Chavez: El Presidente for Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

im not saying that the distribution of wealth should be determined by the state. what i am saying is that the workers should be entitled to wealth that they produce which is impossible under capitalism. in todays society the owners of corporations receive an unfair amount of the wealth considering the amount of labor they do. by giving people control of the work places and direct control of the government there would be a more equal distribution of wealth.

Capitalists are underpaid. Workers are overpaid and exploit capitalists.

Think about it: suppose you were making an iron ingot. With your old forge and your hammer, this takes you several days. Now build that ingot in a modern factory built and organised by capitalists. It takes you a few minutes. Your physical labor (which is reduced to pushing buttons) is magnified many fold.

You then go home to your air conditioned house, with a pool in the back, and cold beer in the fridge. Those things are mostly a gift to you from capitalists, all in exchange for showing up and pushing buttons or actually attempting to use your brain, maybe by teaching or something.

[/quote]

in this case the capitalists have reduced man to a mindless producer with no pride in his work.

i am in favor of technological advancement which frees people up to persue personal interests. however this is not what the capitalists have in mind, the capitalists wish to increase productivity to increase their wealth. this is why im not a capitalist, i think the means of production should be owned by the people in order to provide the people with goods and services.

you help to prove my point by implying that having a good life is having a home with a pool and drinking beer. you have been brainwashed by the capitalists to believe that material things justify the fact that during the week you are at work more than you are at home (not counting sleep). life is more than material things, why cant we have the freedom and the time to persue intellectual and spiritual wealth as well.

62

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has benifited a few countries but if you look at the world as whole the majority of the wealth is held by a small percentage of the population.

Prove this.

it is a fact that capitalism increases the gap between rich and poor.

And this.

capitalism is what prohibits a more equal distribution of wealth.

Show why equal distribution of wealth is desirable.

You might want to start whith why distributive justice is automatically “better” than retributive justice and what consequences each angle has.

2 percent of the population hold 50% of the worlds wealth. the bottom half of the population control only 1%

income gap widening

im not saying that the distribution of wealth should be determined by the state. what i am saying is that the workers should be entitled to wealth that they produce which is impossible under capitalism. in todays society the owners of corporations receive an unfair amount of the wealth considering the amount of labor they do. by giving people control of the work places and direct control of the government there would be a more equal distribution of wealth.[/quote]

So wealth is distributed unequal.

Nobody disputes that.

I do dispute that it is distributed more unequal than in previous economic systems and I dispute that “equality” is automatically a good thing.

What is next is that while income quintilles may show an income spread that increases that says nothing about social mobility between those quiintilles.

In capitalist societies it tends to be high, so the “rich” change constantly based on MERIT.

What that means in a nutshell is that “the rich get allways richer while the poor get allways poorer” is BS, because these groups constantly swap members.

Then explain to me why workers receive only an “unfair part of production” and why they do not easily remidy this situation by foundng an own corporation.

63

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

you help to prove my point by implying that having a good life is having a home with a pool and drinking beer. you have been brainwashed by the capitalists to believe that material things justify the fact that during the week you are at work more than you are at home (not counting sleep). life is more than material things, why cant we have the freedom and the time to persue intellectual and spiritual wealth as well.[/quote]

How do you know that?

Which authority do you have to judge the preferences of other human beings?

64

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has benifited a few countries but if you look at the world as whole the majority of the wealth is held by a small percentage of the population.

Prove this.

it is a fact that capitalism increases the gap between rich and poor.

And this.

capitalism is what prohibits a more equal distribution of wealth.

Show why equal distribution of wealth is desirable.

You might want to start whith why distributive justice is automatically “better” than retributive justice and what consequences each angle has.

2 percent of the population hold 50% of the worlds wealth. the bottom half of the population control only 1%

income gap widening

im not saying that the distribution of wealth should be determined by the state. what i am saying is that the workers should be entitled to wealth that they produce which is impossible under capitalism. in todays society the owners of corporations receive an unfair amount of the wealth considering the amount of labor they do. by giving people control of the work places and direct control of the government there would be a more equal distribution of wealth.[/quote]

I think the greatest argument for socialistic tendencies in government is that primarily economic entities(i.e. corporations) need some type of check to their power and behavior or else piracy and organized crime could become a way of life. Unfortunately in many historical cases when governments take socialist policies to extremes the government actually becomes the very thing it should be trying to check, the epitome of a mafia. The specter of Stalin and similar disasters will always haunt socialism.

