http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03 … reats?lite
You know when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Americans in Europe were hugged because they elected him and he was given a Nobel Peace prize because he was alive on the planet...and on and on....
I thought the world was supposed to smile upon us and be at peace with us?
Just because of the fact we elected Barack Obama.
Is reality setting in on you folks yet?
Most of them are still blinded by his "brilliance".
I know some professed conservatives who buckled at the knees when he showed up.
Quite a phenomenon.
Poor things; poor USA.
a lot of folks still don't see what has been done and they have Ted Kennedy at least partially to thank.
His endorsement set the stage.
Yep. He was a powerful influence.
Too bad he wasn't opposed more strongly years ago. McCain was too soft on him, counted him as a friend even while he debated him on the Senate floor. But then, McCain wasn't as Right as I thought he was all this time either.
John McCain betrayed anyone Conservative who voted for him with his treatment of Rand Paul.
Barack Obama was Ted's parting gift to the Clintons.
Could it be that the "Right" are so right that they are wrong?
The right has nothing to do with this. America was sold a bill of goods called Barack Obama.
He was marketed as being the smartest man in the room and the solution.
He is neither.
Would you accept that a country (a nation) will get the leader it deserves?
If any of the opposition party had won the Presidency, what do you imagine your own personal position would be right now?
If any other person in the Democratic Party had won the Presidency, do you suppose that would have made a big difference as to how the Nation stands right now?
Are the major problems within the nation's economy and it's social infrastructure a result of what past Presidents and Governments have instigated? Or are those problems caused by the activities of individual persons within the society at large? Does Greed come into it? Does Religiosity play a part? Does naivety have anything to do with the "problems?"
In other words, who is responsible for any solutions to the problems? Can anyone really "pass the buck?"
These are genuine questions, inviting well considered, genuine answers. They are not directed as an accusation.
Because decades of overthrowing democratic governments, causing the deaths of millions and bullying other nations is not forgotten in one 8 year term, it has improved however.
What democratic governments are you talking about? America is the poster child for democracy. If any thing, America has influenced nations to become democratic.
You always misunderstand everything. That is what happens when you are the ENEMY of America and Democracy.
Do you really need me to give you a list o democratic governments overthrown by us and our backing? If so you have absolutely no knowledge of our history and are not really worthy of listening to on the subject.
You can start with Chile as noted above.
Then you should read some history, the ignorance is tragic.
The dismissal of the countless lives lost by that ignorance even more so, many family and friends of mine amongst them.
"America is the poster child for democracy."
Incorrect. The correct answer is "Ancient Greece," as it was the first recorded country to establish such a system.
That's the message that was projected.
That's the image that was projected.
Not mine....someone else's and now of course I am scorned for wanting to discuss the merits or lack thereof.
Anyone who suggests a person becoming president will stop all hostility towards the US is insane.
And I can't say I have ever seen anyone say it.
"Why do we still have enemies"
Because you still have the worlds largest army that is happiest when doing that thing armies do - killing people.
But Barack was supposed to change the perception the international community had of us. Right?
You claim the soldiers are happiest when they are killing people?
Well we are America you know.....the root of all evil.
According to the liberals.
Maybe a bit strong but have you ever seen a soldier when not on active service?
What's your point with an all inclusive statement like this? How many off duty soldiers have you observed and for how long? I'm a retired marine and I hate war as any true soldier would.
It appears that you want to extrapolate a "soldiers are all death mongers "image out of some random observation of a psychopath in uniform. I assure you sir, the majority are honorable men who detest killing and pay an emotional price the rest of their lives. There is such a thing as a true warrior just as there is such a thing as murder during war. We served and serve our country because we love it.
Perhaps you should direct your anger at the leaders where it belongs.
Perhaps that is why, though much smaller, our army is far more deadly than yours.
Our soldiers are trained to kill. Unfortunately when they leave the service they are not untrained which makes them rather dubious neighbours, or at least some of them.
I thought you were a democracy and that I was directing my comments where they belonged.
Your military is deadlier than ours? I'll bet your dad can beat up my dad too. You speak in stereo typical statements, the hall mark of a lazy intellect. Until you directly experience the reality of war your comments have no validity....and by the way, America is not a democracy and never has been. We sir are a Republic in which there is a huge struggle in hopes of Not becoming a democracy. It amazes me how people who live within the freedom provided by the sacrifices of men in uniform can so casually judge and condemn the very men who protect that freedom.
Actually I was loosely quoting the words of an American General - if you find my comment objectionable, take it up with him. Unfortunately I can't remember his name at the moment.
I did think you were a Democratic Republic, with government officials and representatives voted into power by the people. My mistake. You must explain to this lazy intellect how your system actually works then, are you governed by a Royal family, a life time dictator, what?
And tell me, how is attacking some third world country on the other side of the world protecting my freedom?
Blimey, you've dragged that one up from so far back that I've almost forgotten my point!
Which as I recall was to do with soldiers being employed to kill other people and that they are so programmed that discharge from the army doesn't stop the will to kill..
What is the percentage of discharged vets that murder vs the percentage of non vets that murder? You might want to deduct those people that work a job such as police, security, etc. - either that or make sure the numbers reflect legal murder rather than killings in the line of duty.
Does your point have anything to back it, or is it simple opinion without knowledge? The vets I've been acquainted with have become the most peaceable people I know.
But the point remains that soldiers are trained to kill and to be immune to the effects of that killing.
As indicated, apparently they are either de-programmed or trained not to let it affect their personal lives; either way they are safer to have around than non-military in my experience.
Given that, I'm not sure of your point - simple cruelty, a knock at a group you don't like, a type of discrimination? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to add anything here.
What is your evidence of that? Is it the fact that some soldiers return mentally unbalanced and commit crimes? Do you believe that is a majority of the soldiers returning?
I never claimed a majority, just a fact that soldiers are trained to kill (at least ours are anyway, your's might be trained to play poker with your enemies, but I doubt it).
Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You shouldn't defame the veterans who have sacrificed more than you will ever know.
Who is defaming anybody! I'm stating a simple, I thought irrefutable, fact.
So tell me, what are your soldiers trained for?
You were not talking about training you were talking about vets returning with a desire to kill. I have no desire to school you on the facts as you seem to create your own as you go. My guess is you have never spent a day in uniform and could never understand what men of honor think.
tis true that I've never spent a day in uniform since I left the Boy Scouts.
My original point was about off duty soldiers, not discharged soldiers.
Again, I ask, do you dispute that soldiers are trained to kill?
I dispute what you claimed, whether discharged or furloughed American soldiers do not have a blood lust that cannot be controlled.
Where did I say it can't be controlled?
Come on man, challenge me on what I say, fair enough, but don't make things up.
I made no mention of vets returning with a desire to kill, those were entirely your words and bore no relationship to anything I said.
Now, to con a phrase, put up or shut up!
Show me anywhere I said that (and I trust you to quote me, and not quote yourself claiming that I said such things) and you shall have a fulsome and grovelling apology.
I think your own words prove my point.
"Because you still have the worlds largest army that is happiest when doing that thing armies do - killing people."
"Maybe a bit strong but have you ever seen a soldier when not on active service?"
"Which as I recall was to do with soldiers being employed to kill other people and that they are so programmed that discharge from the army doesn't stop the will to kill.."
Well don't you? No mention of vets with a blood lust though.
For example, down at the pub with his mates when on leave. Still no mention of vets and blood lust though.
Well I grant you could read that the way you want to and not the way I wanted you to, but still no hit.
British soldiers are not deprogrammed though and very few have any sort of blood lust (which I didn't mention).
Your argument is at best very thin and not without plenty of distortion and my words singularly fail to prove your point.
I could read it that way because you meant the words that way. It is your opinion and you are free to have it, I am one of these vets you claim is programmed and can assure you that after 20 years in the United States Army I am far from programmed to kill.
If you didn't mean the words the way I read them then please explain what you really meant.
