12 Oct 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHmm, corporations fuel a self interest in people, driving them to consume, and find more reasons to aquire. I wouldn't say that is compassionate. Yes they produce more goods than any other system (feudal for instance), though the vast majority of these things aren't essential to survival.
Capitalism provides more goods for the population than any other system, so it will be part of a compassionate system.
It is the sworn duty of any CEO to maximise profits. While companies do do compassionate things for charity, etc, they are only ever doing them to enhance their own image in order to maximise their profits. No company is allowed to give money away as the money is not theirs, it belongs to their share holders. When a company spends a million on sponsoring a Youth group or other such things, they balance the cost to the benefit for the company, not 'the people'.
12 Oct 04
Originally posted by marinakatombYes, But greedy gifting is better than a one way trip to Uncle Joe's Boneyard. That trip was the only prize and gift offered to millions of kulacs, intellectuals and military officers.
Hmm, corporations fuel a self interest in people, driving them to consume, and find more reasons to aquire. I wouldn't say that is compassionate. Yes they produce more goods than any other system (feudal for instance), though the vast majority of these things aren't essential to survival.
It is the sworn duty of any CEO to maximise profits. While ...[text shortened]... er such things, they balance the cost to the benefit [b]for the company, not 'the people'.[/b]
The only things communists can give away is a dream of having "somebody else" earn your living for you. If you join and keep your mouth shut.
I am really curious. Is there a single example of "kindness" that anyone can name that was or is the official policy of any communist regime in the history of the world? Other than forced sterilizations in China? (giggle... it's a parental thing.)
12 Oct 04
I know this. The thing is that when people are allowed to work for nonessentials, they work harder, and there is more going around and the people who work and produce are happier, encouraging them to keep working and producing.
Other systems just cannot provide necessities for people without a healthy dose of capitalism. I am not saying 100% unregulated capitalism, but what there is now is pretty good. Maybe something with less capitalism is better, but there has to be a healthy portion of it.
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyUm, the Auntie Marshall Plan?
I am really curious. Is there a single example of "kindness" that anyone can name that was or is the official policy of any communist regime in the history of the world? Other than forced sterilizations in China? (giggle... it's a parental thing.)
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThanks SWV, i take you refering to me as a communist as a compliment (goad 😉)
Yes, But greedy gifting is better than a one way trip to Uncle Joe's Boneyard. That trip was the only prize and gift offered to millions of kulacs, intellectuals and military officers.
The only things communists can give away is a dream of having "somebody else" earn your living for you. If you join and keep your mouth shut.
I am really curious ...[text shortened]... ory of the world? Other than forced sterilizations in China? (giggle... it's a parental thing.)
As for your comments, your not wrong in what you say. I was only playing devils advocate so to speak. Im not aware of any PR act of kindness by any specific commi regime, no.
I might just add that capitolism, in it's beginnings, suffered a lot of the same problems that the Russian Commi's suffered too. Namely that when people have lived for centuries under a totalitarian rule, as any country ruled by a soveriegn should be judged, there is an aweful lot of adjusting to do.
In the UK, after Oliver Cromwells round heads beheaded the King and established a Democratic Govornment, many of the countries new politicians simply didn't know how to govorn. Many of them lamented the lack of a single ruler and could easily have slipped into the pitfalls which befell the Russian Communists. Ideology simply isn't enouph to run a country. (I wonder had Communism lasted there for as long, maybe it would have improved the way British politics did but i don't want to argue the toss with you about Russia)
Duaring the turn of the last Century, business was pretty much unregulated, resulting in bubble markets and a feeling of unstopable prosperity gripped the western world. It was only after the Great depression and the regulations that Roosevelt put in place that the world started to recover. There was a glaring need for Business to be kept in check as Indutry had the potential to simply destroy countries economies when they grew too big and then crashed, swallowing up peoples savings.
Corporations have spent enormous amounts of money, lobbying govornment over the last 20 years or so to get these and other regulations to be watered down or removed. When they spend money on community/charity, they are raising their own status in the eyes of the people, from a company that is there to make profit, to an exstention of govornment, who's function is to help people. This however can't be the case, as they are there souly to generate profit for their owners, the share holder.
13 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by marinakatombYes. I was using you a bit, but I saw your point.
Thanks SWV, i take you refering to me as a communist as a compliment (goad 😉)
As for your comments, your not wrong in what you say. I was only playing devils advocate so to speak. Im not aware of any PR act of kindness by any speci ...[text shortened]... ere souly to generate profit for their owners, the share holder.
You are right about "systems" being self-correcting. If the basic establishment of "order" does not destroy the will of the people.
It will be interesting to see if China, for example can avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. That fate was the "black market" and the mafia.
When the 'black market' surpassed the official capacity of the 'government'... the government was doomed.
Rampant greed... equated to "rampant capitalism". By my own definition. But the point was that it was self correcting. By simply establishing laws to govern speculation, the system (stock market) again was able to serve greed in it's wonderfully unashamed manner.
As to your aspect of lamenting the "worker". Spare me. I have always been the worker. I just figured out that I can "work for myself". I have to laugh at people too insecure to start their own business and do away with the terrible "corporation".
13 Oct 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWySorry, bad pun. The Marshall Plan was intended to secure lasting peace after WWII by rebuilding Germany quickly, with loans, aid etc and to secure for it a place in the post-war world (international trade etc) The same was applied to Japan. This contrasted with the settlement after WWI in which the defeated country was in effect punished.
Was not the Marshal Plan a give away to Europe? Or did you mean the "anti-marshal" plan? Which I assume was the enslavement of eastern europe?
The Marshall Plan was ridiculed/criticised by the Communists (Well they would, wouldn't they?)
13 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightThe irony is that in both cases, (ww1 and ww2) the end result seems to be a Europe united in hating the US.
Sorry, bad pun. The Marshall Plan was intended to secure lasting peace after WWII by rebuilding Germany quickly, with loans, aid etc and to secure for it a place in the post-war world (international trade etc) The same was applied to J ...[text shortened]... /criticised by the Communists (Well they would, wouldn't they?)
Go figure. It is a good thing I'm not a sensitive and caring guy, or I might feel hurt. <snark.
Did you know that Achison insisted on including the Soviet Union in it's offer of aid under the Marshal Plan. At the instistence of mr. Achisons top foreign affairs guru ,Alger Hiss? Hiss was chief advisor to both Achison and Truman and was shown to be a Soviet Agent in the 1995 release of unclassified documents under the Venona project. And collaborated by Soviet release of records from the same time. This would be the same today as if Paul Wolfowitz was on the payroll of Al Quaida.
13 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhen the 'black market' surpassed the official capacity of the 'government'... the government was doomed.
Yes. I was using you a bit, but I saw your point.
You are right about "systems" being self-correcting. If the basic establishment of "order" does not destroy the will of the people.
It will be interesting to see if China, for ...[text shortened]... own business and do away with the terrible "corporation".
This is an interesting point. The Mafia was illegal in Soviet Russia. Stopping people from persuing wealth has obvious pitfalls for any govornment.
What i find interesting is that Large corporations in the US have surpassed the capacity of Govornment to govern them. Enron is the sexiest one i can think of. After lobbying Govornment to remove regulations in the Calafornian energy market, the company moved in and raped the place in the persute of profit. This is the same company that spent Millions on community/charity before and after. Everyone was shocked at the time that such a 'reputable' company could be so calass. If you think about it there was no reason for them to be surprissed as, as i've already said, Share holder profit is the first and last consideration. If people get hurt, it's just business.
Rampant greed... equated to "rampant capitalism". By my own definition. But the point was that it was self correcting. By simply establishing laws to govern speculation, the system (stock market) again was able to serve greed in it's wonderfully unashamed manner.
A-greed 😉 Providing the Laws stay in place and are kept effective. The problem is that Companies are allowed to spend their way out of regulation.
As to your aspect of lamenting the "worker". Spare me. I have always been the worker. I just figured out that I can "work for myself". I have to laugh at people too insecure to start their own business and do away with the terrible "corporation".
Hmm, i didn't mention 'the worker' once, im not quite sure why you wrote that.