Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: There is no alternative to capitalism? Really?

Posted 1 year ago on June 26, 2012, 8:08 a.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"Capitalism's recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?"

from; http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9968-there-is-an-alternative-to-capitalism-spanish-city-mondragon-shows-the-way

"The largest corporation in the Basque region, MC is also one of Spain's top ten biggest corporations (in terms of sales or employment). Far better than merely surviving since its founding in 1956, MC has grown dramatically. Along the way, it added a co-operative bank, Caja Laboral (holding almost $25bn in deposits in 2010). And MC has expanded internationally, now operating over 77 businesses outside Spain. MC has proven itself able to grow and prosper as an alternative to – and competitor of – capitalist organizations of enterprise."

There are many alternatives to the ways of corporatism/militarism and 1% bankster control over our collective resources. Those that say otherwise are clearly deluded liars with a vested interest in the status quo. Collective ownership of community resources, and worker ownership of co-operative businesses are the future of democratic society.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

People are the core, not the capital. If capital has the power, then labor is simply its tool. But if labor has the power, then capital is subordinate. It becomes our tool.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And capital can do nothing w/o labor.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

No labor, no Disneyland

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. Worker owned amusement parks! Every worker would make more. (except the top execs) Workers would never vote to pay 1 guy 400 times more than the average worker.


[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20419) 7 months ago

Alternatives to capitalism. Nice.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Excellent & inspiring forum-post and link + I attach an alternative link & one to Richard Wolff's own site :

at spes non fracta ...

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

There are alternatives to 1% ownership of all the resources and control of all the governments, and agencies that should be regulating their activities,. .

[-] 1 points by TVPNorCal (1) from Modesto, CA 1 year ago

A Resource-Based Economy needs to be implemented if we are to fix any of these issues. We've technologically outgrown the need for a monetary economic system, now we have the technology and the resources to support EVERYBODY not just one nation or class.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4840) 1 year ago

Capitalism is what you make it. A cooperative is capitalism. The owners are private, not public, and raised capital to form a for profit business. The number of owners doesn't make it any less capitalistic than the number of shareholders of a corporation and the fact that the workers are the owners doesn't make it any less capitalistic than capitalist worker-owners of sole proprietorships and partnerships. In fact, cooperatives are the extreme of capitalism in that everyone is an entrepreneur in contrast to the owner/worker division of most companies.

If the worker-owners of a cooperative decide to go beyond merely working together and provide social services for themselves, they become socialistic but are still capitalistic at their economic base.

Worker-owner cooperatives are an alternative to the exploitation of owner/worker companies but they are not an alternative to capitalism itself as they are an extreme example of an aspect of capitalism.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

"There are many alternatives to the ways of corporatism/militarism and 1% bankster control over our collective resources. .., Collective ownership of community resources, and worker ownership of co-operative businesses are the future of democratic society."

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4840) 1 year ago

So what do you think of the idea of a Cooperative Employment Service http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-organization-rather-than-political-party/?


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

Hey, there is no law in this country stopping anyone from setting up this business strategy. So, if you feel a need for doing this - get investors and go for it.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Yeah, I got it going on,. just sharing with interested others.

As well, this post is also to educate those that still believe the propaganda, that capitalism is the best, and the only system, the world has ever, or will ever know,. that A; capitalism is a terrible system of exploitation, that benefits only a few at the expense of the many,. and B; that other systems of social organization that are much more democratic and egalitarian already exist,. and many more are possible.

The sad truth is that we have been beaten over the heads with this pro-capitalism crap for all our lives, and this makes change more difficult for some folks,. as first they need to realize that much of what they think they know, is a system of controls, build inside their heads, by those that benefit from this very control!

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

Well, as I have stated what you mentioned is "capitalism" at it's best - it is a privately owned corporation that makes profits and is owned in part and run by the individuals working for it.

How much more capatilistic can you get? It is doing what capitalism is supposed to do be in the business of doing business

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, unbridled "capitalism" seems to lead to inequitable results,. the definintion of capitalism is that of PRIVATE ownership of the "means of production",. so yes this does not preclude that the owners actually be the workers in that enterprise,. this is however the exception and not the rule though. And I believe this requires another name, especially when the collectives are not profit motivated, and have social and community building motivations.

Also the larger problem is that of natural resources and land,. who owns these? and how did they come to own them? The problem I have with "capitalism" and I use the word in the sense of what is actually practiced here in america, is that no ONE can own the land or the natural resources not in any truthful way, as these parts of our world are the birth-right of us all. And need to be utilized more for the common good, and not personal overindulgence.