Perhaps there in lies the answer to why your Generals admire the British army so much.
I meant them exactly they way that I wrote them, soldiers are not deprogrammed on discharge.
You'll note, not one mention of blood lust.
I know that you meant them the way I read them. Thank you for the insight into our military, your stint in the uniform of the boy Scouts is appreciated.
OK, have it your way, you have far more idea about what I wrote than I did.
I have far more experience within the U.S. Army than a Boy Scout from across the pond!
Then stop sounding like a something or other totally inoffensive - of course US soldiers are trained to kill and you should know that.
Soldiers are trained to do many things but you would never know.
Because you have never been in the United States Army! Should be pretty easy to understand.
So, enlighten me, tell me how training for the US army differs so radically from the UK army?
You really don't need to join any army to know that the good-hearted and honorable members who sign up to protect their families and defend their nation are in the minority, with the majority being more interested in killing for the fun of it with the possibility of fame on the side.
Another who has no idea what he is talking about.
Are you talking about those Cyber Games that you play at 2 o'clock in the morning? That is not real life, but maybe people who get addicted to such "virtual" rubbish will be imaging it is.
No, they're happiest when they're raping women, both the natives and their colleagues.
I'm sure that is something you only say behind the anonymity of the keyboard.
I don't know where he's from but I am sure he is a keyboard commando. I watched a documentary on the Klitschko brothers recently (reigning heavyweight champions) and one of the clips had Vladimir telling his father that the United States was a wonderful place. His father said that the U.S. was a horrendous place and he just saw the good side of the propaganda. Later it went on to tell how his father before he died would vacation in Florida and couldn't get enough of America.
I would suspect those haters of America have never actually been here.
I know you are unfamiliar with U.S. military procedures, but who were you talking about?
So 5 soldiers represent the totality of the U.S. Army? Your hatred of us is sickening.
No, not hatred just countering a claim that it never happened. Still, I suppose I would be disappointed if you didn't manage to read into it something that was never there.
Would it calm you if I posted another link to UK soldiers raping?
John, you like distorting facts. That is what you seem to do best.
And what facts am I distorting? Facts established by your courts of law that some soldiers did rape?
Some soldiers does not equal an entire military.
The U.S. military is the most disciplined in the world. I am sure if it were the North Koreans, there would have been more rapes. There would have been more murders too. Children would have been sent to labor camps.
There is nothing like seeing the Left Gone Wild.
Did I ever say that some soldiers equalled an entire military?
Do you know what our soldiers say about your soldiers? They generally like them but hate going out on patrol with them because the don't have the first idea of how to handle and defuse conflict.
You don't have the most disciplined soldiers in the world.
Having spent a lot of time with soldiers from many countries I would have to call BS on your claim. The many British soldiers I have known have been the most happy while in our umbrella of safety, they recognize our superior methods and appreciate them.
You really need to spend less time reading fiction.
So now you are telling me that our Squaddies speak fiction!
Well it makes it perfectly clear how prejudiced you are.
I am prejudiced towards my country's Army. Not afraid to admit it.
Blind prejudice even in favor of something is still wrong. You can't be afraid to see and acknowledge problems, because that's the very definition of ignorance. How can you hope to solve a problem or improve something if you won't even open your eyes to see it?
That is almost the funniest thing I have ever read it is eclipsed only by the communist manifesto.
The simple skills of observation and problem solving are funny, now? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're not a scientist.
I very much doubt that you have read and understood the communist manifesto!
Read it, understood it and discarded it. Anything else you would like to dispute?
Your hatred flows in every post that you make. I am not interested in hearing about British soldiers raping, war causes some men to do horrible things but it should not indict an entire Army no matter its allegiance.
Easily solved, stop reading my posts.
There, that was easy wasn't it?
Quit posting hate about something you know nothing about would be even easier.
Why? They amuse me and I have neither desire or need to put words into your mouths.
That would be because our words are honest and we don't change them when confronted as you do.
Says the man who invented whole speeches and put my name to them
You failed to provide evidence of my accusing all soldiers of having a blood lust you know.
You do not pay attention to stats do you?
North Korea, China and India have a standing army that out numbers the U.S. The U.S. kicks butt when the U.S. has to. Little Lefty, do not be so jealous of American supremacy.
China is more interested in having us as a business partner, not as an enemy. Likewise with India. Out of those three, only North Korea is willing to duke it out with us, and if they ever tried, they would be curbstomped so hard the pavement would be permanently stained red.
Oh my...Zelkiiro, I actually agree with you.
See, that was NOT so bad.
You still have enemies as you are the head of global imperialism. Both your political parties are capitalist parties and no matter who they elect they will serve the interests of capital against the interests of the masses. No matter which puppet does the bidding of the bourgeoisie, the result is the same: your destructive economic system forced upon the world kills more people from poverty than any other economic system. Only naive liberals, opportunists and petit-bourgeois social chauvinists ever thought otherwise. The proletarian masses and oppressed peoples of the world knew from experience that change was fake rhetoric.
Comrade Joe, the "system" that you espouse is no different. Within it, you will find Greed, Hatred, Selfishness, Dishonesty, Dissension, Politicking --- in other words all the failings and shortcomings you blame the Capitalists for. One other negative you share with some Capitalists: you walk around with blinkers on and avoid looking in the mirror.
It's the human tendency. Cuts across all political, religious and social systems. So don't kid yourself that you and your system have all the answers. The real answer will only come from being totally honest with your self.
I suggest we try to step out of the Blame Game. (Sure, I have dipped my toe into the Game in my post immediate prior to this one.) It seems to me that blaming any system, whether it be capitalism, communism, liberalism, etc., does not benefit us at all. It merely shifts our focus away from the real issues. And the real issues are our fears of "what if." Our greed and selfishness, our anxieties and crimes, are in response to fear, anxieties. If we can get to understand our actions and reactions, which are all basically animal in nature, then we can use our human intelligence to find solutions.
You may say it is the human tendency. But the human tendency is always evolving and developing. The natural order of things is always changing, slavery, female subjugation, child labor, these used to be the natural order of things, but we have outgrown such primitive values just as we will grow out of todays "human tendency".
Bourgeois apologists will forever go on about this human nature thing, about how corrupt and selfish we supposedly are, and how fixed this is. This is supposed to be an argument for capitalism, and against socialism. Yet get in a slightly different argument with them and they quickly espouse that charity can fix problems. So we are selfish and greedy, but also voluntarily kind and good-willed. Bourgeois apologists are clearly entangled in an ideological web of self-contradiction.
One only has to look at the human tendency in the face of real adversity such as an earthquake or a train crash. Then the natural human tendency is to help - even at the risk of life.
The natural human tendency is to cooperate, none cooperative capitalism is unnatural.
We learnt at a very early age that one man out hunting a buffalo would have very little chance of success and a high chance of death. If he was successful most of the yield would be wasted.
A cooperative ( or collective) would have a much greater chance of success at a much lesser risk and little would be wasted.
Child labor and slavery is still happening in Europe. Stealing and selling women and children is still happening in Europe as well. Thank God it does not happen here.
Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Jung Il all said the same thing too Comrade Joe while they were busy setting up labor camps. They were also authoritarians who starved their people. Some actions were worse pending on who it was. Communists and Socialists echo ideological webs of self-contradiction.
How anyone could look at the US food industry, not only producing all that is needed for the country but then exporting $137,000,000,000 worth last year to help feed other nations, and claim that our economy kills more people with poverty than any other system is beyond me.
In reply to your question, I can give one example where apparently damage has been done to a local community.
The Island if Haiti at one time was growing almost 100% of its rice crop. Subsidized rice from the United States then entered Haiti. This subsidized rice can now be sold in the street markets at a price lower than the Haitian farmers can produce it. The farmers pack up, move into the urban areas, causing economic, social and health problems from overcrowding. The farms become non-viable, depleting the countryside of community and family life. Here I am guessing, but are there companies in the United States who benefit handsomely from the sale of their produce to Haiti? Is that altruistic character of overseas aid from the United States really helpful? I wonder, but do not have an answer.
