OtherGround Forums It Shouldn't be "Capitalism Vs Socialism"

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10682

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

16 days ago
6/6/02
Posts: 19328
People who are "just barely scraping by" are not going to contribute to the talent in medical and scientific fields.
16 days ago
7/1/15
Posts: 24824

Capitalism - God’s way of determining who’s smart and who’s poor

 

Its the only way 

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 47721
robert bentley - 

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I


You'll have to point out specific problems that you want to try to solve for any meaningful discussion to start. 

The example you give "I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize)." is odd.  Workers in the US have the right to unionize, so....?

16 days ago
6/3/09
Posts: 13004
fanat - People who are "just barely scraping by" are not going to contribute to the talent in medical and scientific fields.

How about the children of people that are just barely scraping by?

They have the same raw potential as anyone else, wouldn't it be a benefit to maximize that potential?

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10683
fanat - People who are "just barely scraping by" are not going to contribute to the talent in medical and scientific fields.

People who are born into poverty are highly unlikely going to be able to escape it. There have been studies showing that a poor person who does everything right is still far less likely to succeed than a rich person who does everything wrong. Overcoming those initial difficulties is a burden most aren't able to traverse.

The reason most people who are just scraping by can't contribute to these other fields isn't a lack of talent or hard work on their part, it's that even the possibility of them attending university (let alone medical school) is off the board for most of them.

But what if those possibilities *were* on the table, and they weren't prevented from having those aspirations purely because they had the misfortune of being born to poor parents?

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutionsof Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” - Stephen Jay Gould

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10684
paw - 
robert bentley - 

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I


You'll have to point out specific problems that you want to try to solve for any meaningful discussion to start. 

The example you give "I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize)." is odd.  Workers in the US have the right to unionize, so....?


And corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize.

So effectively they don't have the right to unionize.

In Denmark for example - they don't have a minimum wage because it's not necessary. It's not necessary because the workforce have greater say in what can and can't be done to them. But that's only possible because there are limitations to what corporations can and can't do to bully and pressure their employees. Sure someone can be fired for misconduct or not doing their job properly - but they won't be let go for organizing etc. 

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 47722
robert bentley - 
paw - 
robert bentley - 

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I


You'll have to point out specific problems that you want to try to solve for any meaningful discussion to start. 

The example you give "I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize)." is odd.  Workers in the US have the right to unionize, so....?


And corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize.

So effectively they don't have the right to unionize.

In Denmark for example - they don't have a minimum wage because it's not necessary. It's not necessary because the workforce have greater say in what can and can't be done to them. But that's only possible because there are limitations to what corporations can and can't do to bully and pressure their employees. Sure someone can be fired for misconduct or not doing their job properly - but they won't be let go for organizing etc. 


You'll have to be more specific when you say that corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize. If the methods employed by corporations to stop a union from forming are illegal, then yes, those corporations should be prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. However, if the methods employed by the corporation are legal, then you'll have to explain why the legal method used by corporations should be made illegal in order to have a discussion.

Most of the US is considered "at will" employment. Meaning an employee may be fired for any reason whatsoever. See https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm

 

 

 

16 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4293

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

16 days ago
12/15/11
Posts: 26072

^+1

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10687
paw - 
robert bentley - 
paw - 
robert bentley - 

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I


You'll have to point out specific problems that you want to try to solve for any meaningful discussion to start. 

The example you give "I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize)." is odd.  Workers in the US have the right to unionize, so....?


And corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize.

So effectively they don't have the right to unionize.

In Denmark for example - they don't have a minimum wage because it's not necessary. It's not necessary because the workforce have greater say in what can and can't be done to them. But that's only possible because there are limitations to what corporations can and can't do to bully and pressure their employees. Sure someone can be fired for misconduct or not doing their job properly - but they won't be let go for organizing etc. 


You'll have to be more specific when you say that corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize. If the methods employed by corporations to stop a union from forming are illegal, then yes, those corporations should be prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. However, if the methods employed by the corporation are legal, then you'll have to explain why the legal method used by corporations should be made illegal in order to have a discussion.

Most of the US is considered "at will" employment. Meaning an employee may be fired for any reason whatsoever. See https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm

 

 

 


There are multiple examples - but here's a good start using Walmart as an example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-labor-laws_b_3390994

 

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10688
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.

16 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4294
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.

You’re addressing regulation of, not the market itself, but of actions taken by individuals or entities. There’s a lot of grey area there for some people. Where exactly does regulations against individual actions start versus regulating the market itself? This should be examined carefully because politicians will purposely blur the lines. Yet my initial review still stands.