The fact that western capitalistic democracies have allowed corporate interests to at times super cede environmental and humanitarian interests is definitely an illustration of modern capitalism not being immune to corruption. Do they fight to establish a dominance of opinion and to strengthen their power base in clever and sometimes cruel ways? Yes. But these are problems that are part of the limitations of human nature. An ideology that creates perfection is an elusive and unrealistic goal. But they have yet to produce a government that directly organizes police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process.

The lesser of two evils is a cliche but cliches still have meaning. Sometimes only fire can be used to fight fire. In any battle the struggle to not become the very thing you fight against is always a clear and present danger.

I am not saying that socialistic reform and programs aren’t part of a healthy society or that pure market factors are enough to regulate human behavior as some capitalist contend. They are both slippery slopes but historical evidence suggest we should perhaps be a bit more wary of the former becoming overly dominant.

65

[quote]orion wrote:
In capitalist societies it tends to be high, so the “rich” change constantly based on MERIT. [/quote]

Case in point: Paris Hilton.

66

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has benifited a few countries but if you look at the world as whole the majority of the wealth is held by a small percentage of the population.

Prove this.

it is a fact that capitalism increases the gap between rich and poor.

And this.

capitalism is what prohibits a more equal distribution of wealth.

Show why equal distribution of wealth is desirable.

You might want to start whith why distributive justice is automatically “better” than retributive justice and what consequences each angle has.

2 percent of the population hold 50% of the worlds wealth. the bottom half of the population control only 1%

income gap widening

im not saying that the distribution of wealth should be determined by the state. what i am saying is that the workers should be entitled to wealth that they produce which is impossible under capitalism. in todays society the owners of corporations receive an unfair amount of the wealth considering the amount of labor they do. by giving people control of the work places and direct control of the government there would be a more equal distribution of wealth.

So wealth is distributed unequal.

Nobody disputes that.

I do dispute that it is distributed more unequal than in previous economic systems and I dispute that “equality” is automatically a good thing.

What is next is that while income quintilles may show an income spread that increases that says nothing about social mobility between those quiintilles.

In capitalist societies it tends to be high, so the “rich” change constantly based on MERIT.

What that means in a nutshell is that “the rich get allways richer while the poor get allways poorer” is BS, because these groups constantly swap members.

Then explain to me why workers receive only an “unfair part of production” and why they do not easily remidy this situation by foundng an own corporation.[/quote]

without economic equality there will never be political equality, this point cannot be stressed enough. by accepting the fact that economic inequality is ok you also accept the fact that political inequality is ok and i just dont agree with this.

the rich do not change constantly, im sure you are aware of the big names like carnegie, rockafeller, morgan, dupont, etc…these people will always be at the top, the inheritors of their vast wealth did not achieve it through merit. and the american dream that is sold to everyone is very hard to accomplish in this country and practically impossible to achieve in third world countries

workers do try to start their own business but they are wiped out by the corporations already in power. 600 small businesses close every week.

67

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has benifited a few countries but if you look at the world as whole the majority of the wealth is held by a small percentage of the population.

Prove this.

it is a fact that capitalism increases the gap between rich and poor.

And this.

capitalism is what prohibits a more equal distribution of wealth.

Show why equal distribution of wealth is desirable.

You might want to start whith why distributive justice is automatically “better” than retributive justice and what consequences each angle has.

2 percent of the population hold 50% of the worlds wealth. the bottom half of the population control only 1%

income gap widening

im not saying that the distribution of wealth should be determined by the state. what i am saying is that the workers should be entitled to wealth that they produce which is impossible under capitalism. in todays society the owners of corporations receive an unfair amount of the wealth considering the amount of labor they do. by giving people control of the work places and direct control of the government there would be a more equal distribution of wealth.

I think the greatest argument for socialistic tendencies in government is that primarily economic entities(i.e. corporations) need some type of check to their power and behavior or else piracy and organized crime could become a way of life. Unfortunately in many historical cases when governments take socialist policies to extremes the government actually becomes the very thing it should be trying to check, the epitome of a mafia. The specter of Stalin and similar disasters will always haunt socialism.

The fact that western capitalistic democracies have allowed corporate interests to at times super cede environmental and humanitarian interests is definitely an illustration of modern capitalism not being immune to corruption. Do they fight to establish a dominance of opinion and to strengthen their power base in clever and sometimes cruel ways? Yes. But these are problems that are part of the limitations of human nature. An ideology that creates perfection is an elusive and unrealistic goal. But they have yet to produce a government that directly organizes police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process.

The lesser of two evils is a cliche but cliches still have meaning. Sometimes only fire can be used to fight fire. In any battle the struggle to not become the very thing you fight against is always a clear and present danger.

