jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (319 posts)

Is poverty caused by private ownership?

  1. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    “Poverty is caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it's right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?" And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on "Christian Duty" in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers. And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you'll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to "justice" in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.”

    Robert Tressel~ The ragged trousered philanthropists

    Given that so many starve to death and go hungry all around the world often very close to great wealth I can not disagree, what do you think?

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I really need to read that.  I keep meaning to, but I get distracted by other alternatives. 

      Great points though!

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah you definitely should, it really let me see things in a new way and it also gave me this sense of continuity, how even though the book was written over a hundred years ago nothing had really changed, the rich still rule over the poor and those on the lower rung not only do not rebel but seem to be grateful for their own oppression.

      2. jandee profile image46
        jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This to ask 'sooner' why are you putting off the important stuff in life ??

        Read it today and do yourself a favour but very important --Make sure that you read the modern book as the first ones were abridged-
        jandee

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I know I'm bad!

      3. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is just breathtakingly Marxist you know.
        And a whole lot of bo shizzle.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Someone does't know the difference between Marxism and socialism at least get that right.

    2. 69
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      and stupidity is caused by idolatry and lack of vision.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile thanks for that positive, educated and informative comment, I am also not sure what you think I am Idolizing/worshiping.

    3. Bob Zermop profile image92
      Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that is the most convincing argument there is for socialism, but we can't forget why a free market with a monopoly breaking government has proved to work better than socialism. Socialism, in the end, prevents individuality and the majority become the tyrants over the minority. Unlike in a capitalist society, where everyone at least owns something, the minority in a socialist society have no protection. As a libertarian, that concept chills me way more than thinking about money-grubbing hedge fund managers or corrupt politicians. Those things you can fix by publicizing to the public and proving why they are immoral. But what if someone, possibly the majority, got hold of the media and other such things? There's nothing to prevent them from jerking the entire society whatever direction they want, especially if they truly believe they're doing what's right.
      Of course, both systems, capitalist and socialist, in the end rely on the basic goodness of human beings. I believe in that, so I believe a society where everyone can be happy is within our reach. And I think that capitalism has more potential to become that society than socialism ever can.

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        THANK YOU!

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. —Ronald Reagan

          1. Bob Zermop profile image92
            Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True that! if only GOP2012 could remember...

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You see that's exactly what ...originally any way...the Tea Party was all about.

              1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ah the good old days... now we've got santorum, perry, and bachman.

                @#$%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  wow that was impulsive. sorry, sorry. big_smile

                2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  wow that was impulsive. sorry, sorry. big_smile

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's ok. I understand.

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think there are far more convincing arguments to support socialism but the point is A: Socialism does not prevent individuality in any way, all socialism does is change who pays your wages, this misconception that censorship or tyranny is part of socialism is just that, a misconception.

        B: Next under socialism everyone effectively owns everything that the government owns, it is supposedly the same in our current system.

        C: A person can seize power under any system, there is nothing about socialism that precludes democracy or that mandates state ownership of the media, personally I find that some socialist governments have done that regrettable but it is not socialism.

        D: On the contrary, capitalism does not rely on the basic goodness of human beings, indeed it is fashioned in such a way to punish kindness and generosity and reward greed, avarice and our basest natures by making profit far more important than life or really anything else.

        E: poverty is not freedom, a small loss of freedoms (if this is required and I am not convinced it is) is more than worth it to grant people relief from the tyranny of poverty that not only restricts them from doing what they might want to but also threatens their very lives, what can possibly restrict ones freedom more than not being able to eat?

        1. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A, B, C: i don't mean to say that socialism is in similar to a dictatorship. well, not directly, anyway. In both socialism and capitalism, government is not meant to be an entity separate from the people. assuming we have that, i believe capitalism has safeguards in place (i.e. private property) that socialism would not. So it would be tyranny, but not of a single person or even a government. it would be tyranny of the majority over the minority. i explained this above, but if there is something unclear about my explanation point it out to me; i think i will be able to improve it.

          D: No, a proper capitalism would not be that way, though i agree our current system seems to be headed there. A fair capitalism would make government far more transparent and limit (though not eliminate) its power in programs like welfare and healthcare, but greatly increase its power in breaking monopolies of companies. this is, of course, still assuming the government is inseparable from the people, which would need the transparency i mentioned.

          E: in this way, and with improved technologies that mean increased resources, people will be able to decide for and work for themselves, depending on what makes them happy and what they're aiming for in life. Capitalism would give them that freedom.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Firstly, there is nothing in socialism that stands against the notion of private property, indeed socialism supports private ownership in that socialists believe that a man should own a house not owe most of it to a bank and that every person should have the basics of life, the only objection that socialism has to private property is it's current allotment so most socialist movements argue that after death people should not be able to bequeath large amounts of wealth to others but that instead that wealth should be fairly distributed as private property to those in need so that same safeguard exists in socialism.


            Furthermore you state that socialism removes the consequences of actions from the individual to society and you imply that socialism raises people on the backs of others, not so, you are confusing welfarism and socialism, in general socialists oppose welfare, the socialist ideal is to offer a job to anyone who needs it because it can create jobs for that purpose, if a person does not want to work they receive nothing, if they do they get a better wage and dignity at work, there is no hand outs or charity, those who are working and live in need will receive the basics from what is redistributed, that being a roof over their head and a car everything else comes from personal labor and even those things are rented free of charge as part of their labor, they can then if they wish purchase them with the wages they earn. Socialism does of course however believe in a generous pension for those who have reached a certain age as long as they have worked to earn it.

            1. Bob Zermop profile image92
              Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              excellent, then we are more or less agreed. the reason that i am wary of socialists is because too often they seem to advocate majority over minority society. in the future, i hope the two party system will start working again, with libertarians balancing with socialists on the way to a more perfect world.

          2. Barnsey profile image86
            Barnseyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            With capitalism one can only do what they can AFFORD to do. The freedom you speak of is only imagined by those who are able to afford the higher ideals the 1% has placed before the rest of us. Only so many people can be doctors and lawyers, that leaves the majority out of the picture and thus the huge jobless sector. People do not have the freedom to do what they want. They are forced to do what they have to do. You conservatives wear rose colored glasses, let me tell ya, where did you grow up? I wanna live there to.
            You keep mentioning majority over minority, yet that is what the republicans are all about. They care about the wealthy minority and their freedoms, the hell with the rest of the population. They curse about the poor people on welfare and say they should go out and work for themselves, yet they ignore the uncountable hordes that are out of work. How can they find work when there is none?
            When the baby boomers retire and go right back to work doing jobs that were meant for students and low skill workers that leaves all of the people on welfare out. What are their options? Until the wealthy get this and bring the jobs back from overseas and the Government reverses the damage the wealthy have done to the economy, it sure wasn't anyone on welfare that caused a 17 Trillion dollar deficit, the poor are only going to grow in number, and they are doing so by the droves. Call them middle class all you like but when you have to choose between food and your electric bill you are poor, not middle class.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That last line, so true.

