Quote:
|
Originally Posted by geetrue
Are you sympathetic to communism, Skybird?
|
Hehe, I just waited for someone indicating that Skybird is a communist, I knew it was only a question of time. Obviously you need a stereotyped concept of an enemy, then. since you are a kind guy and I like you I do you the favour and give you want you want: Yes, I am communist. I also believe in anarchism. I am a child born from inzest, not to mention that I am gay. I love the colour pink, and I believe that God is dead. Ah, and btw, I am totally anti-american, convinced Bush basher and I hate all rotten Americans around.
I also have a perverse hobby, I find it funny watching Pavlovian dogs starting to slobber after the key stimulus was shown to them. Here is yours:
COMMUNISM!
-----
Opposite to Kiwi, I do not believe that communism works. but I also don't see that capitalism or democracy works too well. Both are basing on a flawed understanding of man, this they have in common: Both believe that man is reasonable, altruistic, and modest, and both have these attributes as a nessessary precondition in order to function properly, according to capitalist or communist theory. but man is not reasonable, nor altruistic and modest in his material demands.
Capitalist market economies have installed a surprising lot of market regulations and protective measurements, not too mention the chnagingh set of penalty and protective customs (Strafzölle, Schutzzölle). So much for the state not interfering with the market (another myth I am no friend of: that market alone would govern with invisible hand to the best of all, finally: it means to install economical anarchy in which the set of competitors is thinned out and the survivors become stronger and stronger. Monopolism is where it leads to, that'S why this idea is especially popular with corporations who are alraedy in a strong position).
I agree with August that the scale of a company has to be taken into account. However, my criticism I see as valid for almost all internation corportations in the fields of chemistry, cars, energy, aeronautics, arms, and more and more food as well. these are the international players. Small, local enterprises with 20 employees are in most cases not the problem, and the span between wages at the top and at the bottom must not be our concern, since they are alraedy acceptable.
Unfortunately I forget their name, but a year or longer ago I red about a Spanish corproration in a German print magazine on economics, a major article, I even do not remember what business they were in. They practice according to what I demand. The leadership earns not more than around ten or twelve times as much as the lowest employee at the bottom of the hierarchy, there is a barrier that is not allowed to be jumped. Every profit that is saved after paying wages and running costs, is not wasted to foreign stockholders who have no further interest than just to make money, otherwise know nothing about the business and have no interest in the business and no relation to it, for they do not sell stocks but remain independant. Winds are reinvested in their own company, and into modest and reasonable raises of wages, eventually. their priority was to come along with the money that was earned before, and not to make financial debts to turn evolutionary growth into running revolutions prematurely. the long report I red back then told a success story that is almost unique in Europe. They are slowly but constantly expanding, their finances are rock-solid (at least back then when the report was written), they are invulnerable to hostile takeovers for they did not participate in the stockmarket madness, the jobs are safe, the employees are highly motivated due to the good working conditions and social security, there is strong team spirit, and after just a couple of years they had multiplied their size several times. They key to it, they said, was to give up to economize with a goal of becoming as big as possible in as shortest time as possible, but to practice voluntary modesty in loans even at the top of the hierarchy, understanding that all are sitting in the same boat, not giving jobs to managers who see the company only as a vehicle to make a personal career and maximum income, and most important: to economize with solidness and sustainability in mind. When I red about them, I was highly impressed. It was a success story like I have not often heared one. what was a small enterprise with only a handful jobs, now is a company that operates almost nationwide, with thousands of jobs. If only i would remember what business they were in and what their name was, ecologically produced food, cosmetics and clothing, I think, but memory may fail me. Any Spanish board member maybe knows. It sounded almost too perfect
(dirty mean skybird, always finding a hair in the soup...) If someone knows who I mean, maybe he can complete my description.
So, there are alternatives to orthodox capitalist economizing. Seing the latter more critically also is a must considering the environmental problems we need to face in the imminent future, and even already in the present. these are caused by a way of economizing for which "modesty", "self-restriction", "sustainability" are almost foreign words. business is war, one needs to fight against enemy companies else one gets swallowed, this is the spirit in which our economical leaders are trained. We already swallow this message with our mother's milk: we live in a world that is run by this martial principle when we are kids, juveniles, and are at school long before we start thinking about our future jobs. We support this system by accepting the living styles in which we are situated. No one of us is innocent.
May I assume safely that this topic on China is completely off-topic now?
