News How do we reform the US political system to put leaders in office

[outsider]

I think that the problem is not so much that people leading corporations are motivated by greed (or motivated by those motivated by greed) or whatever, I think that the problem is that BIG corporations have so much money that the persons in charge of them can use that money to influence politics, and not just "doing business in the market" like in the economy textbooks: using their money to improve their production process etc... but just using their money to push through policies that are advantageous to them.
Small is beautiful. Small corporations (greedy or not) have to play by the book. Big corporations can use the political card to play to "cheat" on the market.
I had suggested an upper limit to the amount of money a company (or a person) can have, high enough not to have any luxury desire being frustrated, but low enough that its political impact remains neglegible.

I like what you are saying. It is the foul play and lobbying that is the despicable part of American capitalism. This is similar to the payola scandals in the music industry. The idea that success is bought and that the rich get richer, is what also hinders and stifles motivation for some.

Here's what I think should happen. If a corporation breaks a law, it should be able to face jail time. What do I mean by this? All of its assets would be frozen, and it should not be allowed to conduct business while it is "incarcerated." Now, I realize that you might say that's it's unfair to the stockholders, but by the time the criminal investigation becomes public knowledge, the stock price will drop to a low amount anyway. If a corporation is going to be treated as a person under the law, we should go all the way with that.

just the same as all the family members who invest in a young child... one day, this child may become a criminal... he gets caught and you realize you were investing in illegal activity... and all investments are out the door... written off as a loss and you are lucky if you don't have to go to jail as an accomplice. Sure, you may wish that person the best... but you probably would think twice before lending them money, right?

If you invest in a company, it is up to you to do the due diligence. If you take a friends word for it, then you are a fool by association. Don't forget that Incorporation is a way of protecting one's assets... it's a covered risk... generally a prelude to potential disaster. Making money with other people's money... if you get out alive, you are laffing... and if not... o well, you still have your family, farm, and ford f-150.

 

[outsider]

If I could earn 5 votes or 10 in recognition from the people in my community, that is a powerful motivator.

plus your degree of accountability is greater... you live in the communitee and are not in a position of power... you do not maintain these votes to carry over and so you will need to continue your good works. are we getting somewhere?

Having managed numerous teams at a major corporation, I found that positive reinforcement and having sound team values based on the team itself worked very well. You would be surprised as to what a great motivator earning a prize and the accolades from your peers is worth. It actually is a catalyst to induce more competition. Some teams prefer cash prizes, some teams prefer novelties... however the point is that peer recognition is one of the highest tiers of maslow's heirarchy of needs. Also what I've found is that certain reps would continue to win prizes, which would hamper other team members abilities to perform, however in providing motivation to the motivated rep to help the unmotivated rep, the value of the community increased enormously as the motivated rep becomes a "mentor".

 

[Skyhunter]

The fundamental problem I see with your proposal is: who will decide who is "recognized as outstanding in their service" ? And who will give you the *opportunity* to be outstanding in your service ? I see here a very high danger of a sect hijacking those assignments and recognitions, and as such get all the power to them.
I mean: if I want to be very powerful, I just make a lot of fuzz of all I did for the community ; once I'm a "star" in that domain, I "recognize" as very outstanding, my buddies, who on their turn, recognize others etc... as being very outstanding. As such, a small group would just have about all the power. We'd give then interesting positions from where it is easy to shed an image of "being outstanding" and reinforce more and more our grip on society.

Excellent point and one i have struggled with. How do we keep keep it from being hi-jacked and turned into the same good old boy network of cronyism we have today. The most dangerous window of opportunity for this is of course during the transition period.

People who are already registered to vote should not lose their suffrage. I would make participation mandatory, if one elects to abstain, that would be fine, active abstention is still participating. Then it would be a matter of the people within their communities to nominate others for extra suffrage and the community would then vote. It should not be an easy thing and if you have made enemies it will be even harder. The details of how this would work is why i would like input from others. I am just a simple carpenter not a poli-sci major so I have huge gaps in my understanding.