              1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I do also agree on the last line, and the part about whose fault the deficit is. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs should be the focus of 2012, but nooo, we get from our lovely politicians back-and-forths about who did what to dogs 20 years ago. I would be laughing... If I wasn't crying so hard.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The thing is that the government is near helpless to create jobs, it is one of the core strengths of socialism that under that system it is not so, what can government really do? It already has a massive debt so it cannot just make government (as defined now) jobs, not that these help the economy very much anyway usually and they are powerless all they can think to do is lower the taxes on business which effectively means less money to the people more money to the owners.

                  This is a prime problem with capitalism, that the working man is left out to dry whenever things go south, it's much like the quote from the text I put halfway though the forum, when the economic climate looks grim the owners of business go into hibernation mode, they reduce their business and what goes first but employees, so people who have loyally worked for a company for years or even decades and in the process made them millions of dollars are suddenly told they are out of work, so the newly unemployed man asks how am I to feed my family? how am I to keep them in a house and pay my rent? to which the kind capitalist replies it is not my problem, I will take the safe option that has the minimum chance of making a loss and in the meantime the loyal employees who made them so much money is left with nothing, struggling to survive and not only that, not only do they screw the employee but the country as a whole too because when the employee is out of work the people house and feed him unwilling to see him starve while the owner simply invests the money he would have paid the employees in a safe business and watches it grow because that way it will make him fractionally more than if he had kept the worker on, so both the worker and the country suffers for the greed of the owner, then he has the temerity to turn around and tell people to get a job.


                  Finally when the economic climate has improved, after the employee and his family have suffered and lost their home and often broken apart under the stress of financial burden and after the state has kept those people alive with it's money thus creating more debt the owner turns around again and rehires the employee and then crows that he is creating jobs.

                  1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Agreed,the current system is crap. Crap with potential, though.

                    This can be fixed by taxing the wealthy far more, gradually breaking monopolies, a much higher (generally) estate tax, and a far sturdier safety net. None of those are necessarily inconsistent with capitalism.

            2. Bob Zermop profile image92
              Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Damn man, take it easy. First and foremost, I am not a republican. I generally stay away from any labels, but especially looking at GOP2012 (excepting Ron Paul), I can say most assuredly say I am NOT a republican. But honestly I'd prefer the avoid labels generally, so we can start from the base and build without previous stereotypes and conceptions.
              Please read my post you posted this reply to, it's a couple of scrolls up in the threaded version. Like I said, a fair capitalism does look a fair amount like centrist socialism, not a bad thing at all. The major difference is in the ownership of the means of production, which I believe should remain privately owned but with strict monopoly laws.

              I think that you misunderstand my majority over minority statements. What I mean by them is that socialism, if taken towards the extreme, has the potential to become a tyranny of majority rule, without the protection of indvl rights that allow every person to live their life however they are happiest, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. If I am still unclear, point out any fallacies, and iwill try to explain them.

              1. Will Apse profile image90
                Will Apseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This is an unusually sane formulation. I never expected to see something like this in these forums.

                Just as an afterthought: wouldn't it be depressing, though, if even a decent form of capitalism with every sector of society having a voice and having their concerns addressed was the best economic system that human beings could develop? There just has to be something better.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely right on that second paragraph, during the Feudal system surely most would never have imagined, democracy and free market capitalism and how good it was comparatively and I am sure we cannot fathom the system that humanity will have ascended to in a few hundred years, I personally am sure that the next system in that path is socialism but we must always assume and hope that barring some cataclysmic event those who come after us will be much more intelligent, much more knowledgeable and much more ethical than we know how to be now and will look back on our systems as we now look at feudalism, systems that were beneficial in their time but since outlived their purpose just as I believe capitalism is at the point where it has outlived it's use. Marx wrote a similar thing, he described capitalism as a positive force which had aided humanity but one which was now no longer helpful, I am sure the next great thinker will say much the same about the system that follows the one we live in.

                2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree that humans can do much better than capitalism; ultimately I hope for a world where everyone will be able to pursue their own happiness. However, that will take far more advanced resources (and therefore technology) so it could be quite a ways off.

                  I agree there, but I don't agree that socialism is the next step. I posted why both above and below. I believe a fair capitalism has much more potential to develop into a more perfect society, as it has safeguards, that far left socialism doesn't, to protect the rights of the indvl (I,e. Private property).

                  Thanks for the compliment, "unusually sane" rofl, never gotten that before!

      3. Barnsey profile image86
        Barnseyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bob said; Socialism, in the end, prevents individuality?
        Is that right/ Have you looked around at the USA recently? Individuality can't be smothered fast enough! Like everything else in capitalism it isn't so unless you can afford it. Teenagers strive to be thus but as soon as they are thrust into the world they soon find that if they do not stay between the lines they will not survive, at least not in a comfortable and secure fashion. everyone is expected to do things the way they have it all laid out for you before you even finish High School. Only the most talented and gifted people who have some sort of moneatary leverage are even allowed individuality in this country. Everyone else is brainwashed into thinking they are unique in some manner. More and more these days the generations are just wave after wave of unoriginal, noncreative and noninventive human beings. So, my point is, in this matter Socialism and Prolonged Capitalism are one and the same.

        1. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is certainly the case for today's America; couldn't agree more on that. However, a fair capitalism (by which I mean private property, including private ownership of means of production) with strict monopoly laws and a completely transparent government has the potential to become a more perfect society, which socialism doesn't. Like i've posted in several places, because of majority over minority, socialism doesn't have safeguards to protect the individual. I believe it is far better to reform capitalism, which has potential, rather than pursue socialism, which can't last.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Socialism has the same safeguards for the individual as capitalism.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rather more I would say.

            2. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What safeguards or those?

            3. Bob Zermop profile image92
              Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              it definitely has more than the current capitalist system (high estate tax, strict monopoly laws), but once we get close to the center you can see I'm squarely on the capitalist side.

              The biggest, and honestly only, divide between fair capitalism and centrist socialism is private ownership of the means of production. In my view, complete public ownership of the means of production would be disastrous because of majority over minority. I had a post elaborating close to the top.

    4. sparkster profile image94
      sparksterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure people in UK have to pay green tax for having trees planted after cutting them down to make paper... o something to that effect.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not that I know of.

  2. Barnsey profile image86
    Barnseyposted 4 years ago

    For instance, since you brought it up, Governor Christi of New Jersey took a million dollar pay off from Logisticare for allowing them to come into NJ and monopolize the Medical transportation business. Logisticare changed the rules and contracts leaving approximately nine out of the fourteen contractors in the county I worked in alone without contracts. The monopoly changed nothing about the service other than not having enough companies to handle all the demand. Many, many jobs throughout the state were wiped out in a single pay off to the jowly giant, Gov. Christi. So desperate were the folks who needed to get ot their medical appointments some of the old codgers somehow got a hold of my personal phone number and called me asking for my personal service. Not only would that have been illegal but, well, ah the hell with it, If I had a car I would have helped those folks out.
    In other words this is dead on. The unions and monopolizing corpocracy are running things with elitist colored whips, meanwhile the politicians line their pockets and ignore the effect this has on the work force.
    Nice work as usual, Josak,

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is in the same book a great explanation of "the great money trick" which I intent to write a hub about, the premise of which is that the working class makes the owner/ruling class money by working for him at a meager wage to produce things this means they get several times over the money that the working class does, then the working class has to buy the things produced by the working class to live on, things like clothes and food produced by the working class and again has to pay a markup on it to the ruling/owner class and then with that money made off the sweat of the worker the owner class corrupts the political system with bribes, campaign donations etc. to their own profit and usually to the detriment of the working class and thus the people who actually produce everything that is wealth are thrice robbed of their just reward, your example is a classic demonstration of the latter theft.

