I'm guessing this is where I would post a thread like this. Discuss: Wal-Mart, Nike, Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Pepsi, McDonalds, Microsoft, Starbucks, The Gap, Target, Monsanto, GE, etc.

All anti-corporate and anarchist stances on this matter are highly encouraged.

I'm guessing this is where I would post a thread like this.

correct. you can post it here or in Humanities

Discuss:

sure :)

Wal-Mart,

eeevil...

Shell, Exxon-Mobil,

damn eevil



I know they put additives to make their food addicting to people
http://www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm

[quote]
Microsoft,

holy shit they're bad! They hold monopolies, have used 'immoral' practices on other businsses, they have all sorts of Spyware and shit, Internet Explorer SUCKS ASS, etc.

and I'm typing this from a comp using Vista :(

have to learn more about Ubuntu so I can use it better, already installed it and all in dual-boot.

Starbucks,

they do some good actually. recycling, etc. they're not like Wal-Mart. Same with Costco. They actually care.

GE, etc.

GE controls a bunch of media and whatnot as well as military contractors.

remember the bush admin propaganda?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8400


All anti-corporate and anarchist stances on this matter are highly encouraged.

have you seen "The Corporation" movie?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the%20corporation&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

or the Wal-Mart one?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Wal-Mart&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

both are good.

i do not think that corporations are evil. i think the men that run these entities are evil. it is not walmart that ruined main street usa, it was Sam Walton an his crew.

that being said we are also just as evil as Sam Walton. after all we shop at these stores. or at the very least we do not stop others from shopping there.

so who really is the enemy? as Michael Jackson said " im looking at the man in the mirror.."

There is no evil in opportunity. Period.

There is no choice that you can offer people that makes you evil. People just want a scapegoat because the term 'personal responsibility' went out with the 60's. Newsflash, wal-mart didn't destroy 'main street' USA. Wal-mart was just the guy in the back of the room that had the nerve to speak up and say 'hey guys, what if we tried it this way?'. The people then voted, yes voted. And they decided the days of main street were at an end. This is not evil. This is progress.

It amazes me how many people seem to think we have an obligation to keep inefficient buisnesses running because it would just be a terrible thing if those employees and/or buisnessowners had to go through retraining to obtain a more relevent job in todays world.

Boo progress!

ROFL. Microsoft? Walmart? That's petty bullshit compared to what's gone on in with private contractors in Iraq.

ROFL. Microsoft? Walmart? That's petty bullshit compared to what's gone on in with private contractors in Iraq.

Wal-Mart does similar shit in Latin America and the other places where they have their sweatshops and whatnot. Thuggery and all.

Edit: Lockheed Martin, Blackwater

Edit: Lockheed Martin, Blackwater


Lockheed Martin sorts your mail, totals your taxes, cut social security checks, and counts the US census. To make it all happen, lockheed martin writes more computer code than microsoft.

Blackwater should be outlawed. We're sacrificing security for efficiency. Not worth it.

Now we're getting somewhere. Halliburton one of the top profiteers of the destruction of iraqi social infrastructure and culture. Monsanto is involved in a mess of shit. It's one of the most evil companies I can think of. Gilead sciences trying to patent anything treatment of an epidemic and dishing up contracts so that US soldiers will defend their stockpiles and help control supplies in the event of an emergency. .

Look up Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution and the connection between the Nigerian Junta that killed him and Shell Oil.

If you're a lazy fuck like I am, basically, Shell has been fucking over Nigeria for a long time, destroying their environment and shit. The Ogoni tribe that lives there is obviously not happy about it, as they're watching their rainforests get chopped down, their rivers get polluted, their people get sick of toxic air, etc. So this one guy, Ken Saro-Wiwa, organizes a peaceful movement against Shell. He gets nominated for the Nobel-Peace Prize and as his movement gains more and more ground, Shell, which cut a deal with the repressive corrupt Nigerian regime there, pays the military Junta to publicly hang him.

Pepsi, Nike, and Disney have all supported the oppressive regimes in what was once Burma and is now Myanmar, the country that recently destroyed those Buddhist monks who were protesting against the government there, and even more recently closed its borders to international aid efforts after it got hit by a monster tsunami.

Of course we could go on about sweatshops, the economy, outsourcing, invasion of our personal spaces with advertisements, the ethics of branding, the loss of public space to private entities, etc, etc.

Starbucks isn't bad at all. Their employees get decent benefits and everyone I know who works there loves it.

Starbucks isn't bad at all. Their employees get decent benefits and everyone I know who works there loves it.

Actually, you're kind of right. Starbucks gets a bad rep in the anti-consumer culture, much worse than I think it should. However, their tactics of creating business are pretty deplorable. They use a tactic called "leeching", where they will basically find a local mom-and-pop coffee shop, plant a Starbucks within the vicinity of it, and once that Starbucks gets loads of money, they expand their empire within that city. Eventually, as they spread out across Anytown, USA, their shops will start to "leech" off of each other. This means that when they open up a new shop across the street from one they already have open, the established shop will lose a little profit to the newer shop. This may seem bad in the short-term, but they're only "losing" profit...to themselves. They have completely saturated our culture. They are marketing genuises. It was their idea to put their logo on the outside of those cardboard sleeves you put on your coffee if it's too hot, and they have done an excellent job of branding the meaning of coffee in history--intellectualism, downtime, relaxation, savory, warm, gushy feelings--with a cup of mediocre coffee. Their genius is that they are making you pay for an IDEA rather than a product--this is why they were able to sell coffee at 4$ a cup for so long.

They are also notoriously anti-union.

Look up Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution and the connection between the Nigerian Junta that killed him and Shell Oil.

yeah. I think the documentary The Corporation talked about that too

However, their tactics of creating business are pretty deplorable. They use a tactic called "leeching", where they will basically find a local mom-and-pop coffee shop, plant a Starbucks within the vicinity of it, and once that Starbucks gets loads of money, they expand their empire within that city.

hmm. Where I currently live (Beverly neighborhood of Souh Side Chicago). there was a "Mon and Pop" store on 103rd close to the Metra Tracks. It moved to 99th St by the Metra Railroad Tracks there close to Wood St. The Starbucks actually came in seeral years after the move-out and they actually took over an old Christian Science Monitor store. Didn't rear it down, renevoated it/modified it somewhat and began business. The Local Community groups actually LIKED it.

Eventually, as they spread out across Anytown, USA, their shops will start to "leech" off of each other. This means that when they open up a new shop across the street from one they already have open, the established shop will lose a little profit to the newer shop. This may seem bad in the short-term, but they're only "losing" profit...to themselves.

Actually that doesn't do that. It actually increases the profits, especially in say the city centers. If there's more starbucks in a certain area, ESPECIALLY downtown people would be more willing to walk the distance. Especially in city centers where you have to walk or whatnot to go too far.

In less crowded areas arguably it does that. It was funny as they found that out by accident, noticing it actually increased profit. Though in some places they did over-grow or something and had to close for the current time.



correct. How they were able to creats those associations, etc is interesting. Though I suspect that existed in the past naturally, people congregating in local coffee houses and discussing and doing the same thing.

[quote]Their genius is that they are making you pay for an IDEA rather than a product--this is why they were able to sell coffee at 4$ a cup for so long.


I don't buy coffee from Starbucks. I end up buying Chai Tea or Hot Chocolate whenever I go there. Some people end up going there 4x a day DAMNNNNN! I'd only get it at most once a day, during the morning or evening.

~3 dollars for Venti hit chocolate or chocolate milk last I heard.

Also have to lol as some people don't go through the extra cost of getting Starbucks. Had a debate team captain who said he didn't get the point, he thought why not get cheaper coffee or brew it at home. He brought up the differences between the North Side and South Side in how they do some things. I poked about the North Side being full of yuppies :p

They are also notoriously anti-union.

didn't know that.

Blackwater should be outlawed. We're sacrificing security for efficiency. Not worth it.

In my opinion, blackwater should not be outlawed, but it shouldn't get government contracts. Government's workers and contracted labor should get government protection, meanwhile the workers and contracted labor of the private industries should get their own protection. Cuts down on my taxes and my governments involvement in the affairs of foreign countries for the business practices of assholes like the United Fruit Company.
I don't like leeching, I don't like franchising, and I don't like a lot of other practices used by major chains, in my opinion people will eventually wise up to them, and stop buying the products in favor of those from people they know and trust (mom and pop). As more and more dirt is dragged up on starbucks, mcdonalds, burger king and others, the public will deliver a justice much worse than what the government often delivers, boycotts, loss of profit, and denunciation of the company. Just look at the outrage about mcdonalds supposedly making fries in beef tallow in India, and you'll see what I mean. If you don't like something, speak out against it, boycott it, and bring all your friends to your point of view by appealing to them. In short: if you don't like what a company is doing, nobody is forcing you to buy their stuff, so don't, nobody is forcing you to promote it, so don't, and nobody is twisting your arm when it comes to suggesting to your friends that they should follow your course of action. YOU ARE NOT WEAK, AND THE MORE YOU MENTION YOUR OPINION TO OTHERS, AND POLITELY PERSUADE THEM TO YOUR SIDE, THE LARGER YOUR MOVEMENT WILL GROW, THE MORE IT WILL HURT THEIR WALLETS, AND THE SOONER THEY'LL ADAPT TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, OR PERISH.
But hey that's my opinion, whether you choose to follow it or not, all I ask is that you read it, ponder it, and if you truly believe in it, follow it, if not, thank you for your attention.

