CDZ What is socialism?

[Flopper]

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

The problem with your thinking is we are talking about business, big business. Large corporations have no feelings, no remorse. They are entities that exist only to produce profits for shareholders The shareholders are mutual funds, pensions, banks, financial trusts who represent 401K's pensions, IRA, and investment that you and I own. Most of us don't know anything about those corporations. Our concern is our monthly check or how much our investment increased last year. If those corporations make amends for their past transgressions, our monthly pension check decreases or the value of our investment may decrease and we respond by selling our investment or putting the pressure on to produce higher profits.

The problem is the great autonomous ownership of corporations. There was a time when even large corporations had few shareholders. They attended shareholder meetings and being human they were at times very un- businesslike showing their feelings for workers and misdeeds of the business but those days are long past. Major shareholders today represent the great autonomous mass that is only interested in profits. They must always stand on side of higher profits regardless of the consequences.
.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

I think out government today is less capitalistic now than it was then. There is more cronyism. At the height of cronyism during the industrial revolution, one man, Rockefeller owned a 6 of the total wealth of the nation...that is un-heard of. When he died, his money handlers told his son he could not give his money away fast enough, but he had too, bc if he didn't, when the market crashed all eyes would be on him. That's why the Rockefeller foundation is a big as it is to this day. That's not even including the vanderbilts, and other heavy hitting cronys of the time.

But let's not forget what capitalism , not socialism has brought us outside of the great products and services we undeniably have today. 5 day 40 hr work week, as opposed to 6 12 hr days like it was before (should be shorter now a days). Employer provided healthcare. Competitive waging. 401k's and other investment plans.

We have the 40 hour work week because of progressives and democrats. The capitalists fought any advances of the working class tooth and nail.

No because Henry ford wondered why non of his employees were buying his car...it was because they didn't have time. The reason we still have that, even though In most cases 40 hr work week is more than necessary, is thanks to the progressives and democrats. No reason in most cases it shouldn't be reduced to 20 or 25 in this day and age

 

[320 Years of History]

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

The problem with your thinking is we are talking about business, big business. Large corporations have no feelings, no remorse. They are entities that exist only to produce profits for shareholders The shareholders are mutual funds, pensions, banks, financial trusts who represent 401K's pensions, IRA, and investment that you and I own. Most of us don't know anything about those corporations.

Our concern [as investors these large impersonal corps/entities] is our monthly check or how much our investment increased last year. If those corporations make amends for their past transgressions, our monthly pension check decreases or the value of our investment may decrease and we respond by selling our investment or putting the pressure on to produce higher profits.

The problem is the great autonomous ownership of corporations. There was a time when even large corporations had few shareholders. They attended shareholder meetings and being human they were at times very un- businesslike showing their feelings for workers and misdeeds of the business but those days are long past. Major shareholders today represent the great autonomous mass that is only interested in profits. They must always stand on side of higher profits regardless of the consequences.
.

I appreciate your confirming the context that accompanies the discussion. TY.

Red:
I agree with you on all those points. I also appreciate the importance of the temporal distance between when those events occurred and today; it undoubtedly makes effecting current amends far more burdensome. In some ways the matter reminds me of present day issues re: racism; many of today's whites abhor that their ancestor's deeds -- Pre 1865: holding slaves and being racist; Post 1865: not holding slaves, but not embracing the letter and spirit of 13th - 15th Amendments; Post 1928: being racist and actively perpetuating it and its effects -- and thus see ourselves as having to suffer for that to which we were no party. Nonetheless, here we are. (Don't read that the wrong way. I'm not at all suggesting that everything aimed at ensuring "equal opportunity" for minorities is done as a reparation.)

Perhaps if there're some learnings to be taken from that experience and applied to this thread's context, it be these:

• When one does harm, is wrong, and willfully harmful in particular, one must pay for it. That's simply part of doing what's right, or in my family's parlance, "ownin' your sh*t, both the good and the bad."
• Deferring that payment to future generations makes things worse for them than it would be for oneself in the present.

You're right, investors will sell, stock prices will drop. Those corporations ducked that pain "back in the day," yet the debt remains deferred. I don't know about you, but my ethics say that's just not right.