 

 

Edited: 16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 47724
robert bentley - 

You'll have to be more specific when you say that corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize. If the methods employed by corporations to stop a union from forming are illegal, then yes, those corporations should be prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. However, if the methods employed by the corporation are legal, then you'll have to explain why the legal method used by corporations should be made illegal in order to have a discussion.

Most of the US is considered "at will" employment. Meaning an employee may be fired for any reason whatsoever. See https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm

 

 

 


There are multiple examples - but here's a good start using Walmart as an example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-labor-laws_b_3390994

 

 

People are choosing to work for Walmart. No one is forcing someone to work for Walmart, or to remain employed at Walmart forever. While the article claims that Walmart is violating labor laws, the article does not give specific examples of what labor law(s) Walmart violated. 

The two specific incidents that the article mention, would lead me to the conclusion that Walmart is not an employer that I would work for and it makes me wonder why anyone would agree to work for Walmart. However, even those two examples are not listed as a violation of law. 

What specifically would you propose that would resolve the problem as you see it?

 

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 81284
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.

“when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens.”

Large successful businesses also develop enemies and become targets for extortion organizations which both attack with lawsuits and PR campaigns to sway public opinion toward stories exactly like you’re posting.

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10692
White347LX - 
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.

“when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens.”

Large successful businesses also develop enemies and become targets for extortion organizations which both attack with lawsuits and PR campaigns to sway public opinion toward stories exactly like you’re posting.


I hope you're not claiming that every time corporations have been found guilty of something that they've been innocent, or that corporations have everyone's best interests at heart.

While I definitely believe that Monsanto (now Bayer) shouldn't be harrassed anywhere near the level it's being now for GMOs & Glyphosate (the overwhelming scientific consensus on those is overwhelmingly in their favor, and the recent court decisions are essentially people with *no* scientific background making a pronouncement on a scientific topic); Enron, Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Exxon Mobil etc etc are all guilty of things which they're not sufficiently paying for (and that's just off the top of my head).

In fact - besides Monsanto (which I can totally see), what examples are you thinking of where it's not really a crime or misdeed - it's just a negative image campaign?

16 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10693
paw - 
robert bentley - 

You'll have to be more specific when you say that corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize. If the methods employed by corporations to stop a union from forming are illegal, then yes, those corporations should be prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. However, if the methods employed by the corporation are legal, then you'll have to explain why the legal method used by corporations should be made illegal in order to have a discussion.

Most of the US is considered "at will" employment. Meaning an employee may be fired for any reason whatsoever. See https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm

 

 

 


There are multiple examples - but here's a good start using Walmart as an example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-labor-laws_b_3390994

 

 

People are choosing to work for Walmart. No one is forcing someone to work for Walmart, or to remain employed at Walmart forever. While the article claims that Walmart is violating labor laws, the article does not give specific examples of what labor law(s) Walmart violated. 

The two specific incidents that the article mention, would lead me to the conclusion that Walmart is not an employer that I would work for and it makes me wonder why anyone would agree to work for Walmart. However, even those two examples are not listed as a violation of law. 

What specifically would you propose that would resolve the problem as you see it?

 


If people had a choice to work elsewhere that offered something better they might. If this was *just* a Walmart thing and not a thing all big corporations (and hence the biggest employers) do the people might have enough power to force the issue.

Amazon's anti-union tactics:

https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in-leake-1829305201

Leaked video about Walmart's anti-union activities:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-walmart-convinces-its-employees-not-to-unionize/395051/

Verizon`s anti-union tactics:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/16/verizon-union-busting-cwa

General articles on union-busting and anti-union tactics corporations can get away with in North America:

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/as-american-as-anti-union-tactics-050885

https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-than-they-seem-and-may-soon-even-be-at-the-nlrb/

 

 

 

16 days ago
7/9/10
Posts: 9696

I'd like to know, in simple terms what the difference between a "socialist" country like mine, Sweden and a "capitalist" country like the US is?

Aren't they just at different levels of socialism as a redistribution of wealth is happening through taxation in both countries?

 

16 days ago
10/14/11
Posts: 225

People don't have the stomach for capitalism any more.  The way the fed bailed people out in the last recession was disgraceful.  Part of capitalism is creative destruction.  Nobody except the market should be able to set interest rates.

