Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
    "Capitalism requires hierarchy. Every capitalist organization has owners and managers who are necessarily given more power and compensation over a larger number of laborers."-- Socialist on Reddit

    How many people or corporations have never had a quarter in which they earn less than the lowest-paid employee? How many have never had a quarter in which they actually lost money?

    The socialist poster is just factually wrong.

    I guess he thinks if you mow grass for money, it's not capitalism. If you do it really well, though, and find so many customers that you start buying equipment, finding jobs for others who want work, providing training, setting up billing, and so; at that point you're a hierarchal master with "more power" than the people you're finding the jobs for. It doesn't matter to the socialist that all these people are working of their own free will and they can/should/will leave you immediately if someone else finds a better way to serve customers with their labor and can pay them better. I guess that person's a real hierarchal master. This whole thing is a crock.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RobertFl 10 years ago
      I started a software business. The first year, I paid myself once a month, if I was lucky. I had to make sure all the employees were paid first - and the taxes. then I automated the sales on the website, I got rid of the the person taking phone orders. then I automated a tech position with an online self-help system. then I was able to draw a regular paycheck - and it still wasn't anymore than I would have made had I stayed in the work force. But it was mine to grow, or not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years ago
      I started a new business a couple years ago complying with two of my own rules: "In California don't hire anybody and don't make anything." I'm doing fine and there is zero "hierarchy".

      Communism, after reading "The Stones Cry Out", makes me almost violent. Everybody should read that book.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RonC 10 years ago
        It seems to me people don't see clearly what these philosophies/economies really are. Socialism and communism are not what we were taught in high school. Both of them are schemes that have the purpose of creating and keeping the ruling class above and in charge of the working class. The productivity of a Nation is aimed at the few on top. It is sold to the masses as "the only way" for all to make it through this troubled time. Or, "the only way" for each to have their fair share. The sales pitch is in no way related to the reality. In Russia doe the people live in the same fashion and manner as Putin? Will they, or can they ever reach the ruling class? The sales pitch on "Social Justice" is similar to selling National health care in that, health care really has little to do with it. Changing the money flow of the Nation is the underlying reality.

        In both socialism and communism there is no middle class and little innovation. Look at Cuba for a moment. I would guess the poor have a 57 Ford while the middle class have a 58 Chevy. This is because there is no innovation. If you draw the line finely enough there maybe a group of people that earn slightly more. Even at that, none of these people will rise to the level of "Ruling Class".

        In Capitalism, the poor have the chance and incentive to rise above their beginnings and become the Chairman or President of a company. It is so vibrant they can either do this the Bill Gates way and create their own company and pathway, or they can do it the Lee Iaccoca way, making vertical moves between companies. Does everybody move up? No. It is for the individual to decide what they will do and how hard they will work. Even then many are failures. The great lesson in failure is what not to do next time. Then start over and build a better business model. In Socialism or Communism there is no "next time". After a few generations there is no first time.

        It is the individualism in capitalism that sideswipes Rand's philosophy. Without the open architecture of capitalism, the objectivist cannot exist. And so, to pose an objectivist in a socialist or communist society is impossible. They will be culled by the government.

        One other point I notice when the academics are discussing the socialist utopia is this. Why is it that AS is no longer fiction? Everyday in this utopia we live in I see the news where the government has fixed the problem with another new rule. More and more it's something I read about in AS.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
        Kudos, Abaco. I hire a guy to take care of my lawn. He works on his own and limits the number of lawns he does by choosing his customers carefully. Avoids all kinds of taxes and such, according to him. Does well and keeps busy year round. It can be done. This is all this guy wants, for now, and it suits him just fine. From talking with him, he doesn't want the hassle of dealing with employees and the added nonsense of government rules, etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years ago
    Wow, thanks for sharing. This is a pretty interesting discussion.

    For anyone who's reading the comments over there, notice the deep connection between Anarchy and Communism. Many people believe that anarchy is the opposite of totalitarianism, but my own studies and personal research have given me sufficient evidence to believe that it is not. Rather, anarchy is the gateway through which totalitarianism can be made manifest.

