Saddam Arrested

[Clashman]

So, let's see if I grasp this:

"Individialism", as you put it, is a system where a bunch of predominantly white male CEOs and major stockholders tell their millions of employees what they can and can't do. It is a fundamentally anti-democratic system. The employees, despite for the most part investing their lives in the jobs in which they work, are "individuals" only because if they want to they can leave their current job where they are told all they can and cannot do and go to another one where they are told what they can and cannot do.

Individualism is where you have elections funded by corporations and special interest groups who draft the legislation which makes up the laws that govern people's lives outside of their jobplace. You can vote for one of two fairly similar candidates who've both been paid for with the same money, but if your candidate loses, (which doesn't neccessarily mean recieving the least amount of votes), you recieve no representation whatsoever in the political process. This assumes of course, that the candidate you are able to vote for actually represents you, which in most cases they do not. You aren't legally prohibited from voting for a 3rd party candidate which represents you, but it is nearly impossible for any such candidate to win above a local level due to the financial constraints of major electoral campaigns.

"Socialism", referred to mean anything to the left of Joe Lieberman, is "Collectivist Authoritarianism" because it stands opposed to your version of "individualism", right? Because an "individualist" can be never be authoritarian. And because it is a "collectivist" mentality to ensure that as large a percentage of the population is politically represented as possible.

Yeah, makes alot of sense to me.

 

[Sabastian]

So, let's see if I grasp this:

"Individialism", as you put it, is a system where a bunch of predominantly white male CEOs and major stockholders tell their millions of employees what they can and can't do. It is a fundamentally anti-democratic system. The employees, despite for the most part investing their lives in the jobs in which they work, are "individuals" only because if they want to they can leave their current job where they are told all they can and cannot do and go to another one where they are told what they can and cannot do.

Individualism is where you have elections funded by corporations and special interest groups who draft the legislation which makes up the laws that govern people's lives outside of their jobplace. You can vote for one of two fairly similar candidates who've both been paid for with the same money, but if your candidate loses, (which doesn't neccessarily mean recieving the least amount of votes), you recieve no representation whatsoever in the political process. This assumes of course, that the candidate you are able to vote for actually represents you, which in most cases they do not. You aren't legally prohibited from voting for a 3rd party candidate which represents you, but it is nearly impossible for any such candidate to win above a local level due to the financial constraints of major electoral campaigns.

"Socialism", referred to mean anything to the left of Joe Lieberman, is "Collectivist Authoritarianism" because it stands opposed to your version of "individualism", right? Because an "individualist" can be never be authoritarian. And because it is a "collectivist" mentality to ensure that as large a percentage of the population is politically represented as possible.

Yeah, makes alot of sense to me.

lol, you moron. You don't even have a clue about what individualism means. It is about people being responsible for the own well being on an individual basis in particular monetarily speaking. Capitalism fosters that while state run economic central planers want to control and tax the benefit out of the ownership of private property for the sake of the collective well being and egalitarian principles.

Individualism is explicitly tied to self governance and individual responsibility. While socialist want to take these responsibilities away in favor of some form of secular authoritarian egalitarianism. So in essence the individual is not ultimately responsible for their well being. Your focus on corporations is misdirected, but you don't realize it because that is all you know.

EDIT: Anyhow I have to go to work @ 5 and it is 4 so you can carry this debate on with yourself.

 

[Clashman]

Your idea of individaulism is for working class people to work at wages insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living, and make lots of money for rich people. Then, when those same working-class people want some of the money they created for the rich people back, so that they can actually have decent standards of healthcare, housing, etc, you call that authoritarianism.

Edit: I know exactly what you profess your idea of "individualism" to mean. What I was describing are it's effects and underlying motives. I hope that's simple and straightforward enough for you.

 

[RussSchultz]

As much as I dislike Sabastian's rants, I gotta admit, he's right. You need to stop equating capitalism and individualism with unfairness, and socialism with fairness.

 

[Clashman]

Capitalism, whether it's "fair" or not, is not a democratic system. "Socialism" can be authoritarian, but Sabastian is foolish to lump in the Soviet Union under Russia with the Swedish Welfare state, much less the Democrats. Sabastian has regularly equated laissez faire capitalism with individualism, and "socialism" with trade unionism and the welfare state. All I have done is elaborate on what is involved in both. And in fact it is next to impossible for the vast majority of people involved in a laissez faire capitalist system to achieve any sort of self-governance and self-responsibility when they are functioning within the confines of an inherently anti-democratic system. At the same time, trade unionism and the welfare state cannot be as "authoritarian" as he thinks for the simple reason that they are more or less under democratic control. Perhaps I wasn't clear that this was the point I was initially trying to make.