I think for the most part that most people have a nearly unlimited capacity and willingness to forgive, but, like trust, it must be genuinely earned, and you can't earn it until you've paid your debt and owned your sh*t.

Now since corporations are the topic here, there's no way, having the power to do so, I wouldn't force them to pay for their past transgressions. I would force that, even now so many years later, because corporations, particularly huge ones, have argued loudly without fail for their "person" status under the law. Well, the fact is that there is no statue of limitations for sufficiently grievous offenses.

So fine, corporations want to be viewed as persons, and have lobbied to have the law structured that way, then that they are. We need to define classes of "corporate person" crimes that, like rape, murder, etc., have no applicable statute of limitations. Then, just as Mr. Cosby is now being prosecuted for an alleged rape some 40 or so years ago, so too should corporations be held, if not then, presently accountable for their offenses.

You see, for me, it's all about principles. One must take the good and the bad -- own the all sh*t -- that comes with what one asks for and obtains. Everyone in our country does, except corporations, and especially big ones. That's not right. So if their stock takes a beating for their closing out their debt to society, so be it.

As a final note...So long as we're addressing both the moral and practical component of things, I have to say that I may or may not sell my stock in a company that took a big hit from being forced to indemnify "whomever" for wrongs it did some 50 years ago. A number of stocks took huge hits on 9/11. Once the market reopened, I bought a lot of the ones that took a beating on the bet that they weren't going anywhere. I submit, depending on the company, that the beating to which you referred above may be more an opportunity than a curse.

And that brings to mind another -- I don't know what to call it...intrinsic maybe -- problem with Americans is that we have this cultural "thing" whereby we have to have "it" right now. Put another way, we're culturally too damned impatient. To give you an example, I have one stock that I didn't even buy -- it was one of my 6th birthdays' "birthday gifts" I didn't even know about until I was 25 -- but that I've had that long. It's the most valuable asset I own and to be sure, I thought about selling it numerous times just for the cash. Patience paid off.

What I'm saying, what's been a tacit theme of this post, is that our nation needs to learn how to take a long view. A long view when dealing with the joy and the pain, of what we want and what we fear most. In that regard, we could definitely learn a lesson or two from the Chinese who have some 7K to 8K years experience managing society and all it's components, including business, people, and all that comes with them.

 

[sakinago]

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

My point was that our governments can be just as guilty of wrong doing ( even more so, again 100 hydrogen bombs in the pacific to see if they could put a hole in the atmosphere...our bad Australia, sorry about all that melanoma). The difference is, they keep receiving tax dollars, and they pay "reparations", and correct those damages with our tax dollars.

Now is it fair to fault them or anyone when they didn't know that harm was being done, no. But let's not act like the government came out immediately and started trying to atone for agent orange, asbestos, or any of those things. They tried to cover those up too. And they definitely were aware of the harm they were causing injecting black people with syphilis, and detonating 100 bombs powerful enough to take out a 1/4 of the us.

And Is there not a difference in how a private organization would be vilified and run out of business if they were guilty of turning the Colorado river yellow, as opposed to the EPA doing it? (EPA was warned by a private organization not to undermine the integrity of that cave or whatever, but did it anyway). Instead EPA gets to say "our bad", and spend a ton of taxpayer dollars to try to fix it.

And let's not forget flint Michigan. Again if that was a private entity, people would be in prison.

 

[sakinago]

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

The problem with your thinking is we are talking about business, big business. Large corporations have no feelings, no remorse. They are entities that exist only to produce profits for shareholders The shareholders are mutual funds, pensions, banks, financial trusts who represent 401K's pensions, IRA, and investment that you and I own. Most of us don't know anything about those corporations. Our concern is our monthly check or how much our investment increased last year. If those corporations make amends for their past transgressions, our monthly pension check decreases or the value of our investment may decrease and we respond by selling our investment or putting the pressure on to produce higher profits.

The problem is the great autonomous ownership of corporations. There was a time when even large corporations had few shareholders. They attended shareholder meetings and being human they were at times very un- businesslike showing their feelings for workers and misdeeds of the business but those days are long past. Major shareholders today represent the great autonomous mass that is only interested in profits. They must always stand on side of higher profits regardless of the consequences.
.