    I've mentioned a few times here that I oppose Anarchy and anarchistic philosophy. Well, this is why.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by WBD 10 years ago
      Thanks for that. I've just started to get a handle on some of these concepts. Last week I started reading Ayn Rand's "The New Left - The Anti-Industrial Revolution". The first chapter is her analysis of the so called "student rebellion" at Berkeley in 1964. Fascinating reading.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
        Great! Keep up the studies. And get more of your family, friends, and neighbors involved as well.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by WBD 10 years ago
          Thanks. I have a good grasp on the concepts in Atlas, but the way the Left uses terms such as anarchy, totalitarianism and my favourite pair - Force vs Violence are a new area for me. Know the enemy!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
            Correct. They are good at camouflaging their true objectives cloaked in terms that seem beneficial.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by WBD 10 years ago
              Yes. Exactly the way they learned to use "green language" to hijack the environmental agenda back in the 1980's. That subject is the one I know very well.

              He who controls CO2 controls the world, and even life itself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 10 years ago
    The thing I see is that it is what is currently happening in our country. He brings up the scenario of the bum saying that people were paid on a matter of need instead of merit. Capitalism is a matter of being paid on merit. If you are more valuable to a company, you are compensated at a higher level. If you build your skill set up, you are usually more valuable. Our government, through it's myriad of welfare programs, pays as a matter of need. The more children you have, the more welfare, the higher SNAP benefits, housing, energy assistance and so on. A school friend of my wife's got caught up in this. She had 3 kids by 3 different fathers. Never married any of them and they are about 12 years apart, so she never had to work. Welfare and assistance covered her, her kids and also paid for her schooling. She finally finished school and tried to go to work, she could not do it. She did not understand that you were compensated for your skills and knowledge. She could not adapt to the working world and she wound up back on subsistence benefits. These are people that suck our system dry. There are other factors involved, but it is a vicious cycle, her kids (grown now) are also on subsistence and it goes on and on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years ago
      A Marxist friend who is an advocate of helping the down-and-out--but is himself generally productive--actually volunteers at a homeless shelter. (He helps feed bums, in my language.) He occasionally reaps what he sows... (read on)...

      He helped a college-educated street bum get a job. She went off to her job on a Monday. Tuesday she was back on the street. "What happened?" said my friend.

      "Oh, I couldn't work there. It's impossible."

      "Well, what's wrong?"

      "They expect me to show up every day at 9:00 AM. I can't do THAT!"

      On another occasion he got an earful from a bum who he had allowed to sleep for a few nights on the floor in his apartment. The bum had been out with friends, and had absorbed some discussions of "street" philosophy. Came back that night and started telling my friend that the problems of the world were all caused by "The Jew." My Marxist friend is Jewish. Even though he claims he's the only atheist in his Orthodox congregation, the insults were too much for him. He evicted the bum.

      To me those stories are an excellent object lesson in the "immorality of selflessness." (I'm inverting the title of a well-known book.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
      Knew a woman like the one you mentioned in your post. Tried to go to work and couldn't hack it. Didn't have the ability, or desire, to take instruction and get it done. Didn't understand she was an employee, not the Queen Bee, at her workplace. Thankfully, a few of her kids saw the light and didn't want to live as they had been raised.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
      I think that we could reduce the growth of the welfare state if we required DNA proof of the father before any benefits would be paid. The father would be charged for those benefits and if indigent, they would be put into a labor program picking up garbage.