 

[ByteMe]

And in fact it is next to impossible for the vast majority of people involved in a laissez faire capitalist system to achieve any sort of self-governance and self-responsibility when they are functioning within the confines of an inherently anti-democratic system.

You are incorrect. It is possible, it just depends on how dedicated the person is. Name a country that has more self-made millionaires.

 

[RussSchultz]

I guess I don't see laissez faire capitalism as inherently anti-democratic.

 

[Clashman]

Then please explain to me how a corporation is a democratic institution. How do those employed at a corporation have direct or representative influence in the company's decisions?

 

[Fred]

Except people have the freedom to not be a part of that corporation, they can make their own if they so wish, or choose to be part of something else.

Frankly its an absurd argument, socialist states have corporations as well.

Look, its nice to talk about hypothetical extremes. America and Europe are examples of neither. In America there are regulations so its not pure 'laissez faire'. Just like in Europe there is quite a bit of the 'free' market concept.

The difference is in the subtelties and the grey inbetween.

 

[RussSchultz]

Then please explain to me how a corporation is a democratic institution.

Well, shareholders have direct say in how the corporation is run, as defined by the incorporating articles.

Beyond that, people have a choice to work for, or not work for; patronize or not patronize.

 

[Clashman]

Except people have the freedom to not be a part of that corporation, they can make their own if they so wish, or choose to be part of something else.

The vast, vast majority of people only have the freedom to go and work for another corporation. Unless you're talking about some future fantasy science fiction world of completely mechanized labor, for there to be capitalists there needs be far more workers.

Frankly its an absurd argument, socialist states have corporations as well.

First off a welfare state is not socialism. Secondly, in a welfare state, the lack of direct or representative democracy in the workplace is somewhat alleviated by a functioning political democracy, which has some ability to influence and set regulations upon a capitalist economic system. In a laissez faire system of capitalism, economic elites are in no way accountable to the people who work under them. Moreover, socialism is not what I am prescribing here. What I'm looking at is more a system of cooperative economics which for the most part would exist independent of the state, (with exceptions for things that should be guaranteed if the state is physically capable of providing it, namely healthcare, education, etc), and in a democratic and representative manner.

Look, its nice to talk about hypothetical extremes. America and Europe are examples of neither. In America there are regulations so its not pure 'laissez faire'. Just like in Europe there is quite a bit of the 'free' market concept.

I look at Europe as welfare state capitalism, or Keynsian Economics exemplified, and not as socialism, which would require a real restructuring of the means of production to be put into place, and not simply a couple regulations on an existing capitalist system. And while America isn't free of regulations, Sabastian, (and quite a few others on this board), don't seem to want them around at all, and it was this that I was addressing, (although at times I may have used the examples of the U.S. and Europe to get the point across).

 

[Clashman]

Well, shareholders have direct say in how the corporation is run, as defined by the incorporating articles.

Beyond that, people have a choice to work for, or not work for; patronize or not patronize.

Most shareholders don't have a direct say. I believe a couple of years ago Green Peace bought just enough stock in Shell Oil to have a presence at the board meeting, (I don't think they actually had speaking priviledges, although they may have had voting power). They needed something on the order of 217 thousand dollars worth of stock in order to do it. To actually effect policy at that same meeting probably would have cost more than most of their labor force takes home in a month.

 

[RussSchultz]

So, unless you can influence it to your liking, then it isn't democratic?

If you own shares, you have a vote. It might not mean much or be able to make much difference by itself, but a vote is a vote. Get enough likeminded people together and you have a voting block that can influence the outcome proportionate to the number of votes you have.

How is this inherently anti-democratic? It sounds like a definition of democratic. (Excepting its not one man one vote, but one share one vote.)

 

[Clashman]

Yup, there's nothing more democratic than buying votes.

Edit: why should 50, (or 100, or 1,000, or 10,0000), rich people be able to outvote 50,000 working-class people?

Edit 2: And I things had to be to my liking. To have any amount of representation I would need far more money than I am likely to make during the course of several years.

 

[RussSchultz]

Because that which makes the corporation is investment.

Would you invest and buy 10% of a company and accept only 1 vote as to how your money was used?

 

[Clashman]

Would you bother voting in a country if your vote was only worth 1/100th that of someone of a different race or gender?

 

[RussSchultz]

You seem to want to equate something meaningless(race/gender), to something that is quantifiable and has direct bearing on the corporation (investment/ownership).

 

[Clashman]

Ok. How about your vote is worth 1/1000th that of a congressperson? That is a more direct correlation anyways, (Economic Elites receiving more votes than their constituents vs Political Elites being entitled to a greater vote than their constituents).

 

[Clashman]

I'll have to stop at this for awhile now because I just have not been getting anything done, (I'm not a fast typer, you know).

 

[RussSchultz]

Your analogy is going way off my comprehension meter.