Coca-Cola murdered labor organizers and leaders in Colombia.

Pepsi in India has 30 times the acceptable pesticide level.

Coca-Cola murdered labor organizers and leaders in Colombia.

...and put cocaine in their products to make them more marketable.

From Naomi Klein's book. Emphasis mine:

Kenyon, a division of mega funeral conglomerate Service Corporation International was hired to retrieve the dead from homes and streets[after hurricane Katrina]. The work was extraordinarily slow, and bodies were left broiling in the sun for days. Emergency workers and local volunteer morticians were forbidden to step in to help because handling the bodies impinged on Kenyon's commercial territory. The company charged the state, on average, $12,500 a victim, and it has since been accused of failing to properly label many bodies....
Funny how dead bodies were worth more than what many people received in aid. Anyways, one only has to understand the fact that the exact same inefficient and insanely expensive contractors used in Iraq: Halliburton, Parsons, Fluor, Shaw, Bechtel, Blackwater(to protect FEMA workers) and CH2M Hill were all used in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina(many contracts awarded without bidding) should give you an idea of just how fucked up the Bush administration is and the whole notion that private contractors are an answer to government "inefficiency".

Next time you want to complain about comcast overcharging you for ordering porn and wal mart for being a super-efficient supply chain, remember that the most evil corporations aren't household names.

Corporations aren't evil. Its the way they're allowed to operate that is, taking advantage of workers. If systems would be put in place to stop this (while retaining free trade), the world would be a much better place.

Corporations aren't evil. Its the way they're allowed to operate that is, taking advantage of workers. If systems would be put in place to stop this (while retaining free trade), the world would be a much better place.

^This.

Corporations which act on a global scale are not intentionally evil, they simply pursue as great a profit as possible whilst staying within the boundaries set by the government and the people. If you acknowledge that they will always pursue as great a profit as possible, and you think the boundaries they are currently set allow them to perform acts which can be rationally conceived as "evil" (as I do), then you need to change the boundaries. The problem is that modern western democracies are so overrun with corporate interests bringing about real change is difficult.

The trick (I think) is to highlight individual issues and create such a wave of public feeling against a specific activity that politicians see this public feeling as a stronger force than the money of the corporate lobbyists. However, creating a wave of public feeling is difficult, and usually relies on getting someone already in the public eye on board as a figurehead for the campaign.

The problem with them is that government regulation meant to "help" the "common folk" actually increases the barriers to entry, making it harder for small businesses to enter the market and compete with these goliath corporations.

If the government stepped back and allowed the free market to work, wages and productivity would rise quicker as these large businesses would have to compete for workers and customers.

The problem with them is that government regulation meant to "help" the "common folk" actually increases the barriers to entry, making it harder for small businesses to enter the market and compete with these goliath corporations.

If the government stepped back and allowed the free market to work, wages and productivity would rise quicker as these large businesses would have to compete for workers and customers.

But corporations hold such a high power in society, no man should have the power to alone run a corporation.

In France in the 1700s the power was decided to be devided into 3 different regions, the court systems, the parliament and the senate or something like that. They did not take into account the rise of coporations at that time. Corporations will make decisions with their massive amount of power for the benefit of those who own them. However, these corporations should all be controlled by a state that represents the wishes of the people (and not a state that represents the wishes of the corporations). Basically modern corporations have severely fucked over the ideals of power and wealth distribution that our ancestors wrote in stone.

The problem with them is that government regulation meant to "help" the "common folk" actually increases the barriers to entry, making it harder for small businesses to enter the market and compete with these goliath corporations.

If the government stepped back and allowed the free market to work, wages and productivity would rise quicker as these large businesses would have to compete for workers and customers.

Only in theory. Reality says otherwise.
In a free market monopolies emerge, price collusion occurs, and it becomes even harder for new companies to emerge than if they were simply subjected to higher taxes.

Also, when workers band together to protect their wages and benefits in the same way that managers and investors can organize to protect their investments, it is seen as socialist. Labor unions are scapegoated at all levels. Right-wing regimes all over the world have engaged in violence against labor unions.

What's your take on them? Are they antithesis to profit, therefore part of the same nuisance that government interference causes?

awww cmon now man, have any of these evil coporations actually infringed on your life or your personal freedoms ever? Unless you own a small business and got out competed by a wal-mart or such, i think not. I say out competed, because these corporate giants as you call them provide goods and services that the general public can afford and make it convient to get them. If people did not want to, they wouldnt. Its that simple.

awww cmon now man, have any of these evil coporations actually infringed on your life or your personal freedoms ever? Unless you own a small business and got out competed by a wal-mart or such, i think not. I say out competed, because these corporate giants as you call them provide goods and services that the general public can afford and make it convient to get them. If people did not want to, they wouldnt. Its that simple.

Its more indirectly. The owners and investors of these large corporations buy up loads of property in your city in hope their prices will rise, which leads to you not being able to afford a house in the city your ancestors built for example.

My ideas for combating the evils of the big corporations is to minimize them by:

Stop protecting the corporation's assets (fraud protection, protecting them as valid capital, etc) this will mean lower investor confidence as any company could be doing a Ponzy scheme.
Stop the government from regarding corporations as a single entity.

This will mean a completely different corporate structure, a much smaller, more local, more efficent, one. This means way more competetion and no more anti-trust laws. It's just mutalism.

Just because you're a shitty capitalist and those people who founded several corporations are not does not mean they are evil....just smart.

unlike yourself

Just because you're a shitty capitalist and those people who founded several corporations are not does not mean they are evil....just smart.

unlike yourself

Smart in the use of an unethical economic system.

Smart in the use of an unethical economic system.

and what is ethical?? communism? Socialism? Keynesianism? Which one?

Last time I checked communists and socialists have done a helluva lot of killing too

and what is ethical?? communism? Socialism? Keynesianism? Which one?

Last time I checked communists and socialists have done a helluva lot of killing too

Defining ethics is rather hard, but there are a few general rules to it.
The economic system which rewards for hard work is ethical. Thus communism, is not.
The economic system which allows you to get 5 million dollars from your parents, and gain investments on that, is NOT hard work, thus unethical.
We need an economic system which is not inbetween, but something different. Social-democracies are great, but are still inbetween. You are not rewarded all that much for hard work, and you can still get 5 million from your parents, buy up 5 million dollars worth of land, rent it out and never have to work again in your life, while earning more then the average hard working joe. That is unethical, unfair, and just plain stupidity. The system is only in place to allow to rich to get richer.

Have either of you ever read any Ayn Rand?

I consider my beliefs to fall overall within the socialist category, however I think reading Atlas Shrugged helped me to recognise some of the contradictions that inherently exist within socialism, and some of the "unethical" aspects of it if you will. Sometimes it's more important to really read into the other side of the coin, because it's too easy to read something you know you already agree with, nodding along like the Churchill dog as you go. Ultimately the dystopian scenario was too far removed from reality to refute the socialist system all together for me, but it was still food for thought.

The thing that I took out of the book, which I'm not sure was intended, was the importance of Education. In Atlas Shrugged, the general public have been taught that anyone who works for personal gain is immoral and that need rather than ability should determine how much someones 'earns'. For socialism to work in our world, we need an education system which does not fail people, but gives every citizen a fair chance to begin with and also instills in people the belief that they still have to work to improve their life off their own back. One that teaches people that where the system has made it unduly difficult for them to improve their own lives, the system will give them help to improve it if they are willing. If an adequate education does not exist, then an underclass of moochers will form, which tips the socialist system into the unethical grounds of the successful hard workers supporting the wasters.

As I said earlier, I don't think either capitalism or socialism are inherently evil, but the conditions we the people and we the government create around the system can make it so.

Defining ethics is rather hard, but there are a few general rules to it.
The economic system which rewards for hard work is ethical. Thus communism, is not.
The economic system which allows you to get 5 million dollars from your parents, and gain investments on that, is NOT hard work, thus unethical.
We need an economic system which is not inbetween, but something different. Social-democracies are great, but are still inbetween. You are not rewarded all that much for hard work, and you can still get 5 million from your parents, buy up 5 million dollars worth of land, rent it out and never have to work again in your life, while earning more then the average hard working joe. That is unethical, unfair, and just plain stupidity. The system is only in place to allow to rich to get richer.

What if you work hard and make 5 million bones, and you choose to give it to your kids. Is that unethical? What else should you do with that money?

