pretty much everyone else on the planet. Yet our labor value is dropping like a stone. We have to figure out why WE can't have the 30cent shaving kit like everyone else... IF our wages are leveling to meet everyone else's. There needs to be a colossal overhaul on the international cost and pricing of everything or else we, in America, will have 300,000,000 (less 1%, of course) people with nothing to do and nothing to eat.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Are democratically elected elite somehow better?

[-] 1 points by PincheCabron (131) 2 years ago

Replace capitalism (which we do not completely enjoy at this time thanks to the regulation and corruption that has come with government involvement) with democracy (heaven help us).... No, I think I'll work at replacing every politician who has undermined and twisted our economy for political/power reasons.

[-] 1 points by BinaryFu (20) 2 years ago

Democracy would fail in our country. Apparently you don't have a clue what democracy really means - it means every person in the country (please note that) has one vote, one voice. This means for EVERY SINGLE LAW AND REGULATION THAT IS PASSED, EACH CITIZEN WOULD HAVE TO VOTE.

Imagine 20 per day - along with your normal daily work. Imagine 50. Imagine 100. Think you could handle it? Think you could research each and every single one of them, in the allotted time, while juggling your wife, kids and job? Well, your wife's going to be doing the same thing, so...she's not going to be of any help to you.

Democracy doesn't work except in small communities. What you're looking for is Democratic-Republic. Which is what we currently have. That's where We, the People, vote our representatives into office, and they vote (hopefully) with us in mind.

However, our current system is not capitalism, it's a corrupted Democratic-Republic. That's all. No secret mystery here, no midnight power change. They did it at meetings, dinners and charity fund-raisers while you weren't looking.

The companies did what they normally do - they made money in the most efficient manner possible. Kudos to them, that's their job.

The government didn't do its job - which is to protect the interest of the majority (ie, the masses/the people) and instead became corrupt and turned a blind eye to what companies did while collecting their bribes.

What you are recommending is like saying "Good and Evil doesn't work anymore because Good people keep doing bad things! We need a whole new system!!!" No, we don't. We need to stop voting in Bad people that we think are Good.

None of this stops without us, as a nation, voting - with our dollars, with our conscious and with our brains.

[-] 1 points by zygarch (83) 2 years ago

"They did it at meetings, dinners and charity fund-raisers while you weren't looking."

Yeah, while most people were glued to American Idol and trash like the Kardashians or "News of the World." And now all the media gives us is the BIG GAME between Red/Blue, Left/Right, Republican/Democrat... as if it matters either way. Nope. Just another diversion.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

do not reply to this thread. variations have been posted many times. just because they can make it believable does not mean they have a clue. if you have to post, research the definition of capitalism and democracy. it's the equivalent of saying "replace your gas with a car"

[-] 1 points by tsdevi (307) 2 years ago

Has anyone noticed the commercials made on behalf of Goldman Sachs on PBS? "When a television station gets a strategic investment, crews start working, cameras start rolling, people start blogging..." or something to that effect. Essentially, communities are to sink or swim based on the whimsy of investment banking...indeed, it is time to call out this plutocracy for the nonsense that it is. Since when does blogging constitute valid employment?

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

What we are creating is a Bottom 90% of Workers who ALREADY have the Individual Purchasing and Group Investment Power to CONTROL the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government IF, and only IF, they are LOYAL to themselves as BOTH Customer-Investors and Employee-Investors. In order to become both Customer-Investors and Employee-Investors – at the same time – they become Bank Owner-Voters, and thus make Business Loans to themselves in their 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups by current Occupation and Generation. Business Loans control ALL Businesses. Why? Because Business Loans finance 90% of the Assets of ALL Businesses. Therefore, if the Bottom 90% of Workers CONTROL 90% of the Assets of ALL Business, then they CONTROL the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, right? What they DON”T control is the Knowledge Power of the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, which Knowledge Power can NEVER be taken, only GIVEN, if technical (or mathematical) enough. Consequently that technical (or mathematical) Knowledge Power of the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government MUST be paid up to 12 times MORE than Minimum Wage (and sometimes much more for things like Patents) for having made the EFFORT to acquire that Knowledge Power, but this is only true of their 50% Global Investment Groups in Commodities, Technology, Manufacturing, Insurance, Justice, and Banking (which are all very technical, and therefore hard-to-understand, requiring Knowledge Power), but is NOT true of your 50% Local Investment Groups in Wholesale, Vehicles, Services, Education, Retail, & Housing (which are all very basic, therefore easy-to-understand, requiring Knowledge Power that ANYONE can understand). For more info, join: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems

[-] 1 points by thesoulgotsoldontheroadtogold (148) 2 years ago

democracy is a political system capitalism is an economic system a country runs on both political AND economic systems (whatever each may be) you are comparing apples to oranges

[-] 1 points by nick82 (1) 2 years ago

But a capitalism can never be a democracy even in the political sphere, never-mind the workplace. Capitalism always leads to an owner class with a disproportionate amount of wealth and therefore a disproportionate amount of political influence, and this will remain true regardless of how many campaign finance laws are enacted. The owner class will always have an open channel of communications with the decision makers and will always have a disproportionate amount of influence over politicians.