And a person can lose their right of suffrage as well, it isn't a lifetime appointment. Being convicted of a crime would be one sure way, losing the respect of your community could be another.

It will not be long before communications will reach a plateau where debates and votes on a community level can be held relatively easy.

 

[outsider]

In addition, communities will have their specific needs... signing up for the task forces to address the needs... it's like a worklist, or shopping list... a mandate to a greater vision... those with skills will be providing theirs and those without skill can gain... it's a community project where a voted supervisor can watch over the progress using unbiased methods for tracking and judging results. This way it is clear to the community that each person has achieved their goal and earned the respect of the community. For instance, in my short time here at PF... I would recognize Skyhunter, russ_waters, The Smoking Man, Loseyourname and a few others as individuals who I would consider as outstanding in their post contents. These things just become evident over time... they have stayed loyal to the board and put much effort in their posts. PF mentors should be constantly requalifying just like Airline Rewards programs... it keeps people honest.

 

[alexandra]

"The Corporation" - must see DVD

Our current system does nothing to promote honesty and integrity in our leaders.

I want to figure out a way motivate people on a large scale to be better humans. Something akin to the profit motive of free enterprise.

Hi Skyhunter

When you suggested you'd start this thread, I responded that I'd post my comments about why I do not believe capitalism can be 'reformed'. Well, I have just spent the last three hours riveted, watching the must-see DVD "The Corporation", which I hope is available in the USA ("The Land of the Free", "The Land of Democracy"). If you can get hold of it, I'd highly recommend that anyone who supports capitalism watch it. It shows so clearly why this system cannot be reformed.

Heck there's something in it for everyone:

Yonoz - find out the role IBM played in the Holocaust (war is great for business!).

Environmentalists - Listen to the CEOs' sickening, hypocritical statements about their 'concerns for the environment'.

Russ - one of your heros (Milton Friedman) even gets cameo appearances. Oh yes, and you can *see* evidence of the existence of sweatshops (something you doubted in another discussion we had ages ago).

The rest of you - see what the corporate elite tried to do to President Rooseveldt (and why). Oh yes, and check out what corporate leaders want to (and have already, in some countries) privatised: water (including rainwater) and air and... And they've also managed to patent living organisms!

And after you've seen this video, you tell me how you can *reform* this mess!

Anyway, here's a less personalised 'blurb' on this video, which I assume all of you interested in this issue will see because you are interested in furthering your knowledge on this topic (because, of course, you don't want to decide what you believe without giving the matter serious consideration!):

SYNOPSIS
THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

Winner of 24 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, 10 of them AUDIENCE CHOICE AWARDS including the AUDIENCE AWARD for DOCUMENTARY in WORLD CINEMA at the 2004 SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL. The long-awaited DVD, available now in Australia and coming in March to North America, contains over 8 hour of additional footage.

The film is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan.

Reference: http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2

 

[Skyhunter]

And beneath this problem is another (sort-of the root cause of the kind of problem pointed out in the above quote). Greed would still be the motivation. There are all kinds of greed, and the lust for money is only one kind. The lust for power is just as rpevalent, and just as dangerous, if not more so. This system merely replaces the method by which power is obtained, it does not change the motivation. It also intruduces a strong reason for people with ulterior motives to get involved in charity and community service organizations, which can be big trouble.

On the plus side, it does at least assure some community service out of those who wish to be in power. So it may provide a lesson in the concept of the "servant/leader" to those on their way to power.

I know people who are generous in spirit, kind and giving in their community. They tell me how when they first started volunteering in their community it was for personal greed. It was a way to network into the community for business opportunities. The experience changed their outlook on life and now that they are retired they can devote a great deal of their life to volunteerism. in fact for a great many of them it is now one of their greatest passions and pleasures in life.