Defining ethics is rather hard, but there are a few general rules to it.
The economic system which rewards for hard work is ethical. Thus communism, is not.
The economic system which allows you to get 5 million dollars from your parents, and gain investments on that, is NOT hard work, thus unethical.
We need an economic system which is not inbetween, but something different. Social-democracies are great, but are still inbetween. You are not rewarded all that much for hard work, and you can still get 5 million from your parents, buy up 5 million dollars worth of land, rent it out and never have to work again in your life, while earning more then the average hard working joe. That is unethical, unfair, and just plain stupidity. The system is only in place to allow to rich to get richer.

whats wrong with me working my ass off, being smart, saving, then pass it on to my kids so that way my kids have a better life than I did

Starbucks isn't bad at all. Their employees get decent benefits and everyone I know who works there loves it.


They fucking pwn all small buisness. EEEEVIIIILL
...vote for brown

Multinational corporations, genocide of the starving nations!

there will be no end to the exploitative nature of these corporations since they seem to be growing in power everyday

The three largest US automakers went to congress to beg for money since they were going down, BUT they arrived on three individual private jets, so how much are t hey really losing? i say its a load of bullocks and someone, somewhere has to start fighting back, but remember cutting off the head only makes more room, you need to destroy everything, every little essence that it has spewed. i say wal-marts first.

by fighting forest fires every fire that has begun since has been stronger and hotter, only by letting the entire forest burn will there no longer be a need for fires.

there will be no end to the exploitative nature of these corporations since they seem to be growing in power everyday

The three largest US automakers went to congress to beg for money since they were going down, BUT they arrived on three individual private jets, so how much are t hey really losing? i say its a load of bullocks and someone, somewhere has to start fighting back, but remember cutting off the head only makes more room, you need to destroy everything, every little essence that it has spewed. i say wal-marts first.

by fighting forest fires every fire that has begun since has been stronger and hotter, only by letting the entire forest burn will there no longer be a need for fires.

Good luck with that. I'm sure that out of the millions of people ("people" generally meaning angsty kids) who've ever said that, you will be the one to instigate the revolution and defeat the corporation. And I'm sure you'll know what to do when hundreds of millions face starvation because of your revolution.

Heh, no anarchists yet?

The problem isn't corporations. The corporations are symptoms and manifestations of the real enemy: capitalism.

Starbucks doesn't pay its suppliers dirt because that guy from Seattle is an asshole, and the "leeching" strategy isn't to starve small coffee houses. Wal-Mart doesn't want to see everyone else in retail on the street because Sam Walton is "evil". Microsoft... well, Bill Gates wrote a manifesto on why people shouldn't have freedom, so maybe you've got it there.

Hell, those are just the popular ones. What about the pharmecutical companies that patent chemical structures or genes, and then don't let people in Africa get their medicine? It's dirt cheap to synthesize, it could be mass-produced and distributed widely, but they don't want to do that. Hell, even in the first world, babies can't get tested for epilepsy because one company has a monopoly on the patent for the gene (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sick-babies-denied-treatment-in-row/2008/11/28/1227491827171.html).

They don't do those things because the people in them just want to cause pain. They do them because they're profitable. They can put the money on one end of the scale, and people's lives on the other, and say, "you know what, I want a Corvette".

It isn't like they were born thinking that. People typically don't think "hm, my friend's life, or a car?". Even if you took a complete stranger and told someone to shoot them for a new house or TV, they probably wouldn't do it. People have empathy for each other when you can get them to realize that other people are there.

Capitalism changes that. Global capitalism changes it even more. The ruling classes were always able to rationalize everything away, to themselves and to the people.

The thing that makes the corporations so dangerous is the fact that they have a basic human trait that most people lack -- not through their own failure, but because the capitalists took it away from them. The corporations have solidarity. People do not.

Corporations work with each other. They'll bail each other out if they need to. Even if they're in competition, the capitalists have one thing in common: they're at the top and they plan on staying there. To that end, they will influence public opinion and politicians as they see fit in order to maximize their gains.

However, their workers have totally swallowed the bullshit of capitalism. They actually believe that if they all compete, everyone wins or some bullshit like that. The end result is that workers are worked until they're completely spent, and then tossed aside. There isn't a shortage of human bodies.

No state can ever curb capitalism. Even "communist" regimes have just devolved into state capitalism, instead of true communism. There was no withering of any state in the USSR. It was ruled by the same elite class it was always ruled by. The seamless transition between elites now that we're in the Putin era should be a good hallmark of that. Especially in already-capitalist countries, the capitalist class is completely entrenched in the state. There's only one solution to that.

The best way to fight the corporations is to help the people around you. Stop buying shit from wal-mart. Stop drinking starbucks crap. Stop using M$'s piece-of-shit OS, and if you get stuck with GNU/Linux (http://gnewsense.org) stop by E*NIX and I'll be there to help. Then, after I help you, help someone else. Build networks, global and local. Above all else, harbor solidarity for everyone and anyone exploited and oppressed.

And I'm sure you'll know what to do when hundreds of millions face starvation because of your revolution.

Would you rather have the current system and all the fucked up things it does throughout the world continue? The same thing is happening now in the third world due to the exploitative nature of neo-liberalism.

Would you rather have the current system and all the fucked up things it does throughout the world continue? The same thing is happening now in the third world due to the exploitative nature of neo-liberalism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reforming the way corporations function at home and abroad, but that bollocks about "fighting back" and "lighting fires" is not the way.

If you can reclaim democracy from corporate interests by limiting campaign donations, closing loopholes which corporate lobbyists use to donate more money to individuals (via satellite firms, "charity fundraisers" and banquets held to "honour" politicians), forcing lobbyists to declare all incomes and expenses to the public and by making "Expert witnesses" in key corporate trails declare all financial links to the company on trial, then you may have a chance of reforming how corporations operate. (More on that story later... (https://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2158681&highlight=Reclaim))

Once democracy is reclaimed from the corporate interests we can set about creating new standards that all companies have to adhere to; regulating the wages, working hours and working conditions of all workers. (as you can't enforce this directly into another country's law, you would have to prohibit your own corporations who operate abroad from paying under a certain wage or forcing employees to work over a certain number of hours).

Remember that as Corporations have shipped out to 3rd world countries the populations have exploded in these countries. For sure the exploited in developing countries have it bad because of the actions of corporations, but what would enacting the teen fantasy of the anti-corporation revolution achieve? It would achieve killing the majority of workers who had previously just managed to scrape by via starvation. It would achieve sending the country you performed it in into the dark ages, only to be taken over by the foreign powers who weren't so daft.

What if you work hard and make 5 million bones, and you choose to give it to your kids. Is that unethical? What else should you do with that money?

Yes that is unethical because technically that money is government property and your kids have not worked to deserve it. An alternative system? Well with todays current economic system you can't. You'd have to redefine economics entirely.

whats wrong with me working my ass off, being smart, saving, then pass it on to my kids so that way my kids have a better life than I did

Remember money equals the distribution of goods. The higher percentage of money your kids have, the higher percentage of goods within the country they can afford. The higher percentage of goods they have, the lower percentage of goods other people have. So technically, them being able to pick goods off the store shelves without having worked for it, is parasitic and unethical for a country. Parasitic = living on a host without contributing to it.

so splam, define an "ethical" economic system..but yet one that can produce as much wealth as capitalism does

so splam, define an "ethical" economic system..but yet one that can produce as much wealth as capitalism does

The concept of personal wealth is unethical to begin with. It's just the product of exploitation, and it's completely unnecessary. We should focus on getting everybody's standard of living up above the "wallowing in shit" level before anyone crashes a solid gold corvette every week.

The concept of personal wealth is unethical to begin with. It's just the product of exploitation, and it's completely unnecessary. We should focus on getting everybody's standard of living up above the "wallowing in shit" level before anyone crashes a solid gold corvette every week.

so personal wealth is unethical? So give up the computer you are using right now and give it to some african kid. Personal wealth is NOT exploitation, I am NOT exploiting anyone by working. Why? What you're espousing is communism, we all know how that works. If my government is able to get its shit together past the tribal level, then those people deserve to wallow in shit. If I work 30 hours/week while handling 5 classes/week at uni then everything is given to some schmuck who REFUSES to work, where is my incentive to start a business and employ people?

Here ya go buddy, practice what you preach. dissassemble your computer right now, salvage all of the gold and other precious metals, sell it and send the cash to the first five homeless people you see. While taking on those same five homeless people in your home and providing them with everything they need and asking for nothing in return.

so personal wealth is unethical? So give up the computer you are using right now and give it to some african kid. Personal wealth is NOT exploitation, I am NOT exploiting anyone by working. Why? What you're espousing is communism, we all know how that works. If my government is able to get its shit together past the tribal level, then those people deserve to wallow in shit. If I work 30 hours/week while handling 5 classes/week at uni then everything is given to some schmuck who REFUSES to work, where is my incentive to start a business and employ people?

Here ya go buddy, practice what you preach. dissassemble your computer right now, salvage all of the gold and other precious metals, sell it and send the cash to the first five homeless people you see. While taking on those same five homeless people in your home and providing them with everything they need and asking for nothing in return.

