But one think that I'm sure of is that Healthcare and Education should not be treated as corporate commodities...as much as we Americans care about the economy and competition, etc, when business becomes more important than our people (which it has) it's a disgusting situation.

 What Slart said.  (He's not just a silly face!)

 

Morality doesn't normally enter into the profit motive and the overriding concern for the "bottom line" -- unless public perceptions of a  lack of corporate morality, or the perception of immorality, start to negatively affect sales. That's when we get "dolphin friendly," tuna,  "green" products, etc. Thus, the consumer's morality can force some morality upon the marketplace (or make it act more as if moral concerns were a consideration -- which is much the same in effect).

 

Thus, my answer is "Yes and No" -- the marketplace itself is amoral, but the moral concerns of consumers can cause business to act in a fashion more in accord with morality, in the interest of preserving profitability.

In stead of  the free market you rather mean capitalism. Otherwise the alternative is the central planning, the opposite of the free market - does it promote morality? So the phrasing is wrong. It's like saying breathing promotes immorality.

 

"I think that what the USA goverment is trying to make by the latter wars they have been starting is looking for a new USSR type of enemy"

 

I don't mean to go off topic but please name one war that the US instigated BESIDES the Iraqi conflict.And we really didn't have to "look" for a new enemy,we found that in Al-Queda and terrorism.And they started that,by killing almost 5,000 of my countrymen in one day.They should have taken a lesson from Japan's book and studied the chapter called "Don't Kick a Hornets Nest".

 

Sorry man,your post bothered me.We rarely start wars,but have a good track record on finishing them(until recently,I'm sad to say).

Adam Smith provided an explanation of the markets, not a recipe how to run them. Lots of modern (and non-modern) economic theories are based on his observations 

Both real communism and the real free markets exist only on paper. So it;s a hypothetical question.

 

Sorry.....Bad choice of words,because I am a firm supporter of the war in Iraq and definitely think it was necessary.

 

But Marx did believe that human nature had the capacity to leave behind this history of exploitation - because it was a result of ecological factors - thus, you change the environment...the system, the way people live, then you can reform the social order and begin to eradicate the manipulation that capitalism 'promotes'.

 

I am not a big fan of the powers that be that started the whole thing,but my support for the troops never wavers.

 

" I am afraid to even mention the human cost as our casualties are horrific already"

 

I already lost my best friend from the Army(who stayed in and became a "lifer" after I left the service),and one nephew in Iraq and have two more nephews in-country currently.I definitely know about the human cost,it's tragic.

 

I didn't mean support in that sense. People tend to dehumanize brief victorious wars. I was no exception i nthe beginning, but as our losses started mounting, it transmogrified in my mind into a senseless slaughter of American soldiers. I can't watch CNN trubutes to fallen soldiers, and it upsets me when they report the losses casually. But I still stricktly separate the geopolitical and human aspects of the war. Just until recently I still supported it as I thought I should be won at all costs to stabilize the region. Not any longer.

 

I didn't read through the whole thread. I'm just giving my comments on the last posts.

I actually thought I toned doun my argument from last time. Before Democracy it was considered to be crazy, the strongest people with the most wepons had ruled countries for years, and there had never been any system in wich Democracy/Republics had worked (Rome tried republics and see what happened)

 

I find it odd that we decided to elect the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government and yet the Economic branch is the most powerfull. If the CEO had to worry about being elected by their workers and not just about pleasing their customers their would be much less problems of extortion in the work force.

 

If such an idea were implemented it would divert the power buisnesses have gained over the government and wrest it back into the hands of the citizens.

 

 

In actuallity this is a completely Democratic system, the only thread it shares with Marx is that it sees that there needs to be a change in the economic system

 

I don't want to repeat all the propaganda slogans about democracy in Iraq.

