The world today!

[ultrakill91]

share your thoughts about the world we are living on:daisy:

[Corporate Ignorance]

In the last ten years of unbridled Corporate Globalization, the world's total income has increased by an average of 2.5 percent a year. And yet the numbers of poor in the world has increased by 100 million. Of the top hundred biggest economies, 51 are corporations, not countries. The top 1 percent of the world has the same combined income as the bottom 57 percent and that disparity is growing. And now, under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terror, this process is being hustled along. The men in suits are in an unseemly hurry. While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, while nuclear weapons are stockpiled to make the world a safer place, contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipe lines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatized, and democracies are being undermined.


What the Free Market undermines is not national sovereignty, but democracy. As the disparity between the rich and poor grows, the hidden fist has its work cut out for it. Multinational corporations on the prowl for "sweetheart deals" that yield enormous profits cannot push through those deals and administer those projects in developing countries without the active connivance of State machinery - the police, the courts, sometimes even the army. Today Corporate Globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, preferably authoritarian governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies. It needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice. It needs nuclear bombs, standing armies, sterner immigration laws, and watchful coastal patrols to make sure that it's only money, goods, patents, and services that are being globalized - not the free movement of people, not a respect for human rights, not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons, or greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, or god forbid, justice. It's as though even a gesture towards international accountability would wreck the whole enterprise.

This system, however, is fueled by something far more dangerous than conspiracy. It is driven not by a small band of men but by a concept that has become accepted as gospel : the idea that all economic growth benefits humankind and that the greater the growth, the more widespread the benefits. This belief also has a corollary : that those people who excel at stoking the fires of economic growth should be exalted and rewarded, while
those born at the fringes are available for exploitation .


The concept is, of course, erroneous . We know that in many countries economic growth benefits only a small portion of the population and may in fact result in increasingly desperate circumstances for the majority. This effect is reinforced by the corollary belief that the captains of industry who drive this system should enjoy a special status, a belief that is the root of many of our current problems and is perhaps also the reason why conspiracy theories abound .
When men and women are rewarded for greed, greed becomes a corrupting
motivator. When we equate the gluttonous consumption of the
earth's resources with a status approaching sainthood, when we
teach our children to emulate people who live unbalanced lives, and
when we define huge sections of the population as subservient to an
elite minority, we ask for trouble. And we get it .

In their drive to advance the global empire, corporations, banks,
and governments (collectively the corporatocracy) use their financial
and political muscle to ensure that our schools, businesses, and media
support both the fallacious concept and its corollary . They have brought us to a point where our global culture is a monstrous machine that requires exponentially increasing amounts of fuel and maintenance, so much so that in the end it will have consumed
everything in sight and will be left with no choice but to devour itself.
The corporatocracy is not a conspiracy, but its members do
endorse common values and goals . One of corporatocracy's most important functions is to perpetuate and continually expand and
strengthen the system . The lives of those who "make it," and their
accoutrements — their mansions, yachts, and private jets — are presented
as models to inspire us all to consume, consume, consume .
Every opportunity is taken to convince us that purchasing things i s
our civiN uty, that pillaging the earth is good for the economy an d
therefore serves our higher interests .


The income ratio of the one-fifth of the world's population in th e
wealthiest countries to the one-fifth in the poorest went from 30 to 1
in 1960 to 74 to 1 in 1995.



Sorry for messed up format, but it basicly sums up my view on the world today.

[enigma]

share your thoughts about the world we are living on:daisy:

It being a more free and liberal world then when i was born.
A world now free of the trechery and backstabbing of 1945.
However a world which is now too politically correct and one where the media has too much say and sway (i.e. attempts at mass panic via shitty reporting - Northern Rock or Mr Bin Larden).




In the last ten years of unbridled Corporate Globalization, the world's total income has increased by an average of 2.5 percent a year. And yet the numbers of poor in the world has increased by 100 million. Of the top hundred biggest economies, 51 are corporations, not countries.

Couple of thoughts you may want to factor in here:

1 - These statistics, do they also incorparate the massive population booms which the 20th century saw? A population which boomed from 2 billion to over 6 billion in 100 years.
2 - Countries no longer own all the companies or raw materials within i.e. most companies being in the public or limited sector and not being under government control or government controled business moving into the pervious mentioned areas. Therefore why is it so shocking to see that private business can actually make more cash?

[lazlazlaz1]

Enigma makes a couple of good points there.

My view of the world today? It sucks, much as it always has and always will. Countries and governments should ignore each other, individuals should do all they can to build up their own personal relationships and help those in the world at need.

And what is wrong with there being 51 corporations in the top 100 economies? Corporations are pretty useful, without them there wouldn't be much.

[ultrakill91]

politics are fucked!

[Kaos]

And what is wrong with there being 51 corporations in the top 100 economies? Corporations are pretty useful, without them there wouldn't be much.

