Czar,
I was just making sure you really meant what you said. Yeah, that's it.
Bradley
**oops...guess I should read every word instead of every other word***
CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?
by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
zen nudist
The Divine Right Of Capital : Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy
By Marjorie Kelly
To judge by the current arrangement in corporate America, one might suppose capital creates wealth ? which is odd, because a pile of capital sitting there creates nothing. Yet capital-providers (stockholders) lay claim to most wealth corporations generate. Corporations are believed to exist to maximize returns to shareholders. This is the law of the land ? much as the divine right of kings was once the law of the land. In the dominant paradigm of business, it is not in the least controversial. Though it should be.
To justify the allegiance stockholders receive, we?re told they take risk, putting their money on the line so companies can grow. Stockholders are said to provide capital for company use.
Buying stock is no longer about investing in companies but about buying the right to extract from them. This right is justified by saying stockholders "own" corporations. Yet the same justification was used for the monarchy. The king was considered sovereign over the nation because he owned it. With imperialism, India was considered a "possession" of the British Crown. The same was true of America before the Revolution. Since property ownership was linked to sovereignty; the landed class ruled Britain, while Britain ruled America. What Thomas Paine said of this governance arrangement might be said anew about stockholder governance: "There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease."
The oddity of it all is veiled by the incantation of a single, magical word: ownership. Because we say stockholders own corporations, they are permitted to contribute very little, and take quite a lot.
This wealth concentration is a direct result of the system design. We can change that design, democratizing economic institutions as we once democratized political institutions. This may involve new forms of citizenship in corporate governance, broadened fiduciary duties that reach beyond shareholders, and supplemental financial statements focusing on stakeholder impact rather than stockholder gain.
-
Terry
Farkel, you iz funneee.
-
Terry
Sir Ed Hillary_step says: Terry,
Capitalism has an agenda?
Every ideology has an agenda, as does every political and social venture.
Well, see--to me Capitalism is a social system (philosophically a branch of ethics). I think of an agenda as a kind of list of things to be done which a proponent of Capitalism more properly would have. No big deal.
Many socialists gave their lives in the USA during the 1920's, some were executed by private 'armies', others by the state for forming and protecting workers unions, I am sure you are aware of this. I used this as an example of how the socialism has actually bought change for the good, even to a capitalist society by rising against what is seen as injustice. These changes for the better of all were wraught by persons who were either victims of 'propaganda' as you suggest, or people who were actually fighting 'in the right'. I see no other choices.
Would it sound devoid of compassion if I said "a broken clock is right twice a day?" If that is a good thing or not I wouldn't argue. However, the "good" brought about by socialists is largely a matter of which side of the argument you are on. Maybe I should give you a link to another thread I started which states my view of what "rights" are in my opinion.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/78495/1.ashx
Well, you certainly have no issue judging socialism and communism, why are you not prepared to judge the sacrifices made by socialists to protect your interests as a worker as being worthy?
Okay, fair enough. I put it in the same category as children who die because their parents don't allow blood transfusions. Beau Geste.
My thread on parents telling their children fantasy is true produced a firestorm. Apparently I am arrogant, condescending, abusive and I shout by using large fonts. Go figureI tend to enflame people I've noticed!
I had not noticed this. Your posts always seem well measured, why they should elucidate 'flames' is puzzling
-
StinkyPantz
Apparently I am arrogant, condescending, abusive and I shout by using large fonts.
Yup.. lol!
-
Terry
Pole said:Terry wrote: In Socialist society the earner is compelled to serve.
I think you should start a thread on socialism to get a wider variety of the definitions of socialism. The truth is, that the kind of clear-cut distinctions you've made Terry only exist in theoretical economics textbooks. They may be useful to contrast the ideas in their extreme form, but few politicians would nowadays dare/be able to implement a purely capitalist or a purely socialist economy.
I don't want to be obtuse; but, I'm only interested in Capitalism from a theoretical standpoint. We don't have Capitalism in a pure form tis true----what we do have is not good. Other countries have hybrid beasts amok too. Mixed economies always favor cronies, those who bribe and power lobbyists. It is putrid.
To discuss those would be like reaching into the toilet to extract a lodged turd so that the flush may flow freely
-
Terry
czarofmischief says:Unionism is a legitmate tool of capitalism. Why shouldn't we organize our labor and regulate the supply in order to increase our profits? Because it isn't fair to the "owner" of the company? Screw him! He screws us on a daily basis.
A well-stated example of why "what is fair" fades into chaos when the bullyboys go out into the streets and prevent non-union workers (scabs) from earning a living so that the bully boys can extort higher wages.
Not my ideological cup of tea.
-
Terry
Narkissos: the natural trend of unleashed capitalism is to practical oligarchy.
I would state it differently:
The natural trend of leashed Capitalism....
We don't have pure Capitalism and that Mixed Economy result is a bastardized monster that leads to all sorts of social evils.
-
czarofmischief
A well-stated example of why "what is fair" fades into chaos when the bullyboys go out into the streets and prevent non-union workers (scabs) from earning a living so that the bully boys can extort higher wages.
It's not EXTORTING higher wages - it's regulating the supply in order to safeguard it and to get the best value of it. I bet you would defend the right of a storekeeper to charge $14 for a bottle of water after huricane season? Well, it's the same thing, only the other way. And since there is no legal way to deal with "scabs" guess what happens! "Extra-legal competetive action". We can't sue scabs for copyright infringement, or anything like that, so we whomp' em. Just like the drugdealers do with other gangbangers. Not because their business is illegitimate, but because they have no legal recourses.
Remember Terry, in a purely capitalist society, the government would not get involved one way or another. Completely lasseiz-faire, and guess what would happen. TRADE GUILDS AND UNIONS! Why do you defend the right of monopolies to economically crush their competetitors but refuse the managers of "labor" to do the same? What makes labor different from any other resource needed for economic production? The government DOES get involved at the behest of their oligarchal comrades and tries to send in the army, or breaks up the union, or orders folks back to work because the resource is nationally vital. So the unions need to be strong and solid.
Unions are the triumph of capitalism; and the beauty is that by giving a little bit more, the owners GET a ton more in the form of loyal employees and they still make huge profits and nice compensation packages. I'm not demanding a compeltely level pay package, but a UNION is the only way to successfully negotiate for higher wages without getting fired for your effrontery. And if feeding my family and whomping a scab are on the same ticket, I'm taking that ride.
CZAR
-
Narkissos
Czar,
I fully agree with you in principle, although unfortunately the way institutionalized trade unions work in practice may be somewhat different. I have not a clue how they work in the US, but here in Europe there have been many cases of big professional corporations and trade unions agreeing at the expense of local workers, i.e. breaking a local strike because the trade unions as big institutions have their own interests which do not coincide with those of the workers.
What you describe in terms of market (selling one's labor at the best possible rate) a marxist would call power struggle, but in reality it is the same.