Currently the 6 members of the one family that owns WalMart have assets valued the same as 36% of the entire population! This is corporate-monopolist-capitalism, at its worst, and yet a large part of their "work force" is compensated so little, that they qualify for food stamps! So we the people are subsidizing the 6 owners of this monster money taking machine. This is simple wrong and will not stand,. in fact we are the end of that system,. this is going to change period.

Community co-operatives are the next wave of a new and growing democracy.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

heres a better system, let people be free, and quit pulling them over for not wearing seatbelts, I guarantee, that system will flourish!

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

And helmets. And guns in bars. And drinking while driving. it is anti-Darwin.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

i dont get yoru point, if we want to drink and drive we should be able too, not pay the government another trillion dollars. I mean a small business man could start a business fortifying cars to withstand collisions or something. The free market is always better than government.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Oh, I guess my point is that people should be allowed to do stupid things. As long as it does not affect other people. Drugs. Prostitution. Victimless crimes. My Libertarian side.

But the things I mentioned impact on the liberty of others.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

"free market is always better than government." Depends on whether or not it is something I can do without. And whether I have multiple sources.

If I gotta have it and can only get it from one place, then I want socialism.

Economist built a model on energy. The free market thing was just not working. Finally figured out it was because the buyers did not have the option of not buying at all.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

Sorry. But trying to fight capitalism is a losing battle. Capitalism is already won. There are too many benefits to capitalism that no other system can provide.

The realistic approach to correct capitalisms run amok imbalances, is to apply to the right policies. Keynes and classical Adam Smith style laissez faire v batshit crazy neo-liberalism.

And making sure a Democrat appoints the next 2 or 5 Supreme Court Justices wouldn't hurt either. And hopefully the right case will come up where a better Court can re-think and put some cracks in the CU decision.

[-] 2 points by Occupyallst (12) 1 year ago

False, Capitalism can be toppled just as Fuedalism was. It will just take a great deal of effort. At the end of it all, the proletariat will always revolt against an oppressive regime.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

You don't have to fight capitalism to start this type of busiess - just get investors and do it - no capitalist business that I know of is going to come knocking on your door and say you can't do it.

BTW - it is run the same way as a "capitalist business" - they do make profits but distribute them differently.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 1 year ago

I don't disagree. Anyone can start something like this up and distribute the profits however they wish. If it works, on some level, fine with me. There already are co-op run organizations. This is nothing new. But the fact is, in this country, it's not proven themselves particularly viable beyond credit unions and a few bookstores. If it is indeed some fantastic alternative, there would be more of this by now. It's nothing new. Here's our best clue - people flock to capitalism. Immigrants don't come here to be part of co-ops. If it works so well in this Spain example, why are millions of immigrants not flocking there instead of the US?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Try reading the article, it provides a great example of an alternative that is working and has been since 1956. Capitalism may have won for a short time, however nothing is permanent, all life is in flux and constant change.

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

True, "those that say otherwise are clearly deluded liars with a vested interest in the status quo" or who are too feeble-minded to know they have been brain-washed with lies. Consequently, we need a new direct democracy constitution, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans, plus $10,000 more credit every year) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at StrategicInternationalSystems.com; so help us help you, today!

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

None tht don't suck 100x more, no.

It's been tried. Tens of millions have died as a result.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

what the hell are you talking about? Read the article it documents an alternative that has been working well and growing since 1956. No one died as a result.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

apples and oranges.

does that society have 300 million multi-cultural people and pretty much pay the entire defense budget for the western world by themselves?

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

You make no sense, at all,. what does the military budget have to do with an alternative to capitalism?

When was the last time America was invaded? We should cut the military budget to zero! The military budget is NOT "payed",. the borrowing to pay military contractors is what is bankrupting america,. it is the reason the re-thug-licans keep trying to cut social programs,. as they would rather fund killing innocent people outside of our boarders, than working on fixing the many problems here at home.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"what does the military budget have to do with an alternative to capitalism?"

wow, you didn't really ask that, did you?

"We should cut the military budget to zero!"

right?!?! and EVERY special little boy and girl should get a FREE UNICORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yayyy!!! <sparkles fill the air>

"re-thug-licans" - grow the fuck up

[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Why do we need a standing army when the population is already armed?