      Also, subsequent children would have a declining scale of support, since they can wear hand-me-downs and the incremental cost for cooking a meal for one more is much less than for the first one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago
    The reason Marxists always attack capitalism is that they cannot provide one example of a successful socialist state. The 20th century provides a wide range of failures i.e. USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, California etc. All their economies are dead or dying as well they must.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
      And, the only way they can continue, if it all, is through force of government via taxes or actual military threat for compliance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years ago
        Yes. Faith and Force go hand in hand. Marxists have such an unshakeable faith in Marx's collectivist ideas that they are willing to evade the reality of its failures and turn to force. They remind me of two-year olds throwing temper tantrums.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by amagi 10 years ago
          Very well said. Not long ago I happened to read an
          article by a NY liberal who wanted to spend more
          money on some program or other. She was beloved
          by her readers and I gave a polite comment
          mentioning that we are broke and also men-
          tioned that the U.S. became wealthy due to
          freedom. Those readers decended on me like
          hungry mosquitos, and one gave me a lesson
          about the U.S. which became rich due to
          "landmass and slavery."
          And that's all we are up against ?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MarR 10 years ago
    We should send that poster here to see the other side of that argument. All he is getting is one sided jarble. If he really wants to define his own ideas about the message of Atlas Shrugged, then he needs to see an objectivists discussion about that same topic. Then he can make a more rational decision for himself and judge with his own mind about the effects and outcomes of socialism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years ago
      I do not see how we can help the poster. As a former lifeguard, they are all drowning and if we swim over to save them, in their ignorant panic they can push us under. seriously, they are scoring everyone's comments so the down vote will go as you can imagine.
      My favorite comment: "get him a copy of Grapes of Wrath quick!"
      There was never a more dehumanizing book written with beautiful prose that I can think of. well, wait a minute, I can think of more...
      Yes, DO read Grapes of Wrath-and in the final scenes-tell us how you viewed the pressure on the young mother who lost her child to offer up her breast to the starving, dying old man whom she had never met before. I always love it when the women are asked to give up shit first in socialism....like their femininity for one...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years ago
        Very interesting. Yes... I remember when I took my son for his first camping trip when he was 2. I had just watched the Grapes of Wrath a couple weeks earlier. The campground where we stayed reminded me of the camp in the story where the kids in the story were begging Ma for food. I'll never forget that. It was 2007. About 1/3 of the campground was people who had lost their homes. Miserable...

        Our population is so rife with dumb sheep - just mindless, hapless victims.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kwwatson16 10 years ago
    Dear socialists trolling on this site,
    Rand knew more about the failings of your bankrupt philosophy in its practical application than any of you. She lived in it and escaped to a better way of life here in the United States. History shows us that socialism and communism ignore a basic truth of human nature- that humans are best incentivized towards productivity by the prospect of self-betterment. Taking this away with a "from each....to each" philosophy leads to mass apathy and generalized misery (except for those that run things- remember, socialism is never for the socialist). Stressing the importance of hard work and self-advancement with the least amount of government intrusion is the most effective way to create wealth for an entire society- history proves this. My observation is that socialists oppose capitalism out of simple jealousy. They aren't able to achieve the success which they feel entitled to so they want to take it at the point of a spear.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
      I seem to recall that the founders, or whatever, of the socialist philosophy were failures in their lives. So I can see how the jealousy angle plays into coming up with this idea of "from each...to each", without having to worry about working hard to achieve what they may want. Its like the teenager, or later, attitude of "you owe me cuz I breath". Could it be angst which fuels the socialist ideas? Just thinkng.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 10 years ago
    Rand´s experience in Russia can´t condemn socialism, for what happenned in Russia was fascism too. What condemns socialism is its utopia, it´s unnatural posture that man is good or, worst yet, man is incapable of evil. Capitalism is alot more honest, we´re selfish creatures like most are. Yet we can´t be all liberal or all statist. Extremes are bad.

