capitalism

calinis wrote:

yeah but once you finish college you can get a decent job and afford to pay them back

When you get student loans lets see how eager you are to pay them back lol

With the compounding interest and cruel realization that a college degree means nothing in this day and age you'll quickly find yourself here with us, bitching about how student loans are bullshit.

Ruadhan wrote:

In capitalism peoples needs come last, the major profit of one out scales a mediocre profit of many. A CEO will make billions to live off while his workers(who are undoubtedly working harder) make shit to support families on. Instead of giving his workers a sustainable living wage the CEO will put profit first giving him even more money.

How is that right? The goes against everything it is to be human.

proof pleas

Kraft Foods. The owner sits in his chair while the employees work like dogs and get way less.

Sin wrote:

Kraft Foods. The owner sits in his chair while the employees work like dogs and get way less.

your word isn't exacly reliable

mattabesta wrote:

your word isn't exacly reliable

What exactly do you want? My parent works for kraft, so i should be able to find out what you need.

Sin wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

your word isn't exacly reliable

What exactly do you want? My parent works for kraft, so i should be able to find out what you need.

I need a picture of the man sitting in his chair and proof that he did not work to rais the money to buy/build the company.

What good at all would that do? A man can't sit down in a chair?

I can prove by another indirect route though, think of it this way, the owner of Wal-mart's kids will inherit his riches, and what did they have to do? Nothing besides be born from the mom, really, that must of been hard.

The first person to build up a company, does sacrifice alot, but than the following ones exploit the workers for more money, the workers should be given higher wages, no workers = no company, people sometimes forget this.

If their was no owner, than their would be no exploitation.

The people are being forgot in this system...pillaged out like hell >.< ( Like the costs for doctor visits )

Sin wrote:

What good at all would that do? A man can't sit down in a chair?

I can prove by another indirect route though, think of it this way, the owner of Wal-mart's kids will inherit his riches, and what did they have to do? Nothing besides be born from the mom, really, that must of been hard.

The first person to build up a company, does sacrifice alot, but than the following ones exploit the workers for more money, the workers should be given higher wages, no workers = no company, people sometimes forget this.

If their was no owner, than their would be no exploitation.

ever been a manager?
I can assure you that no company would work without some ceneter of power.

but yes you do make a point about riches being inherited but really the money has to go were the man wants it to go.
my god....... the company knows that and the workers also but here is an eqation for you
no profit=no company=no job

You missed my point.
What i tried to say was that if the workers were in control of the company that would be the center power of it.

Apparentely they either don't know this or don't care, considering how much the workers get/can get and how much the son/daughter will get.

mattabesta wrote:

no workers=no labor=no profit=no company=no job

fixed

Sin wrote:

You missed my point.
What i tried to say was that if the workers were in control of the company that would be the center power of it.

Apparentely they either don't know this or don't care, considering how much the workers get/can get and how much the son/daughter will get.

mattabesta wrote:

no workers=no labor=no profit=no company=no job

fixed

no owner=no company=no workers=no labor=no profit=no company=no job

Sin wrote:

What i tried to say was that if the workers were in control of the company that would be the center power of it.

Center power = owner = rest falls into place.

Sin wrote:

Sin wrote:

What i tried to say was that if the workers were in control of the company that would be the center power of it.

Center power = owner = rest falls into place.

evryone happy?

in socielism the workers manage they owne perductiuyn.

capitialism is nothing more than slavery i have heard far too often from my capitialist freinds that capitialism is fair it is up to you to succed or fail that is not the way it is in america or or capitalst coutries WRONG it is like this the corporations and companys oppress the small buisness man and take his money then they opress the artist and take his works then the opress the workers rights then they lower his pay so really capitalism is
slavery you cannot succed only fail and become another mindless drone in the corporation

Quote :

communism goes against human nature.

Oh man, this argument! My favorite!

Human nature is nonexistent, or if you really must think it does dictate the way we act it is a flexible nature based on the socio-economic structures built around it. Even the general neurological natures of human beings is based on the reaction to stimuli. This is dialectically analyzed time and time again by Marx and then Marxist after Marxist. Capitalism makes people economically aggressive (.. selfish ...) because of the competitive nature of the socio-economic conditions that Capitalism creates. You can't live without this aggressiveness. Adversely, Communism working on a Socialist socio-economic basis would create more or less "human nature" to work with the system. Humans inherently work towards the fulfillment of their various needs, thus the way they achieve these needs is defined by social structures surrounding the human.

Ruadhan wrote:

In capitalism peoples needs come last, the major profit of one out scales a mediocre profit of many. A CEO will make billions to live off while his workers(who are undoubtedly working harder) make shit to support families on. Instead of giving his workers a sustainable living wage the CEO will put profit first giving him even more money.

How is that right? The goes against everything it is to be human.

thats' wrong

ok let's say we have one owner and a big company may be 50,000 employess??

the owner gets maybe 10 million? if we would give that all to the workers they would get: 200 dollars more each not or
a rais by: 5,5% not excaly a big share not to mention most big corparations have a LOT more employess I mean Iceland ic companyes have 100,000 employess.