Has America ever been invaded?? Why do you worship the military?

You are a dip-sht, btw.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Two stupid questions and an incorrect assumption.

Great points! Ironclad logic and refutation of Reality. You get a 7th place gold medal, just like the first through sixth place ones!

See how special you are?

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

When the population is this apathetic, there IS NO ALTERNATIVE that will work. Plain and simple.

Dont worry about the system. It works fine when the people are engaged.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

No, no it does not.

1% ownership and control is anti-democratic, period. There is little engagement from the people now, because there is little opportunity for the people to participate in this system of corporate/feudal rulers, who have taken all the power for themselves. Where is it you expect people to 'engage'? People are not stupid, we see a rigged game, and we do not play along,. simple as that.
When we remove the current power structure, and replace it with participatory democracy you will see people engaged in it. Just calling for people to 'engage' in a system that is not open to, or accepting of, the peoples engagement is wrong-minded, and counter productive.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"We see a rigged game:"...maybe you do. I do. The masses dont.

McDonalds continues to make record profits selling junk. Same for Walmart. Helath Ins continues to go higher- where are the protests?

Vehicles have been getting 25-35 mpg for 50 years. Where is the outrage?

The same two political parties have been screwing everyone for decades. Where are the people trying to create something new? One would think that new concepts/parties would be popping up all over. In an engaged public they would be.

There is more to participating than simply slugging to the polls once every 4 years. A LOT MORE. No one wants to do it. The evidence is all around us. No sane, intelligent person would ever endorse either of htese parties. Or eat McDonalds. Or watch academic standards be LOWERED instead of made higher. Or have a 0% saving rate. Etc etc etc.

You will never get a participatory democracy with a public like this. the system will always be controlled by those who want to control it. People who dont want to put in the time will always be cast aside.

If the people were not "playing along" this country would look vastly different right now. They are playing right along, lock stock and barrell.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Who are these 'masses' you don't like? I see many good people working every day, to create alternatives and make changes to the world, from every possible angle. Try to focus on the positive instead of calling out the negative over and over.

"Through constant training we can enhance our positive attitudes and thoughts and reduce their opposing negative attitudes." - Dalai Lama ‏

This is important.

[-] 3 points by brosefstalin (139) from Wantagh, NY 1 year ago

Part of the problem with our society has been that people have been willing too much to extoll the benefits of a Capitalistic society and have largely neglected the ways in which we have torn apart the humanity of our brothers and sisters in the process.

It is important in Buddhism to ride the waves of both the negative feelings and the positive feelings, as both are detrimental to the soul.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (4840) 1 year ago

"All exploitation is based on co-operation, willing or forced, of the exploited. However much we may detest admitting it, the fact remains that there would be no exploitation if people refused to obey the exploiter. But self comes in and we hug the chains that bind us."

-Mahatma Gandhi


[-] 2 points by truthbetold234 (4) 1 year ago

one problem with communist/ anarchist structures is that there is no motivation for the individual. I've talked with many people from communist contries(though not the same as anarchism I know) and they say that they got tired of being payed the same as a janitor, told what to study and so ont. Next an individual should have freedom to make money. There is always a balance between government and free enterprise and that balance is now out of whack. So when you say "there is little opportunity for the people to participate in the system" that indicates that government is not performing its role. That is the system , say in the 70's used to work as a participatory democracy. You might also want to think about simplifying laws,and regulations so people can see what they really mean, say introducting "simple bills" because who can understand what the lobbyists/companies are pushing through congress with their bribe money?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I would like to the removal of the current power structure! I would work towards that. I also expect people to continue protesting/pressuring the existing politicians. I want to continue agitating for progressive policies with theexisting power structure. I can't surrender all power to the right wing. I do want to attempt to drag the dems back to their left/progressive roots. I suppose you don't see the value in this?

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

"Where is it you expect people to 'engage'?" "All politics are local."

Pick a party. One of the two with all the infrastructure already in place. Bring your buddies. Say your piece. Vote. Run for office in the party. Co-opt the damned local party. Choose the platform. Choose the candidates.

Don't fight the system. Occupy the system. Then the government belongs to us. Hell, we have had GAs with more people than show up at local party meetings. Radical, I know. ;p

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Agreed. I think it is worth a try. It maybe more doable than removing the current power structure.