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

I realize that those with lots of money can easily buy suffrage, and since they have more invested, I have no problem with this. I am searching for the mechanism in which society will take the next leap forward. We are perched on the edge. It is time to leap for the next level or lose our grip and fall.

 

[Smurf]

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

Indeed, one of the most fundamental part of the human psych is that we like to help other people. Surely anyone can draw up examples of this in their lifetime (unless you're still in grade 10 and the only people you talk to are dumb kids, your parents and the principle who hates you)

 

[Skyhunter]

I have seen "The Corporation". It is a must see for anyone wanting to understand my concern about corporatism.

I am much more of an optimist than you I guess. I believe that we have the tools (computers and the internet) to transform the world into something wonderful. We just need motivation to do so. I also have faith in human nature.

We have come so far, why would we stop here?

There was a time in our history when slavery was an advanced institution. If you consider that before that when one people conquered another they would slaughter all survivors. Slavery enabled people the leisure to create art, and philosophy and finally realize that slavery was wrong. That only happened 150 years ago. And look where we are now.

Without capitalism and free enterprise we would still have slavery as a social institution. We cannot discard it, because it is essential at this stage to maintain the wealth and productivity of the first world. What is needed is for the first world to realize that there is enough, and it is OK to share.

 

[alexandra]

I have seen "The Corporation". It is a must see for anyone wanting to understand my concern about corporatism.

My thoughts too.

I am much more of an optimist than you I guess. I believe that we have the tools (computers and the internet) to transform the world into something wonderful. We just need motivation to do so. I also have faith in human nature.

I wouldn't say I'm a complete pessimist (not all the time, in any case ) But I can't find any reasons for being optimistic about capitalism because it is based on greed. That cannot be changed - how can there be a capitalism based on concern for human beings and/or the environment when (as the DVD shows again and again) 'the bottom line' is all that counts for these most powerful 'corporate citizens' who now roam the planet at will, seeking ever-better ways to exploit resources and labour so that they can increase their shareholders' dividends (their primary and overriding concern by law, as the DVD points out)? "Change the laws?" But how? Who makes the laws?

We have come so far, why would we stop here?

Yes, exactly. Human societies have changed over time: people lived in nomadic tribes, then settled and became agriculturalists; feudalism was superceded by capitalism (a better system of social organisation)... Now why is capitalism necessarily 'the end of the road'? This is what I don't get. Why is capitalism the 'natural best' we can achieve as human beings? Can we not evolve our social institutions to go beyond individualistic greed?

There was a time in our history when slavery was an advanced institution. If you consider that before that when one people conquered another they would slaughter all survivors. Slavery enabled people the leisure to create art, and philosophy and finally realize that slavery was wrong. That only happened 150 years ago. And look where we are now.

Without capitalism and free enterprise we would still have slavery as a social institution. We cannot discard it, because it is essential at this stage to maintain the wealth and productivity of the first world. What is needed is for the first world to realize that there is enough, and it is OK to share.

I agree that capitalism was an advance on feudalism. But it is possible that there are inherent limitations on how much 'good' capitalism can do: it is a system that takes a very short-term view: its major players (the corporations) are bound by the rules of survival in the market place. To survive and succeed in this highly competitive global capitalist environment, corporations have to be ruthless when cutting down their costs, so they invest in places where, even if slavery does not officially exist, people are literally paid slave-wages - just enough to stay alive to work another day. They also invest and build their factories in poor third world countries whose governments have no option but to let them pollute the environment. All this is in the DVD. You can try telling these corporations to 'be nice', I guess. I just don't think they'll listen

 

[vanesch]

I agree that capitalism was an advance on feudalism.

I think capitalism existed far before feudalism, only it didn't have a name. Capitalist effects certainly played a big role in the rise and fall of Rome.

But it is possible that there are inherent limitations on how much 'good' capitalism can do: it is a system that takes a very short-term view: its major players (the corporations) are bound by the rules of survival in the market place.