    Wolves are individuals that, because of nature and their intelligence, decide to live in packs. So do lions, dolphins, whales, fish, ants, etc. We humans are far from being bees and ants, and much closer to being wolves and whales. Any questions?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 10 years ago
    You have to love the Socialist wannabe's that try to drag Ayn Rand down. I mean, she grew up in Russia during the revolution...hello? That tells me she may have known just a little of what she was talking about.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years ago
    I made exactly zero, zip, nada, my first year in business. Just me, my wife and two high school kids. Eventually, we made enough to hire a full time employee. We actually had a celebration the first week we took in more than we spent. But it was mine all mine. It was a type of business that I enjoyed. It was fun and going to work was something to look forward to. It was a roller-coaster ride, but eventually we had a thriving business going. Was it worth the sacrifice and hardships that were too many to enumerate? You damn betcha!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 10 years ago
    Evidently this person has not been effected by what has happened in the U.S. or has been given to all of their life. Eventually o.p.m. runs out and will this person cry foul "I will take that bet". I have read all of these comments and thank you all because they enlighten me with hope. As a young tyke something kept telling me govment involvement was nothing more than theft. I also was told if this kept going that there would be nothing, but the Rich and the Poor. No Middle Class. Wise words spoken even before I read Rand. I think those who gave me those words had read her works. Rich and the Poor sounds familiar.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeadRight 10 years ago
    Envy, the sin of envy, is the evil lurking behind all those posts. Truly sick people.
    Greed is self regulating as competitors will arise at lower costs. Envy on the other hand is a bottomless pit of need with no contribution to others. It is what the left is based on. Theft from one to bribe another to continue the ruination of the recipients of stolen property and the destruction of victims of the original theft.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
    What the socialists fail to take into account is how did the business or enterprise get started? Who invested their money, time, and labor to get the capitalistic organization going in the first place? The workers are hired to add to the capacity of the business to continue to grow, not at the pleasure of the workers, but to be financially viable and add to society as a whole. Who should reap the rewards of that initial endeavor? Those who have the most invested in its founding and continuation, which is certainly not the workers. To the average worker, a job is a job, maintained to pay the bills and be able to enjoy a certain level of life. Want more? Either start a business or make themselves more valuable to the current employer via hard work and initiative. This is what socialism does not take into account, that someone had to start the business, usually on their own, and, if successful, have a need for the workers to continue in business. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
    Silly socialists. They don't get it. Just like the government we have now, they don't get it either. . .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DeadRight 10 years ago
      Oh you don't understand, everyone should just be given a house! To quote my brother-in-law. I ask him who is going to cut the wood, mix the paint, dig the foundation, crickets.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
        Crickets is the end reply of any conversation with a socialist or their ilk. Somebody else will take care of the details of whatever it is the left wants to reward the sheeple with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
      You miss that time-value of money. The workers get a certain payment in the short-term, the owners get an uncertain payment in the future. The owners are compensated for that uncertainty with a higher return.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
        Absolutely correct, Sir. I had forgotten the time-value of money to just get the business going and continuing prior to showing a profit. Thanks for the reminder, Rob.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 10 years ago
    Thank you for reminding me of that hideous ode to socialism, "Grapes of Wrath" - it was almost painful to read in its philosophy. Then there was the reference by the mom about we are the people - like some union anthem.Ugh! Of course, that is likely one book colleges will retain, and the socialist message will continue. It was hard to watch a college professor who adored the book sell it to students eager to latch on to the thinking. As a co-philosophy major at the time, I suffered through it and likely wrote some essay faulting the message. I just remember being told I was "too intense" by that professor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by zzdragon 10 years ago
    By reading the comments here I’m understanding more and more that socialist’s just don’t understand. Being paid for your Labor is just the barter system using vouchers (paper money). Kids may be more important than flying a kite but it is all about equal pay (barter) for equal work.
    If you have 10 kids that’s your problem not mine. I’ve never understood the concept that I have to pay for your kids. I paid for mine without your help.
    For those who rant about how bad or wrong AR was might just need to have it explained to them as it appears that they just don’t get it on their own.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DeadRight 10 years ago
      I like Walter E. Williams money description. Money is a chit, proof I have served my fellow man.
      I did something for another, that person paid me.
      These commies are just as lazy as Marx. Got done with college and tried to find a way for some one to take the money from others and give it to me. Oh and for the bribe, I will vote....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo