What is a fair society built upon?

by barra Tue Oct 04, 2005 21:10

"earthly puppet masters" so the World Bank, I.M.F etc... don't really exsist. Please some one take this awful article down it should be posted on the P.D website instead.

by Niall - Galway Grassroots Tue Oct 04, 2005 21:17

As long as capital is privately controlled, and industries are run not by their participants and communities, we will have wage slavery, where people are forced to rent themselves out to survive.

The goal of any business is to make profits. This interest is very often directly in conflict with the interest of the public and the planet. If we had participatory social planning, if people were allowed to direct economic policy in terms of their goals and interests, they would of course emphasise things like quality of life, quality of work, quality of the world we’re leaving to our children. But these concepts are not profitable, and if the CEO of a corporation does anything to prevent the company making short term profits and improving its market share he will be sacked, or sued by the shareholders.


"The nature of the system is that it’s supposed to be driven by greed; nobody’s supposed to worry about the common good – those are not things that are supposed to motivate you, that’s the principle of the system. "
- Noam Chomsky


As long as power remains virtually solely in the hands of wealthy elites, until we have true participatory democracy that extends to economic policy, the masses will continue to be exploited and the environment will continue to suffer.

by seedot Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:54

Is as divorced from reality as any other form of utopian fundamentalism.

All this 'Invisible Hand' stuff is grand in theory - but do you really believe that
a) information available to both employer and employee is the same
b) power available to retailer and consumer is the same
c) all have equality before the law

David Korten made this point better than I can

"Ironically, Smith's epic work The Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, presents a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. He made clear, however, that this outcome can result only when no buyer or seller is sufficiently large to influence the market price—a point many who invoke his name prefer not to mention. Such a market implicitly assumes a significant degree of equality in the distribution of economic power—another widely neglected point. "

from:
When Corporations Rule the World.

So - nice theory, shame about the reality.

by Raymond McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:47 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie Limerick 086 0638611

When individuals function from the Self and create a Global Country of World Peace.

The establishment of the Global Country of World Peace is absolutely essential for the world today, when time demands the rise of a peaceful power on Earth with such global strength that destructive forces will vanish.

The Global Country of World Peace will establish Heaven on Earth by raising the quality of life of every individual to complete fulfilment and affluence in enlightenment.

The Global Country of World Peace will establish a Global Administration through Natural Law by enlivening the nourishing evolutionary power of Natural Law in the life of every individual and in the collective consciousness of the whole world.

by iosaf Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:27

where you divide out the same amount of cash to each player at the beginning one is appointed banker with all the dosh on the table and you trust the die, community chest and chance.
Nothing you have written is based on any society present or past. This utopian free market explanation "bring the kids through it" has never existed and may never exist, because our markets are post-slavery and bench-values are set in property and commodities with unreal worth.

Go back to your beginning, from whom does the happy & honest worker buy their shelter? How did that happy & honest landlord earn said title? & is the honest farmer whose livestock dies and decreases in number and value accounted for considering the dishonest farmer whose livestock flourished? No both are just farmers in your system with near self-replenishing goods to sell or barter.

Alas "personal freedom" is not the source of a fair society. .

try again.

by Eamon Ryan Wed Oct 05, 2005 17:16

Suppose two individuals perform the same amount of work in the same time and are equally productive it stands to reason that they should recieve the same reward.
However suppose there are two individuals - one who honestly performs more labour than another who is employed for the same number of hours.
The first will naturally expect to be paid more than the second but if this were allowed to happen there would be an equality between the first and the second. Therefore both MUST be paid the same.
The first individual would soon learn as would the second that it would make no difference to his earnings whether he worked more or less. Indeed if the both due to dishonesty or inability performed no work they would still recieve the same wages as an individual who worked honestly or with ability. The obvious effect would be that only a fool would work honestly knowing his peers who are dishonest or else unable to work would still recieve the same wages regardless of how much he complains.
Why would anybody accept a responsibility knowing they would still recieve the same had they declined the responsbility?
Who then would bother inventing new technology, repair the roads, run the hospitals efficiently, maintain law and order justly, grow crops, work in a factory, fish the seas, drive the trains, clean up garbage, educate others if they would still recieve the same wages had they done nothing?
A society organised on such as basis would not progress, would come to grinding halt and would actually retreat in chaos.

by Joe Wed Oct 05, 2005 17:27

Since when was capitalism about wages?

The way the system actually works is I'm a dumb ass who spends his day on the golf course (but I happen to own the factory you work in - my dad left it to me). Your the smart hardworking type who works for me and even puts in unpaid overtime. I get a million a year - you get 20,000. But if you work even harder I might give you 25,000.

You want to call that freedom go right ahead - its no skin off my nose.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Oct 05, 2005 17:35

..each according to thier need.

Equality is based on this premise, this type of society that is not being built because of the fallacy of personal freedom. Which is a tool to provide enough divisions to keep the ruling economic elite in power.

If a society provides the basic human needs and equality of opportunity for access to wealth and education, then surely a basis for a free society exists.

Trickle down economics do not work, the free market is a myth and the sooner we get to a point of social and economic revolution the better.



I

by Eamon Ryan Wed Oct 05, 2005 19:10

"Trickle down economics do not work, the free market is a myth and the sooner we get to a point of social and economic revolution the better."

Tell me how it happened that the average(not all of course were as well off) Irish family of two adults and 12 children (the other five died in before the age of 5 years) lived in a mud tatched cabin drank rain water and ate nothing but mouldy potatoes in 1830 while in 2005 the average Irish family lives in a centrally heated concrete walled slate roofed house with furniture electricity running cold and hot water cooker mircrowave fridge TV games console radio computer internet one car in the drive and eat cheap affordable quality food and can afford a least one foreign holiday a year?