When it comes to the workplace, there is nothing even remotely close to workplace democracy as it is, we as a society demand that we give up our supposedly democratic rights as soon as we step inside the place of our employer, the place where we spend perhaps the majority of our waking hours. Only if the workers cooperatively own their employer, or a the very least laws that demand that workers councils have the power to make decisions regarding the business can we have a true workplace democracy.

[-] 1 points by anamericancitizen (19) 2 years ago

Its more like chocolate and peanut butter and over the years sketchy campaign fund raising measures and lobbyists have gotten their chocolate (capitalism) in our peanut butter (democracy). Democracy and Capitalism the two great taste that together taste like Plutocracy and worker exploitation.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What if we had a more democratic economy, which category would that fall into..? If we expand democracy to the workplace and the communities people would have more say in how the production and the economy is run. By having democratic workplaces and democratic communities we could achieve real freedom where poeple control their own lives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0

[-] 1 points by kazoo55 (195) from Rijs, FR 2 years ago

Adding the option for VOTING and taking POLLS on this forum would be a great start.

[-] 1 points by mbss (35) from Glasgow, Skottland 2 years ago

You are describing a social democracy--similar to the society of Scandinavia. It works pretty well, but still requires an ethical foundation--not religious--but ethical. (they are not always one in the same). Leaders without ethics are not just driving large parts of Wall Street and banks, but utility companies, oil companies, gold and metals companies, "green" companies, churches, and unions. Just because they talk a good line does not mean that they are in the game for their "consituent" stake-holders!

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Social Democracy (which we have in Norway where I live) could be a good start. But I think we shoud strive for not just regulating capitalism, but dismantling it. Im not descibing a Social democracy in my post, im describing a society where capitalism has beein dismantled and replaced with democracy - democratic communities and workplaces; a decentralized, or at very least partially decentralized society where democracy and solidarity ar our main values. Such an organization of society is often called Libertarian Socialism

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

".... there is very little we can take from capitalism/capitalist ideology to make a good society. Capitalism is tyrannical and evil,...

hehehe.... likely true.... but if we don't want a bloody civil war... we better find something... ;)

[-] 1 points by sweetel (6) 2 years ago

LOL Capitalism is tyrannical you have got to be kidding right. Do you not want the chance to be the 1%? Look at other countries socialism, fascism the people are slaves to the gov't .

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

It dosnt have to get bloody. Remember that there have been peaceful or very close to peacful revolutions.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

:) good post

[-] 1 points by geminijlw (176) from Mechanicsburg, PA 2 years ago

Amen.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Feel free to visit my blog at http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

Yours S.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetTheFactsStraight (30) 2 years ago

Check out LetsGetTheFactsStraight.com

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!!!

[-] 0 points by StraightHOBO (3) 2 years ago

So you all want to get rid of capitalism in exchange for what? SOCIALISM? Do you realize what that would mean!? Fight for the Constitution! Fight the FED! Vote for Ron Paul! But God help us if you want to get rid of Capitalism and the Constitution!!! The one thing that made America great in the first place!!! If I am wrong about your meaning then you all need to take a moment and figure out what you are fighting for, Capitalism is Democracy!! How many of you voted for Obama?? That was the big mistake!!!! He's a socialist, more unemployment benefits, free medical care; all that is is more GOVERNMENT and more CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE!!! Capitalism gives you the freedom to choose what will be made and how much of it, your dollar is your VOTE, you want GOVERNMENT to do that for you like in SOVIET RUSSIA!?!? If something is to be done protest the FED, impeach OBAMA, VOTE RON PAUL!!!!! JUST GOD PLEASE DON"T MAKE THIS COUNTRY SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by Thinking (3) from Lake Como, PA 2 years ago

Let's see: Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution ... Do you know the population of the 13 Colonies at the time when they decided to send their 'delegations' to construct the Declaration? And out of the total population how many voted for those delegates?

Same question for the delegates to the 1st Constitutional Congress, which voted in the Constitution. The 'majority' had not voting rights then - and ever since. And if you read Madison's Papers you will find out why. The US was never a 'democracy', but right from the start a plutocracy, since only the land owners had a right to vote. (And I don't even want to mention slavery!:-))

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

So what should we replace corporatism with?