Providing cheaper food causes urban areas to deteriorate and increases poverty. Sorry, but I'd have to say that the causes of both is the stupidity of the people; inability to sell rice at high prices means finding something else to grow, not give up the farm, move the city and live in squalor.
Or so the Americans see it - other nations and cultures may feel differently.
Are there companies and farming families that profit - sure, but just how "handsomely" I really don't know. Not very, I would suspect. A family feeding itself from farming either makes a profit from that farm or goes under; no one can provide much free food to poverty stricken countries without losing their own farm.
Is US altruism really helpful? Yes, but I would have to primarily limit it to actual, physical improvements, schooling, etc. and not to money given. That mostly ends up in the pockets of govt. officials. IMHO.
Simple, it's all in the $$$$, have plenty, eat well, have none, starve to death.
I see. So now the US economy is the cause of poverty in Nigeria. Just as Johnny says, giving free or cheap food increases poverty in other countries.
Yes it does. It changes the infrastructure and shifts the balance of power.
Do you know that the people of Patna, in India, can no longer market their rice as "Patna Rice" because an American corporation has trade marked the name Patna!
So, we'll sell you cheap rice but we won't let you market your own superior rice - great help.
I see. Best, then, that the Americans keep the food feeding half the world at home and let them starve instead. That's the best you can come up with?
The problem is less aid, than the problem is the IMF and World Bank giving loans to corrupt regimes that are then overthrown, but the debt amassed by the corrupt regimes has to be paid off by the people. Like how Indonesia is in poverty because the US backed General Suharto with loans, with free market stipulations, and now the people have got rid of Suharto (who kept all the loaned wealth) and now the people have to pay it back even though they took out no loans and received no benefit from the loans. The Soviet Union used to give interest free loans, or loans with nominal rates to build infrastructure, the US gives loans to tinpot, here today gone tomorrow regimes, which the US can then live off the interest while the people abroad starve.
That governments are overthrown to provide resources for capitalism is the problem. That capital migrates to find cheap labor is the problem. That US capital dominates every country is the problem.
It is the same reason people hate my country too (the UK), they just hate you more as you are the leaders, the head of this moribund system, we are only the sidekicks.
If your free market is so superior, you can have it. But stop enforcing it on the rest of the world who want no part of it. But the fact is without third world super exploitation your economy would collapse under its own weight. Your lifestyle is subsidized by the blood of Africans.
Bourgeois Americans can delude themselves that the US is hated because of particular presidents, or "they hate us for our freedoms" or any other notion of the day. But go to a working class neighborhood anywhere in the world and ask the people there why they hate the US and the true picture emerges: the picture I paint. If you want to know why the US is hated, then listen to the people who hate it, people like me.
BS. Governments are not overthrown to provide resources for capitalism; they are overthrown because their citizens don't like what that govt. is doing to them.
Nor does the US force it's capitalism on other countries; they are free to buy and sell or not as they wish. That they wish to sell resources or labor to the US cannot be termed "force" in any manner, and neither is it "exploitation".
If they were overthrown for the reasons you suggest, they would be overthrown by the people, not the US military and intelligence services. But Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, Lumumba in Congo right up to the modern day 2002 failed coup against Chavez - the fact is the US has stood against the people, trying and often succeeding in overthrowing governments elected by the people. This is force. In other cases, if we do not call it force, what you have is the US in collusion with small bourgeois and aristocratic groups and puppet leaders holding the people down. Use whatever term for it you like, but the fact remains. And if you do not think it is exploitation, you simply do not know what exploitation means. It is that simple.
The US overthrows governments who look as if they might trammel the mighty god of capitalism, no other reason. They don't give a monkeys about what the people want or what is good for the people. The USA has been responsible for some of the worst tyrants getting power.
The US does nothing but force its capitalism on other countries and although happy to flood the worlds markets is very protective of its own.
How is forcing capitalism done? By asking if someone wants to buy? Or work? By sending in the Navy to steal the products we want and throwing $100 on the ground?
Just how is that capitalism forced on other countries?
Josak has mentioned the Allende example. I have mentioned Arbenz and others - this is clear force.
And as i also said, it colludes with minority bourgeois and aristocratic groups is a form of force. War and the use of the military is merely a function of force, it is not force itself. But when you give loans and assistance to someone like General Suharto in the knowledge the use it to enrich their ruling group and build a military capable of quelling the impoverished masses, and thereby condemning them to a (short) lifetime of poverty and misery, I call that force. Economic blockade, economic sanctions, these are functions of force.
Americans are all for democracy, just so long as we all elect capitalists loyal to Washington.
Economic sanctions (or blockade) are force, yes. We are currently participating in a sanction of N. Korea - will the result be forcing capitalism on the country? I rather doubt it.
I suppose a tariff war, with sanctions, could be considered force as well, but to force capitalism on a country that doesn't want it? No.
Giving loans or aid to a country isn't forcing capitalism on them.
Will that be the result? No. Is it the intention? Yes.
Giving loans for dictators to build up their military so as to quell democracy and the will of the people, is to force capitalism on a people. If you remove that assistance the regime collapses, the people overthrow it. So clearly, the US is directly responsible for capitalism being forced on people, when their force it what sustains it.
How is forcing capitalism done?
Simple, the country of Hades wants to buy guns and ammunition (say) off you because they can get them from you cheaper than anywhere else and they are after all the best.
Sure, you say, we will sell you guns and ammunition but we need paying in US dollars.
What's that, you have no US dollars, no problem, sell us something and we'll pay you in US dollars that you can then spend on the Gs and A.
Oh dear, you've only got rice to sell, well OK, but you understand that we are the greatest country in the world and have more rice than you can shake a stick at so we can't actually pay you very much for it.
What do you mean, the price we are offering you is less than the cost of production! It's the best we can do.
Now do you want these Gs and A or not?
Go back and re-read your second line:
"Simple, the country of Hades wants to buy..." No force there. You are consistently mistaking force for choice, but it doesn't work. Choice is choice, not being forced.
Nor is there anything wrong with offering a price commensurate with value to the buyer - there is absolutely no reason to offer more. Their price of production has no effect on the value of the product.
There you go again, picking out the chaff and ignoring the wheat!
"Their price of production has no effect on the value of the product."
I must remember that line the next time you tell me that businesses would go to the wall if forced to pay reasonable wages.
Many times that has been manifestly untrue, for example Allende in Chile, a democratically elected President was killed in a US backed and funded coup, then it's population had capitalism forced on it (not to mention dictatorship) with US material aid during Operation Condor for decades after, in the area of 50 000 were kidnapped and tortured to death for expressing leftist sentiments before the dictatorship finally collapsed.
Not being familiar with Chile at all, I scanned the wikipedia entry on it.
Nowhere did I see that American troops were on Chilean soil. Americans backed, with money and propaganda, Allesandri who won the election. Chilean nationals were thus the only ones directly involved in the "takeover", which is what I said. The citizens of Chile didn't like what Allende was doing and voted him out.
What the hell are you reading! Allende was killed in the military coup backed and funded by the US and Pinochet a military dictator took power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chile … 7%C3%A9tat
Jorge Alessandri lost the election to Allende.
Jesus christ! So much ignorance in this thread!
You should not swear because the ignorance is yours alone.
You are trying to validate Leftist lies and propaganda. These things have been refuted properly.