But to get those profits, they have to provide a SERVICE, that the PEOPLE deem WORTHY to spend their money on.

Now is there something to be said about the more people you're in charge of, the more and more you dehumanize them and look at them more like pieces on a chess board rather than people? Absolutely, that is just human nature. But why can't the government be guilty of that? If history has shown us anything it's that the government is always much more guilty of that than any other entity.

 

[sakinago]

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

You're right about the asbestos, which I had experience with. The government knew about it's dangers during WW2, and kept quiet about it because of the war effort, or so I was told by a lawyer that handled asbestos cases. Still, if corporations get caught, they usually just pay a fine. Too big to jail and all that.

Thanks to government being friendly with them, that's called cronyism, not capitalism. It does need to be addressed. Let's not forget over 100 hydrogen bombs detonated in the pacific!!

I guess we get back to there is no pure socialism or capitalism. It's a mixed system which all first world countries have.

Sure, but do we want more socialism, or less?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

My point was that our governments can be just as guilty of wrong doing ( even more so, again 100 hydrogen bombs in the pacific to see if they could put a hole in the atmosphere...our bad Australia, sorry about all that melanoma). The difference is, they keep receiving tax dollars, and they pay "reparations", and correct those damages with our tax dollars.

Now is it fair to fault them or anyone when they didn't know that harm was being done, no. But let's not act like the government came out immediately and started trying to atone for agent orange, asbestos, or any of those things. They tried to cover those up too. And they definitely were aware of the harm they were causing injecting black people with syphilis, and detonating 100 bombs powerful enough to take out a 1/4 of the us.

And Is there not a difference in how a private organization would be vilified and run out of business if they were guilty of turning the Colorado river yellow, as opposed to the EPA doing it? (EPA was warned by a private organization not to undermine the integrity of that cave or whatever, but did it anyway). Instead EPA gets to say "our bad", and spend a ton of taxpayer dollars to try to fix it.

And let's not forget flint Michigan. Again if that was a private entity, people would be in prison.

Red:
You and I disagree. My answer to that question is that not knowing the harm was being perpetrated does not mean one did not do harm. I see non-willful ignorance as something that lessens the extent of punishment/reparations that may be levied upon doers of harm. I do not see it as a fully exculpatory factor.

 

[Fishlore]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.

It would be lovely if government could operateon on voluntary contributions instead of taxes. But...

 

[Militants]

Socialism have own rules in discuss. No negrous or black or negro they will not we called black color. Young house we have no religions and military threaths because democrations people the communists are scarred even one man will no religious discuss because he are ateist. Religion is nothing for him. But in USMB we have religion discuss and faith but even I are ateist but my voices problem is big for me so ....

 

[sakinago]

Socialism have own rules in discuss. No negrous or black or negro they will not we called black color. Young house we have no religions and military threaths because democrations people the communists are scarred even one man will no religious discuss because he are ateist. Religion is nothing for him. But in USMB we have religion discuss and faith but even I are ateist but my voices problem is big for me so ....

Are you a Russian troll or something?

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.

It would be lovely if government could operateon on voluntary contributions instead of taxes. But...

Who is talking about that?

 

[sakinago]

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

My point was that our governments can be just as guilty of wrong doing ( even more so, again 100 hydrogen bombs in the pacific to see if they could put a hole in the atmosphere...our bad Australia, sorry about all that melanoma). The difference is, they keep receiving tax dollars, and they pay "reparations", and correct those damages with our tax dollars.

Now is it fair to fault them or anyone when they didn't know that harm was being done, no. But let's not act like the government came out immediately and started trying to atone for agent orange, asbestos, or any of those things. They tried to cover those up too. And they definitely were aware of the harm they were causing injecting black people with syphilis, and detonating 100 bombs powerful enough to take out a 1/4 of the us.

And Is there not a difference in how a private organization would be vilified and run out of business if they were guilty of turning the Colorado river yellow, as opposed to the EPA doing it? (EPA was warned by a private organization not to undermine the integrity of that cave or whatever, but did it anyway). Instead EPA gets to say "our bad", and spend a ton of taxpayer dollars to try to fix it.