      1. Bob Zermop profile image92
        Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I love everything about the great money trick except the conclusion people pull from it, which is that socialism is the only way to go. Capitalism can work too, and in fact, i believe it has potential to work much better than socialism can. (posted above why, majority tyranny over minority, etc.).

        HOwever, the problem you posted def needs to be addressed, especially the problem with money influencing politics. A fair capitalism would tax the rich more, higher estate tax, have a ladder to everyone that allows people to climb whereever they want... Huh? it looks a lot like socialism?

        The difference is that, in a fair capitalism, there is still private property and indvl rights, necessary for the protection of the individual. if your response is that socialism can be adapted to do that: great! We are completely agreed, and the only thing remaining is to push for reform to get that done.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My response is that indeed socialism can be adapted to that indeed I don't think there is much adaption to be done. I am sure you understand that when you say socialism it is much the same as me saying capitalism in that there are many different perspectives on how a socialist economy should work, just like you have libertarians, conservatives, liberals etc. within capitalism but for centrist socialism (I consider myself a centrist socialist) there is indeed still private property and indeed still individual rights, I fully support a socialist nation having in fact a bill of rights as part of it's constitution, many of them already do.

          What socialism in fact aims to do is create a fair ladder for people to climb, consider education, in the US if I want to become a doctor it is extremely hard for me to do so unless my parents are wealthy enough to pay for it, otherwise it is just so expensive and even if I can I will have massive debts, if I pass medicine with my parents paying I can then become a doctor and make a lot of money on the basis of the idea that I worked to become a doctor. On the other hand in Cuba for example or Argentina or Venezuela etc. studying medicine is free not only is it free but in some of those countries I actually get paid to study and if my grades are good I can become a doctor thus the option of being a doctor is open to a lot more people and once they are doctors they don't need to be paid as much because their study was not economically difficult nor do they have huge debts, as a result Cuba has the second best doctor to patient ratio in the world, doctors are actually paid less than some laborers because there are more people who want to be doctors than there are people who want to be laborers despite this doctors in Cuba (according to the World Health Org) have a much higher job satisfaction than doctors in the US. The point being that in a socialist system instead of people becoming doctors because their parents can pay for their education everyone who wants to can attempt to become a doctor and the best of those will become doctors thus it is more merit based not less, people still climb the ladder its just that it prevents some people starting three quarters of the way up it.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My freind if you do indeed believe those things you are not a Socialist. You are a Capitalist.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No what I am saying is completely within the bounds of socialist texts and general socialist doctrine, the fact is as I have been saying you don't know what socialism is. Don't worry most people don't.

          2. Bob Zermop profile image92
            Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no need for label wars, in my experience they never end up being very productive smile . Like i said above, i actually do agree with many centrist socialists; however, society can't forget that it's a delicate balance between socialism and welfare-ism, just like the fine line between fair capitalism and money takes all.

  3. Eric Newland profile image59
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    I hate to break it to ya, but being anti-monopoly means being pro free market. Being socialist/communist means favoring government monopoly of every single resource. Air included.

    Myself, I'd rather resist monopolies of any kind, private or state-owned. In the end they both have the same effect.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Note the very important use of the words "Private monopoly" right at the beginning, government is not a monopoly because government is the representation of all people.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course government is a monopoly - it is a monopoly of violence. You don't have the equal right to tax or execute anyone. The only way it would be representative would be that you had the right to skip the middle man and do what you are paying your 'representative' to do yourself. It's not representative if you've just passed over your freedom to somebody else.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No that is precisely what representative means, that you give others the power to represent you that is the foundation of democracy and this is not the place for a discussion on the merits and issues of a democratic republic, government represents us all through our vote so anything owned by the government is in fact owned by the people.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is the central fallacy in which your arguments always fall apart. Government physically can not represent the people - at best it represents the tyranny of the majority, at worst it represents whoever pays them the most. It is a monopoly worse than any private monopoly because you are forced to participate in it.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Again this is a discussion to have on the merits or lack thereof of a democratic republic, I am sorry you don't like the democratic representation that you have.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Your main argument against government being a monopoly is that you believe it is representative, so I don't think it is off topic to discuss how accurate that is.

                1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nicely said, government, if it's not already, can easily become a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Society is a work in progress, josak. It's not that we don't appreciate what we have, but we shouldnt stop looking fir ways to make the world work better, for everyone.

      2. Eric Newland profile image59
        Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Government is the representation of the people who run the government. It will only represent the people insofar as it is accountable to the people. It will only be accountable to the people insofar as they have individual autonomy. You can't be held accountable by people who are utterly dependent on you.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course you can be held accountable by people who are paid by you, do you not hold your employer accountable for you getting injured due to his malpractice even though he pays your wage? Do people on welfare not vote according to their personal views?

          The idea that because we depend on the government we can't judge it is foolish, we depend on the government now, without police and the military provided by it for example life would get very hard very quickly and that is just one example.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If I'm not happy with my employer or employee I can stop associating with them. There is no gun to my head forcing me to participate in the contract. If the president does not fulfil his contract, we still have to stick with him for 4 years, and if we opt out we get put in prison.

            People respond to incentives. People on welfare are hardly going to question the legitimacy of their main source of income.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So are you suggesting most people on welfare vote for the party giving it to them, are you suggesting there is a significant margin? Government provides a lot already and people are still capable of questioning it. Furthermore is it a bad thing if people vote for the government that backs them having a decent quality of life? Or welfare? Isn't that sort of the point of voting, voting to help your situation?

    2. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They don't seem o know that Socialism means the Government will own all the business. Do they imagine it will all then be free?
      There is no free lunch.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No it won't be free but the wages and prices will be fair and the profit will not be concentrated on a fortunate few.

  4. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    On the contrary, most of the monopolies that exist today are the result of very public policies. You are missing very crucial government involvements that bend the market towards the large corporations and destroy competition. Imperialism, subsidies and regulation are not private. The unholy marriage between the state and corporations is responsible for the stagnation of poverty rate in the west.

    To believe that the reduction of competition is the result of free enterprise and private property is such poor economics. In fact, there has not been a better method of lifting populations out of poverty than the free enterprise system. In a relatively short amount of time, countries like Hong Kong and Singapore have developed from third world status to some of the most prosperous countries in the world due to liberalised economies (I'm not saying those countries are perfect by any means, simply that their poverty rates have dropped considerably in the last century).

    It may seem anti-intuitive, but private property is a key tenant of liberty, and disrespecting that can mean very grave consequences.

    The hypothetical situation is nonsensical, because the air on your private property is yours, nobody has the right to come and take it from you. And not that anybody would want to in the first place, it is not in anybody's interest to kill the rest of the population in the name of making money off air.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Again, private monopolies, government has the responsibility to care for its citizens.
      Also I can demonstrate much better examples of the rise from poverty through government control rather than through free market. Take Cuba for example which went form having a poverty rate of more than 65% before the revolution to 1.5% (world bank  number) now, compared to Hong Kong which still has a poverty rate of 20% and started out much better than Cuba.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Now everybody in Cuba is poor.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Except that the poverty rate in Cuba is 1.5% according to the World bank and 16% in America. meaning that many many more people in America can not afford housing and food, that is poverty. Otherwise they live simple lives which are of amazing quality considering where Cuba was before the revolution.