"The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende, and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses. Perhaps most infamously, the CIA maintained contacts among the Chilean DINA intelligence service while DINA leaders, under Pinochet's direct command, led the multinational "anti-communism campaign" known as Operation Condor, resulting in assassinations of prominent politicians and activists of the legal left in various Latin American countries, in Washington, D.C., and in Europe (see section below). In particular, CIA contact with the head DINA, Manuel Contreras, was established soon after the coup (in 1974, during the Junta period prior to official transfer of Presidential powers to Pinochet); in 1975, the CIA reviewed a warning that keeping Contreras as an asset might threaten human rights in the region. The CIA chose to keep him as an asset, and at one point even paid him. In addition to the CIA's maintaining of assets in DINA beginning soon after the coup, several CIA assets, such as CORU Cuban exile militants Orlando Bosch and Guillermo Novo, collaborated in DINA operations under the Condor Plan in the early years of Pinochet's presidency.While the U.S. tacitly supported the Pinochet regime after the 1973 coup, there is no evidence that the US was directly involved in the coup. However, the Church Report concluded that, while the US had not directly participated in the 1973 coup, it had supported an attempted coup in 1970, and had directed money to anti-Allende elements, including possibly terrorist groups, during the period 1970–1973. The armed forces under Pinochet's command had strong enough coordination and military resources, and sufficient motivation, to undertake the coup on their own, as evidenced by their earlier coup attempt known as the Tanquetazo."
The people voted Allende in. The US assisted the rogue general Pinochet to overthrow the people's government, no voting was involved in the removal, neither literal nor figurative. The US then financed and militarily supplied (along with Britain) Pinochet so as to be able to maintain power, given that the majority of the people backed Allende and socialism and would have overthrown Pinochet otherwise.
Trust us, we are very familiar with what happened in Chile, we didn't just scan a wikipedia entry only ten minutes ago.
Some of us even knew real live Chileans back in the 1970s and believe that their fear was genuine.
Indeed the 50 000 tortured, gang raped and killed are apparently just forgotten when it's convenient.
A more sobering thought is that the numbers were kept hidden in that enclave of free speech.
That would be the exact total of what the Imperial Japanese Army did to the Chinese during the 1930's invasion.
Hey John, you lost one of your heroes recently.
Hugo Chavez is burning in Hell hopefully.
Perhaps I and wikipedia are both totally mistaken. It is wikipedia, after all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … n_in_Chile
" In the 1958 presidential election, Jorge Alessandri - a nominal independent with support from the Liberal and Conservative parties - defeated Allende by nearly 33,500 votes to claim the presidency
Either way, though, the US applied "force" only through willing Chilean nationals - they did not send troops to supply direct force and action from the US.
I dipped into the link you posted and the first thing I read, which was the opening para read -
"The United States intervention in Chilean politics started during the War of Chilean Independence. The influence of the United States of America in both the economic and the political arenas of Chile has gradually increased over the almost two centuries since, and continues to be significant."
So now mere influence equals force? You have some really odd definitions for common words.
You need to look at your dates, that was in 58 the coup and Allende's murder were in 1973 after Allende won the presidency (you know because they had the alternative and decided they preferred socialism).
We do not need to land troops to overthrow democratic governments in favor of murderous dictatorships, and one doesn't have to directly kill someone to be guilty of murder, the US then provided material aid to that dictatorship.
They kidnapped women and fifteen year old children from their homes tortured them for months, raped them, if they got pregnant they took the children and gave them to military families who could not have their own as gifts, then they killed them and hid their bodies.
They did much the same in Argentina, and US operatives worked in both, I witnessed them in Argentina.
The point is that the US worked through and with the Chilean citizenry, whether the top VIP's or bottom, poverty stricken peasant. They did not land troops, they provided no force. They instead provided the means for Chilean people to apply force themselves.
And what those people did with those means is irrelevant to the subject of the US overthrowing a government or forcing capitalism on that country. The use may be very wrong, as you point out, but is still irrelevant to the subject of discussion.
NO the US specifically gave the means to certain people for a certain use, not to peasants, but to the military to seize power and overthrow the elected government, then they gave that same military government aid in quelling any democratic movements. That government went on to commit tens of thousands of murders with our help making us just as responsible and immoral.
Wilderness, can I borrow your rose-coloured spectacles for a while? Might give me a new outlook on the world..... not for long of course, because those spectacles have to come off some time.
Wilderness, I think we should stop. These Lefties are insane. They champion the people and then stave them. Then they blame capitalism.
I think it is funny( not starving the people) because more human rights violations have been caused by people on the Left than Right.
But those were not violations. Anything coming from socialism or the left cannot be wrong as they know what is right for all peoples everywhere. And are more than willing to force compliance...but might makes right, the ends justify the means, and the left leaning socialists thus do no wrong.
I laughed at the phrase " force compliance".
The right of course never try to force compliance, everybody is free to marry whoever they want and to do what they want with their own bodies! Yeah right.
Oh, there is plenty of force on both sides of the social question. Just not so many concerning capitalism.
Oh stop it, I'll wet myself if you carry on with this comedy routine.
It does get funny, doesn't it? The claim that all people are equal in ability, willingness to work and needs. But...that's what we get from the socialists as well as the left wing in the US. They really do operate in a world all their own.
No one makes that claim, certainly socialism does not, obviously people have different wants, needs, ability and willingness to work.
Purely in your head, just like Allende being voted out democratically.
You say this Josak "obviously people have different wants, needs, ability and willingness to work."
So why do Socialists think everyone should have the same EVERYTHING? Why do they not recognize differences in what you previously said?
Socialists do not say that at all, or believe that, as I said purely in your heads.
Who said they should have the same everything?
Oh sorry, I get it now, you're doing a double act with wilderness.
Hint - to each according to needs (not wants) from each according to ability.
Can I then infer that once the needs of each are met that the rest of the fruits of my labor belong to me?
Once they have food (rice and beans), shelter (tent with head in cold climates) and clothing (blue jeans, shirt and shoes - jacket in cold weather) I don't need to worry about providing more? Or must I still contribute to their want of luxuries (steak, cell phone, car, bedroom per person, etc.).
You just don't get it do you?You on't have to worry about providing anything, there'll be enough fishing rods for all who want to fish during their free time which as nobody will have to do even a forty hour week any more will be plenty.
Stop thinking in terms of capitalism. Socialism isn't capitalism or even anything like it.
Oh? Who would be making those fishing poles for those that can't afford them (or won't afford them) while still collecting the rewards of that work? Whether that fishing pole is worth $50 or 50 chickens I still want it when I make them.
The guy making fishing rods is going to get a much larger share of the fruits of his labor than he does in a capitalist system, in that system he makes a rod in a factory, most of the profit goes to the owner of that factory, he gets a small fraction of it, then he gets taxed on that, in a socialist system the community owns the factory so some of the profits go to the community and the laborer keeps the rest, no factory owner, CEO etc. to pay out of his wage anymore.
The majority of the profits should go to the business owner he pays the overhead that keeps the business going. Please do not counter with the employee deserves the money because he does all the work, without the business there is no work!
Where does the business owner get the money to pay the overheads!
Off the labour of the workers!
That's correct, and the profits go back into the business to provide continued employment for the worker. No business no work!
Common sense! There will always be workers.
And there will always be workers so ground down that they will work for peanuts.
And you reckon that gives business owners the right to take the largest share of the labourers profit?
Not exactly. He/she often has to go into debt in order to meet those overheads when business slows unavoidable..... still having to pay the wages, even when less income for the business.
I am not a "capitalist," nor a "socialist," just a realist. But I do know the meaning of cash flow in business, and it's vital, otherwise no "worker" has a job.
But socialism eliminates that problem, the owner does not need to make a profit so there is no issue, what you said was irrelevant to the point being discussed.
If the owner has zero financial stake in the business then maybe so but why then call him an owner?
Because the community owns it and they run it for the community, thus owner profit and taxes become one instead of the more inefficient two thus increasing the share the laborer can receive.
The community owns it then an equal share is expected. I am speaking on capitalism, the economic system I live under happily!
When the community owns a business and runs it, there will never be any profits! There will be so many hands and mouths claiming they "own" the business, that all the assets will be gradually whittled away until there is nothing left in the hands of the "workers." The "New Rich" will have siphoned anything of value off into their own pockets (or their wider family).