There is no virtue without choice. You're a product of your environment, so stop looking down on everyone who's in a position below yours and assume that the only reason they have less money than you is because they're less virtuous. It's emotional propaganda meant to plant resentment against people you don't know. Geez, it's not like selfishness and communism are the only two choices in the world.

There is no virtue without choice. You're a product of your environment, so stop looking down on everyone who's in a position below yours and assume that the only reason they have less money than you is because they're less virtuous. It's emotional propaganda meant to plant resentment against people you don't know. Geez, it's not like selfishness and communism are the only two choices in the world.

rather than dodging my question provide the third alternative.

rather than dodging my question provide the third alternative.

There is no question, just poor rhetoric and a false dichotomy.

I don't care if you think capitalism is kewl or not, I just don't like your ethics.

There is no question, just poor rhetoric and a false dichotomy.

I don't care if you think capitalism is kewl or not, I just don't like your ethics.

yes there is a legit question. you say that communism is unethical due to the fact that die (I agree) and you claim that capitalism is unethical bc people get left behind and seeing as all other economic models are just a slight variation of communism or capitalism, I ask you what is the third option?

so personal wealth is unethical? So give up the computer you are using right now and give it to some african kid. Personal wealth is NOT exploitation, I am NOT exploiting anyone by working. Why? What you're espousing is communism, we all know how that works. If my government is able to get its shit together past the tribal level, then those people deserve to wallow in shit. If I work 30 hours/week while handling 5 classes/week at uni then everything is given to some schmuck who REFUSES to work, where is my incentive to start a business and employ people?

Here ya go buddy, practice what you preach. dissassemble your computer right now, salvage all of the gold and other precious metals, sell it and send the cash to the first five homeless people you see. While taking on those same five homeless people in your home and providing them with everything they need and asking for nothing in return.

Personal wealth is completely unethical. Personal (personal) property isn't. Even homeless people have personal property.

The thing about property is that there are completely stupid metrics of saying what's yours. This leads to things like capitalists owning vast tracts of land, owning the means of production, etc. What property really is is use. I am using this computer, therefore it is mine. I am living in this house, therefore it is mine.

You are indeed exploiting a lot of people by working. I could give more exact examples based on your particular job, but by having one, you are supporting capitalism. You aren't helping it a great deal, because you could be replaced easily, but you are still condoning it through your actions.

The third alternative? Actually, it's only the second alternative, judging from your interpretation of "communism" to mean "any regime that says it is communist". Those regimes also said they were democratic. Was that also true? Any time someone says "we should be a democratic republic", should I then rebut with "ZOMG LOOK AT THE USSR! THEY WERE A REPUBLIC!"?

Communism is supposed to lead to the withering away of the state. No communist regime did this, to my knowledge, and therefor were not communist. They were just a ruling class that said they were communist.

The second alternative is mutual aid and solidarity. People in a community are able to sympathize with each other and empathize with each other, and work towards mutually shared goals and each other's goals. This is rather prevalent in places where there are existing capitalist regimes in place, as capitalism is HUGELY wasteful and there's no need to work when you can get all your food, shelter, and other things by picking it up off the damn ground.

Personal wealth is completely unethical. Personal (personal) property isn't. Even homeless people have personal property.

The thing about property is that there are completely stupid metrics of saying what's yours. This leads to things like capitalists owning vast tracts of land, owning the means of production, etc. What property really is is use. I am using this computer, therefore it is mine. I am living in this house, therefore it is mine.

You are indeed exploiting a lot of people by working. I could give more exact examples based on your particular job, but by having one, you are supporting capitalism. You aren't helping it a great deal, because you could be replaced easily, but you are still condoning it through your actions.

The third alternative? Actually, it's only the second alternative, judging from your interpretation of "communism" to mean "any regime that says it is communist". Those regimes also said they were democratic. Was that also true? Any time someone says "we should be a democratic republic", should I then rebut with "ZOMG LOOK AT THE USSR! THEY WERE A REPUBLIC!"?

Communism is supposed to lead to the withering away of the state. No communist regime did this, to my knowledge, and therefor were not communist. They were just a ruling class that said they were communist.

The second alternative is mutual aid and solidarity. People in a community are able to sympathize with each other and empathize with each other, and work towards mutually shared goals and each other's goals. This is rather prevalent in places where there are existing capitalist regimes in place, as capitalism is HUGELY wasteful and there's no need to work when you can get all your food, shelter, and other things by picking it up off the damn ground.

okay. I pose these two questions. If my memory of my reading of marx's holds correctly, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " My question here thus follows, who decides what I need? Is it some council who lives miles away who may not even know me decide how much I need?

Second. Marx's theory is based on the value of labor. Who or what decides the value of labor? In capitalism, the markets decide that. But who/what does it in communism.

Furthermore, what's the incentive to innovate and share your innovation? In a capitalist or mixed-market economic system, its the profits one can make by selling it. If money no longer exists (as would occur in a true communist state) then what do I gain?

I'll agree with you however, the Soviet Union was not communist it was marxist-leninist with the belief that communism should stay in one nation until the revolutions were ready for the rest of the world.

Capitalism no longer exists either. To be a true capitalist state, there musnt be ANY government interference. The only time the government ought to do anything was to construct roads, national defense, monopoly destruction(if they should exist). Involuntary taxes, regulations all screw up the delicate balance of the markets. (IE keeping interest rates artificially low in the hopes that people who can't afford to buy homes can.) and that leads to recessions, depressions, panics.

okay. I pose these two questions. If my memory of my reading of marx's holds correctly, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " My question here thus follows, who decides what I need? Is it some council who lives miles away who may not even know me decide how much I need?

Second. Marx's theory is based on the value of labor. Who or what decides the value of labor? In capitalism, the markets decide that. But who/what does it in communism.

I'm not a communist, dude. I'm an anarchist. :p

I can't speak for communism, or marx, because of that. As such, your questions are somewhat invalid, but the real question asked in both is "who makes the decisions".

There are a lot of ways to do that in an anarchist way. Ultimately, if you don't choose to participate in them, you don't need to, but note that the community has no obligation to accommodate you, either.The best possible one is consensus, in which everyone in the group works towards something they universally agree with. This is also the most time consuming. Then there are various things going from direct democracy to loose federations. Check out Anarchism in Action (http://aia.mahost.org/) for more stuff about the details of anarchist workings.

Furthermore, what's the incentive to innovate and share your innovation? In a capitalist or mixed-market economic system, its the profits one can make by selling it. If money no longer exists (as would occur in a true communist state) then what do I gain?

The thing about capitalism is, people get stuck doing something they hate their entire lives. People like innovating. People are curious. Nobody that ever invented or innovated something really worthwhile was doing it for a paycheck. They were doing it because that's what they do. Anarchism would involve a lot more people doing what they wanted to do, and as a result, a lot more people thinking up really cool things.

Look at the free software movement (aka "open source"), especially esr's paper "Homesteading the Noosphere", or at most great artists for more evidence of this. Hell, look at any major invention. Edison didn't think of the light bulb because he needed cash. Shakespeare didn't write hamlet because he had to get paid. They got money, sure, but they would have anyways. That's the nature of creativity.

I'll agree with you however, the Soviet Union was not communist it was marxist-leninist with the belief that communism should stay in one nation until the revolutions were ready for the rest of the world.

Capitalism no longer exists either. To be a true capitalist state, there musnt be ANY government interference. The only time the government ought to do anything was to construct roads, national defense, monopoly destruction(if they should exist). Involuntary taxes, regulations all screw up the delicate balance of the markets. (IE keeping interest rates artificially low in the hopes that people who can't afford to buy homes can.) and that leads to recessions, depressions, panics.

Well, this is correct in a sense, though I don't see what communism is if not Marxist. Leninism is the revolutionary component of that (the vanguard party). But the whole "pure capitalist" thing has always been a myth. Capitalists act to support each other even when supposedly in competition, because they know that working together is their best chance to keep power.

so you're an anarchist..I just got some more respect for you. Its those "OMG! KOMMUNIZM IS SEW KEWL! KORPORATIONZ ARE EVUL" kinda kids I can't stand to be perfectly honest.

So do you make your own things then to keep yourself out of the mixed-market system?

The thing about capitalism is, people get stuck doing something they hate their entire lives. People like innovating. People are curious. Nobody that ever invented or innovated something really worthwhile was doing it for a paycheck. They were doing it because that's what they do. Anarchism would involve a lot more people doing what they wanted to do, and as a result, a lot more people thinking up really cool things.


I know what you mean about sometimes you get stuck doing something you don't like, but sometimes it just has to be done.

Its like a football team, all the linemen want to be receivers or QBs. They just can't because they can't run fast enough or can't throw, but they have good upper body muscle. They could try to run faster or throw farther but if they can't do any better then they do whats best for the team and block.

I know what you mean about sometimes you get stuck doing something you don't like, but sometimes it just has to be done.

Its like a football team, all the linemen want to be receivers or QBs. They just can't because they can't run fast enough or can't throw, but they have good upper body muscle. They could try to run faster or throw farther but if they can't do any better then they do whats best for the team and block.