        2. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          nicely said. socialism maxes out its potential once people realize the consequences of their actions are no longer on them. then society quickly denigrates. look at europe today. they are still great, but the cracks are beginning to show.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I suppose this hinges on the belief that in socialism there is no incentive to work, this is not the case, we are not so naive as to believe that people  will work without incentive. Firstly people will have quotas to meet, secondly for people who exceed those quotas there will be small bonuses for people who do not reach those quotas (without good reason anyway) fines, thirdly there is, just like in capitalism the possibility of advancement for those who work hard. There is no less incentive there than in capitalism in fact there is more, not to mention that in socialism get a fair wage because most of the money is not being concentrated on the owners which should make the happier and more productive and also that instead of most of what they produce going to their bosses (most people don't like their bosses) most of it will be going to them and what is not will through taxation be going to helping them.

            Might I just add that it is great having you on the forum, I love discussions between people who respectfully disagree and are willing to outline why in a non confrontational way.

            1. Bob Zermop profile image92
              Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              we are roughly agreed, though i think a society with "quotas" to meet will restrict indvl liberty to use their lives however they wish, so long as it doesn't mess with someone else's happiness. We are completely agreed, however, that the current capitalism isn't capitalism at all, but money take all. A fair capitalism looks a lot like centrist socialism.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                When I say quotas to meet I mean for each individual within the job that he chooses, I am sure you agree it is necessary to have a reasonable expectation of productivity on an employee.

                1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ah ok, no worries then.

                2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  oh and thx for the welcome; didn't see it the first time around. New to hubpages, looking forward to some great discussions on these forums. See you around!

              2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                hmm, cut off. I was saying-

                but i believe the private property in capitalism, including means of production, is necessary for a well-functioning society. if everyone has ownership of the means of production, then we go toward majority over minority again. However, a fair capitalist gov would have greatly increased powers of monopoly breaking, which would solve the ladders problem that we see today.

                1. jandee profile image46
                  jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hello Bob, sadly there is no such thing as a fair capitalist gov. It's very nature is to eat itself ..............

                  1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
                    WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    jandee - There is no fair government of any kind. Sometimes in history, people living under a benevolent despot were happy, safe, and fruitful. We have our concerns set too high. We want to banter political theory and international issues instead of walking out the door and getting to work in our own community.

                    Don't know where to start?
                    http://www.volunteercentreliverpool.org.uk/

                    http://www.volunteercentreliverpool.org.uk/grafix/vcl_map.jpg

                  2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, actually there are ways to create a fair capitalist system. I posted some details above, but I'm hoping to get some time to write a hub about it.

    2. Barnsey profile image86
      Barnseyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice thoughts but the government has the power to come and take your so called private property any time they wish. How private is your property then? We pay taxes so the government/voted in mafia can let us Pretend to be owners and such. That's all. While I agree with your earlier points don't let the government fool you into thinking anything is yours or that you are actually free. You have nothing and you are not free.

  5. Cagsil profile image83
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Is poverty caused by private ownership? No. It's caused by the high level of ignorance of the average person, which also means that those same people don't truly understand their own life, much less understand money.

    1. Bob Zermop profile image92
      Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      agreed. it's so clear, i don't have anything else to say. Nicely phrased, Cagsil.

  6. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    I personally believe that every human being born has an inherent right to walk upon the earth unimpeded. I believe that private ownnership of the land and resources sells something which doesn't belong to anyone, but everyone. It is a Conquistador attitude. It is fine justification for stealing someone else's property, livelihood and way of life. Hoarding and being unwilling to share equally what we have been blessed with. We own nothing here, we are merely transients on a path to somewhere else. Private ownership of the land is a way to keep the less fortunate down.

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm coming over later. I need your TV.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ownership of petty possessions is not equivalent to private ownership over land and water,  Like the the quote said in the OP, if corporations could find a way to charge for air, they would.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The only way they could possibly do that is if they had control over the government, who paid scientists to make up a phony environmental crisis and withdraw funding from their other work if they refused and put in legislation to tax the air we breathe in order to protect against carbon. Which is what they are doing if you havn't noticed.

          Strict private property would solve this no problem, because the air on your property is yours by virtue of the fact that its your air and your property.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Water! It's your water and your property. Doesn't stop the b*stards selling it to you for an arm and a leg.
            You do realise that if you have water on your own property in this country you are expected to pay for it?

            1. Eric Newland profile image59
              Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not in the states...unless of course you count places that are trying to tax private wells.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, but neither Innersmiff nor myself live in the States.

          2. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What if I walk outside of my property?  Then I cannot breathe without paying a fee!  Going to work alone would become enormously expensive.

            The cab on carbon emissions isn't to tax air.  It's to tax a pollutant going into the air, which is warming the globe, and will have disastrous consequences if left unchecked.

            But taking the free market logic to it's ultimate conclusion, it is consistent to say corporations would own air and charge fees for it if the process could practically be done.

            1. Eric Newland profile image59
              Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not in a truly competitive market governed by supply and demand. With the massively high supply and comparatively low demand (let's face it, humans need oxygen to survive but they don't exactly use a significant portion of what's available), a price war would ensue and eventually the industry would collapse.

              The only way they could artificially inflate (heh) the price to keep the business model viable would be by forming a trust, and no one on the planet is pro-trust except for the trusts themselves.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Eric, water.

                1. Eric Newland profile image59
                  Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not familiar with how things work in the UK. Private companies are somehow able to charge you for water that you take from your own property?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am also unfamiliar with this process in England (and I hope someone from there will explain it) but I do very well remember an incident in my home country, Argentina, where a massive conglomerate of landowners sold a massive tract of land to peasants at a relatively high price, the peasants were men and women who had worked their whole lives and usually also spent their inheritance just to be able to afford a small plot where they would have economic independence, the land they bought was very good land situated right along a river, as soon as it had all been sold off to thousands of peasants the landowners promptly built a massive damn up stream and rerouted the water fifty miles away, thus all the land they had sold was completely useless, many peasants starved to death that winter and the following year the landowners came back and out of the generosity of their hearts bought back the land at about two cents to the dollar of what they received for it, then allowed water flow back down the river.

              2. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Water, food, land.  All are in great abundance, yet if I don't have the resources on my property already, I have to purchase them from a private company, who makes profit simply by manipulating the system and claiming they have ownership over something that already naturally existed. 

                Could air be cheap?  Probably.  However, how long does it take the average person to drown? 10 minutes?  This means that under a private system where air was not free, unless it was on one's property, 10 minutes is your lifespan unless you pay up.   The poor, like I said, would have no way to work far from home.  It would actually be similar to the movie "In Time."  A brutal, inhumane way to run a country.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have lived  on land with a well and paid no one for the water.
                  The assumption that flows from the original piece is hopelessness and that why I say it instills fear.
                  Oh excuse my mistake. It's not hopeless if you allow the proper governmental entities to run things. Right?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, you've lived on land and not had to pay for water!
                    I bet the billions who aren't in your position are really happy for you as they cough up for a drop of badly polluted water and watch their kids starve to death!