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Oct 05, 2005 19:21

In so far as material goods are concerned, the average worker in Ireland gives more hours of work which go to feed the profits of big business or corrupt government than his / her equivilant back before 1840.

The issue is equality and all workers must ask themselves why and for whom are we working for ?

Because without us you cannot make a profit so why are we not earning more and working less in 2005 ?

And to answer your question : 30 kids under the age of 5 dying a day from preventable diseases and hunger at this time at the height of human production capacity...trickle down really does not work.

by by any means necessary Wed Oct 05, 2005 19:27

30, 000 dying every day, thirty would still be to much.

by Santa Claus Wed Oct 05, 2005 19:38

How it all happened: nice capitalists implemented the free market, wait, no!, it was protectionism, wait no! there as socialism going on during that period wasn't there? wait no! there never has been socialism.... oh I'm so confused.

Really it was due to the mysterious workings of God. It was nothing to do with development of science and technology.

After all the move from being homo erectus to homo sapiens was all due to the free market too wasn't it?

by Eamon Ryan Wed Oct 05, 2005 20:04

Neanderthals and Homo erectus are no longer with us because they could not compete with modern Homo Sapiens' intelligence, innovativeness and invention.
The either died out or intermarried with us.

Nobody planned capitalism either it just developed out of the order of competition in the natural world.

by hmmmm Wed Oct 05, 2005 21:01

you have in less space & time than it usually takes shown your complete ignorance of paleo-anthropology, pre 20th century economics, irish economic development versus protectionism and/or free trade, the root of occidental philosophical notions of liberty, equality and fraternity and to top it all off, the sweet idea of neanderthal / homo sapien intermarriage. & you did all this refreshingly without recourse to one named author. its almost as if you thought all this up yourself.
I am only left wondering who played the organ or threw confetti at the neanderthal / homo sapien weddings?

do try again.
its entertaining.
some day we all can be ABC1 newspaper readers.

by Eamon Ryan Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:43

Where am I in error?
Socialism fails every time because of its utterly naive view of basic human nature
Mankind is essentially self-interested and only involves himself in society because of what he can get out of it. People only give to others when they know there is a high probability of it being reciprocated.
Capitalism was never dreamed up by some philosopher or put together by a committee.
It emerged out of competing interests finding the areas where they can achieve a compromise. In the real world people have to make deals and sacrifice their principles in order to survive. Idealism and dogmatism get you nowhere.

by Joe Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:30

" In the real world people have to make deals and sacrifice their principles in order to survive."

But this isn't unique to 'capitalism'. It's also true of hunter gather society. It would probably be true of a communist society as well even with the abolition of money.

If your going to try and defend capitalism you should probably first spend a little time working out what it is (hint - it is not the existance of a market either).

Right now your just making yourself look silly.

by Eamon Ryan Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:25

Tell me how you can eliminate self-interest and create a communist society without establishing a totalitarian regime like that in Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, China and the USSR where hundreds of millions of starving citizens lived under the jackboot of the secret police controlled by the Party fatcats?

by Eamon Ryan Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:27

Why would you WANT to live in a communist society?

by paolo Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:36

those countries had stalinism which you should know is different from socialism.....if you were so smart. why wouldn't you want to live in a communist country? it's be better than the kip you'd have us in.

by Joe Thu Oct 06, 2005 15:56

Again if you do a bit of reading around you'll soon find that two ideas of 'communism' have existed for around 130 years.

One idea was that this was something to be created by the party using the state. This in particular was the Leninist version of marxism and led to what you saw in Russia, China, Vietnam etc.

The other (which stood in clear oppposition to the first since around 1870 because it predicted it could only lead to 'slavery and brutality') argued that a communist society could only be created when all decisions were made from the bottom up. That you could not have communism without freedom in other words.

If your interested in discovering more about this have a look at https://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/left.html

by s - - Thu Oct 06, 2005 18:27

Marxism understands the way in which society works. Unlike anarchists we do not squirm away from the "dirty words" of power and organisation. Capitalism has a state so should workers. Capitalism is higly organised so should workers. You must be symitrical to your enemy. Capitalism wont simply disapear. Nor will it be a passive player in any type of revoultion. It will use all its might to crush it

by Eamon Ryan Thu Oct 06, 2005 18:36

You seem to forget that democratic society ALREADY works from the bottom up.
Anyone can form their own political party and it is up to them to persuade like minded people to join or to donate to the party cause.
Inevitably there are factions in society represented by the political parties.
Who rules is decided by the people themselves electing representatives for the party of their choice. If those parties do not perform as they were expected by the voters the next election gives those same voters the chance to punish them by voting for another party who will implement the policies they want.
Obviously if the political parties are too fractured then stable government will be impossible therefore usually there is a minimum number of seats that the government must possess for them to govern. Therefore the political block or party with largest number of seats rules.
Opposition parties are free to voice their objections and criticism to government policy and perhaps can so undermine the governments credibility that at the next election they can seize power if the voters are influenced by their stance. If the voters decided they do not wish a change of government the opposition must accept it until next time.
The ultimate power resides not in the party fundraiser, advertisers, advisors or politicians but with the ordinary voters who can decided to be as stupid or as intelligent as they wish. The politician can "buy" votes by catering for the needs of target areas more likely to sway the election at the expense of other areas. The target area may or may not vote their thanks and other areas aroused by jealously can make the politicians plans backfire.
If a particular issue such as the economy inspires the people to demonstrate in the streets this may or may not have an influence on the greater mass of voters. When it does yhe voters respond for good or bad.
The bottom line is the voter decides.

So why do you need a communist revolution from the ground up when you can simply vote your leaders out of power if you so wish?