That's true, but in a large enough population, there will be enough people to enjoy playing any position on the team. If there aren't, the players could easily come to a consensus on how the positions will be rotated.

Typically, the answer to "what about the people with the shit jobs, they won't want to do them" is "we'll all have to do the shit jobs and we'll decide the rotation through consensus", or my personal favorite, "get the robots to do them".

Heh, no anarchists yet?

The problem isn't corporations. The corporations are symptoms and manifestations of the real enemy: capitalism.


you ignorant shit. so whats the hero? if you say anarchy, GTFO

believe it or not people have a choice in what they do. no one forces them to work a shit-50 job. but of course, circumstances that they are in gives them that defeatist mentality, that they are going to be stuck there for the rest of their lives. that mentality makes them not want to excel

Yes people are naturally curious, but the need to be intelligent as well. who would you rather have designing cars with you someone who is curious about otto/deisel cycles or someone who is curious on what fabric to use for a shirt

curiousity is the mother of invention it needs to be in the right place. the latter of the previous example can start working for a clothing company(hollister for example), show some initiative make designs, send letters to ceos about ideas they have, eventually that person if he is curious(motivated) enough will EXCEL in a capitilistic society. getting promoted to manager and so on, they just have to know what they want to do.

The problem isnt Capitalism. negative thoughts of capitalism are just "symptoms and manifestations of the real enemy": Lazy/stupid people

im sorry life isnt a fairy tale.

you ignorant shit. so whats the hero? if you say anarchy, GTFO

believe it or not people have a choice in what they do. no one forces them to work a shit-50 job. but of course, circumstances that they are in gives them that defeatist mentality, that they are going to be stuck there for the rest of their lives. that mentality makes them not want to excel

The problem isnt Capitalism. negative thoughts of capitalism are just "symptoms and manifestations of the real enemy": Lazy/stupid people

Perhaps you don't understand numbers, let me break it down for you.

There are 150,000,000 adults in the United States.

2% of HOUSEHOLDS make more than $250,000 a year.

20% of FAMILIES make more than $100,000 a year.

So that's not even INDIVIDUALS, that's COLLECTIVE income. Even then that leaves 80% of Americans making less than 100,000 a year. That leaves 98% of Americans making less than $250,000 a year.

There is a finite amount of money to be made, there is a finite amount of management and executive positions to be had. There is not an endless supply of high paying jobs available to anyone with enough ambition.

Once you morons understand this simple fact maybe you'll stop fighting for the rich and start fighting for the overwhelming majority of people. The poor and the working poor make up the VAST MAJORITY of the population and until anything changes, ALWAYS WILL.

Fuck this top 2% society we live in where the rich are hailed as hard working individuals who deserve their ludicrous income while the peasant peons who bust their ass working 70 hour work weeks are lazy bums.

So take your ignorant and stupid fucking "opinion" and shove it up your ass you fucking monkey.

No one has mentioned this yet, so I'm just going to through this out there. I read parts of Naomi Klein's No Logo in my English class recently. Pretty much says everything that has been said in this thread.

No one has mentioned this yet, so I'm just going to through this out there. I read parts of Naomi Klein's No Logo in my English class recently. Pretty much says everything that has been said in this thread.

Fucking love that book. No Logo and Kalle Lasn's Culture Jam are the two defining anti-corporate books of the anarchist/anti-corporate generation

...and put cocaine in their products to make them more marketable.

This doesn't belong here, this thread is about the evils of corporations, not the wonderful gifts they would bestow upon us.

Boo Hooo! Evil corporations!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjOI7bj5ks


It's free enterprise that made the US so great.

Boo Hooo! Evil corporations!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjOI7bj5ks


It's free enterprise that made the US so great.

If by "great" you mean "fascist" then sure.

If by "great" you mean "fascist" then sure.

I see anarchy as the pinnacle of human society. Something attainable, though highly unlikely. Once needs are met(food, shelter, comfort), people are stable and informed, and host of other chain of events happen, anarchy can follow. If intelligence and rationality keep spreading and some Malthusian crisis doesn't make us stagnate and retrogress then I can see severe downsizing or the end of forced government happening. Voluntarism is the way forward. Monarchies and dictatorships are animals, democracy is your average Joe, and anarchy is your self-actualized society.

I see anarchy as the pinnacle of human society. Something attainable, though highly unlikely. Once needs are met(food, shelter, comfort), people are stable and informed, and host of other chain of events happen, anarchy can follow. If intelligence and rationality keep spreading and some Malthusian crisis doesn't make us stagnate and retrogress then I can see severe downsizing or the end of forced government happening. Voluntarism is the way forward. Monarchies and dictatorships are animals, democracy is your average Joe, and anarchy is your self-actualized society.

Yea, absolutely. Anarchy is the deepest belief in the goodness of human nature. Unfortunately, we're nowhere near that yet. I can't even trust the American people to make the right decisions when they have the chance once every four years (just look at our last president--or the people who voted for McCain because Obama was a terrorist/Arab/Jew-lover etc etc). I think if America was to become an Athenian-type democracy overnight, we would see things like abortion being banned, capital punishment being increased, gay marriage being outlawed, etc. The masses are fucking misinformed imbeciles and morons and both "the media" and they themselves are to blame for it.

Yea, absolutely. Anarchy is the deepest belief in the goodness of human nature. Unfortunately, we're nowhere near that yet. I can't even trust the American people to make the right decisions when they have the chance once every four years (just look at our last president--or the people who voted for McCain because Obama was a terrorist/Arab/Jew-lover etc etc). I think if America was to become an Athenian-type democracy overnight, we would see things like abortion being banned, capital punishment being increased, gay marriage being outlawed, etc. The masses are fucking misinformed imbeciles and morons and both "the media" and they themselves are to blame for it.

Yes, anarchy would fail in the absence of anarchists. But that isn't a failing of anarchy; democracy fails in the absence of democrats, fascism fails in the absence of fascists, and communism fails in the absence of communists.

Those "masses" aren't all idiots. Those that have idiotic views aren't like that irreparably. They've just had the entire weight of the system pushing them into their hole. It's hard to shake that, and it's easy for nobody.

Anarchists have to help people out of those holes. That's the most valuable thing we can do.

Defining ethics is rather hard, but there are a few general rules to it.
The economic system which rewards for hard work is ethical. Thus communism, is not.
The economic system which allows you to get 5 million dollars from your parents, and gain investments on that, is NOT hard work, thus unethical.
We need an economic system which is not inbetween, but something different. Social-democracies are great, but are still inbetween. You are not rewarded all that much for hard work, and you can still get 5 million from your parents, buy up 5 million dollars worth of land, rent it out and never have to work again in your life, while earning more then the average hard working joe. That is unethical, unfair, and just plain stupidity. The system is only in place to allow to rich to get richer.

So what do you propose? Have the government steal all of someone's estate when they die? "fairly" redistribute those "not earned" dollars to the less fortunate?

The rich getting richer is not the problem, in the end the rich guys are the ones investing to start businesses and employ people.

Boo Hooo! Evil corporations!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjOI7bj5ks


It's free enterprise that made the US so great.

I think this guy sums it up a bit better than a puppet of Tim Robbins....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Now I know, he doesn't make a lot of fart jokes, so you have probably never heard of him, but hear him out anyway, and try not to chuckle when he says something about our duty, m'kay?

I think this guy sums it up a bit better than a puppet of Tim Robbins....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Now I know, he doesn't make a lot of fart jokes, so you have probably never heard of him, but hear him out anyway, and try not to chuckle when he says something about our duty, m'kay?

This is also a classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA

Here is some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, soory I am too tired to explain but try and use common sense to understand how the quotes relate to our current situation:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
to our liberties than standing armies. Already they
have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set
the Government at defiance. The issuing power should
be taken from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Here is a hint: It has to do with self-reliance, independence, freedom and responsibility. Now ask yourself, do we really observe and act upon these virtues in this country any more?

Hi.

Having only quickly scanned the thread, I just want to put in my two cents.

I think that a lot of the problems we have with big corporations nowadays have to do with the fact that corporations are treated as humans in the eye of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). Also, there are quite a few articles on totse that explain this phenonomen than I ever could, let me try and link you guys: http://www.totse.com/en/politics/corporatarchy/corporateperso174523.html

I personally would really like to find out why corporations were even given this, as in, why were they even treated as humans. What was the rationale for this? Why would anybody treat something that wasn't human as human? It just doesn't make any sense.

Also I just want to say that I echo the sentiments of a few people in this thread, one of them being that capitalism has a lot to be blamed for the social ills that we see today. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with capitalism itself per se, it's just that for a capitalist society to prosper, and by prosper I mean everybody being well off, not just a select few, you need to have a potent government that will oversee what companies are up to and pass laws to regulate their behaviours should they ever start to infringe on the rights and/or freedoms of others.

However, the problem is, with the way the "system" currently is, the very institution meant to regulate the corporations, meaning the government, can easily be "hijacked". |What I mean is that corporations, with their vast amount of wealth, can influence what laws are passed by donating money to politicians who are likely to pass favourable laws. It's a problem.