The nearest thing we have to socialism in the UK now is cooperatively owned businesses.
During the latest recession they have been the only sector of the economy to not only not shrink,, but to grow.
That's good to hear, John. Maybe that saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention" is being fulfilled.
I can see benefits from both good management and cooperative labour force. When people develop a bit of intelligence, discuss important issues and get on with the job together, then this can move mountains.
Yup, in Argentina we have lots of them and they have out competed everyone without owners or managers and with equal wages for all which is more than I would expect from a socialist system. (In the short term anyway)
Can't afford, won't afford! You really don't get it do you?
We are not talking about capitalist-lite here, we are discussing socialism.
No, we aren't discussing socialism. I am trying to discuss socialism as seem in real life usages; you are discussing a pie in the sky system that cannot work, has never worked and never will work.
The problem is that people aren't sheep, to quietly take what they are offered by some kind of community wide vote (of 100 million voters, yet!). They want every penny they can get, whether the CEO or the lowest janitor on the totem pole. While the vast majority of people are kindly and will help out someone down on their luck it only goes so far - they absolutely will not give up a beautiful home they've worked years to gain to provide a nice 5 bedroom house for a couple with 4 kids that can't work because one is too sick and the other has to stay home to be caregiver. It just doesn't happen.
I'll even go out on a limb here and state with no proof whatsoever that a society such as you describe can never have a decent, average standard of living. Without a real incentive to work most people will either do nothing or do just the minimum to get by - the result is a very low rate of production for all the "things" that go into a high standard of living. The cost of those things, whether in terms of man hours worked, money or chickens is therefore very high.
You still fail to understand what is being discussed, maybe you should just go read up on what socialism is, the incentive within a socialist system retains all the same things as in capitalism (getting a wage, working for promotion) while adding the fact that instead of much of your labor going to a wealthy individual it goes to help the community including yourself.
But who is that wealthy individual that cannot exist in socialism? The one with a beautiful home, 2 cars and a boat in the driveway? That has enough saved to last his lifetime should he become disabled?
Or is it the one with a modest home, one car and no boat or savings? Is that the rich one that can't exist because there are still people that don't have a car yet and get a little hungry at times?
You're saying those people don't exist, at least not until the money that would have gone to them has gone to the community instead, supplying all of those "things" to everyone. Everyone is pretty much equal in "things" regardless of ability or willingness to work. And there goes any incentive to work or improve production; it just doesn't produce results for the individual doing it.
There is no wealthy individual who cannot exist, he or she would simply be bought out or their business (if large) (means of production) would be inherited by the community. They can keep their cars and houses, you are talking about forced redistribution of property which is not part of mainstream socialism (I know there are extremists who want to "eat the rich" and redistribute their goods but they are usually communists and when socialists are as representative of socialism as Al-Qaida is of Islam or of sane communism for that matter.)
So no people are not equal in "things" people are equal in having the necessities but not wants (as John already told you).
As I said maybe you should just study the system first.
It seams to me that you are talking about the extremes of socialism and capitalism. Is there no middle road that can take the best aspects of each? What is often referred to as communism, that which applied in the U.S.S.R. for many years, was in fact State Imperialism. Not a good model to follow.
Don't you think most of the dictatorial regimes in the world started out when the "proletariat" tried to throw out the worst of Imperialism? Socialism broke down and left a totalitarian regime in its place.
Actually state capitalism rather than imperialism.
I would be happy with a real mixed economy, one were all the important stuff, like utilities and the supply of raw materials, education and health care were run by and for the people leaving those who wanted to make useless widgets free to make useless widgets..
ETA, of course the private sector would have to pay properly and not rely on either slave like labour, or the state to pay workers a living wage.
Yes social democracy is the combined path, it works very well judging from where it has been tried.
No, that was not my thrust. Sorry, I'm not expressing myself well.
If there is no real reason for increasing quantity/quality of personal work, reflected directly into more "money" (things, play/entertainment, pure wealth in the form of cash, whatever the worker wants) then the most common result is to do the minimum amount of work to get by.
And yet, the value of the work performed is equal, or nearly equal, for every job. Piece work might earn more, but even then the worker producing 10 pieces will be paid enough to live on even if the actual value of those pieces requires 100 to equal out with his needs. Thus the worker producing 200 (double what it takes to live on) can only be paid for 110 of them - his 200 minus the other 90 the first worker needs to survive.
An extreme example, yes, with worker 2 producing 20X the output of worker 1 and being paid 1.1X as much, but does it illustrate the question? And of course if the needs of worker 1 are higher (big family, perhaps, or high ongoing medical costs) then worker 2 could actually take home less than worker 1 while doing 20X the work! There is just no incentive to do better and the inevitable result is a very low productivity.
I think you are over complicating the situation, or else thinking too much like capitalist.
Try this very basic scenario - I know things would not be quite this simple but if you can see this we are on our way (no patronisation intended)
Let say we have two workers at the local widget factory, Wilderness and John and for brevity let's call them W and J.
Both have an allocation of 50 widgets a week to make.
W is young and fit and ready to boogie. He rises early every day and heads straight to work, takes only very short breaks and generally grafts. He has done his allocation by Tuesday night. On the rest of the week he goes fishing or plays with his cars or spends time with his girlfriend.
J on the other hand is getting on a bit he can't graft as well as he once could and besides that he likes to chat away to his work mates. Consequently it takes him to Thursday night to produce his allocation of widgets, but that's fine by him.
Ok,bring on your objections (but remember we aren't talking capitalism here).
It seems neither one is too interested in doing more than what is required, in other words without capitalism their drive is dead.
Socialism on display.
From your words!
W-"He rises early every day and heads straight to work, takes only very short breaks and generally grafts. He has done his allocation by Tuesday night. On the rest of the week he goes fishing or plays with his cars or spends time with his girlfriend."
Why take the rest of the week off? Why not keep working and producing more? Oh, because he gets the same pay as J, no chance of promotion, no chance at better wages, he is equal to J!
J-"Consequently it takes him to Thursday night to produce his allocation of widgets, but that's fine by him.
He gets paid the same as W and doesn't have to work any harder so why not be ok with it!
Why is their drive dead?
Ws drive allows him to do a weeks work in two days. If he is happy to do that work in five then he doesn't have any drive, nothing to do with the system killing his drive.
Do you read or just come up with questions that were answered in my post?
No, I asked you to explain why their drive would be dead?
You only made a statement, you didn't explain the mechanics.
OK, you said - "He gets paid the same as W and doesn't have to work any harder so why not be ok with it!"
Indeed why not be happy with it?
I also said this.
Why take the rest of the week off? Why not keep working and producing more? Oh, because he gets the same pay as J, no chance of promotion, no chance at better wages, he is equal to J!
What is the point in working more when demand is being met?
Why not use the time to study and improve himself, train as a doctor or an architect or learn to play a musical instrument!
There is more to life than being a wage slave.
Thats true, and in a capitalist society those willing to work harder become more than wage slaves.
Yes, for the majority they just become bigger wage slaves!
What you fail to understand is not everybody has the intelligence to become a Doctor, a lot of people have just enough intelligence to be wage slaves and nothing more!
Funny, but that's a point I've made many times but it's usually scoffed at!
OK,if somebody is so lacking in ability that painting or learning an instrument fails them, then I am sure there will always be lawns to mow, litter to pick or a million and one tasks that could be performed. Or maybe they'd just like to sit around all day and listen to music.
They can sit around all day and listen to music, as long as I'm not paying their way I couldn't care less.
That is the whole flaming point of it, kick out this capitalist time wasting regime and get everybody working.
No, we need to get back to our earlier forms of capitalism, cutthroat capitalism. You don't produce you don't eat! We were a greater nation when charity came from the individuals and not from an unproductive government.
If you think freedom is working for an entire community then go ahead and find that freedom. I am not interested in being a slave to government, I am not interested in being a slave to the lazy like J in your scenario, I am interested in self sufficiency and creating wealth for myself and my family. The rest of you are on your own. And no, there is no shame in my game!