15 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 47735
robert bentley - 
paw - 
robert bentley - 

You'll have to be more specific when you say that corporations have the right to crush those attempts to unionize. If the methods employed by corporations to stop a union from forming are illegal, then yes, those corporations should be prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. However, if the methods employed by the corporation are legal, then you'll have to explain why the legal method used by corporations should be made illegal in order to have a discussion.

Most of the US is considered "at will" employment. Meaning an employee may be fired for any reason whatsoever. See https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm

 

 

 


There are multiple examples - but here's a good start using Walmart as an example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walmart-labor-laws_b_3390994

 

 

People are choosing to work for Walmart. No one is forcing someone to work for Walmart, or to remain employed at Walmart forever. While the article claims that Walmart is violating labor laws, the article does not give specific examples of what labor law(s) Walmart violated. 

The two specific incidents that the article mention, would lead me to the conclusion that Walmart is not an employer that I would work for and it makes me wonder why anyone would agree to work for Walmart. However, even those two examples are not listed as a violation of law. 

What specifically would you propose that would resolve the problem as you see it?

 


If people had a choice to work elsewhere that offered something better they might. If this was *just* a Walmart thing and not a thing all big corporations (and hence the biggest employers) do the people might have enough power to force the issue.

Amazon's anti-union tactics:

https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in-leake-1829305201

Leaked video about Walmart's anti-union activities:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-walmart-convinces-its-employees-not-to-unionize/395051/

Verizon`s anti-union tactics:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/16/verizon-union-busting-cwa

General articles on union-busting and anti-union tactics corporations can get away with in North America:

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/03/as-american-as-anti-union-tactics-050885

https://www.epi.org/blog/union-busters-are-more-prevalent-than-they-seem-and-may-soon-even-be-at-the-nlrb/

 

 

 


I have no direct experience with unions. My indirect experience comes almost entirely from family members and friends who are teachers.  All of those families and friends HATE the teacher's union very passionately.

The majority of those links have corporations/companies essentially showing videos to employees advocating for employees to not join a union.  The first thing that comes to mind is that these videos were shown to employees - people who choose to work for the companies that are showing the video. (Full disclosure: I've never had to watch a video like the ones described in the links in my life). Be that as it may, what law did those companies violate by having employees watch those videos?  My position, again, is if there is a violation of the law, those companies should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Secondly, how do these folks not "have a choice to work elsewhere"? They can't take a longer commute to work for another company? They can't start their own business? They can't work for another company? They can't move to another city? They can't learn new skills? (Full disclosure: I've never started my own business, but I've done all those other things I mentioned for employment, and I imagine I will have to continue to do so for as long as I am working)

And again, specifically what do you propose that would resolve the problem, as you see it?

15 days ago
9/12/05
Posts: 8259
Curtis_E_Bare - 
fanat - People who are "just barely scraping by" are not going to contribute to the talent in medical and scientific fields.

How about the children of people that are just barely scraping by?

They have the same raw potential as anyone else, wouldn't it be a benefit to maximize that potential?


That's up to their parents to determine, not me or my tax dollars.
15 days ago
9/12/05
Posts: 8260
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


Well said.
15 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10697

"I have no direct experience with unions. My indirect experience comes almost entirely from family members and friends who are teachers.  All of those families and friends HATE the teacher's union very passionately.

The majority of those links have corporations/companies essentially showing videos to employees advocating for employees to not join a union.  The first thing that comes to mind is that these videos were shown to employees - people who choose to work for the companies that are showing the video. (Full disclosure: I've never had to watch a video like the ones described in the links in my life). Be that as it may, what law did those companies violate by having employees watch those videos?  My position, again, is if there is a violation of the law, those companies should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Secondly, how do these folks not "have a choice to work elsewhere"? They can't take a longer commute to work for another company? They can't start their own business? They can't work for another company? They can't move to another city? They can't learn new skills? (Full disclosure: I've never started my own business, but I've done all those other things I mentioned for employment, and I imagine I will have to continue to do so for as long as I am working)

And again, specifically what do you propose that would resolve the problem, as you see it?" 

Anti-Union sentiment is rife precisely because of the ubiquity of anti-union propaganda in North America. In countries where Unions have been allowed to flourish and corporate power and influence is kept in check it's not so much. Instead of emphasizing the positive powers and changes unions have been responsible for (coincidentally something we're all supposed to be thinking about this past labour day in some sense) they emphasize the disruption striking entails etc.

"Why can't they just go get another job?" - What, at another company that does the same thing?