I guess the only peaceful means I can think of right now is to pass laws to regulate political campaign donations such that corporations will not have undue amount of influence over the political process (and this I believe Lewcifer had brought up already). Although I honestly don't if this is even realistically achievable or not.

Watch "The Corporation" on google videos to see how fucked up corporations are.

I guess the only peaceful means I can think of right now is to pass laws to regulate political campaign donations such that corporations will not have undue amount of influence over the political process (and this I believe Lewcifer had brought up already). Although I honestly don't if this is even realistically achievable or not.

If the corporations write the laws, do you expect them to allow that to pass?

Note that corporate interference with legislation is a time-honored tradition in the US.

If the corporations write the laws, do you expect them to allow that to pass?

Note that corporate interference with legislation is a time-honored tradition in the US.

I agree with you that it's a bit of a catch-22.

I don't know. Maybe bloodshed is inevitable.

I agree with you that it's a bit of a catch-22.

I don't know. Maybe bloodshed is inevitable.

I would say that it isn't, because in history the army has frequently sided with the revolutionaries, but today we don't have conscription armies, we have mercenary armies, so I doubt that'll happen.

I would say that it isn't, because in history the army has frequently sided with the revolutionaries, but today we don't have conscription armies, we have mercenary armies, so I doubt that'll happen.

Do people actually say "mercenary army" as opposed to conscription army, or is it a term you just coined?

Also if I am not mistaken, I believe you were referring to the phenomenon where people are joining the army purely for economic reasons ( what I meant by this is that some people join because they hope to get pensions, or hope to get the army to subsidize their education, or simply for their reasonably good pay), which means the people that make up today's army are very different in terms of motivation and character (if not racial backgrounds!) from what would have been in the case of a conscription army, which tends to get a "good mix" of people?

Do people actually say "mercenary army" as opposed to conscription army, or is it a term you just coined?

Also if I am not mistaken, I believe you were referring to the phenomenon where people are joining the army purely for economic reasons ( what I meant by this is that some people join because they hope to get pensions, or hope to get the army to subsidize their education, or simply for their reasonably good pay), which means the people that make up today's army are very different in terms of motivation and character (if not racial backgrounds!) from what would have been in the case of a conscription army, which tends to get a "good mix" of people?

I'm not sure if it's an "official" term, but it's true. People in the military are paid to be in it. They're highly trained and typically it's what they're doing as a career.

You're quite right; it does get a different "mix" of people: the people who want to be in the army, not JUST for economic reasons, but because they support the regime. So I would think it's a lot less likely for them to end up on the other side of the barricades.

Corporations aren't necasserily evil: the main men have just seen an oppurtunity and taken it.

It's just a shame that so many people are fucking idiots and let these entities get so big and powerful. If people knew what was what in the world, they could keep the corporations and government in check and stop them fucking themselves and the planet over.

the rich guys are the ones investing to start businesses and employ people.With wealth they stole by exploiting workers in the first place.

"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."- Thomas Jefferson

"Corruption of morals... is the mark set on those who, not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts, has sometimes, perhaps, been retarded by accidental circumstances; but generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption." --Thomas Jefferson


---------

Jefferson is turning over in his grave....

With wealth they stole by exploiting workers in the first place.

You need money to start your first business to exploit your first workers ;)

You can't "steal" your own money, that's so ridiculous it isn't funny. If anyone is THAT horrible to work for/under then shouldn't their employees quit? If people are happy to do a certain job for certain pay what is the problem?

If you try to make bosses take up higher costs they will raise their prices in order to preserve their margins. It's simple logic. You may be frustrated by the success or "exploitation" that you see, but it's something that you can't really do a whole lot about.

You need money to start your first business to exploit your first workers ;)

Fortunately the people who have money come from a long lineage of people having money and have no problem obtaining it from the previous generation.

You can't "steal" your own money, that's so ridiculous it isn't funny. If anyone is THAT horrible to work for/under then shouldn't their employees quit? If people are happy to do a certain job for certain pay what is the problem?
Do you have kids to feed? A house to pay for? Think you can just quit without being blacklisted? Capitalism has this myth of employee consent. It's a fucking myth. You can't have consent if the question is shit job vs. death.

Classic labor jobs have been leaving the US for a while, because it's a lot easier to murder union organizers who are trying to improve their circumstances. But even in the US, employees that try to do that are shut down, fired, etc. Nobody is "happy to do a certain job for a certain pay". Their other option is starvation. Is that a choice?

If you try to make bosses take up higher costs they will raise their prices in order to preserve their margins. It's simple logic. You may be frustrated by the success or "exploitation" that you see, but it's something that you can't really do a whole lot about.

Yes, they will raise prices and justify it by saying "we pay our employees ZOMG SO MUCH", but then they'll go and "downsize" and move the labor to Africa/China/etc. and keep the prices high, or only lower them slightly.

I'm not frustrated by "success" or exploitation. I'm damn pissed about it, and there's a lot I can do. For one, I can stop supporting companies like Coca-Cola (http://killercoke.org/) who kill union organizers and steal water from villages, and Gap (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/gap.labor/), who have been historically shitty in terms of sweatshops and child labor. I can also cut down on my consumption even further by buying used clothes and consumer goods, or getting what I need for no money at all. If I have excess, I can share it to help others reduce their input into the system as well. But most importantly, I can cultivate solidarity with my community -- the thing capitalism hates the most.

Fortunately the people who have money come from a long lineage of people having money and have no problem obtaining it from the previous generation.


Do you have kids to feed? A house to pay for? Think you can just quit without being blacklisted? Capitalism has this myth of employee consent. It's a fucking myth. You can't have consent if the question is shit job vs. death.

Classic labor jobs have been leaving the US for a while, because it's a lot easier to murder union organizers who are trying to improve their circumstances. But even in the US, employees that try to do that are shut down, fired, etc. Nobody is "happy to do a certain job for a certain pay". Their other option is starvation. Is that a choice?



Yes, they will raise prices and justify it by saying "we pay our employees ZOMG SO MUCH", but then they'll go and "downsize" and move the labor to Africa/China/etc. and keep the prices high, or only lower them slightly.

I'm not frustrated by "success" or exploitation. I'm damn pissed about it, and there's a lot I can do. For one, I can stop supporting companies like Coca-Cola (http://killercoke.org/) who kill union organizers and steal water from villages, and Gap (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/gap.labor/), who have been historically shitty in terms of sweatshops and child labor. I can also cut down on my consumption even further by buying used clothes and consumer goods, or getting what I need for no money at all. If I have excess, I can share it to help others reduce their input into the system as well. But most importantly, I can cultivate solidarity with my community -- the thing capitalism hates the most.

Really, that's funny. For large businesses I would say you're probably right, but if you think about it you probably interact with a bunch of small businesses on a daily basis, I know I do.

If you can't live without a job you should try to live more within your means, not blow all of your cash on useless bullshit when you have real obligations to attend to. There are a shitload of ways for people to upskill these days so they aren't stuck in crappy jobs, or if they are they usually get paid extra for having some more qualifications.

Classic labour jobs in the USA are dying because it's too expensive to pay them. Why would you pay an American $40 and hour for a $20 an hour job? A union was once a valuable asset to employees, but now it's just a big fat tick sucking away resources. Anywhere in the world you have the option of "something or starvation", it's a fact of life.

Yes, that is what businesses will do if you force them to take on costs that they don't want. So if you don't want that sort of thing to happen perhaps you could take some pressure off them. That'd be a grand idea. If there weren't that many crazy pressures on businesses to pay for superfluous shit they COULD have lower prices (i'm not saying they would automatically, but as soon as one business decided to drop its prices the others would probably follow suit in order to compete).

There's nothing that says you have to be an absolute cunt to everyone around you because you're a capitalist. Spending smart is a capitalist sounding thing in my eyes, and I do enjoy buying used stuff if I have the chance and if it's quality. There's nothing in capitalism that says you can't voluntarily share things either.

Really, that's funny. For large businesses I would say you're probably right, but if you think about it you probably interact with a bunch of small businesses on a daily basis, I know I do.

If you can't live without a job you should try to live more within your means, not blow all of your cash on useless bullshit when you have real obligations to attend to. There are a shitload of ways for people to upskill these days so they aren't stuck in crappy jobs, or if they are they usually get paid extra for having some more qualifications.

Classic labour jobs in the USA are dying because it's too expensive to pay them. Why would you pay an American $40 and hour for a $20 an hour job? A union was once a valuable asset to employees, but now it's just a big fat tick sucking away resources. Anywhere in the world you have the option of "something or starvation", it's a fact of life.

Yes, that is what businesses will do if you force them to take on costs that they don't want. So if you don't want that sort of thing to happen perhaps you could take some pressure off them. That'd be a grand idea. If there weren't that many crazy pressures on businesses to pay for superfluous shit they COULD have lower prices (i'm not saying they would automatically, but as soon as one business decided to drop its prices the others would probably follow suit in order to compete).