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

We had people at the state Democratic convention.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I encouragethis avenue. Co opting the dems is a natural course. They do speak in favor of OWS and progressive policies (repubs only attackus). Many of them vote the correct way in congress. But their are always enough blue dogs/conservative dems or just bought off dems to betray their progressive roots. We should be able to identify these legislators, and focus protests against them. It is a slow process. but it has a taken a long time to screw things up and it may be a few cycles to achieve enough change. Or maybe we will be surprised. It is worth a try.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Yes, infiltrate the party and protests. That is how we screwed up last time. We elected Obama then sat on our asses and expected him to work miracles. I feel particularly guilty about Blanche Lincoln. If we had camped out in her front yard we might have single payer now. Well a public option.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We got lazy after electing Obama. Thought our job was done. Back to the couch. And we let the repubs create the tea party farce as if it were a peoples grassroots movement. It is offensive how these evil geniuses play the system/people.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Naomi Klein put out a video right after the election saying that the job has just begun. Damn, she is hot. ;p

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I will look for it.

[-] -2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I agree with HC. If people were active in capitalism - i.e. voting with their money, "good" corporations would survive and "bad" corporations would fail. If you don't like how company 'x' treats their employees, don't buy their products. Don't like the fact that company 'y' sends so much work overseas, don't buy their products. Unfortunately, it requires masses of people to be educated and be willing to take a stand. I find it very similar to the political process that we have.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

I agree it IS very similar to the political process that we have, controlled and maipulated be corporate interests for their own gains at the expense of the rest of us.

Have a look at some of the products in your house, how much do you know about the companies that produced them? It is not practical for people to research all the companies they will potentially do business with, with thousands of companies products filling every store,. most of us do not read Chinese for example, so info. about those companies practices will be tough to get at. And that is not the point anyway, if we really want the participatory democracy we are told we have,. we must change/end the anti-democratic systems that are currently dominating the world.

Why are corporate practices so removed from the values we purport to support; freedom and democracy? Why do we buy products from these multinationals? Because there is little real choice on offer. This capitalist idea of, "voting with your dollars" is just a ruse, another illusion of 'engagement', when in reality it is no substitution for real substantive change. Alternatives do exist, as the article attests, however the 1% has control of media and shelf space, and hides the truth at every turn,. again anti-democratic behavior that should be condemned and outlawed.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Virtually all companies in capitalism are company 'x', as evidenced by three decades of stagnant wages. No one is treating their employees right. The wealth has been shifted to those at the top because employees have no decision making power over how profits are allocated.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

I agree with that - but it is also because no one is holding them accountable with their wallets. Hell, we can have companies spill their oil all over the God's green earth - everyone stomps their feet and shakes their fists and gets angry for a few days - but all is forgotten and forgiven after a month or so and people are right back at their pumps.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

It is not my responsibility to manage a company with my wallet. Think about it for a second. If company 'x' is the company I happen to work for, and I and everyone else hits them with their wallets to make them fail, I will soon be voting myself out of a job. Why in the world would I want to do that? A better strategy would be to help people do better by improving situations, not making them worse.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Who's responsibility is to manage the companies?

If you work for a 'bad' company and it fails, then yes- you will be out of a job. I look at it like natural selection - good companies should succeed and bad companies should fail.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You claim the exploitation of the working class by bad companies is caused by...wait for it....none other than the working class themselves. Wow, that is one big whopper of an explanation, and it is a nice try. But I think we both know the real problem lies in the non-democratic companies and the greed-driven hearts of their owners.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

Where do I blame exploitation on the workers?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

You blame workers for not getting rid of bad companies with their wallets.

[-] -2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

No, I blamed consumers for not getting rid of bad companies, but even that isn't the same as blaming them for the exploitation. Saying someone caused something and saying someone didn't help fix it are two very different things.

You really twist things around. The only thing I stated about employees was the obvious. If you work for a bad company and it goes out of business, then you'll be out of a job... I didn't say it was their fault the business went under.

The only thing we agree on is that greed is the problem. If informed consumers cut off the money flow to greedy business owners - then the very greed that caused the problem would be the cure. The owners will go where the money is.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

I don't get it. Who do you think consumers are? magical elves. Consumers are people and the majority of consumers are people who work for someone else, in other words, the working class.

You are trying to argue that we have a problem with consuming goods and services. That is not the problem. The problem is minimal workers rights when they enter the workplace.