Such a complete and total misunderstanding of everything that has been said that I can't be bothered to even start to answer your misconceptions.
Wallow in total ignorance, that's no more than I would expect.
If I continue to read your posts then ignorance and a complete lack of understanding will be my reward. I will continue to do what I do because it has allowed a much better standard of living than what you are proposing.
You seem to be doing OK without any help from me.
Not really, you have had post after post explaining to you why your economic views are at best misguided. You are not able to get past the unfairness of a system that rewards hard work possibly because you have never done any hard work yourself. If you are ok with someone making the same amount of money as you and working half the time then you obviously don't value yourself, but thats your problem not mine.
OK, I've relaxed a little, I'll try again.
Nobody has explained to me why my economic views are misguided, they've explained how they wouldn't work under capitalism, excuse me, that was the whole point.
I'll ignore the slur about me never having done any hard work.
Somebody may be working half the time that I do but they wouldn't be doing half the work, they'd be doing an equal amount of work in less time. There would be nothing to stop me increasing my work rate and working for less time, or indeed decreasing my work rate even more and working longer.
If I was happy with what I was being paid I wouldn't care less about how much the other man worked for his pay, why should I?
I would suggest you read some of Wilderness posts, he is probably a little less rabid than I. I think you will find that he has explained over and over why your views are misguided. You just don't like what he has to say and can't grasp the truth in it.
No, he just can't get himself out of the capitalist mind set. You'll notice he ticked my post explaining how different workers might work at different rates but hen introduced objections based on a capitalist view point.
The whole idea is to get everybody who can work, working, cut out unemployment benefits and remove the drive for constantly higher profits at the expense of the work force. I think he'll get there, he might never agree, but he will understand.
He lives in a capitalist society so why would he want to think as a communist or socialist?
Alright, whatever. How about this, we live in a country where the government cannot even run the postal service with out losing billions each quarter. So when you say government run business we tend to cringe.
Actually you have, in another thread, do you need the exact quote?
"Now we are getting somewhere, unless you actually believe that government owned businesses are socialism!"
In the current discussion!
Heck, half a minute ago I mentioned government run businesses in another thread, but not in this discussion.
What difference does it make? The two threads are discussing the same thing and now that I think about it I'm not sure why.
Similar things. The thing is I wasn't discussing government run businesses on this thread. Your inclusion made it appear that I was.
With more intelligence comes greater responsibility to do the right thing by the community. If you can think your way through a problem and come up with practical solutions, then you should apply your abilities to the benefit of those who don't have such attributes.
On the other hand, we all know that we need helpful, clever, skilled and conscientious "workers" around us to do all manner of important jobs which keep our society ticking.
So there is no point in one sector of the community trying to score it over others, from either side. We are all in it together, and those who can cooperate with lots of good will are the ones who, in my opinion, win the day.
This from the man who managed to get "soldiers have a blood lust" from "soldiers are trained to kill"
I'm sure nobody will delve all the way back to that conversation so I will explain here. You didn't say soldiers are trained to kill until you realized what you actually said and meant.
But I never mentioned "blood lust"
Now, back to topic.
No objections from me - it seems a perfect example of what socialism does and, assuming both are paid the same, quite equitable.
The problem is when W gets ambitious and makes 150 widgets. The production cost of each widget goes down and they can be sold for less; presumably more will be sold as more people can afford the widget they desperately want. J remains the same, producing his 50 widgets by Thursday and going home.
Yet both are paid the same. W soon realizes his ambition is getting him nothing (but a sore back) and goes back to fishing. Cost of the widgets rises again, price necessarily goes with it and people can longer have the widgets they want.
Seems to me that's the inevitable result of strong socialism; a lack of incentive, ambition and thereby production rates and average standard of living.
But you are still thinking like a capitalist!
Increased production rates only allow a decrease in production costs by spreading the profit over more units. Without profit there is very little difference in unit costs between ten and a thousand.
There is no point in W giving up his hard earned free time to make more widgets.
And why produce more widgets than there is demand for?
What happens if you have a sudden spike in demand? Nothing like having a buffer.
Get the goods to the customer without making them wait for production to ramp up.
"Increased production rates only allow a decrease in production costs by spreading the profit over more units. Without profit there is very little difference in unit costs between ten and a thousand."
Not true at all. The primary cost, if looked at clear back to digging raw materials from the ground, is labor. W just made an extra 100 widgets with no labor cost. Profits (there are none) haven't entered into the equation of lower cost per widget; just W's labor.
"There is no point in W giving up his hard earned free time to make more widgets"
Yes there is. W wants a Twidget, which he does not have the money for. He wants more money to buy that Twidget and when he gets that he wants a deep sea fishing trip that he has no money for, either.
"And why produce more widgets than there is demand for"
Given a good product, a lower price will produce higher demand. With no profit to be concerned with, W's harder work lowers the cost, with that reduction being reflected directly in the price necessary to have a zero profit. Until everyone in the (closed) community that likes widgets has one there will be more demand, and even then they could be exported.
But...until W is paid more for more production there will be no lower cost, fewer people can have a widget at all and W can't have his Twidget. Socialism has produced a lower standard of living as a direct result of unwillingness to recognize (monetarily) the different abilities of different people.
"From each according to his ability" will always have that result until humanity learns to work and produce simply for the joy of working. While a very few do that now (artists, perhaps) it's going to take many millenium to convince the ditch diggers, janitors and short order cooks to do the same.
But you are still thinking like a capitalist - if W wants a twidget he gets one, if he wants a deep sea fishing expedition, he gets one.
How? Just walk into the factory and walk out with it?
Do factories (stores, whatever) simply pile their products on the sidewalk for anyone to take? That would hardly sound like "To everyone according to their needs", but rather "To everyone according to their wants". Well, I want a Rolls Royce, a 747 and a 500 acre homeplace.
You'll have to do better than that...all you're saying is that there is infinite production at no cost. When W can have a Twidget just for the wanting of it, W won't work at all.
I feel like this analysis is missing some key elements. One is a comparison to Capitalism. It is an assumption, not played out in reality, that an increase in effort directly correlates to an increase in reward. This doesn't happen in Capitalism in any perfect sense either. Every where I have worked has been a place where you are expected to work as hard as you can, but will still be paid the same as everyone else. Who hasn't? The incentive in these cases to work harder than others, isn't based upon getting a reward, it is based on not getting fired.
The other thing which happens, is that the increased effort or productivity of the workers may simply be taken as profits by the owners and shareholders, which is one of the main critiques of Capitalism--that the workers don't ever really own the value of their work.
It also to an extent misses out on the social aspects of socialism. It's a little bit hard when only considering 2 individuals, but if you consider the factory as a whole, the workers as a collective, would have an incentive to work harder. In this case, they would have the incentive of collectively achieving their quota earlier. They could, for instance, decide that everyone is going to work 10% harder, regardless of their overall output. On a micro-scale, such as that, there is always going to be such individual variability for any system. That's alright.
The point of socialism isn't in any way to eliminate incentive. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. The point is to directly tie reward to effort by eliminating the managerial class which does little but suck off part of the productive efforts of others.
[One is a comparison to Capitalism. It is an assumption, not played out in reality, that an increase in effort directly correlates to an increase in reward. This doesn't happen in Capitalism in any perfect sense either. Every where I have worked has been a place where you are expected to work as hard as you can, but will still be paid the same as everyone else. Who hasn't? The incentive in these cases to work harder than others, isn't based upon getting a reward, it is based on not getting fired.]
Yes and no. Many jobs pay by the job, not the person, and get mediocre performance as a result. If it's possible, piece work pay will almost always yield the best production rates. A demand that everyone perform at 100% every day doesn't work anywhere the employee can leave at will. High unemployment rates (as in current) obviously affect that, as do low unemployment in the opposite direction.