I think that relative short term view is indeed the main problem with capitalism. Things you know you have to do in order not to have a serious problem 50 or 100 years from now cannot be dealt with by pure capitalism. Profits are maximized over the duration of the term of a CEO.

The other problem I see with capitalism is the feedback that you get between big corporations and politics: politics give "legal advantages" to their buddy corporations, and corporations "buy" votes for their buddy politicians.

But small scale capitalism works really well.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think capitalism existed far before feudalism, only it didn't have a name. Capitalist effects certainly played a big role in the rise and fall of Rome.

I think that relative short term view is indeed the main problem with capitalism. Things you know you have to do in order not to have a serious problem 50 or 100 years from now cannot be dealt with by pure capitalism. Profits are maximized over the duration of the term of a CEO.

The other problem I see with capitalism is the feedback that you get between big corporations and politics: politics give "legal advantages" to their buddy corporations, and corporations "buy" votes for their buddy politicians.

But small scale capitalism works really well.

As it is now the corporate capitalist are the government. It was obvious from the first secret energy task force meeting, the Bush/Cheney administration was not going to allow any view but their own. Regulators are all from the industries they are now in charge regulating.

This is why I think we need a secondary premise for corporations to exist. If along with making a profit, they also need to demonstrate a positive contribution to society I think that would help change the companies goals and policies.

To a large extent, as consumers we can regulate corporations. The American revolution began as a consumer movement. The colonies were a huge market for English trade goods. The Boston Tea Party is the most famous story relating to this, but the movement started almost 100 years before that, if my memory of history is accurate.

 

[Smurf]

The corporation has outlived it's benefit to humanity in it's current form.

 

[outsider]

I know people who are generous in spirit, kind and giving in their community. They tell me how when they first started volunteering in their community it was for personal greed. It was a way to network into the community for business opportunities. The experience changed their outlook on life and now that they are retired they can devote a great deal of their life to volunteerism. in fact for a great many of them it is now one of their greatest passions and pleasures in life.

I believe that everyone has this innate ability to find pleasure in service to others. If this trait could be cultivated and harnessed, the way that the competitive nature that was once used for war has been harnessed for business. Imagine if people were competing with one another to be of greater service to their community.

I realize that those with lots of money can easily buy suffrage, and since they have more invested, I have no problem with this. I am searching for the mechanism in which society will take the next leap forward. We are perched on the edge. It is time to leap for the next level or lose our grip and fall.

Skyhunter... I cannot agree with you more. I've been a community volunteer for a few years now. Yes, my original intent was to get in with networking and seeking the opportunities abound in community efforts (also I have a passion for helping others), but it was a manyfold agenda that I originally had. In helping people and seeing the less fortunate, I've found a greater grace. As I said before, I am an outsider by choice... the ugliness of the corporate world is just not for me. And I found that people do gain a greater sense of self when they do for others. You are definitely on to something. How does the system get changed? I guess the government would have to buy into it, but I doubt any government would consider this as it makes winnign a race that much harder. Perhaps it should start in a small abandoned godforsaken town of 100 people who decide to break away? I just came back from a wedding and had a few, so I don't even know if I'm being coherent... good luck to anyone who just read this.

 

[Smurf]

The government it's self in it's current form is incapable of creating such a change. Probably the biggest thing we could do to move in that direction would be to implement a time limit on how many terms a person can hold an office for. (I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Canada there are no term limits in almost any positions) That would get rid of these career politicians that are plaguing us today.

 

[BobG]

How will good samaritans gain these extra votes? Will community members elect to give them extra votes, or what?

Here's an idea for suffrage:

Give everyone one vote and the ability to sign their vote over to someone else. This way, your vote is counted regardless of who wins in your local race. People who aid their community might be likely recipients of extra voting power.

Also, the effects of voting apathy and political ignorance become negligible. If the person you gave your vote to votes differently from how you would in issues, you can just use your own vote or give it to someone else.