Saddam should be given credit for keeping Iraq peaceful. I don't want to go into detail how he achieved it. The US did not go there to liberate the opressed Iraqi people. The civil war in Iraq can be blamed on the US invasion all you want, but it is hardly a result of it. Just ask yourself who supports that civil war

Forgotten Son wrote:   INVORD wrote: man has always exploited man, and always will. I disagree. Someone in the 18th century could have made the argument that slavery has always existed and always will, but that institution has been greatly decreased since then. Also, as a flipside to your argument, solidarity and mutual aid have always existed. I see no reason why the latter shouldn't triumph over the former.

You bank too much on the good side of human nature.

 

Although I would not dismiss that possibility entirely, in the foreseeble future any form of communism is unlikely. Technological advances could decrease or even eliminate the need in human labor, but it's very hardr to imagine what kind of social relations would be in place then. People like you and I may not survive it

 

 

What you propose has been around for centuries. It's called public company. THe only difference is that one has to be a shareholder to elect a CEO.  Your desire to transfer control of the means of production to workers negates the notion of private property. All experiments like this have failed.

name three.

Democracy/Republics failed the first few times they tried it too.

 

I know that one company doing this is a stupid Idea that would never hold up in the economy as it is but if they all were...

 

The public company is the OPPOSITE of what I want, shareholders are the elite and wouldn't care for the needs of the workers

 

I am not talking about democratic republics, but a politico-economis system.

 

Proletariat wrote: I know that one company doing this is a stupid Idea that would never hold up in the economy as it is but if they all were...   The public company is the OPPOSITE of what I want, shareholders are the elite and wouldn't care for the needs of the workers

Not true. Workers are given a piece of the pie thru their profit sharing plans, bonus pay, etc. If you look at the unions' pension mutual funds, it's scary how much power they have over corporations sometimes.

To transfer control of a plant (the means of production ) to workers equates to expropriation of private property since it belongs to someone else (shareholders or private owners). This is what I meant by "experiments." This type of "communal" ownership is endemic to comminist philosophy. Thus the USSR was the best example here. I know that they tried workers' ownership in Yugoslavia in the 50's and 60's (maybe longer), and you know how it all ended up.

 

Unfortunately, fear is the engine of progress. Not greed, not incentive, but fear. One fears to lose a means of survival (in a broad sense on the word) be that a job, a business, a trade - any source of income. Absence of fear brings complacency. What you advocate is complacency. That's why it doesn't work.

 

Without capitalizing on your misprint, would you elaborate on minor- and major-style communism?

 

Can we not argue that both are natural processes, in that over time both have evolved as society has progressed (or regressed if some people hold that opinion), and are both products of the human mind as well? Capitalism has evolved to fit certain morals or lack there of, and to fit what is 'right' in the human mind. Just the same as Marxism was not only a natural process, but it was 'shaped' to fit the needs of certain leaders i.e while many can agree the USSR was never a real Communist state, the leaders in their mind created their interpretation of Communism, a product of their own mind to an extent, not merely the natural process that was somewhat set out Marx and Engels.

 

 

(I understand that Capitalism is not the same thing technically speaking, as the free market, and I understand the opposite to the free market economy is the command economy, but I'll leave that for now).

 

HughesJB4 wrote: Just the same as Marxism was not only a natural process, but it was 'shaped' to fit the needs of certain leaders i.e while many can agree the USSR was never a real Communist state, the leaders in their mind created their interpretation of Communism, a product of their own mind to an extent, not merely the natural process that was somewhat set out Marx and Engels.     (I understand that Capitalism is not the same thing technically speaking, as the free market, and I understand the opposite to the free market economy is the command economy, but I'll leave that for now).

How was Marxism a natural process? Any philosophy is a product of human mind. By natural I mean something that is independent of human will.

bhikkhu wrote:  Someone made a statement about capitalism, or greed, basically being the haves preying on the have-nots. That is true, but isn't it interesting how the wealthy conservatives are always preaching family values. So where does the morality lie?

That would be another deviation. We can open a new thread

first off I think  you still don't understand what I'm trying to explain, however no matter how you look at it, it is more moral. The reason moral systems dont work is because morals dont exist in nature, they are simply ideas that people have placed on animal behaviors, in the end people are animals and will act like animals. I can only hope that we can become more communal animals and boost are chance of survival.