13 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutDo they achieve things without the use of violence or intimidation, though? The question you should be asking yourself is this; do people work because they want to better themselves, and their lifestyle OR do people work because it's far preferable over being poor? Multinationals always have the threat to make someone unemployed. OK, it's not physical violence, but from what I'm getting that's not really the argument you are wanting to have.
what I am saying with regards to multinationals is that they get things acheived through means other than indimidation and fear. while similtaneously giving their employee and their customers some satisfaction.
so, the multinationals have a functioning organisation that delivers results through non violent means.
what I am saying is, is it possible to ac ...[text shortened]... nce, fear and intimidation as it modus operandi
and if this is possible why isnt it happening
13 Nov 06
Wulebgr, your knowledge on this subject exceeds mine and your summary of the current system seems about right.
so what do you see as future possibilities or do you see the current system as perfect and not in need of modification.
as an example what about this proposal.
since most governments deliver mostly the same services albeit with widely varying quality content, how would it be if these major services were farmed out to variously competing and independent transnational corporations eg social security delivery, policing and law enforcement, military control, health provisions, roads and transportation facilities, education, etc.
would we be able to do away with governments all together or would we still need them to determine which transnational was doing the supplying .
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutMight have a problem with monopolies if you did that.
Wulebgr, your knowledge on this subject exceeds mine and your summary of the current system seems about right.
so what do you see as future possibilities or do you see the current system as perfect and not in need of modification.
as an example what about this proposal.
since most governments deliver mostly the same services albeit with widely vary ...[text shortened]... or would we still need them to determine which transnational was doing the supplying .
13 Nov 06
1 edit
Lets go even further : transnational political parties competing and fielding local candidates under their global political party name and even perhaps platform. Lets say, for example the parties of the japanese govt, the british tories, and the american democrats fielding candidates against the local liberals in an australian election.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutSounds like government to me!
Lets go even further : transnational political parties competing and fielding local candidates under their global political party name and even perhaps platform. Lets say, for example the parties of the japanese govt, the british tories, and the american democrats fielding candidates against the local liberals in an australian election.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by moweutThe current system needs a lot of change. My observations are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Wulebgr, your knowledge on this subject exceeds mine and your summary of the current system seems about right.
so what do you see as future possibilities or do you see the current system as perfect and not in need of modification.
as an example what about this proposal.
since most governments deliver mostly the same services albeit with widely vary ...[text shortened]... or would we still need them to determine which transnational was doing the supplying .
Farming out social services to corporations will not work. Just take a look at the insurance industry. Profits are their purpose, and some things are no longer possible because no one can afford the insurance to protect their liability. Even school chess programs are in jeopardy due to the nightmare of people pooling their money to mitigate risk having grown into a behemoth that serves only itself.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by WulebgrI agree that prosperity has thrown up fundamental flaws in the pure capitalist system and I cannot see anyone on the political horizon in the capitalist world who has the vision or ability to take us forward. And strangely enough it is china's communist system which has produced in Hu Jin Tao, in my opinion, the most capable person on the world stage.
The current system needs a lot of change. My observations are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Farming out social services to corporations will not work. Just take a look at the insurance industry. Profits are their purpose, and some things are no longer possible because no one can afford the insurance to protect their liability. Even school chess programs ...[text shortened]... eople pooling their money to mitigate risk having grown into a behemoth that serves only itself.
13 Nov 06
Originally posted by WulebgrI disagree; a corporation itself has no momentum. Its owners and directors provide its momentum.
Although individuals run corporations in theory, they lose their their power if they go against the momentum of the corporation itself. Thus, the irony that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of individuals was first applied by the Supreme Court to the protection of faceless corporations was a mere harbinger of the world in which we now live.
Marx desc ...[text shortened]... ry. But, the world of late Capitalism has taken on features that are beyond Marx's nightmares.
14 Nov 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzOr do they work to have better material goods than their peers and would loss of employment cause such damage to their perceived ranking in the own private peerage system that it would be considered as violence. Lets face it, it is possible to survive as any pensioner knows in a western social security served state and any damage is thus self inflicted.
The question you should be asking yourself is this; do people work because they want to better themselves, and their lifestyle OR do people work because it's far preferable over being poor? Multinationals always have the threat to make someone unemployed. OK, it's not physical violence, but from what I'm getting that's not really the argument you are wanting to have.