There's nothing that says you have to be an absolute cunt to everyone around you because you're a capitalist. Spending smart is a capitalist sounding thing in my eyes, and I do enjoy buying used stuff if I have the chance and if it's quality. There's nothing in capitalism that says you can't voluntarily share things either.

No, starving because you do not have a job is not a matter of "living outside your means".

What I want to really respond to is this:

There's nothing in capitalism that says you can't voluntarily share things either.

There actually is. It's called, you know, capitalism. Capitalism relies on competition between the working class in order to keep them disorganized and keep the rich rich. There is no solidarity possible with capitalism, because everyone is merely working towards obtaining maximum capital. If you share anything with anyone, you are hurting yourself.

No, starving because you do not have a job is not a matter of "living outside your means".

What I want to really respond to is this:



There actually is. It's called, you know, capitalism. Capitalism relies on competition between the working class in order to keep them disorganized and keep the rich rich. There is no solidarity possible with capitalism, because everyone is merely working towards obtaining maximum capital. If you share anything with anyone, you are hurting yourself.

Most people struggling ARE living outside their means.

If you can't see benefits to sharing VOLUNTARILY then you're really missing a few brain cells. By helping someone out you can get them to help you later. That's benefiting you, not damaging you.

Most people struggling ARE living outside their means.

If you can't see benefits to sharing VOLUNTARILY then you're really missing a few brain cells. By helping someone out you can get them to help you later. That's benefiting you, not damaging you.

Sharing voluntarily puts you at an immediate disadvantage with no guarantee of a return. That's far too high-risk to be considered a responsible move to enhance income.

Replying to this thread as I read it:

Have either of you ever read any Ayn Rand?
Yes. She expanded my thoughts on capitalism and the ideal society much better than any leftist literature. Although I only read her nonfiction (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand Answers, and getting into The Virtue of Selfishness now) so I was able to understand the philosophical rather than practical objections to socialism. Really good stuff.

As I said earlier, I don't think either capitalism or socialism are inherently evil, but the conditions we the people and we the government create around the system can make it so.

I have a great deal of respect for you and your ideas, Lewcifer, but I'll have to disagree with you here. In a pure capitalist system it would literally be impossible to place anythingabove profit. If progress is defined by the degree of competition, those at the top will always crowd out everyone else, leaving them to compete among each other. To advance you can only show your worth to the company (or to the market system, whichever describes your social position) and to do so would mean to place profit over all else. The more competition there is, the more ruthless the system becomes, and this is why I think capitalism is inherently evil--because the perfect capitalist system would have to breed the wrong set of value judgments (that is, profit over all else). Corporations don't have a choice but to kill for profit; they are legally bound to create value for their shareholders by whatever means necessary and the only thing that prevents them from committing more crime is that the potential drawbacks (usually imposed upon them by the government) outweigh the potential benefit. I'm afraid that this is what we might see among individuals if a libertarian utopia should arise. They always tell you that there's nothing stopping ethical actions in a capitalist society, but with perfect competition comes absolute ruin every time you slip up (that is, every time you devalue profit). I have similarly-rooted views on the evils of socialism but that's not for this thread.

^This specifically applies to Spiphel Rike; in true capitalism you have no choice but to be selfish and amoral.

What if you work hard and make 5 million bones, and you choose to give it to your kids. Is that unethical? What else should you do with that money?

How the fuck can you earn 5 million dollars in a system that ethically rewards effort? In principle, I'd have nothing against inheritance, as long as ownership of productive property is outlawed. But with that, there's little reason to save in the first place.

No state can ever curb capitalism. Even "communist" regimes have just devolved into state capitalism, instead of true communism. There was no withering of any state in the USSR. It was ruled by the same elite class it was always ruled by. The seamless transition between elites now that we're in the Putin era should be a good hallmark of that. Especially in already-capitalist countries, the capitalist class is completely entrenched in the state. There's only one solution to that.

Fucking this. Don't hate the players (business), hate the game (capitalism).

So do you make your own things then to keep yourself out of the mixed-market system?

I can't answer for prometheum but I try to as much as I can. There are some things that are unavoidable, but I rarely buy something if I know it's not going to further the cause of anarchism more than my buying it pushes capitalism forward (for example, having internet access allows me to free more minds than the money spent on it enslaves). I give an average of $10 a month to capitalism; mostly for chemicals. I'm largely involved in alternative media. As any anarchist will tell you, the key to anarchy is the creation of alternative structures--power structures, social structures, and economic structures. Eventually I'd like to live in one of the many anarchist collectives in my city, but I think I'm helping the movement with my unique skills quite well right now. I try to steal as many of the things that I need as possible, not only because there is no alternative to my acquiring these goods, but also because it helps to smash capitalism.

If nobody payed sales taxes, the federal government would have to bail out the states, and it would likely cut military funding to do so. Thus, your buying anything that carries any sort of tax from the free market funds killing. So there are also non-anarchist and even free-marketeer arguments for not participating in the market. Any federal tax (such as the income tax) is far worse than the sales tax in the proportion of it that funds the military, so I also don't have a job, even though I have the time and the skills. I try to live anarchy as much as I can, and even if I didn't, any point you could make about my hypocrisy would be irrelevant because there's a difference between practical and ideal ethics.

I'm not frustrated by "success" or exploitation. I'm damn pissed about it, and there's a lot I can do. For one, I can stop supporting companies like Coca-Cola (http://killercoke.org/) who kill union organizers and steal water from villages, and Gap (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/gap.labor/), who have been historically shitty in terms of sweatshops and child labor. I can also cut down on my consumption even further by buying used clothes and consumer goods, or getting what I need for no money at all. If I have excess, I can share it to help others reduce their input into the system as well. But most importantly, I can cultivate solidarity with my community -- the thing capitalism hates the most.

I can't believe what I am reading here. Does it actually happen? Isn't it....illegal? To kill people?

If you can't live without a job you should try to live more within your means,

No offense but this doesn't make any sense. "Live within one's means" (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/within+means) means not spend more than the money you have. This is assuming one already has some money, which one can't do, without even having a job.

What you probably meant was "if you can't live without a good paying job you should try to live within
your means", which would have made more sense, though I'd still have to disagree with it. See below.


not blow all of your cash on useless bullshit when you have real obligations to attend to.

First of all, define "useless bullshit". What might appear to be frivolous spending to you might be sensible
purchases to others.

Secondly, please kindly refrain from telling people what "real obligations" they have or don't have.

Thirdly, you seem to be implying that some people struggle financially because they spend too much money, or that they don't prioritize their purchases. This is only true for some people. There are people out there who
genuinely have trouble making ends meet because they are paid not enough/too little. You might want to take this into consideration.



There are a shitload of ways for people to upskill these days so they aren't stuck in crappy jobs, or if they are they usually get paid extra for having some more qualifications.

1. Why should people have to upgrade their skills in order to be paid a decent amount as to maintain a
satisfactory standard of living? Why can't they remain in their current, "crappy" (your word, not mine) jobs and
still live comfortably?
2. There will always be these "crappy", low-paying entry level jobs that some people rely on for their livelihood.
Do you mean to tell me that these people are doomed to a lifetime of (quasi) poverty and struggles, just because some capitalists deem their jobs not worthy enough of a fair, decent wage?



Classic labour jobs in the USA are dying because it's too expensive to pay them.

"Too expensive"? You sound like a friggin business owner, which I am pretty sure you are not, so I really have
no idea why you would want to side with them. Secondly, how do you determine how much is "too much"? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.


Why would you pay an American $40 and hour for a $20 an hour job?

"$20/hour" job? Tell me, what criteria did you use to arrive at this number? I ask this because I believe there
exists no method yet to objectively determine the numerical value of just compensation for one's labour.

I mention this because I believe this is relevant to this phenomenon whereby capitalists/business owners are
getting richer, while the rest of the society (which is largely made up of employees like you and me), don't
seem to benefit much from all the wealth generated in our capitalist societies. I believe that business owners
get richer partially (this is important because I acknolwedge that there are other factors involved that
attribute to the financial succuess of companies, such as the owner's ingenuity..etc) because they are not paying their employess what their labour is truly worth ( it's pretty much impossible to properly determine how much wealth ones labour helps generate). So what businesses do is that they come up with all kinds of crap, like "zomg I be losing profit because i tink i pay my workers too much, now i must pay them less in order to remain afloat", or "oh noes I is being out-competed by China/India, as such I shall reduce worker's pay, because
my competitors are paying their workers peanuts, what with being third world and all, so this must be good
indicator of how much my first world workers are truly worth, amirite, amirite?"

All kidding aside, I would highly recommend that you spend some time pondering the nature of wage, what we as a society do to arrive at the so-called "fair" wage, and whether it's even possible at all to ever determine
just compensation for one's labour.


A union was once a valuable asset to employees, but now it's just a big fat sucking away resources

First let's define "union" to make sure we are talking about the same thing
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union):


"A trade union or labor union is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in key areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions. The trade union, through its leadership, bargains with the employer on behalf of union members (rank and file members) and negotiates labor contracts (Collective bargaining) with employers. This may include the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers."