I am not saying that socialistic reform and programs aren’t part of a healthy society or that pure market factors are enough to regulate human behavior as some capitalist contend. They are both slippery slopes but historical evidence suggest we should perhaps be a bit more wary of the former becoming overly dominant.[/quote]

i think you are making the mistake of classifying all leftists as stalinists or maoists. russia and china had brutal regimes and if you do research and read about leftist theories you will see that many leftists oppose the acts of stalin and mao.

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization

68

for anyone who is interest in getting both sides of the story

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/venezuela_dvd_no_volveran_3.htm

69

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
In capitalist societies it tends to be high, so the “rich” change constantly based on MERIT.

Case in point: Paris Hilton.[/quote]

Did she not earn millions by cleverly marketing a product?

70

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

without economic equality there will never be political equality, this point cannot be stressed enough. by accepting the fact that economic inequality is ok you also accept the fact that political inequality is ok and i just dont agree with this.

the rich do not change constantly, im sure you are aware of the big names like carnegie, rockafeller, morgan, dupont, etc…these people will always be at the top, the inheritors of their vast wealth did not achieve it through merit. and the american dream that is sold to everyone is very hard to accomplish in this country and practically impossible to achieve in third world countries

workers do try to start their own business but they are wiped out by the corporations already in power. 600 small businesses close every week.[/quote]

Who says political equality is a good thing?

If you understand enough of the world to earn a fortune maybe you know something that others don`t.

The “dinasties” you mention are less than 200 years old.

Aristocracies can keep in the saddle for centuries without having to prove anything, those families will be gone if they do not invest wisely.

Not perfect bust still a faster turnover than before.

So what if companies go bankrupt?

It just shows how hard it is to run a succesful company and why it is that successful entrepreneurs get paid higher than workers, starting and running a comoany is a relatively rare skill and therefore precious.

71

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization
[/quote]

How did “capitalism” manage to do that?

72

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

you help to prove my point by implying that having a good life is having a home with a pool and drinking beer. you have been brainwashed by the capitalists to believe that material things justify the fact that during the week you are at work more than you are at home (not counting sleep). life is more than material things, why cant we have the freedom and the time to persue intellectual and spiritual wealth as well.

How do you know that?

Which authority do you have to judge the preferences of other human beings?

[/quote]

Don’t you know? The Limosine Liberals are far smarter than us and they get to decide everything.

73

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization
[/quote]

Precisely the point: once you give a government power to ‘regulate’ capitalism, that’s when you get all the evils you are attaching to capitalism. That sort of government attracts vermin, people who crave power over others, and now the race is on — who can bribe, steal, corrupt the fastest. That society becomes a collection of robber-gangs, each trying to wrest the club (government) from the others.

Capitalists just want to make money. If you set up a corrupt government, they will adapt to that. But the fault is NOT capitalism’s. Its all the fault of those who wish to exist without effort, to pursue their intellectual ‘pursuits’ while someone else earns the paycheck for them. Of course, the desire to not produce could be some sort of desire not to be…

74

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

without economic equality there will never be political equality, this point cannot be stressed enough. by accepting the fact that economic inequality is ok you also accept the fact that political inequality is ok and i just dont agree with this.

the rich do not change constantly, im sure you are aware of the big names like carnegie, rockafeller, morgan, dupont, etc…these people will always be at the top, the inheritors of their vast wealth did not achieve it through merit. and the american dream that is sold to everyone is very hard to accomplish in this country and practically impossible to achieve in third world countries

workers do try to start their own business but they are wiped out by the corporations already in power. 600 small businesses close every week.

Who says political equality is a good thing?

If you understand enough of the world to earn a fortune maybe you know something that others don`t.

The “dinasties” you mention are less than 200 years old.

Aristocracies can keep in the saddle for centuries without having to prove anything, those families will be gone if they do not invest wisely.

Not perfect bust still a faster turnover than before.

So what if companies go bankrupt?

It just shows how hard it is to run a succesful company and why it is that successful entrepreneurs get paid higher than workers, starting and running a comoany is a relatively rare skill and therefore precious.[/quote]

i think this is where we just flat out disagree. i believe in political equality for all people and as i stated, in order to achieve that there must be economic equality.

you can also make a fortune by being born into the right family or meeting the right people. you believe that making a fortune is an admirable goal but i do not. i believe that peoples morals have been skewed by this system of competition and survival. it is my opinion that the best chance humanity has of avoiding self destruction is to move into a system of cooperation.

75

[quote]orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization

How did “capitalism” manage to do that?