There are plenty of problems with this idea, but there are plenty of problems with our current system, as well. Ultimately an educated, informed populace is necessary for a successful democracy. This system just allows a better median.

This is interesting. It pretty much describes the way democracy existed when the Constitution was first approved.

Local voters voted for the House Representatives and state legislators. The state legislators picked the state's Senators.

The voters also voted to choose people to get together and pick a President. That system still exists as the Electoral College, even though now the decision that the selected electors will make are pretty much automatically assigned to a given candidate.

Keeping a separation between the voters and some of the key politicians allowed the government to tackle long term problems with a little consistency vs. policies swinging wildly back and forth based on the current mood of the general public. Of course, making it difficult for the federal government to do anything fast was also seen as a positive, since the states didn't trust the idea of giving up sovereignty to a central government.

 

[Skyhunter]

There are plenty of problems with this idea, but there are plenty of problems with our current system, as well. Ultimately an educated, informed populace is necessary for a successful democracy. This system just allows a better median.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson expressed similar sentiments.

I don't think we can go backward. But there is a lot to be learned by looking at the history of our nations founding.

The founding fathers did not have the information network (internet) that we have today. We can communicate complex issues and all be able to voice our opinions and cast our votes. I know this is over simplification, but like I said , I am a simple carpenter.

The New Orleans disaster has exposed the ineptness of our leaders and even more than the leaders it has exposed the flaws in our ideologies

 

[Smurf]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

Smith based his theory on the existing practice, somewhat idealized. Saying a social practice doesn't exist until some intellectual writes about it is what's silly.

 

[Smurf]

Smith based his theory on the existing practice, somewhat idealized. Saying a social practice doesn't exist until some intellectual writes about it is what's silly.

Capitalism is an economic theory, it's not a few "social practices". Just because there are some similarities between historical cultures and what Adam Smith (and others) ideolized doesn't mean a thing.

 

[vanesch]

Capitalism didn't exist until Adam Smith. Saying "capitalist effects" existed before in ancient rome is like saying socialism existed because a monarch once gave a copper to a homeless man. It's silly.

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist ! Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).
So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

 

[alexandra]

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist ! Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).
So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

So we obviously have to define 'capitalism' if we are going to discuss it (or its origins). When I speak of capitalism, I mean the economic and social system that superceded feudalism - after the French Revolution (when the previous ruling class: the monarchy and landowning class, was overthrown by the newly rising ruling class of capitalists) and during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, during the Enlightenment. To me, capitalism involved the formation of the two major economic classes of capitalists (who owned capital) and working class (who owned nothing but their labour power), and did not exist when there was no money (capital) - so barter exchange of goods is not, but my understanding/definition, a feature of capitalism.

And no way is capitalism the greatest system of social organisation ever invented - at this point in time, it may turn out to be the absolutely most destructive. This depends on what people decide to do about regaining control of their lives - if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

 

[Informal Logic]

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

Correct, and as another member posted, this is why capitalism is viewed to be the most feasible system (but not best IMO). Because it is human nature to be greedy and exploit resources even with knowledge of contributing in damaging ways. And it is nearly impossible to change human nature. With this said, how do you separate the two?

 

[Smurf]

Under capitalism, you can understand two things: one is an ideology, and that didn't exist of course until it was explicitly written down. It is the belief that when you let the market do everything, everything will be for the best. But it can also be a practice: You LET the market do everything (simply because you do not do anything else!). Now you may not have the *belief* that this will do things for the best, but nevertheless it is capitalism, no ?

Fine but then true capitalism has never actually been practiced. Also, every intellectual ideology/theory/idea that has ever been written down and ever will be has been, to a degree, practiced as well. Therefor it is a moot point as it is applicable to everything. Mine as well say your tea cup is made up of atoms.

There's not much of a system to capitalism for it to be a practice: all you need is the idea of ownership and exchange. You do not even need money to exist !

No, you need private ownership and non-regulated exchange.