And let's not forget flint Michigan. Again if that was a private entity, people would be in prison.

Red:
You and I disagree. My answer to that question is that not knowing the harm was being perpetrated does not mean one did not do harm. I see non-willful ignorance as something that lessens the extent of punishment/reparations that may be levied upon doers of harm. I do not see it as a fully exculpatory factor.

Did I state that was the case in any of my examples? Was that my main point?

Let me put it this way, what upsets you more. The person who accidentally trips you and you fall, or the person who tries to but is unsuccessful?

 

[Flopper]

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

The problem with your thinking is we are talking about business, big business. Large corporations have no feelings, no remorse. They are entities that exist only to produce profits for shareholders The shareholders are mutual funds, pensions, banks, financial trusts who represent 401K's pensions, IRA, and investment that you and I own. Most of us don't know anything about those corporations.

Our concern [as investors these large impersonal corps/entities] is our monthly check or how much our investment increased last year. If those corporations make amends for their past transgressions, our monthly pension check decreases or the value of our investment may decrease and we respond by selling our investment or putting the pressure on to produce higher profits.

The problem is the great autonomous ownership of corporations. There was a time when even large corporations had few shareholders. They attended shareholder meetings and being human they were at times very un- businesslike showing their feelings for workers and misdeeds of the business but those days are long past. Major shareholders today represent the great autonomous mass that is only interested in profits. They must always stand on side of higher profits regardless of the consequences.
.

I appreciate your confirming the context that accompanies the discussion. TY.

Red:
I agree with you on all those points. I also appreciate the importance of the temporal distance between when those events occurred and today; it undoubtedly makes effecting current amends far more burdensome. In some ways the matter reminds me of present day issues re: racism; many of today's whites abhor that their ancestor's deeds -- Pre 1865: holding slaves and being racist; Post 1865: not holding slaves, but not embracing the letter and spirit of 13th - 15th Amendments; Post 1928: being racist and actively perpetuating it and its effects -- and thus see ourselves as having to suffer for that to which we were no party. Nonetheless, here we are. (Don't read that the wrong way. I'm not at all suggesting that everything aimed at ensuring "equal opportunity" for minorities is done as a reparation.)

Perhaps if there're some learnings to be taken from that experience and applied to this thread's context, it be these:

• When one does harm, is wrong, and willfully harmful in particular, one must pay for it. That's simply part of doing what's right, or in my family's parlance, "ownin' your sh*t, both the good and the bad."
• Deferring that payment to future generations makes things worse for them than it would be for oneself in the present.

You're right, investors will sell, stock prices will drop. Those corporations ducked that pain "back in the day," yet the debt remains deferred. I don't know about you, but my ethics say that's just not right.

I think for the most part that most people have a nearly unlimited capacity and willingness to forgive, but, like trust, it must be genuinely earned, and you can't earn it until you've paid your debt and owned your sh*t.

Now since corporations are the topic here, there's no way, having the power to do so, I wouldn't force them to pay for their past transgressions. I would force that, even now so many years later, because corporations, particularly huge ones, have argued loudly without fail for their "person" status under the law. Well, the fact is that there is no statue of limitations for sufficiently grievous offenses.

So fine, corporations want to be viewed as persons, and have lobbied to have the law structured that way, then that they are. We need to define classes of "corporate person" crimes that, like rape, murder, etc., have no applicable statute of limitations. Then, just as Mr. Cosby is now being prosecuted for an alleged rape some 40 or so years ago, so too should corporations be held, if not then, presently accountable for their offenses.

You see, for me, it's all about principles. One must take the good and the bad -- own the all sh*t -- that comes with what one asks for and obtains. Everyone in our country does, except corporations, and especially big ones. That's not right. So if their stock takes a beating for their closing out their debt to society, so be it.

As a final note...So long as we're addressing both the moral and practical component of things, I have to say that I may or may not sell my stock in a company that took a big hit from being forced to indemnify "whomever" for wrongs it did some 50 years ago. A number of stocks took huge hits on 9/11. Once the market reopened, I bought a lot of the ones that took a beating on the bet that they weren't going anywhere. I submit, depending on the company, that the beating to which you referred above may be more an opportunity than a curse.