So basically, a union does wage negotiations (among other things) with the employers, and you believe this to be a waste of resources (" it's just a big fat sucking away resources"). Care to tell us why you think so? And if
I were to guess, I think it's because you probably think that all that money going towards the employees
could have otherwise remained in the pockets of the employers, which they might re-invest in the companies later, right? Is this what you are thinking? I am waiting for your response/confirmation/denial before I will continue.


Anywhere in the world you have the option of "something or starvation", it's a fact
of life.

I am sure by "anywhere in the world" you meant places other than the west. And you would be right, except that the kind of situation you described is hardly what people in first world countries aspire to. You seem to think that just because that (referring to having to choose between work and starvation) is the way things are, it must be the way things should be
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature). It is not true. I should think that with the amount of food, goods, and just plain wealth in general that are being produced in such abundance in our nations, we the people should be able to not work and still live comfortably, or at the very least, work little and still live comfortably.

Seriously, think about it. All the productivity brought about by technological advances goes to where? It all
ends up as money in the pockets of the means-of-production-owning capitalists, precisely because we the workers are letting it happen.


Yes, that is what businesses will do if you force them to take on costs that they don't want.

You talk as if we should give a damn what businesses want or not. Well actually maybe we should, but not to
the same extent as you were implying.

Businesses are not our "benefactors" in a moral sense, even though we do in fact reply on them for jobs. What they are is a part of our society. They benefit from infractures our tax money paid for, they make money by selling products to us, and as such they should have moral obligations towards us, who sustain them. And one of these obligations is provide jobs to us. Another one is to have their capital/wealth/money remain within the nation, as in, no outsourcing or going overseas to hire people of another country.


If there weren't that many crazy pressures on businesses to pay for superfluous shit they COULD have lower prices (i'm not saying they would automatically, but as soon as one business decided to drop its prices the others would probably follow suit in order to compete).

Could you tell us what these "crazy pressures" are? Also, what is this "superflous shit" that you speak of?

Also, you are assuming that with companies financial breaks automatically translate into lowered prices for the
consumers. I doubt it. I mean, what's stopping them from just pocketing the money? Although you could be right about the last thing you mentioned.

I can't believe what I am reading here. Does it actually happen? Isn't it....illegal? To kill people?

Sure, but when your net worth is more than the net worth of the country you're operating in, it's easy to get around that.

Sure, but when your net worth is more than the net worth of the country you're operating in, it's easy to get around that.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Cola's net worth is more than that of US, or are you saying that Cola is killing union leaders, who actually in live some other country?


p.s. I just realised your name is Prometheum, not Prometheus. I had always thought it was the latter.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Cola's net worth is more than that of US, or are you saying that Cola is killing union leaders, who actually in live some other country?


p.s. I just realised your name is Prometheum, not Prometheus. I had always thought it was the latter.

They do this on a regular basis in the third world. Not the US. It's slightly harder to do that in the US.

And yes, I'm not Prometheus. That's a common mistake, for some reason.

I have a great deal of respect for you and your ideas, Lewcifer, but I'll have to disagree with you here. In a pure capitalist system it would literally be impossible to place anything above profit. If progress is defined by the degree of competition, those at the top will always crowd out everyone else, leaving them to compete among each other. To advance you can only show your worth to the company (or to the market system, whichever describes your social position) and to do so would mean to place profit over all else. The more competition there is, the more ruthless the system becomes, and this is why I think capitalism is inherently evil--because the perfect capitalist system would have to breed the wrong set of value judgments (that is, profit over all else). Corporations don't have a choice but to kill for profit; they are legally bound to create value for their shareholders by whatever means necessary and the only thing that prevents them from committing more crime is that the potential drawbacks (usually imposed upon them by the government) outweigh the potential benefit. I'm afraid that this is what we might see among individuals if a libertarian utopia should arise. They always tell you that there's nothing stopping ethical actions in a capitalist society, but with perfect competition comes absolute ruin every time you slip up (that is, every time you devalue profit). I have similarly-rooted views on the evils of socialism but that's not for this thread.

I believe the phrase is "Touche!".

Whilst typing that little sentence out I still had in my mind some of the more blatant examples of corporations acting in a manner which could be logically construed as "evil" which had been put forward earlier in the thread (executing union leaders for example), whilst forgetting what else would fall under the reach of the statement. I readily concede that even at the most basic theoretical level, pure capitalism inherently leads to immoral behaviour. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've argued something similar in the past. So really you don't disagree with me, just my poorly thought out sentence :D.

I think the title should state "on the evils of publicly-traded corporations" I say that due to the fact that there are some corporations that are not publicly traded. The corporation I work for , for example, gave me a 1,350 bonus for meeting my goals. the corporation is being hit by the recession, but not nearly as bad as most other corporations. We have been expanding 8 stores/year regardless of the situation.

Just my two cents

I can't answer for prometheum but I try to as much as I can. There are some things that are unavoidable, but I rarely buy something if I know it's not going to further the cause of anarchism more than my buying it pushes capitalism forward (for example, having internet access allows me to free more minds than the money spent on it enslaves). I give an average of $10 a month to capitalism; mostly for chemicals. I'm largely involved in alternative media. As any anarchist will tell you, the key to anarchy is the creation of alternative structures--power structures, social structures, and economic structures. Eventually I'd like to live in one of the many anarchist collectives in my city, but I think I'm helping the movement with my unique skills quite well right now. I try to steal as many of the things that I need as possible, not only because there is no alternative to my acquiring these goods, but also because it helps to smash capitalism.

If nobody payed sales taxes, the federal government would have to bail out the states, and it would likely cut military funding to do so. Thus, your buying anything that carries any sort of tax from the free market funds killing. So there are also non-anarchist and even free-marketeer arguments for not participating in the market. Any federal tax (such as the income tax) is far worse than the sales tax in the proportion of it that funds the military, so I also don't have a job, even though I have the time and the skills. I try to live anarchy as much as I can, and even if I didn't, any point you could make about my hypocrisy would be irrelevant because there's a difference between practical and ideal ethics.

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I've been reading a bit about anarchism as a social structure lately and have been wondering, what do the movement's followers who don't have a job, such as yourself, do for money? Where do you live? Do you ever plan on raising a family, and if so, how will you handle the financial strain? Most importantly, what do you have in mind when you think of your old age (or "retirement" age, but I reckon that would be a bit redundant in this case)?

I believe the phrase is "Touche!".

Understood. I've just heard leftists argue similar things in the past and decided to come prepared. :)

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I've been reading a bit about anarchism as a social structure lately and have been wondering, what do the movement's followers who don't have a job, such as yourself, do for money?
(IIRC) I have this phrase on my profile under "Occupation" that says "Why earn if you don't spend?" It describes the situation well. Though I do get about $24 a week from tutoring chemistry that makes my life somewhat easier.
Where do you live?
With parents; though I could also live with other relatives or squat at college if necessary.

Do you ever plan on raising a family, and if so, how will you handle the financial strain?
No I don't; but the reasons behind that are for another thread.

Most importantly, what do you have in mind when you think of your old age (or "retirement" age, but I reckon that would be a bit redundant in this case)?

Drug manufacture? ;) I'll think of something. Right now I have an "eternal college student" plan in the works that could work out if a few things fall into place. I'm not too worried about the future.

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I've been reading a bit about anarchism as a social structure lately and have been wondering, what do the movement's followers who don't have a job, such as yourself, do for money? Where do you live? Do you ever plan on raising a family, and if so, how will you handle the financial strain? Most importantly, what do you have in mind when you think of your old age (or "retirement" age, but I reckon that would be a bit redundant in this case)?

Most of the people I know that don't have jobs (a lot of them do, crimethinc talks a lot but not many people live crimethinc books) live in communal houses fed solely from the waste of capitalism. A lot of people squat; that's even easier to do now that there are shitloads of foreclosed houses. Certain cities have always had large numbers of empty houses, so it isn't hard to find housing.

Food is even easier. It keeps getting produced and shipped out, and nobody buys all of it. Grocery stores and other stores throw out shitloads when they get enough new shipments, and distribution centers throw out anything that they can't get to where it's going fast enough. The amount of waste is astronomical. Go dumpster diving sometime and you'll see exactly what I mean. Most anarchists (that I know) are vegans, so they don't really have anything to worry about anything spoiling.

A lot of anarchists don't want to have kids. For those that do, there's a lot of "radical childcare" stuff, and things along those lines. Though, at this point, we're hitting the boundaries of American anarchism. In the US, anarchy is really way too much of a youth movement, so I can't speak from experience (though I'm nowhere near as involved as most other anarchists).

Again, as the US has primarily a youth movement, I can't say much about old age. I know most of the old guys from the CNT days in Spain settled down in quiet villages in south america, set up gift economies, and just lived happily. There are a lot of 30 and 40-something people active in Crimethinc that come through where I live every now and again, though I don't know the details of their living situations.

Note that everything in this post is about anarchists now. I'm sure "after the revolution" everything will be appropriately revolutionized, but this is what is happening now.