We could all get together and stop buying McDonald's and watch them go out of business. Putting them out of business would only signal the marketplace that consumers don't like the quarter pounder anymore, it would do nothing to help raise standards of living. The next owner that jumps into the market to replace McDonald's is still going to pay the lowest costs to the employees he can to maximize profit for himself. That is the goal of business, to maximize profit for the owners, not the employees. That is the real problem.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 1 year ago

There were two groups and two arguments I'm told by a man who is knowlegable on the subject of slavery. The argument of the first group was that the slaves were in terrible condition and what they needed was better diets, better shelter and better working conditions. The second group was just as disgusted with with the first group as slavery and said that the problem isnt that they have bad conditions the problem is that they are slaves. This argument could be applied to the modern worker as well I believe. Except that we are not like the slaves of old we are wage slaves and we should be freed.

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

Right, and of course, we all know that slavery was ended with the masses practicing informed consumerism. LMAO !

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

You're right - you don't get it. If people purchased items based on an informed decision,and purchased with their conscience and not just for the cheapest price - then the consumers could impact how businesses are run. If McDonalds abused their workers or purchased inferior meat from Pakistan, then consumers could look at those practices and say "I'm going to buy fast food from Chic-fil-a because they pay their employees more and buy American chicken." McDonald's goes out of business and a newly started hamburger chain rises up and learns from their mistakes. If the owner (or co=op) is smart, then they would figure out what the consumers want. You use the greed that exists as a means of change.

I am saying that there is a problem with the way we consume goods and services...there is also a problem with workers rights. There is more than just one problem.

Don't get me wrong - I recognize that this is totally hypothetical and that people are far too self-centered to actually take organized action like this against a company.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 1 year ago

It is far more convenient to blame the self-centered masses. We should never blame the actual individuals committing the offenses. No, it would make no sense to start there. Whatever man.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 1 year ago

So if a child doesn't take his medicine, he is to blame for getting sick? That is what you are talking about here. I am not blaming the masses for the problem, those are your words. You have two options (in my mind) - create a new system, or work within the system we have. I have heard plenty of talk about how we need to create a new system. Now I am presenting an option of how to work inside the current system. If greed is the problem, let greed be the solution.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Some people say spills are part of doing business and prefer keeping the oil jobs they depend on even with the destroyed environment. What do you do with them?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It does not work because 80% of the people must get by with just 7% of the wealth!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And how did we end up in this situation?

Apathetic people.

By not caring. By electing rich assholes that have no intention in serving them. By not doing any homework as to what is going on.

When people rise up, there is change. Unfortunately, we are not even close to reaching that tipping point.

My biggest fear is that when that point comes, we attack each other instead of working together to change things for the future.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must continue what we are doing. Bring people together, define the national conversation,inform/educate the electorate, I say also encourage more registration of voters. Protest the obvious bad policies hurting the 99%. Its the only way.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

In an intelligent, engaged nation, 80% of the people would not allow 7% of the wealth only. They would band together and create opportunities.

Occupy Social Outreach.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4840) 1 year ago

What about Occupy the PIRGs? From what I've seen, they have the organization to bring awareness to social issues for people to act upon.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Instead of blaming/attacking the 80% for being unintelligent/disengaged, lets reserve our accusations for the 1% who have rigged the system to take 93% of the wealth from the people. And thereby created the apathy, and disengagement. As you said above your "biggest fear is that...... we attack each other" Don't be afraid, just don't do it.!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not talking about internet chatting dude. Im talking about massive rioting and crime.

Until the people in this country decide to awake from their apathetic slumber, you can point the finger at the banks all you want. The people dont even realize whats going on.

Without the masses, there is no change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support non violent change! I want to grow this movement in order to avoid what would otherwise be the inevitable "rioting and crime" you mentioned.

So we must wake up the masses, I rather do that without insulting them, blaming them or attacking them. Some may choose those tactics. Not my preference. Wouldn't be prudent. Not gonna do it.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Then what is your method. Because they are in a deep hibernation at this point, and simply posting information on the web is not going to do it.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

I think the amendment to the state constitution we are working on is having some affect. My Tea Party representative even came out for it. We don't tell everyone we are Occupy, though. Our brand is a bit tarnished. ;p

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So you are critical of the current methods? I think the current methods have been effective. More people are talkin about the economic inequities than ever before. More does need to be done. Other tactics besides the web posting of information you scoff at.are happening. protests, meetings. pressuring politicians. outreach to the porrest. I think informing the masses is best achieved with web postings. There are other tactics I haven't listed. But I wonder, do you have any suggestions? Or do you only have criticism? A suggestion could make it "constructive" critisism.