                    Too right that the piece instils fear, we are all far too complacent turning a blind eye to the victims of capitalism.

                    Do you think it right that 25,000 people die of starvation every day, not because there isn't enough food to go round, there is plenty. What is lacking is the money to buy that food.

                    Government or other, the system can not be allowed to sustain.

                2. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  well, this air metaphor, i think, has outlived its usefulness. Air clearly must be public property, as you cannot control it. being capitalist doesn't not mean i am against all publicly owned property (i.e. state parks, roads, *air*). in a fair capitalism, it would be government's job to distribute resources fairly, until society gets to a point where everyone has enough resources. IN case anyone's wondering, we're not there yet smile

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are crazy. Period. You are signing on to this Marxist drivel which seeks to instill fear. You know it too. That's the problem.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I said.  I can't really have a rational debate, or discussion, if you don't respond to my actual argument at all.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh baloney you know exactly what I just told you.

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually I do not.  But you seem like a nice guy so I won't give you too much of a hard time tongue.

              2. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nothing crazy about it, how many people go hungry in our country while surrounded by wealth? How many people around the world starve to death while the upper class lives in luxury? History has shown us that private ownership is quite happy to starve people for it's own profit and if it will happily starve them of food then why not something else?

              3. jandee profile image46
                jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wrong there Matey!    Lots of Anti-Marxists of which  'there are many ,we are few'  who would disagree with you. JS.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah just look at it? You say there was no fear in that mess huh? Someone that can't breathe has lots of fear happening and that is a preposterous scenario anyway.
                  One of the big things Hugo Chavez did was start removing private ownership particularly from broadcasting entities. There;s your Socialism. Did you wish to live in a society like his?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Socialism and censorship have no synchronicity and personally I don't approve of Cuba's censorship, having lived there for several years however I do very much approve of Cuba's economic trajectory and their humanitarian success in near eliminating poverty and creating a successful health care system, I am also a huge fan of their land reforms which saw land be fairly distributed, anyhow this is not really the place for a discussion about the Cuban state.

                  2. jandee profile image46
                    jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh My God !!  My bags are packed I'm ready to go---------
                    I bet you wouldn't even pick up your winning lotto ticket,some people don't recognise the good things in life ! I wish Hugo Chavez was here ,I would be out knocking on doors for him without a doubt .

              4. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Please keep the conversation civil and productive; this is going to both sides. name-calling? come on, guys.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are right and I shouldn't have called him crazy but I don't back away from the Marxist drivel.

                  1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    hey, for me marxism seems like a reasonable hypothesis at the time it was written that was grossly over-interpreted and transformed into societies that have little or no rights for the indvl. time to get back on track with some libertarian push-back.

      2. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did say LAND.

  7. Comrade Joe profile image90
    Comrade Joeposted 4 years ago

    Private property certainly causes poverty, we need only look at what happened in Russia once the USSR was destroyed.  There was massive economic contraction, alongside a growing disparity between rich and poor; the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.  Simply put, there was mass poverty as a result of exploitative private property (which is quite different from owning consumer goods).

    On a theoretical level, public property allows for more equitable distribution and it can be used to end exploitative labour.  In a truly socialist economy surplus labour value is not stolen from the worker, that alone increases wealth.  But a planned economy can also enrich us in terms of public services - lower wages can be offset by social provisions which would otherwise cost us.

    Historically though, Marx recognized capitalism as a progressive force which brought industry and raised many out of poverty.  The problem is it outgrows its effectiveness in those regards and becomes regressive.  We have reached this point.

    1. Barnsey profile image86
      Barnseyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with comrade Joe, completely. Well said, tovarish!

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All of what you said especially that last paragraph is dead on, countries still clinging to the free market ideal are the ones failing economically and morally to provide for their citizens, while the countries growing fastest and doing best are those significantly to the left a quick look at the quality of life index and the index of fastest growing economies shows this to be manifestly true.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … owth_rate_(latest_year)

    3. jandee profile image46
      jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No! It is the people who become regressive -industry ? Explain ?

      Otherwise agreement.

      1. Comrade Joe profile image90
        Comrade Joeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well it is not just industry that regresses.  What I meant was that capitalist production reaches a point where it outlives its usefulness and purpose.  While this is an economic phenomenon, it impacts society and thus the individuals who compose society.  As the economy no longer really grows, and where it does, the wealth goes to the owners of production and the workers are further impoverished, and degraded as human beings.

        I'm reminded of a recent quote from Gennady Zyuganov about private banks (though it could have been about the private economy in general) "They not only contribute to its modernization - they add to its degradation."  The problem we have now, is that degradation far outweighs modernization. 

        The working class are degraded by the system.  The owners of production could be said to be regressive in that capitalism as a historical phenomenon brought the world modernized industry and raised many out of poverty and the feudal system.  Now, the owners of production no longer even serve that use - their one prior redeeming feature, that they were a historically progressive class is cast away and they become regressive as the system they implement.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Social evolution? Certainly Marx's predictions are becoming a reality as clearly seen in the US with it's ever expanding wealth gap and in many other typical capitalist examples such as Hong Kong with it's poverty level now exceeding 20% and more and more people seeking to leave Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland where their lot will be much better.

          1. Comrade Joe profile image90
            Comrade Joeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly so Josak.  And the only cure to this stage of social evolution is revolution.

            Even within China, growth is being sustained by increased public spending, not by the growth of the free market - which shows the private economy to be socially moribund.

            1. jandee profile image46
              jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hello my friend ,
              sorry to say I misunderstood your take  as in regression ! I wrongly presumed you were talking about Marxism,forgive my mistake ?

              1. Comrade Joe profile image90
                Comrade Joeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                no worries.

        2. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We agree on the ends, but not the means. we have not reached the point where everyone has enough resources to do whatever makes them happiest. i think that society's ultimate goal is libertarian and communism-esque, though it would still have a government to safeguard indvl rights. However, i believe the best way to get there is through a more fair capitalism, not socialism. Socialism removes the consequences of actions from the indvl to the society, which isn't good for anyone. there is a safety net, but again, it comes from everyone else. A fairly capitalist governmetn would have a safety net only to the point where everyone is ABLE to climb up the social ladder. Everyone deserves a ladder, nobody should be carried up on other people's backs.
          Additionally, a communism through socialism would restrict indvl rights intolerably. i had a post in the beginning elaborating on that.

  8. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    "The affairs of the world are ordered in accordance with orthodox opinions. If anyone did not think in accordance with these he soon discovered this fact for himself. Owen saw that in the world a small class of people were possessed of a great abundance and superfluity of the things that are produced by work. He saw also that a very great number--in fact the majority of the people--lived on the verge of want; and that a smaller but still very large number lived lives of semi-starvation from the cradle to the grave; while a yet smaller but still very great number actually died of hunger, or, maddened by privation, killed themselves and their children in order to put a period to their misery. And strangest of all--in his opinion--he saw that people who enjoyed abundance of the things that are made by work, were the people who did Nothing: and that the others, who lived in want or died of hunger, were the people who worked. And seeing all this he thought that it was wrong, that the system that produced such results was rotten and should be altered. And he had sought out and eagerly read the writings of those who thought they knew how it might be done. "

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey you found the drivel box again!.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I eat from the drivel box daily.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Speaking of junk food......