Capitalism is the next thing you have when nothing is instored, after the law of the jungle (where ownership is NOT recognized). Hunters-gatherers in a clan even "did capitalism" (as long as they didn't get out their clubs to take the stuff of the neighbour).

Fine, but when the cave men drew animals on the cave walls, that was impressionism. And when the cave men gave meat to the cave women, that was socialism, also (equally important) the meat that was given was... DUM DUM DUM... made of atoms.

So when someone writes that capitalism is the greatest institution man ever invented... that's like saying that walking is the greatest invention of locomotion man ever did

It's also like saying Brad Pitt was the cutest guy ever in a hollywood film.

 

[Smurf]

You perception of capitalism it seems is actually based on an illogical application of capitalism. Logically if one wishes to make money as a capitalist then one needs to take care of it's customers, workers, and environment. If you don't then eventually your business will go under.
So it's not the logical conclusion of capitalism that you speak of it is the logical conclusion of greedy people exploiting capitalism that you are referring to.

I don't think it's illogical at all. The unique thing about corporatism is that they will sell Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara to make a buck. Sell sell sell. It's like the rich man that will sell himself the rope to hang him with if he thinks he'll make a buck out of it.

Besides, such a claim is based on blind faith in the system since the evidence clearly points to awsome destruction of the environment and no real slowing so far. If you have a reason (other than faith) to believe it'll all suddenly stop, please share it, because we would all like to stop worrying too.

 

[Smurf]

Correct, and as another member posted, this is why capitalism is viewed to be the most feasible system (but not best IMO). Because it is human nature to be greedy and exploit resources even with knowledge of contributing in damaging ways. And it is nearly impossible to change human nature. With this said, how do you separate the two?

Nonsense. You have no way to prove that it is human nature to be greedy. An example given of universal human behavior has an equal counter example. The Cave men fight for resources.. and then give them to the women and children. This is not greed, this is social responsibility. If we expand that to a global social responsibility (as opposed to tribal, or nationalist.. or economic) it'll be far better, and just as feasible, as your beloved capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think it's illogical at all. The unique thing about corporatism is that they will sell Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky and Che Guevara to make a buck. Sell sell sell. It's like the rich man that will sell himself the rope to hang him with if he thinks he'll make a buck out of it.

Besides, such a claim is based on blind faith in the system since the evidence clearly points to awsome destruction of the environment and no real slowing so far. If you have a reason (other than faith) to believe it'll all suddenly stop, please share it, because we would all like to stop worrying too.

Are there no capitalist societies that are environmentally aware and curtailing their damage to their environment? Companies that cut down trees and then plant more? Companies that set up operations in other countries and build schools and hospitals for the people who live there? These are the logical steps to take to ensure the continuation of the system are they not?
Motives are not part of the capitalist system. Technically a company could run without any intention making profit and still be capitalist in nature. A system could be run that is communist or socialist and still be filled with greedy people exploiting the working class and damaging the environment. These are not prerequisites of either system though. The thing that needs to be worked on are the people not the systems. The one unique advantage that capitalism has is that it takes advatage of the (sometimes) human traits of greed and competition.
I don't think the problem will be fixed over night. That would be impossible. If you got rid of capitalism and replaced it with another system the same or similar problems will still exist due to the flaws and motives of the individual people involved.

 

[Smurf]

Are there no capitalist societies that are environmentally aware and curtailing their damage to their environment? Companies that cut down trees and then plant more? Companies that set up operations in other countries and build schools and hospitals for the people who live there?

Yes there are. But these are the small guys struggling to hold on. All the well established corporations don't do it. They didn't doing when they were rising, they won't do it now that they're at the top because in the system you don't get powerfull and nice at the same time. It's an economy based on self service at all costs. How anyone can think that leads to ethical events is beyond me completely. It's amazing what telling a person over and over again can do, because obviously a lot of people do believe it.

These are the logical steps to take to ensure the continuation of the system are they not?