[/quote]

u.s. corporations wished to increase their profits and/or did not want their financial interests threatened so they used the government’s secret agencies to install military dictatorships which would allow u.s. corporations to make that profit. capitalism at its worst.

76

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
without economic equality there will never be political equality, this point cannot be stressed enough. by accepting the fact that economic inequality is ok you also accept the fact that political inequality is ok and i just dont agree with this.

the rich do not change constantly, im sure you are aware of the big names like carnegie, rockafeller, morgan, dupont, etc…these people will always be at the top, the inheritors of their vast wealth did not achieve it through merit. and the american dream that is sold to everyone is very hard to accomplish in this country and practically impossible to achieve in third world countries

workers do try to start their own business but they are wiped out by the corporations already in power. 600 small businesses close every week.[/quote]

Why don’t you spend some time in a kibbuz and see for yourself how it really is. These are probably the most successful socialistic entities out there. You will see how and why this idea has it’s limits.
The third world is certainly being raped in a certain sense. And we do live in times where managers and the upper class get a ridiculously large chunk of the steak.

But how do you think this whole business works? What are the alternatives?
Concerning political equality- So because nature made man and his communities unequal, it is our task to make sure everybody’s the same, or gets the same? My neighbour has a lousy job. He studied hard. Is this fair. A garbageman earns a lot more then my physiotherapist buddy here in Germany? Fair? And why has Germany no oil? Why doesn’t Venezuela or Iraq or Iran give us some of theirs?

It’ll never work this way. Besides, who shall define “fair”, “merit” and “equal” - the party?
The third world has other problems. They are victims of a culture shock. As I posted in a different thread, there are no poor countries who profit from their natural riches. On the contrary, if, for instance, pakistan finds out tomorrow they sit on huge bubbles of natural gas, you can bet your ass it’s going to be a bloodbath.

Most poor countries also suffer horrendously from foreign aid. With no motivation to establish a clean democracy, transparent political structures, you just assure continuous strife.

And since most of them have no grasp of the concept of property or legal security, they can’t effectively operate economically.
Development worker are sometimes astounded how naturally their subjects assume that since we have magically acquired this “muney”, we should share it like you share your cow’s milk cause it’s utter is the biggest in town.

You can’t force those principles, we have learnt/discovered through the decades down their throats the same way you can’t force-feed democracy to the Iraqis.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization

Precisely the point: once you give a government power to ‘regulate’ capitalism, that’s when you get all the evils you are attaching to capitalism. That sort of government attracts vermin, people who crave power over others, and now the race is on — who can bribe, steal, corrupt the fastest. That society becomes a collection of robber-gangs, each trying to wrest the club (government) from the others.

Capitalists just want to make money. If you set up a corrupt government, they will adapt to that. But the fault is NOT capitalism’s. Its all the fault of those who wish to exist without effort, to pursue their intellectual ‘pursuits’ while someone else earns the paycheck for them. Of course, the desire to not produce could be some sort of desire not to be…

[/quote]

i think you failed to understand that the U.S. is the one that instituted these corrupt govenrments. the U.S. is the one trying to “regulate” capitalism by forcibly implementing it in other countries.

if capitalisim were abolished and in its place a system was instituted that stressed international cooperation and democracy on all levels then i find it hard to imagine why any country would have the need to act as the U.S. does.

78

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
orion wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:

capitalism has produced governments that directly organize police and military forces that obliterate opposing views in the public forum and death/slave camps to facilitate the process. this is excactly what they have done. in nicaragua, in chile, in argentina, in peru, el salvador. all military dictatorships instituted by U.S., all had death squads and torture camps and they all welcomed free trade and privatization

How did “capitalism” manage to do that?

u.s. corporations wished to increase their profits and/or did not want their financial interests threatened so they used the government’s secret agencies to install military dictatorships which would allow u.s. corporations to make that profit. capitalism at its worst.[/quote]

Ah, so it was an abuse of government power that caused problems?

Why is that a problem caused by capitalism.

Did feudal, mercantilistic, fascist and socialist governments not do the same?

79

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:

i think this is where we just flat out disagree. i believe in political equality for all people and as i stated, in order to achieve that there must be economic equality.
[/quote]

What if everyone is equal economically and not everyone decides to spend his wealth to wield political power?

What if someone invest it and gets richer than others?

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(And don’t give us that BS about ‘Find one post where I celebrate…’ How about: ‘America will never conquer Iraq as long as one Iraqi man is still standing!’ ? There’s one of many.)
[/quote]

When I first read that, I read it as:

How about: ‘America will never conquer Iraq as long as one Iraqi man is still standing!’ ? That’s one TOO many.)

lol

I almost said “Great Post!”