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

The left has pushed self-esteem over civic awareness for the last 30 years and with the left in full control of academia, their ongoing legacy is a population that isn't engaged. They have made the country dumber and more self-centered, and it only took 100s of billions of wasted dollars to do it!

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Really ?! The "Left" has denigrated and eroded "civic awareness" has it ?!! Nothing whatsoever to do then with all the endless 'Anti-Society' ; Ayn Rand and Corporation worshipping ; "rugged individuals" constantly & insidiously spoon feeding propaganda from The Wholly Corporate Owned Main Stream Media and the plethora of 'Pro-Business', Right-Wing 'Think Tanks' ?!!!

So in truth, just who is it who has really actually "made the country dumber and more self-centered" & who is truly responsible for all the "100s of billions of wasted dollars" ?

Perhaps next you'll also be trying to argue that 'The Media' in The U$A is somehow 'Liberal' too ... lol.

temet nosce ...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The media certainly seems to keep pushing the envelope over time. Im not sure if that is a liberal approach, but it is certainly not a conservative one, right?

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

The broadcasters, denizens (Sean Insanity, Bull O'Really et al) and 'viewing consumers' of "FOX NEWS", certainly think that they are "conservative" !! Further, please see :

  • "OUTFOXED" : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428 . A film which examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

fiat lux ...

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago


A close election is better for ratings.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im talking about the media in general, as in all the shows. Not just political shows.

Even ABC Family now has the tag line "A new kind of family" with shows like Dirty Little Liars, etc. MTV is so trashed out its insane.

The media is certainly not getting more conservative as time goes on.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Oh, that kind of conservative. True that. "In olden days a glimpse of stocking..."

Are we losing our National prude?

[-] -1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

Certainly not conservative. I laugh everytime I read here that the media is 'owned' by the right. Maybe FOx is, but for folks without cable, CBS, NBC, and ABC are the entirety of MSM and these 3 networks worship at the feet of Obama and the left.

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Actually ... I "laugh everytime I read here that the media","networks worship at the feet of Obama and the left." !!! What "left" ?!! Because the entire national political spectrum is skewed so far towards the right, some in The U$A still seem to think that Oblahblah is somehow "left", when actually in truth and by any and all objective international standards - even though he may be vaguely 'socially liberal', Obomber is yet another Right-Wing, Corporate Controlled, Imperial Figurehead !

Finally, please avail yourself of the documentary film below :

ad iudicium ...

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The United States has no true left wing and it has no real opposition media. The entire system is not only defunct, it is moribund. No one can breathe life into something that has died, unless that person believes in miraculous resurrection, but aside from fantasy, our system has already expired in a slow, agonizing death. The time has come to put it out of its misery.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Which is of course why all things "Occupy" and the internet are so important !!!

Ultimately it is a numbers game and the more and more of us who put our boots and other assorted footwear 'Onto The Streets' in massive, non-violent and self-policing legions - in huge, unstoppable & overwhelming numbers and the sooner we assert our demands for a just and truly democratic system that works for The 99%, the better. 'Divided' we are beaten ; 'united' - unstoppable !!

'They' - the 0.01% Larcenous, Plutocratic and Kleptocratic, Parasite Class and their 1% lackeys, all of course know that they can never handle our numbers IF we awake and mobilise - which is why they're desperate to seek to divide and rule over us while plying us with 'disinformation and entertainment', as they try to keep treating us as 'mushrooms', ie 'keep us in the dark and feed us shit' !


per aspera ad astra ...

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Those of us that can should be agitating not with left-wing drivel but selling workers the real benefits of changing our system. We are the salesmen of a new politics. Such a movement can only be successful, if as you point out it is "massive, nonviolent, and self policing..."

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

I was with you until you tried to tell me the liberal media is a myth! Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the media are dems? You cannot really deny that they drank the Obama Kool Ade?

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Fox is the exception. It is the GOPTV conceived in the Reagan era.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

More like Teddy Roosevelt's era.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

TV did not exist.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

True,but the propaganda machine did; TR became a household name in a war started with a deceptive slogan: "Remember the Maine!"

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

I can't think of any war the people have voluntarily gone into without some shady arm twisting. Some think we let Pearl Harbor happen just as many thing Bush let 9/11 happen.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Sad, but very true.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Check the owners. Corporations. Who must by law go for the money.