[-] 0 points by 32ndKnockout (1) 2 years ago

I believe when you speak of "democracy controlling communities, workplaces, and so on;" you're referring to socialism. Not democracy. Ultimately, the uber-wealthy with their giant corporations are the people who create jobs and stimulate economies. When governments start imposing heavy taxes on those corporations, they move to other countries where tax liabilities are lower and the company is more profitable by doing so. At the same time, the economy where the company used to reside is now at a loss. Not only are they at a loss for jobs, but also at a loss of tax revenue.

What you must understand is that you can't blame corporations for doing their jobs and making money, but that you should be blaming the government for driving them away with it's ridiculous tax laws and making everybody but themselves suffer for it. If it weren't for the tax breaks the government gives to major corporations, there would be no giant corporations in America. They'd be in China, India, Mexico, etc...

Capitalism works, until the government starts messing it all up.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"I believe when you speak of "democracy controlling communities, workplaces, and so on;" you're referring to socialism."

Well, What you call it isnt the important thing. The important thing is to make the society more democratic.

"Not democracy." Im advocating democratic control of communities and workplaces. How`s that not democracy?

"Ultimately, the uber-wealthy with their giant corporations are the people who create jobs and stimulate economies." Thats not a law of nature. People can create jobs and create a good society together thru democratic processes and participation

"When governments start imposing heavy taxes on those corporations, they move to other countries where tax liabilities are lower"

That`s why we should never leave the recourses in the hands of private tyrannies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

Capitalism is not democratic, it must be replaced with democracy

[-] 1 points by 32ndKnockout (1) 2 years ago

"Well, What you call it isnt the important thing. The important thing is to make the society more democratic."

I agree, what you call it is not important. What IS important is what that name represents. What you're proposing and what you're calling it are two very different things.

"Im advocating democratic control of communities, democratic control of workplaces and so on. How`s that not democracy?" That is not democracy, because democracy isn't a system of micro-managing people's lives. Democracy is where everyone has a say (i'm paraphrasing here) in the proposal, development, and passage of legislation into law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy Not deciding what people can and can't or what people have to, and don't have to do within their communities or workplaces.

"Thats not a law of nature. People can create jobs and create a good society together thru democratic processes and participation" I never claimed it to be a law of nature. What I did, was state a fact. They're not the only people who create jobs, but they sure create a whole lot more jobs than individual small business do.

"That`s why we should never leave the recourses in the hands of private tyrannies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ" I know a lot of people value what Chomsky says, but to be honest, if you had a video with a world-renowned economist instead of a world-renowned linguist, I might take what he has to say about capitalism to heart. He's a philosopher at best. If you remember Mel Brooks' movie 'History of the World: Part 1', they referred to philosophers as "bullshit artists". I tend to agree.

I'm not saying things shouldn't change, because they should. I'm merely trying to illuminate some of the more glaring inaccuracies in your above statements.

edited to add wiki link

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Funny,I would tend to give the title of bullshit artists to the the economists. Isn't it also curious that we have various economic "philosophies". Still it pretends to be a science. Ever heard much about math "philosophies", physics "philosophies"?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"because democracy isn't a system of micro-managing people's lives" why not? what, do you own the patent on what is "democracy"? Democracy can also include more DIRECT democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

"I never claimed it to be a law of nature. What I did, was state a fact" And thats what we should change! Its not much of a fact now a days. Many of the superwealthy are instead of creating jobs shipping them overseas, and going from job creation to speculating and gamling

What youre saying about Chomsky is not surprising. Instead of going for his arguments youre attacking his person. Thats an easy way of avoiding to deal with his solid arguments

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Sorry, got to call bullshit on that one. Taxes are not the issue that decides where corps. go. Let's try a little thought experiment. A US corp. is allowed to pay 0 taxes in the Us. (Which in many cases is the way it is now, GE for example.) The cost of labor in the US, Let's take a low number,$12hr. The cost of labor in China, $60 a month for 12hr days and often 7 days a week. It's about slave wages,not taxes.

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by mbss (35) from Glasgow, Skottland 2 years ago

Always "easy" to get excited about "new" and innovative, and creative, and entrepreneurial today. Some people even think that social entrepreneurship has something to do with altruism and goodness. I wish it did.

Not sure that mathematics is terribly natural as much as philosophical, but there is something to be said for natural law--which silently advocates a fairly basic ethic to sustain life. One can choose to survive by brute force and competition, or one can learn to cooperate and thrive happily -- in harmony with one's environment. It is from this phenomena that all world religions arise. Go back to the basics---little else is needed.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Einstein said that we must have a higher level of thinking (or complexity) in solving today's problems than the lower level of thinking (or simplicity) that created those problems in the first place. So the "basics", while always vital and immutable, must to be extended if you are to survive and thrive as a species.