[The other thing which happens, is that the increased effort or productivity of the workers may simply be taken as profits by the owners and shareholders, which is one of the main critiques of Capitalism--that the workers don't ever really own the value of their work.]
Can't see that it makes any difference whether it goes to the owner or to the community. Either way the employee doing the work does not share in it to any appreciable amount.
[It also to an extent misses out on the social aspects of socialism. It's a little bit hard when only considering 2 individuals, but if you consider the factory as a whole, the workers as a collective, would have an incentive to work harder. In this case, they would have the incentive of collectively achieving their quota earlier. They could, for instance, decide that everyone is going to work 10% harder, regardless of their overall output. On a micro-scale, such as that, there is always going to be such individual variability for any system. That's alright.]
Problem is that it's the individual slacking off, not the group. Collectively achieving their quota will simply mean that some work 20% harder while some do no more than normal. It's how the world works.
[The point of socialism isn't in any way to eliminate incentive. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. The point is to directly tie reward to effort by eliminating the managerial class which does little but suck off part of the productive efforts of others.]
There will always be bosses of the job site (managers), and they do provide a valuable service, not just suck off part of the efforts of others. Without managers no large business will survive, and with the "large" part of business productivity falls.
Beyond that, it may well be the goal and point of socialism to increase incentive and productivity, but without equivalent rewards to individual workers it isn't going to happen. That is the primary point that is the downfall of socialism. It all sounds wonderful (or most of it does) but there is no room for individual effort, improvement or gain and without that it will fail.
I'm reminded of a British computer company that was taken over by the Japanese. The first thing they did was to sack the top layer of management. When that had no effect on productivity, they sacked the next layer of management. When that had no effect on productivity they sacked the third layer. That had a minor effect on productivity so they rehired some of the last layer.
There is however no objection to working managers, indeed as you say they provide more than a valuable service, they are indispensable, but how much more are they worth than the indispensable workers?
What percentage of the population has the ability to be a good manager and what percentage has the ability to dig ditches? That's a starting point at least...
Of course, socialism will pay each the same for equal hours worked. It won't go over well with the manager who has spent years in school and additional years learning his trade but oh well.
When Argentina had it's massive factory takeovers by laborers they completely eliminated all managerial staff, their productivity is up more than a hundred percent since doing so. Workplace happiness and satisfaction is way up too.
It is of course not necessary to do this in a socialist system but it may be worth experimenting with.
I think we have a very different of what a manager is and what the duties of the job are.
It's been my experience that most work places would work equally well with no manager or at best a part time manager.
Many of the places that I've worked in I would have been pushed to recognise the manager! Foremen, yes, charge hands, yes, but managers!
Well they eliminated anyone whose job was supervisory.
While I haven't worked a great many different jobs, I have yet to work on one with more than 2 or 3 laborers that could survive without any supervision. And even 2 generally need one of them able to make final decisions.
No supervision, no business.
No one to do the donkey work -- no product, no customers, no business.
No one to keep accounts, manage the cash flow, do the publicity, think long into the night over all the decisions that are bugging your mind, turn up promptly in the morning before the workers do, bear the brunt of failures and mistakes..... no business.
Again, we ALL are important in a business, and it's the good leader, the good manager, who will keep it on track. Without the "people skills," you will have a walk-out or lots of discontent, leading to dissatisfied customers, and .... no business.
+1 That is, indeed the job of management. Not necessarily, unfortunately, what is actually done, but that is the task.
Much of that is indeed important but as long as workers have a sense of an investment in their own labor then supervision is not.
In Argentina those places doubled their efficiency without supervisors because their workers receive an equal share of the profits, they thus did not need someone encouraging them to work harder and had every incentive to innovate how they worked and cooperated with each other which is what happened.
This also works when you give groups or individuals within a workplace a quota they must meet and an incentive for exceeding it.
Good points, and logical.... up to a point. The motivation of the people has not been factored into what you have said.
Am I right in thinking that the people of Argentina have come through a very interesting and a unique history. If they found a lot to battle against, felt oppressed and dominated; then found a new freedom as circumstances changed, they would have a great incentive to work they way into a better way of life.
Another society, with a different history and social background might be "affluent," in other words lulled into accepting their circumstances, having no particular incentive to change. They might be quite happy to let big business lead the way, organise everything, as long as there were sufficient funds coming through each week to provide for the essentials.
So, maybe you can't have "one-size-fits-all."
I'm sure there is a technical term for it (but I don't know it) for how accurately one's work is rewarded. Let's call it the reward ratio (RR). I think a fair argument can be made that in Capitalism, the RR is better than under Socialism. My point really was to say that the RR in Capitalism isn't perfect (as in 100%) nor is the RR in Socialism completely imperfect (as in 0%), so they are both somewhere in the middle.
The RR is only one aspect of the system and is only one element to be considered while examining the overall system.
The alleged low RR of Socialism is a legitimate point to be made, but in fairness, I think that allegation comes largely from looking at some of the terrible 'socialist' systems which we have had (e.g. communist Russia). Comparatively we could look at some of the workers cooperatives which exist in various places around the world. I don't know much about them but I suspect the RR would be much higher for them.
It's also worth pointing out that RR isn't an easy thing to define or sometimes see. Consider how much effort some people make with no guarantee of direct benefit at all. Taking work home with them or unpaid internships for example. They do these things for less tangible benefits such as knowledge, connections, or experience. Capitalists in general don't consider this lack of direct reward any sort of failure. Similarly I think it's a little too simplistic to criticize socialism for an apparent lack of direct benefit, without giving fair attention to potential indirect rewards.This to me is actually completely wrong. Theoretically the point is that the employee receives the perfect return on their efforts, since it is the collective who fully owns and controls their efforts. Ten guys with 100 bucks could decide to build something for the community or to simply divide it into shares and put it in their pocket. Either way, they'd be getting the exact and perfect result they desired for their efforts. You're original argument (as I interpret it) was that one won't make the effort absent the individual reward. In a Capitalist setting that tends to be an argument which is framed as individual efficiency of production. If one guy makes 10 bucks/hour and produces 10 widgets, than another guy making 20 widgets should get 20/hour. If he only gets 10/hour than he will likely slack off and only produce 10 widgets.
In a socialist setting, absent individual reward for output, I think that people would evaluate themselves by effort, not by output. If the guy next to me ups his effort by 10% and starts to produce 11 instead of 10 widgets, I'd want to boost my effort to match, even if I'm already putting out 20 widgets.The sucking off of other's efforts was an essential clause, so the "managerial class which does little but suck off part of the productive efforts of others" is a different thing from the managerial class which actually adds value comparable to their pay. Having worked for both very good managers and very poor managers, I in no way meant to dismiss the legitimate value that a good manager or leader can bring to any organization, and there isn't anything preventing a collective group of workers from deciding to give certain individuals greater individual reward based upon their overall contribution.I would completely agree with this. Absent rewards, who does anything? It's just, in my opinion, sometimes different rewards, and a different way of getting to them. In a Marxist sense at least, no one is advocating for mediocrity.
Sorry, this has gotten entirely too long, and what's funny, is that I'm not really even sure what the original post is about. Marx and God are like gravity it seems.
I think you're right and agree with most of what you say. Most.
Are you a trekkie? Star Trek TNG had a socialistic society, at least on board ship. Everyone had all their needs met, had their choice of luxuries (seemingly nearly anything they wanted) and worked for the love of working and doing a good job. That's socialism in a nutshell - it just doesn't exist on earth in any but the smallest communities. There was a hierarchy of command/supervision, and it was assigned from a distance, but didn't really play a part in the socialism. Everyone seemed to agree that the captain was the best choice for the job, the 2nd was best for that and so on.
Humanity isn't ready for that and won't accept it. People want paid for their work and value and when they don't get it don't produce as they are capable of. In Star Trek people were "paid" with the satisfaction of a job well done and were happy with that; in life it doesn't happen.