[+] -5 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

no, none of what you mentioned is found in any school curriculum (anti-society, Rand worship, MSM denial, pro-right wing,etc, etc). maybe you can name some K-12 schools that do push these topics. I anxiously await your list.

on the other hand, self-esteem building social engineering nonsense at the expense of civic awareness is. just about every school has a program or three that are centered on self-esteem.

nice try, though.

(if you can't accept that the media leans left, you are hopelessly paranoid)

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Now you start referring to schools but you did not do so in the comment to which I replied. Further, I don't get your 'self-esteem' issues which are perhaps your own but my points were quite clear.

Finally, IF you honestly think that the MSM in the USA "leans left", then perhaps you are so far to 'the right' that you can't see that you are so seriously wrong and you really rather urgently need to view the two videos documentaries to which I link here.

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

TV tends to keep progressing towards more and more sex and violence, right?

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17759) 1 year ago

Yes, that would indeed appear to be the case, though TV's "progressing" is thankfully relatively tame when compared with films and video-games in particular, where 'ultra-violence' seems to be the norm.

Further, re. the 'inter-web', pornography is of course a main driver. How we guide the kids through these mine fields may well have an important part to play not just on the people that they become individually but simultaneously, on 'society at large'.

spero meliora ...

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

You're so comically obsessed with trying to convince yourself of the silly delusion that the media doesn't lean left, you must have missed my reference to academia in the pst you responded to.

Seen the vid, read the article, not convincing at all.

[-] 6 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Where do you live? In Arkansas teachers get fired for teaching Darwin. My daughter had three(3) teachers in high school tell her that boomers were stealing her SS money.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"In Arkansas teachers get fired for teaching Darwin."

do you mean Epperson? the case from 1968? that got overturned by SCOTUS?

you mention a plural. can you name some?

"My daughter had three(3) teachers in high school tell her that boomers were stealing her SS money."

anecdotes, not part of the cirriculum, not evidence of anything other than three people saying something semi-controversial.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They should be saying Dems and Reps, the greedy pigs in congress, are stealing your future.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Please, point out any major media outlet that espouses anything but the capitalist line.

Scopes-trial mentality still rules this nation. Inform us. Do you support the teaching of science or superstition in American schools? Do you support the idea that all people should be able to choose their sexual preferences, marriage partners, conception rights, abortion rights, ad infinitum?

Your posts indicate that you support a return to some idyllic times now long gone, but that's exactly what those times are: long gone. Wake up, grow up, and if you can't lead or follow, get the hell out of the way.

Answer truthfully. Do you want your children to mature believing in fantasies, legends, and myths? Wouldn't you really rather have them equipped to deal with the world as supported by the facts, which we, an insignificant species, have fought so hard to gather?

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"Please, point out any major media outlet that espouses anything but the capitalist line."

oh, I see how this is justified now. it isn't a right-leaning view vs. a left-leaning view that the proposition is presented as. in a naked bait-n-switch, the proposition becomes capitalism vs. something else.

I always wondered how people worked this nutty brown nugget of self-deception in their heads. I knew there had to be something more than the absurd "corporate owned" automatically determining "right wing," regardless of what is said on the air. the binary thought (corp ownership) is supported by the bullshit proposition (capitalism vs. whatever). very interesting.

thanks for the insight!

I am an atheist, so that should clear up anything about science vs. superstition. Despite that, a parent's preference should precede the state's on teaching religion. I'd prefer none of it in schools, aside from non-threatening tradition like "under god" in the Pledge. I'm not an absolutist.

I am very left on social issues. legalize drugs, pro-gay marriage and open service in the military. trust me, you aren't dealing with a 50's mindset on culture and tolerance. not even close.

this is embarassing: "Wake up, grow up, and if you can't lead or follow, get the hell out of the way."

what are you, a macho marine corp lefty?

"Answer truthfully. Do you want your children to mature..."

I think I already answered that. I am a rationalist, big fan of Hitchens and Dawkins. your assumptions are way, way off.

do you deny that self-esteem instruction permeates schools and has done no good and possibly great harm? wouldn't that time be better spent on teaching something useful that will allow self-esteem to grow organically through achievement? or is that crazy talk from an idyllic time that never really existed?

btw, Titus doesn't moan as much as she screeches and creaks. could be the most grating voice on a politician in history. I met her once and kindly asked that she work to restore the 10th amendment. she sorta froze. I felt bad for her.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago


[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Where are you getting this crap? Link, please.