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Have you started reading it? big_smile He is of course spot on, all of which is easily provable by just looking around oneself, most of us know people even in the US that work 50 hours a week and still cannot feed their family or keep them housed and yet the people who make the most money do so mainly out of the merit of simply owning something, from landowners to business owners all of which make their profit from the guy working 50 hours a week.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I just finished chapter 1.  It's great so far.  I'm surprised the writer isn't more well known.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That was the only book he ever wrote, he was actually a poor laborer and died before the book was published, his daughter found it and published it posthumously I believe. The sincerity and simple truth of the book is largely contributed to by the fact that he is writing about his own life, his own condition.

        2. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Sooner ! Yeah he died in Liverpool of T.B
          He is buried in a group Paupers grave which I can almost touch from the park I go to daily with me dogs.
          I have a snapshot of his grave with me and husband on the picture---I was living in Jersey C.I and was sent over by the Jersey party to honour the 'finding of his grave' and the people of the Broad Left paid to have his picture engraved on it,
          the snapshot is abroad at my brothers house and when I find it I shall do a small hub on it.

      2. Comrade Joe profile image90
        Comrade Joeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think the great American trade unionist Bill Haywood put it most succinctly, when talking about mine owners, but it could be applied to virtually any industry. "The mine owners did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belongs to them."

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps the greatest trick pulled on the working class, along with "the great money trick" the idea that the people who produce all the goods that constitute wealth are entitled to none or few of them.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You will I hope forgive me if I copy out another quote from the same text, it is not a part central to the plot or anything so no one reading the book need worry about ruining it for themselves I just think it's a great demonstration of an important political point. Further apologies that is is quite long:


            "Money through capitalism is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour."

            "Prove it," said Crass.

            Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.

            "All right," he replied. "I'll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked."

            Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these where not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed the, as follows:
            "These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun."

            "Now," continued Owen, "I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me."

            "Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins" - taking three half pennies from his pocket - "represent my money, capital."

            "But before we go any further," said Owen, interrupting himself, "it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class."

            Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.
            "These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week's work. We will suppose that a week's work is worth one pound."

            Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.
            "You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week's work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week's work, you shall have your money."

            The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.
            "These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can't live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is,one pound each."

            As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist's terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week's work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labour of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound's worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they had started work - they had nothing.
            This process was repeated several times; for each weeks work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.

            After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound's worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that as owing to over production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

            "Well, and wot the bloody 'ell are we to do now ?" demanded Philpot.

            "That's not my business," replied the kind-hearted capitalist. "I've paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I'll see what I can do."
            "But what about the necessaries of life?" Demanded Harlow. "we must have something to eat."
            "Of course you must," replied the capitalist, affably; "and I shall be very pleased to sell you some." "But we ain't got no bloody money!"

            "Well, you cant expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn't work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!"
            The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast."

            Of course the author could go further and demonstrate that this money made by the kind capitalist is then used to influence the political process through bribes and campaign donations so as to secure better wealth for himself at the expense of the people (by lowering the minimum wage for example or giving himself tax breaks) by corrupting the government process meant to represent and protect them with the very money that they made him.

            1. jandee profile image46
              jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      3. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Remember! This system is built on economic growth. The more people, the more growth. No growth...economic stagnation or absolute depression. It is a bottomless pit....because all of our resources are finite....it can't sustain infinite growth. Simple math.

        1. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          resources, in the future, with increased technology will not become infinite, but will become sufficient for everyone. unless i'm seriously mistaken, this forum is about how best to distribute the resources fairly and how to balance the sometimes conflicting desires of indvls.

  9. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    ‘Compel the poor to live upon a crust of bread, by soft mild arts.
    Smile when they frown, frown when they smile; and when a man looks pale
    With labour and abstinence, say he looks healthy and happy;
    And when his children sicken, let them die; there are enough
    Born, even too many, and our earth will be overrun
    Without these arts. If you would make the poor live with temper,
    With pomp give every crust of bread you give; with gracious cunning
    Magnify small gifts; reduce the man to want a gift, and then give with pomp.
    Say he smiles if you hear him sigh. If pale, say he is ruddy.
    Preach temperance: say he is overgorg’d and drowns his wit
    In strong drink, though you know that bread and water are all
    He can afford. Flatter his wife, pity his children, till we can
    Reduce all to our will, as spaniels are taught with art.’

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      William Blake is great, thanks for that.

  10. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Thanks Josak, I should have credited it, bit didn't!
    I was actually aiming for "The Price of Experience" but though that was much better, if not as poetic.

    1. jandee profile image46
      jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just a little bit more :

      "And that slaughter to the nation
      shall steam up like inspiration,
      Eloquent,Oracular;
      A volcano heard afar.

      And these words shall then become
      like oppressions thundered doom
      ringing through each heart and brain,
      heard again-again-again

      "Rise like lions after slumber
      in  unvanquishable number-
      shake your chains to earth like dew
      which in sleep had fallen on you-
      Ye are many --they are few

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That last stanza always gives me goosebumps.

  11. Bob Zermop profile image92
    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago

    I said this in a couple of earlier posts but i'll sum it up again here. I think most, if not all, are agreed that the ultimate goal of society should be one where everyone can do whatever makes them happiest. however, socialists and capitalists disagree on the means. as a capitalist, i believe that fair capitalism has potential to truly become a perfect society, which socialism doesn't. Why: capitalism has safeguards (private property) to protect indvl rights and prevent a tyranny of the majority over the minority. If anything about my view is unclear, tell me and i will clarify.

  12. WD Curry 111 profile image61
    WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago

    Where have I heard talk like this before?
    https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeMnQX0hdLXLxKg58zi1O4SxdAgS0mskKXL3EwSYc5lbuQ6SBW
    Who's they? You don't have to worry about them. There is nothing stopping anyone from being industrious. The best way to help the poor is with feet on the ground
    community develpoment. The kind that is hard grueling work when ramped up emotions die down.

    I am involved with conservation and grassroots community development. We all need a regional approach to business and industry. When your community is strong, then the monopoly types are not so relevant to your well being.


    Some of my hubs are about this. There are more to come. I am also working with other organizations who are expending their energy in a positive direction. We build up, not tear down. Eliminating the wealthy will not get rid of the poor. Voluntarily sharing wealth may.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh your voluntarily sharing wealth has worked great tongue what with the constantly rising number of poor in the US. Those are pretty much third world statistics you've got there, we are not communists, at least I am not, it's a shame you don't know the difference. I'll compare your grass roots voluntary charity with the decreases in poverty of any socialist nation no problem, your charity (and mine unfortunately) are just balm on the wounds, they don't fix the problems nor correct what causes the poverty of the working man which is of course exploitation for the benefits of others, usually non working men.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQaMjRcuAxvhIMAeDIRhLyyu0cLU80dsroYP-WOUjSkuIUiy_st9-ZMCHh

        I would love to hang around to hear more irrelevant babbling, but, I must go
        now. Have a nice day, comrade.