Yeah, exactly. And what part of this corporatist/capitalist... What part of what we have now is advocating that, exactly? Anything mildly significant has nothing to do with the economy, it's Charity groups mostly.

Frankly is sounds to me like you want to refine our system away from capitalism to something else because you recognize the problem. If that's so then we agree, more or less, is that true?

Motives are not part of the capitalist system. Technically a company could run without any intention making profit and still be capitalist in nature. A system could be run that is communist or socialist and still be filled with greedy people exploiting the working class and damaging the environment.

These are not prerequisites of either system though. The thing that needs to be worked on are the people not the systems. The one unique advantage that capitalism has is that it takes advatage of the (sometimes) human traits of greed and competition.

I don't think the problem will be fixed over night. That would be impossible. If you got rid of capitalism and replaced it with another system the same or similar problems will still exist due to the flaws and motives of the individual people involved.

Why not? If you suddenly stop producing horrible chemicals there will be no more production of horrible chemicals... How is that not solving a problem?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, exactly. And what part of this corporatist/capitalist... What part of what we have now is advocating that, exactly? Anything mildly significant has nothing to do with the economy, it's Charity groups mostly.

It's only logical as I said. There are people and organizations doing and advocating these things as well...

Schultz has received a number of prestigious awards in recognition of his achievements and his commitment to community service and to partners. In 1996, Schultz was the recipient of the International Humanitarian Award from CARE for his vision and leadership in developing an innovative partnership between Starbucks and CARE to support people in coffee origin countries. In August 1998, Schultz was honored by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah for individuals making significant contributions toward improving the lives of people around the world. Schultz was named Executive of the Year in the July 1, 2000 issue of Restaurants and Institutions magazine. In September 2000, Schultz was honored by the Columbia University School of Business with the Botwinick Prize in Business Ethics. In January 2002, Schultz was named one of top 25 Managers of the Year by Business Week magazine. In April 2004, Schultz was named one of Time magazine's "100 Most Influential Business Leaders."

In spring 1997, Schultz created The Starbucks Foundation to raise awareness for literacy causes and to give grants to organizations that promote literacy. The foundation was initially funded by Schultz's profits from his best-selling book, "Pour Your Heart Into It: How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time." Since its creation, the Foundation has contributed millions of dollars to literacy programs throughout North America.
http://wpcarey.asu.edu/community/dc100/exe_year_starbucks.cfm

While I don't care for Starbucks they do seem to do quite a bit both for people here and the people where their beans are grown. Yet they still get blasted for selling other than fair trade product. Why? Because they're a big corperation and it's easy for people to see them as nothing but money grubbing basterds.

Frankly is sounds to me like you want to refine our system away from capitalism to something else because you recognize the problem. If that's so then we agree, more or less, is that true?

More or less. I think that our governments should advocate, reward, and enforce ethical business practices. I'm sure that they do but they probably don't do to great a job of it, especially when it comes to over seas facilities. At least mine doesn't, I'm not sure about yours.

Why not? If you suddenly stop producing horrible chemicals there will be no more production of horrible chemicals... How is that not solving a problem?

That doesn't require changing the system, just the change of practices within the system. My point was that the system itself doesn't matter, it's some of those persons involved in it that are the problem.

 

[Skyhunter]

And no way is capitalism the greatest system of social organisation ever invented - at this point in time, it may turn out to be the absolutely most destructive. This depends on what people decide to do about regaining control of their lives - if capitalism is allowed to work itself out to its logical conclusion, the environment will be destroyed and... well, no sense in an 'and', is there?

Capitalism has made it possible for people like you and me to have the wealth and leisure to spend time contemplating the evils of capitalism. Institutions are neither good or evil. Institutions drive social evolution until society evolves beyond the values that the institution upholds. Society outgrows it's institutions, that is where we are now.

I agree that the excesses of capitalism are destructive. That is why I started this thread. I want to hear comments on my idea of suffrage reform. And I want to hear the ideas of others for advancing society.