Some people want a boat, some a home, some simply want free time and a very few are good with just the satisfaction of Star Trek personnel. Whatever it is, though, people want it and denying it to them will not produce high productivity. Using money as the universal medium of exchange, capable of buying anything, then that's what people want. Money.
But...if you can't or won't work, you still get your needs filled. From your neighbor's work, whereupon he is underpaid. Sounds fair to me!
If you can't work then fair enough you get looked after, as in any humane society. If you can work but won't you get not one bit of help.
The misconception probably arises from seeing those that won't work ply the system to be "paid" anyway. Which happens more in (actual) socialistic countries than capitalistic ones.
Agreed, it's not supposed to happen, but we both know very well it does and will.
In actual socialist places unless you are elderly or provably disabled you are ineligible for welfare, it's very simple.
There are counties that will allow an unwed mother of 4, third generation welfare recipient, to starve if she won't work? What about the kids - fed, or allowed to starve as well? Taken from Mom because she'll eat their food if you don't? Or is there a loophole like the US where a single parent popping out a new kid every year or so is taken care of so she can "care" for her children?
Where, if I might ask, are these countries?
Well for a start, single women wouldn't be forced into unwelcome child bearing to get a roof over their heads without having to prostitute themselves.
Good answer, I guess, but to something other than the question. No one "forces" these women. It is quite voluntary, although I'm sure you will claim that evil capitalism forces them into unprotected sexual relations in order to eat and survive.
Well isn't that entirely in the spirit of capitalism? Selling your most valuable asset time and time again.
Same, I'm being told here in this thread, as socialism. You don't work, you don't eat - just another way or expressing "Selling your most valuable asset time and time again".
The only real difference, as far as I can understand, is that there is some kind of community vote to determine the value of your work rather than a simple agreement with an employer.
Things always get complicated with the children thing, in my opinion if that mother flat out refuses to care for her children then she cannot keep them for their safety and well being but I guess some would disagree on that score.
Off the top of my head I am not sure, Peru and Laos spring to mind but don't quote me, however this is not the sort of theoretical economic practice where demanding to have seen it work is important because the theory being suggested is simple and achievable making it pretty irrelevant whether anyone is doing it when it is clear it can be done the impediment being will not practicality.
No, it's not simple. While children do complicate matters enormously, this very thing (people that refuse to work) is one of the great problems in the US right now.
It's not a matter of just single moms; it's the grads or those laid off that refuse to take "demeaning" jobs to support themselves. It's those that refuse to work at anything they don't like, or that simply cannot get along wherever they work. It's those that are "disabled" and somehow can't lift a finger to help themselves but can play basketball on the weekends.
The list is long of people that simply refuse to put out the effort to support themselves and the inevitable cry in the US is "You want them to starve!" if withholding support is mentioned, or even reducing support or requiring work. People just refuse to stand by while people "starve" because they're too lazy to work.
It's not simple at all.
As I have said, there is nothing for people who refuse to work, "demeaning" jobs suck, they would improve markedly with better wages and workplace rights but they would still suck however the option of education or job search is open and would be publicly aided as reasonable, people who just decide not to work however will receive nothing. Disability payments are pretty much OK, we could definitely stand to have more rigorous testing that people are indeed incapable of working but all the data I have seen in the US suggests that the disability system has quite few people leeching off it.
But yes if people REFUSE to work then they can starve.
Whether people say they want to work or say they don't want to work, there are not enough jobs for all.
Rather than waste energy rooting out the few malingerers, surely better to spend the energy in providing work for all those who want it first, when they are all employed then you will more clearly see who the malingerers are.
Ok, so bring in a totalitarian regime, and make the b...ers work. But then you would lose your democracy, freedom of speech, and all that.
How many times have we covered this? "He who does not work neither shall he eat" it's the socialist motto, people who cannot work (for being elderly or disabled) are a different story, they would be taken care of but not those who won't work.
Who on earth made such a stupid claim! Oh sorry, I see, you are carrying on with your comedy routine, beg pardon, carry on.
YOU are the comedy act. You, Josak and Holden continue to make me laugh at the brain washed Leftist propaganda trash.
So are you lazy and do not like to work John?
Now we all know stuff like this brings out commies and other suspicious suspects who talk down on America.
I do not care. America IS the last hope for Democracy. America kicks butt.
America USED TO kick butt. Then we turned into arrogant assholes as soon as WWII ended, and you only need to look at: McCarthyism, the Southerners' furious attempts to preserve Segregation, and the oppression of the arts, humanities, and sciences in favor of bloating our already bloated military force to play schoolyard bully in countries we have no business being in...to see how far we've fallen.
America STILL kicks butt. The only ones who have turned into arrogant assholes are the pampered New Left idiots.
Naturally a member of the New Left (like yourself) will go against McCarthyism because it singled out your little anti American commie buddies. After that event with the Rosenbergs, the American infrastructure had to figure out a way to single out traitorous people.
McCarthyism had nothing to do with Segregation. Separate but Equal Clause had more to do with Segregation. McCarthyism was against people like yourself with insane ideas on how to ruin a nation economically and socially.
The arts, humanities and sciences were not suppressed by McCarthyism. It was actually the complete opposite. Put down your Communist Manifesto and Leftist comic strips and learn proper history. Your lack of historic knowledge is showing.
I notice Lefties like yourself are always crying about the U.S. over-bloated military. Yet you do not address the over-bloated militaries existing in China or North Korea. I think I know why. It is because you are a hypocrite and you love your Communist buddies over there. You would NEVER DO THAT, so you turn your biased attention span to the U.S.
Schoolyard bully...only when an upstart talks trash and can not back it up. Countries we have no business in? Many of these countries take our money and send THEIR people over here at our prestigious colleges and universities. We have every right to be there.
"The arts, humanities and sciences were not suppressed by McCarthyism."
I never said they were...? Do you not know what a list is? They're separate, unrelated aspects of American culture that have each done irreparable damage to society as a whole. How did you manage to pass high school English class with such poor reading comprehension?
"I notice Lefties like yourself are always crying about the U.S. over-bloated military. Yet you do not address the over-bloated militaries existing in China or North Korea."
Because China and North Korea are a joke and haven't been relevant for centuries. Who cares if their military forces are bloated? They're still never going to throw the first punch. And even if they do, they're going to be obliterated by everyone else.
Let us see here stupid -
"McCarthyism, the Southerners' furious attempts to preserve Segregation, and the oppression of the arts, humanities, and sciences in favor of bloating our already bloated military force to play schoolyard bully in countries we have no business being in...to see how far we've fallen."
So stupid commie idiot, who were you talking about? Southerners or McCarthyism?
This had nothing to do with my reading comprehension. It had everything to do with the vagueness of your object of preposition stupid.
Both, of course. Is it somehow impossible for problems to have multiple causes?
So the branding of some singers as supposed communists and driving them out of their country doesn't count as suppression of the arts!
Well I'm sure many will be very pleased to hear that.
...because we don't know when to take and when to give?
by Jack Lee4 weeks ago
The latest election is over. The work begins. Amid the worldwide protests, the Trump Administration started its first day of work for the American people. So far it is promising...1. 31 attacks on ISIS2. Freeze on...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I'm realizing I really don't.Back story on this thread:I receive fundraising emails from the Obama campaign all the time.Not long ago, they offered an opportunity to meet Barack Obama and George Clooney. I thought to...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ......
by OLYHOOCH4 years ago
Dear fellow Patriot,Nearly 1 million American rifles.Banned by a stroke of Barack Obamaâ��s pen.In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration secretly banned the re-importation of...
by AnnCee6 years ago
Hawaii won't release Obama birth infoJanuary 22, 2011 1:49 AMTHE ASSOCIATED PRESSHONOLULU Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it's against...
by Greensleeves Hubs4 months ago
On 16th September Donald Trump finally came out of the closet and admitted the truth - Barack Obama was born in America. After years of insinuating otherwise, he has finally accepted - but without I gather, any kind of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.