        C-Ya cool

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I love how you presume we don't work in our communities. Also obviously you have no statistics to compare, Cuba's population below the poverty line is 1.5% Venezuela has dropped it's poverty rate by more than 20% since becoming socialist etc. etc. Charity is not a solution.

          Adios compadre.

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not talking charity or macro theory. I am talking community development.

            http://www.commonwealthinc.org/ACTION%20logo.jpg

            Rhetoric is cheap.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You don't know the first thing about action WD Curry, I fought a dictatorship for my beliefs, was a member of the Montoneros for years, most of my family and friends were tortured and murdered for their beliefs, I risked my life countless times, was shot twice and had to leave my home country and guess what? we won, Argentina now has a democratic socialist government that doesn't kill people for handing out leaflets like my brother was, no thanks to the US of course who backed the dictatorship financially and sent operatives to help them in their extermination of the left which of course like most Americans you know nothing about. But no allow me to bow down before you because you volunteer on the weekends.

              I also imagine you think it's some kind of backhanded insult when you call me comrade it's not, I used the term regularly for many years among my brothers and sisters and it was an honor to call such courageous and selfless people comrade.

    2. jandee profile image46
      jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like you've just returned from Israel after building up all the stuff you'd ripped away from the Palestinians............

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Like their children?

        https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeeLxdmPW7joBWcN_LcYA-c7l3sY3STv2EaXwe8H-iC4M3mmhh

        Palestinian after school program. No child left behind!

  13. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Poverty isn't caused by private ownership. Unless of course, your ownership was in real estate before the bubble burst.smile Poverty is caused by not having enough money to exercise private ownership.

    1. Barnsey profile image86
      Barnseyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Succinctly stated. That is how Capitlism holds down rather than lifts up. It creates a cycle of woe that is largely inescapable.

      1. Bob Zermop profile image92
        Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I posted above how a fair capitalism might work. It may be in the replies; sorry bout that.

  14. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    I've been thinking recently.  I have felt like I was a socialist for a long time.  I look at the concentrations of power in corporations, and how the rich run for office so their companies can become monopolies over others.  It's not even real competition if that's the case.

    Maybe the problem is that everything is just too big and centralized.  The government, corporations, all of it.  Maybe we need a massive decentralization, where everything becomes more local, and also more democratic. 

    I don't want the government becoming the monopoly in place of the corporations we have now.  I feel like state socialism would end up doing just that.  I'm just rambling now so I'm going to stop.  Interesting thoughts though.

    1. Bob Zermop profile image92
      Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hell yeah! Welcome to the fair capitalist libertarian boat!

      Many seem to think society is all of the gov. THEY are doing this, they are doing that. In a real democracy, the gov would be inseparable from the people, and its  job would be distributing resources fairly. Nothing less, nothing more.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think to a certain extent this has been tried, there was a time in the US where everything was a lot less centralized, states had pretty much free reign as long as they paid their taxes and everyone had a separate moral system, it was basically many countries within on, unfortunately that led to extremes, states went to war with each other often over the most insignificant things like who owned a certain copse of trees and there was major disagreement within the nation about what was moral and what was not, particularly centered around the idea of slavery which of course led to or at least largely contributed to the near cataclysmic civil war.

      The other main problem is clearly indicated by the issue of slavery and the treatment of blacks, the thing is in America as it is now the crazies are more or less balanced out (you know with exceptions like Santorum) but imagine if every small area had it's own voting process and near total power, think how tough it would be to be gay or Hispanic in many areas or to be a conservative in others.

      Lastly but I think most importantly consider this, as it stands corporations hold far far too much power in our country, I think we all agree on that, but the Union as a whole is far more powerful than any one corporation, but if you minimize government and compartmentalize it that ceases to be true, it is entirely possible for a corporation to have more power than a small part of the country, then the corporation can either become the government of whatever area it is in or simply be more important than the government, this actually happened  with land owners and mining companies in several areas of Argentina at different points and if you think corporations are bad now you should see it when they actually simply become the government, as in the owner of the mine is also the mayor or governor, it's far from pretty and a nightmare for working people.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do worry about extremists who are bigoted towards homosexuals or racist towards minorities. 

        I've just seen a lot of stuff about National Security, such as Obama signing the NDAA, Obama fighting to keep a journalist in prison- http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/03/15/why … n-prison/, and Operation Northwoods-http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1#.T5al_fllg4o (this one will hit really close to home for you).  People are abusing their power.

        I love social programs, the FDA, EPA.  Companies have shown they will pollute with impunity if they are given free reign.  They pollute now, even with those agencies in existence.  One study estimated approximately 40,000 deaths a year around the world are caused by pollution. 

        But there has to be a pushback.  The government cannot simply spy on it's citizens without consequences.  The military propositioning JFK with Operation Northwoods disgusts me.

        I'm very much in favor of a strong national government when it comes to pollution and laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the police state is on it's way, and that really bothers me.  You probably have also noticed how the police in a supposed "liberal" state treated the Occupy protestors.  Anyone who threatens the power structure isn't tolerated well.

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay ! Did you know they have been spying on us for decades! Still are ...
          True !     In the beautiful area of Yorkshire we have U.S base spying on us.
          It is called  Menwith Hill,Yorkshire

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree entirely and that is wrong, I am not disputing that our government has in some ways become too totalitarian but I disagree with the conclusion that because it has the idea of a centralized government is a bad thing, I don't want to to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I am not but, tell me sooner, who do you think was and is putting pressure on the government to make sure the protesters were moved and mistreated? Who has most to lose from a movement calling for social equity?

          1. Bob Zermop profile image92
            Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            agreed, this is an example of the worst from both worlds. we have the 1% controlling the gov. and the opaque-as-mud gov controlling the people. fabulous.

      2. Bob Zermop profile image92
        Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What I mean by less government is better government. If government was as it should be, inseparable from the people, I would have no problem. But if we lean too capitalist, we get the 1% and corporations owning the gov, and if we lean too socialist, we get majority over minority. So it's a delicate balance, but not an impossible one. We would need strict monopoly laws, but still have private property, including over means of production.

        I disagree with both the FDA and the EPA in some ways. I don't like the FDA banning foods; it's not their job to tell Americans how to live. Rather, their job should be regulating labels and ingredients, and making sure the consumers are educated on health risks. I don't like the EPA because I feel it's unnecessary. Pollution should be illegal, but because of private property laws. If someone is polluting someone else's air, it would the gov's job to stop it. effectively the same thing as the EPA, but without additional regulations that limit the gov's transparency.

        I think the Civil Right's Act is an entirely different story. That was to counteract laws and practices that contradicted basic human rights, like its offshoots. I think America is pretty close to done with getting rid of legal human rights violations, so I don't see that as a problem in the future.

        Sooner, your point about the police state is dead on. Too much ower to the gov is always dangerous.

        1. jandee profile image46
          jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Bob! What is too socialist ? What is your experience of it ?

          1. Bob Zermop profile image92
            Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I posted in some earlier posts what is too socialist for me, but please tolerate my repeating it again. Too socialist means to me that private property is threatened. Far left socialism is completely intolerable to me because it has no safeguards for the rights of the individual. For example, if the majority want to destroy your home and build a ranch on it, they could, as it isn't your property, but everyone's. This is especially dangerous if they believe they're doing right. Arrogance and close-mindedness that always will exist somehow, in whatever form, makes socialism too abuse-able to be viable.