And that brings to mind another -- I don't know what to call it...intrinsic maybe -- problem with Americans is that we have this cultural "thing" whereby we have to have "it" right now. Put another way, we're culturally too damned impatient. To give you an example, I have one stock that I didn't even buy -- it was one of my 6th birthdays' "birthday gifts" I didn't even know about until I was 25 -- but that I've had that long. It's the most valuable asset I own and to be sure, I thought about selling it numerous times just for the cash. Patience paid off.

What I'm saying, what's been a tacit theme of this post, is that our nation needs to learn how to take a long view. A long view when dealing with the joy and the pain, of what we want and what we fear most. In that regard, we could definitely learn a lesson or two from the Chinese who have some 7K to 8K years experience managing society and all it's components, including business, people, and all that comes with them.

A long but well written post. Now if we could just get the big corporations to act in a responsible manner...

 

[MisterBeale]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.

It would be lovely if government could operateon on voluntary contributions instead of taxes. But...

But we can rail on and on about Churchill and his little bubble of a world, and how he came to his perspective, but the same can be said of Marx. In the end, they were both Statists, with their own ideas of how the STATE can build a utopia.

Inevitably, when the STATE tries, all we get is dystopia. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.

It would be lovely if government could operateon on voluntary contributions instead of taxes. But...

Who is talking about that?

 

[Militants]

I am Mr Mehmeti.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.

It would be lovely if government could operateon on voluntary contributions instead of taxes. But...

But we can rail on and on about Churchill and his little bubble of a world, and how he came to his perspective, but the same can be said of Marx. In the end, they were both Statists, with their own ideas of how the STATE can build a utopia.

Inevitably, when the STATE tries, all we get is dystopia. . .

Red:
"Little bubble of the world" as seen by Churchill? ????

I do not understand how figuratively or literally one can conclude or assert that his scope of reality was limited enough to refer to it a "little bubble of the world." One might reasonably say that of any number of people, literally millions, maybe billions, but Churchill? No. Just no.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have just read all of this thread and my head hurts.

I am probably a socialist, certainly by American standards.
To me it is an acceptance that labour needs some protection from capital.

Why did communism gain such traction a century ago ?
Because the industrial revolution left many people behind.

Capital opposed every progressive idea that was put forward,generally on the grounds that it would bankrupt the country. Health,education,pensions,sanitation,housing and so on. All opposed by reactionary forces.

Some things are better run by the state and some things are better run by the private sector.
And some things are better run by Co-operatives, certainly on a local level.

In the UK, which is not a socialist country, there are probably 20 people who would want a purely communist system.
But there are many more who would like to see some industries nationalised. In particular the privately owned utilities who are seen to be ripping off the British public. The railways being one example,the power companies another.

Its not a dogma its just what seems to be fair.

Underlining all of this is the fact that our democratic systems are fundamentally corrupt and our representatives are in the pockets of the big corporations. And they represent the ugly face of the free market which is basically a jungle.

 

[sakinago]

I have just read all of this thread and my head hurts.

I am probably a socialist, certainly by American standards.
To me it is an acceptance that labour needs some protection from capital.

Why did communism gain such traction a century ago ?
Because the industrial revolution left many people behind.

Capital opposed every progressive idea that was put forward,generally on the grounds that it would bankrupt the country. Health,education,pensions,sanitation,housing and so on. All opposed by reactionary forces.

Some things are better run by the state and some things are better run by the private sector.
And some things are better run by Co-operatives, certainly on a local level.

In the UK, which is not a socialist country, there are probably 20 people who would want a purely communist system.
But there are many more who would like to see some industries nationalised. In particular the privately owned utilities who are seen to be ripping off the British public. The railways being one example,the power companies another.

Its not a dogma its just what seems to be fair.

Underlining all of this is the fact that our democratic systems are fundamentally corrupt and our representatives are in the pockets of the big corporations. And they represent the ugly face of the free market which is basically a jungle.

You have not been reading this thread. Fair by what standards, based on outcomes or equality?