"Learn a new trade?" - They don't have the time or savings to be able to afford to do such a thing in most cases. And the good paid-apprenticeship programs that are available are *very* small in number. There's often money needed for certification/exams/testing and equipment that these people just don't have.

And of course what about the people who are hard working, but aren't going to be able to do the work of an electrician, carpenter, mason, or plumber? Not everyone can do those jobs well enough to be a valuable employee in those fields - and if we still want these people working, why not working in the service industry?

My solution would look something like either of the following two 

1) Have regulations in place that stop union-busting campaigns and lobbying that makes union-busting easier for corporations. Also - encourage people to organize labour so that employees have genuine power to negotiate with regarding their wages and benefits.

or

2) A livable minimum wage.

If none of these options sound appealing - then someone is going to have to give me a solution that addresses growing income disparity and poverty.

Also - one more point: While people are saying "why don't they just pick up a trade"? or something along those lines, remember - *somebody* is still going to have to work in those shitty retail/service jobs. They're still a necessary part of a functioning society. They should be able to work there without having to do double over time just to squeek by.

And no - it's not that Walmart can't afford to pay more, it's that they've decided that hoarding their wealth is more important than their employees needs.

15 days ago
8/26/05
Posts: 13598
robert bentley - 
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.


What is a "positive labor movement"?

And, btw, you use the terms "free market" and "capitalism" interchangeably... they ain't the same thing.. in fact, many of the issues you allude to in your last post here are arguably the result of "regulatory capture" and infringements of competitive free markets.

Get your shit together, son.
15 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10702
Tahiti Bo - 
robert bentley - 
The Jentleman - 

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.


I don't think it's a blight against our human rights if we have measures in place that prevent people from abusing their power. 

Our very laws themselves are in place to stop people from doing immoral and/or damaging things. Theft, damage to property, abuse, murder, mistreatment etc are all things which we need to control and having laws in place aren't infringements on our rights - quite the opposite, they're protections of those rights.

In the free market, as has been clearly demonstrated, when an entity gets powerful enough it begins to weild far too much power and with little to no accountability. They have the power to crush positive labor movements, get away with environmental disasters they should be held accountable for, hiding money offshore which they should be paying in taxes, and in many cases endangering the lives of American citizens. It is so bad in some cases that when billionaires get caught ruinin gthe lives of thousands of people their "accountability" amounts to a few months in a rich person's prison and a fine that doesn't even cover the enormous amount of money they made while destroying families.

Our laws and systems only mean something when they protect everyone. Having laws/systems in place that limit the extent to which corporations can weild power isn't a blight on our human rights, it's a necessary precaution to protect them.


What is a "positive labor movement"?

And, btw, you use the terms "free market" and "capitalism" interchangeably... they ain't the same thing.. in fact, many of the issues you allude to in your last post here are arguably the result of "regulatory capture" and infringements of competitive free markets.

Get your shit together, son.

A positive labor movement is one where all of the power in determining working conditions isn't with the employer but with the employees as well. 

It used to be stronger in North America when there were more unions, but it's weaker because of all of the union busting. Also - this isn't to say that everything needs to be unionized, but there needs to be enough of a union presence that there effects can be felt in other fields. Not everywhere in Denmark or Germany has unions, but there's enough of a presence that it's had a broad positive influence.

They're also the reason we have things like paid sick days, weekends, and other minor things we take for granted.

Of course the term "free market" and "capitalism" are different, but don't pretend they're not highly related. And I'm not recommending infringements on competitive markets, I'm arguing for workers rights.

It's sort of like how we look at bodily autonomy. I believe that YOU should be able to move your body however you want. You should have complete and total freedom to dance, spin, whatever -- in any way you see fit. Total freedom.

However - IF your movement involves hitting someone else that's called assault. Your freedom ends when you start infringing on another person's rights. This is why you can be free to do what you want, but also limited because you're not allowed to assault people.

So with respect to corporations - they should be given a great deal of freedom for innovation, market decisions, and anything else you can think of; but that freedom *shouldn't* include things like fraud, lobbying government so they can get away with more lax environmental restrictions (which harms both the environment and people), tax avoidance, or treating employees poorly - which includes preventing them from being able to organize into a unit that has the ability to negotiate from a position of strength.

Corporations in other parts of the world can still make enormous amounts of money but also still pay a decent wage. 

And it seems strange to me to see people fly the banner of American style capitalism but then tell people they should be happy with the absolutely shitty pay and treatment of employees that's required for it to exist. The U.S has the greatest income disparity in the developed world. If the economy requires a vast amount of its population to live just barely scraping by, can it be said to be a good economy?