            Also, socialism will slow, then stop, progress of society. In a fair capitalism, even though there is a safety net to catch you, the consequences of your actions are still on you. In socialism, risking your well-being will affect everyone else, and understandably they would rather you not do that. This is what I mean by socialism encouraging restriction of personal liberty.
            another flaw with far left socialism is that those who work hard don't get their reward, and those who do nothing get carried on the backs of those who do work. I know centralist socialism deals with this flaw, so I won't get too much into it, but like i said before, everyone deserves a ladder, no one deserves to be carried up by other people.

            That's just the basic points i can think up now, if you see any fallacies i will correct them.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Socialism still has private property, the idea of completely shared property is actually communist and not part of socialist doctrine, and the ladder in centralist socialism is the same as that in capitalism just a lot fairer, people are carried a lot less than they are in capitalism because there are no unemployment benefits and such people still earn everything they have it's just some people don't start five feet from the end in a hundred meter sprint .

              1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                that firmly reestablishes that we basically agree on everything but means of production ownership. Unless you agree private with strict monopoly laws is better than public? In which case, we would be completely agreed.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Fair enough, but that completely removes the ability of the government to create jobs.

                  On a side note your avatar image is making me hungry.

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I fail to understand (and this may well be my failing) how the government owning mining and oil and such threatens the individual as long as he is protected by a robust constitution.

                  1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                    Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Because the constitution has the potential to be ignored or abolished if the gov gets too much power. I view mining and oil a bit differently, as I believe those will soon not be necessary with green energy. my point is more on things like the oceans, or farming. If the gov (ie the majority) have control over things necessary for the well-being of everyone, they effectively have veto and control over the indvl. If we head down that path, it likely won't be a problem  anytime soon (too much benefit from overall increased well-being) but sometime, once resources have grown, a system based off socialism will have no safeguards for the indvl.

                3. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  not necessarily a problem.
                  if the gov was transparent and the market was truly free (strict monopoly laws required to prevent dominance), jobs and industries would be created based on demand. the current lack of jobs come from what you posted from "the great money trick", over-influence of the 1%.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm a bit puzzled, how do you have a truly free market with strict monopoly laws?

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So you're telling me that if Mega Corp wanted your house they wouldn't be able to find a way to get it off you?

              1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL, believe it or not, i have never heard that comeback. that is fabulous big_smile

                On a serious note, fair capitalism would only work with a transparent gov and strict monopoly laws. those things would have to be in place, otherwise the entire system becomes owned by the rich. I believe that's where America is headed if we don't do something quick.

                I'm not familiar with British politics, what's the situation right vs left over there? New to hubpages, so dunno if discussion should be on this forum, i can start another if i should.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "Anyone who threatens the power structure isn't tolerated well."

    ***********

    "Seventy-six people were arrested Monday at a demonstration protesting cuts in Medicaid proposed by the House Republican leadership, authorities said.

    "To institutionalize a disabled American costs four times as much than to give assistance for independent living. This issue is about civil rights, not about medicine. People who have the ability to live in integrated, affordable and accessible housing should have the right to do so."

    Instead of home and community support when she's older and unable to live on her own, protester Madeleine McMahan of Pennsylvania told CNN, "My generation? The Baby Boomers? we're looking at nursing homes if we don't do something about it."

    She spoke in handcuffs, waiting for police to escort her to an elevator for arrest processing.

    Also in handcuffs and a wheelchair, Denise McMullin-Powell of Delaware said lawmakers proposing the Medicaid cuts are "completely ignoring that we even exist in the stupid budget that they have."

    She said "it's worth getting arrested, it's worth dying for, but they're gonna kill us first because of the cuts. If we can't stay in our home, if we can't get the things we need through Medicaid, we will die in the streets without that type of thing."

    Wyle said, "This effort is to end the longstanding bias of the Medicaid system toward institutions and away from community care. The real shame is to see so many productive, intelligent people expending their energy on the fight for basic services to ensure their survival."

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/us/medica … amp;page=1

    ******************

    Institutional care, eh? Wouldn't be PRIVATE institutional care, would it??....along the lines of PRIVATE prisons??

    These R's are truly diabolical. Shame on every single one of them.

    1. Bob Zermop profile image92
      Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing against public health care, but it can't be mandated. Private companies must still be allowed so Americans have the choice; additionally, the competition from public will drive ip quality.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We recently had a privately owned care home closing down and giving the residents (in their 80s and 90s) 48 hours to find alternate accommodation.

        1. Bob Zermop profile image92
          Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          bastards.

          I am completely for public health care for this reason. But i'm completely against mandated public health care.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why? Ours costs us about half what you pay and it covers everybody for just about everything unlike your system.

            1. Bob Zermop profile image92
              Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              though it may not happen now or even soon, giving all control to the gov over health care creates potential for abuse. i don't want to repeat myself, but you can see my posts above on majority over minority.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And putting health care into the hands of for profit insurance companies doesn't lead to abuse!

                1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  not if there is an alternative competitor, which is why i am for a very good public health care system that is not mandated. it will also force the privates to step up their game, while making sure everyone is at least covered for the necessities.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    My experience of the American medical system is limited. While I was in the States I needed medical services. When I came to pay I was asked if I was paying myself or was I covered. When I asked what difference it made I received an answer that made it pretty clear that there was one price for me and another for my insurers. If that isn't abuse of the system I don't know what is.

              2. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But this has been done all overt he world with nothing but positive consequences.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Your health care is ranked 75th out of 190, Its below Mexico! Standard and Poors gives your Country a negative credit rating. Please don't tell us what we do wrong.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Which country? If you mean developing third world country Argentina then sure. But the results since it was instituted have been nothing but positive.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    UK health care ranking 18
                    US health care ranking 37

              3. jandee profile image46
                jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The knack is voting in the right people and MAKING them do our bidding..
                Then it is that we are the Government-We ,Britain have had a superb health service NHS for 60 odd years,people from all over the world welcome to use it !   Now the wonderful tories  are attempting ,almost done it , to privatize it !
                I haven't voted in years  'cause of  traitor Tony Blair but this time I shall get people in their thousands and more to vote labour in order to stop this strangulation of our Nationalized Health service not to mention the eviction of thousands TODAY in LONDON 'cause of the vindictive slashing of housing benefits-might be your turn tomorrow so get clued up over there

                1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                  Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  nicely said. i don't think anyone truly knows how much it hurts me to say this but- e- e- ok. whew. bri- bri- britain is now an e- e- example to follow for the United States of America. damn. smile

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I hope I am not insulting the Brits, you know I love you guys but I think there are better examples to follow, if you must stick to capitalism have a look at Norway.

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's right....private means they do what they want....you do what they say.

          All that matters is the bottom line. Humanity, reduced to a dollar sign.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But it was all right of course, the public sector moved in and rehoused the evictees, thus saving the private home even more money.

          2. Bob Zermop profile image92
            Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The current American capitalist system is crap, but we shouldn't forget why it's stood for a couple of centuries while socialist (and definitely communist )countries haven't. i have a post in the beginning elaborating.

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for backing up my last statement :p.

  16. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    maybe 50%, other factors like opportunities and hard work could be put into the equation

 
working