[-] 0 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 2 years ago

Capitalism is a economic system. Democracy is a govt type. They are not mutually exclusive. Also a pure democracy would be bad. It is really exhaustive, slow, and expensive to run.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Capitalism is a economic system. Democracy is a govt type"

What if we had a more democratic economy? Which category would that fall into..?

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

resource based economy

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Just what do you mean by "democratic economy"? Do people all vote as to who gets the money? Because, while in theory that works okay, reality will hit you like a ton of bricks if that's what you believe.

Take a small microcosm of three workers (a doctor, a farmer, and a chef) and allow them to vote on how the money is split up. The doctor's obviously going to want more than the chef or farmer, using the excuse that he saves people's lives. The farmer points out that he should be paid the most, because while the doctor can keep people healthy, the human body can keep itself healthy from plenty of things on its own and the farmer is the one responsible for providing the food. The chef gets shot down when he says that since he prepares the food, he should get a big share, by the farmer pointing out that anyone can cook food (which he (the farmer) provides), the chef only makes it taste good. So the chef says: hey, let's have equal shares. Then an author and illustrator show up and want a piece of the pie. They provide no tangible benefit, just entertainment, so the doctor, farmer, and chef get together to keep them from getting a bigger piece of the pie. To keep from being shafted, the author and illustrator join with the chef in saying: "equal shares for everyone". Then the doctor says: "well, if I'm going to get paid only as much as the author, you must not value your life about as well as you value his books, so I'm not going to do any more than I can get away with to save it". The the farmer goes: "without me, none of y'all would eat. Either y'all up and give me a bigger share or I'll take my food and go home!"

Now, imagine that instead of one farmer and one doctor, you've got all the farmers in the country and all the doctors.

Humans are, by nature greedy, and thus you'd have almost everyone voting to lower the cost of all OTHER goods and services except theirs.

Don't deny it. If you could get everything for free, just by convincing 50.0001% of the population to vote to make everything free, you'd try it. (Or be a completely un-selfish person, which, if we're being truly honest, I highly doubt.)

Besides, if a vacuum-cleaner salesman has been voted to only be allowed to sell his vacuums for $4 in America, but in China he can sell them for $6, what reason would he have to stay here? Why not move to China and make more money?

So even though democratic process is good in certain areas, for running an economy it's pretty pathetic.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Just what do you mean by "democratic economy"?" A democratic economy is, as i mentioned in the post, f.ex democratic workplaces and communities - That the people involved in and affected by production etc. shold have more say in how the economy is run.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Out of all the questions I pose throughout the post, you choose the one rhetorical one to answer? (This, in and of itself, is a rhetorical question, please don't answer it.)

Let me state my questions more clearly:

If everyone can vote on the way the economy is run, what's to keep a slight majority, or even a larger majority, from shafting a minority? (i.e. having 85% of the country vote to make computers free for everyone, totally shafting those who make computers.)

If a man is forced to sell his product at a lower price here because that's what the people voted for, what's to keep him from moving to another country where he can get a higher price for his product?

And what's to keep a minority from saying "you vote a higher price for our products or we stop selling them entirely"? (i.e. Farmers say: "raise the selling price of food or we won't sell you any.")

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"having 85% of the country vote to make computers free for everyone, totally shafting those who make computers" That can also happen today in countries that are democratic....

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Sorry about replying here, but it wouldn't let me reply to your last reply.

The fact of the matter is that the public CANNOT vote away the cost of a computer today. The government does NOT control the price you pay for your Apple or Samsung product, the companies do.

In a "democratic economy", 51% of consumers can say: "your prices are too high, here are your new ones." In a free market economy, regardless of whether the government is democratic or not, 51% of consumers can say "your prices are too high", to which the companies are well within their rights to say "sucks to be you, if you want our product you'll have to pay the price".

And as to answering my questions... your "answers" seem to pick a single sentence out of my post, while ignoring everything else in it.

If you check 2 posts above, you'll see I have 3 basic questions (the last three paragraphs, NOT including the parts in the parenthesis) that have not gotten answered. Care to take a shot at them?

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason you're not actually answering any of my questions? Am I not being clear enough for you to understand the questions, or do you just not have the answers?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I am answering. The public can potentially vote rights etc away from minorities today in all TODAYS democratic societies. And i assume you`re not saying we should dismantle these democratic societies. So if support the democratic society we have today, why not expand democracy to workplaces and communities

[-] -1 points by sm707 (40) from Englewood, NJ 2 years ago

Dammit people it is CORRUPTION and APATHY that are the problems not capitalism.. If we can beat them this one last time I believe that we now have the technology to keep everyone informed about the truth, and keep our capitalism TRUE. We haven't live under capitalism since at least 1913, when the FED was created. Capitalism is not supposed to have a central bank!