To any student of basic economics, so many things appear wrong with that statement. Corporations rely on profit, yes? And profit = unpaid labour. Therefore corporations make their money by not paying workers what they deserve. THAT is what is wrong with corporations.

Unfortunately I think only Corporal Ignorance is of a similar persuasion to me.

[enigma]

Corporations rely on profit, yes? And profit = unpaid labour.

However your conclusion of, Corporations therfore do not pay people what they deserve condricts your equation as they in fact do pay them therefore there is no unpaid labour.

If all organisations relay on profit and unpaid labour we would also see this trend in all sectors, however in my experiance we are not. Companies, Corporations, Private Sector etc pay there workers yet still make a profit, they at the same time also pay decent enough wages to keep staff in the job.

In the council i work for, we are in millions of debt and are looking to cut funding, however my department is mostly externaly funded and need to make a profit, bid wise, to contuine running projects etc
With that all said and done, a review has just ended and is being implemented regarding wages. People who deserve an increase are getting one and those deemed uneedy are having theres slashed. So far from all the people i have spoke to, it appears to be the lower echelons is mostly were the pay increases have came in and the middle management level effected most by the cuts.

How would one describe this, a organisation which is in debt and needs to save funding giving out wages increases and not cutting jobs.

[Kaos]

However your conclusion of, Corporations therfore do not pay people what they deserve condricts your equation as they in fact do pay them therefore there is no unpaid labour.


I don't think you understand. Just because one is "paid" does not mean they have received their real value.

Allow me to explain.

Cost of making a commodity (Let's say a chair) = cost of labour + cost of material + overheads (Rent for factory etc.). Let's say Cost = C.

However the commodity (chair) isn't sold for C, it's sold for S which is equal to C + Profit.

So we have this chain: I (Investment) - K (Commodity) - I' (Initial investment + an increment, what we call profit). If we break them up into I-K and K-I' we see that each stage is simply an exchange of equivalents. That is, the investor is exchanging his capital for a commodity, produced by labour, which is then exchanged back into capital. However, if goods are exchanged at their real value the investor can't make a profit can he? I - K - I = No profit. So to extract the profit which gives us I' the investor has to find a commodity which creates more value in it's consumption than it costs. Now we know that doesn't hold true for wood, rent, nails etc. The commodity that does have this unique property is labour. The value of labour is measured like that of any other commodity, by the amount of labour-tine necessary to produce it. Adam Smith wrote "The demand for men necessarily governs the production of men, as of every other commodity." - same idea.

So what is the value of labour-power? As any successful corporation will tell you, going back to the East India Trading Company and all the way to Microsoft, Nike and Exxon-Mobil, they are paid the subsistence they require to keep them in a normal state as a working individual - enough to keep up with their natural needs such as food, clothing and housing.

So say their subsistence is reached after working 6 hours. However the labourer is not permitted to work for 6 hours, to get their wage they have to work for another 5 or 6 hours. This is the "surplus labour" which creates surplus value, or profit.

A comparison is made to the conqueror who purchases commodities from the conquered with the money he has stolen from them. Since the investor now knows the secret to creating profit is to pay the worker less and work them harder, he does so until it gets to a point where the government ends up having to legislate a minimum wage and a restriction on working hours to prevent people from being worked to death.

This is why profit is unpaid labour.

[scottdog]

The world we live in today...

We'll this one event really got my blood boiling awhile ago. It was some disco(Whatever you call it), It was part of the make poverty history thing. We'll the funny thing is, apart from it being over priced, is that there where people lining up to get all this make poverty history stickers put on them and to get painted up. But the ironic thing is, is that the event didn't even supply free water, and that you have to pay 5$ for a small bottle. Nobody seemed to even notice the irony. that a basic right, and in a western country, let alone in a make poverty history event is ignored. It really is just about maxing out corporate profit, while disguising it with common morals.

People will never realise the unjust in this world, even when it is right infront of there eyes. They just assume that they are making a difference by going to these events. and just consume consume consume because that is how society raised them.

I'v lost all respect for anything of that kind.

And No i didn't go there for the make poverty history

[ultrakill91]

global warmup is killing the earth and everybody knows it!
but it`s just a handfull of people that care and does something about it...

[Bunglo]

global warmup is killing the earth and everybody knows it!
but it`s just a handfull of people that care and does something about it...

Global warming killed the mega mammals... Guess who survived?

I'm sure you've done so much :icon_rolleyes: Go plant some trees if you're so concerned.

The world's always been screwed up in one way or another. But the things that are messed up vary from person to person. Since I haven't really been on this earth for too long, I'm curious as to what a WWII vet or some one of the same generation would have to say about this. Was it worse when they were growing up? The same? I'm willing to bet it probably titer tottered from decade to decade.

[enigma]

I of course understand what profit is and how it is achieved (buying materials at lowest cost, paying workers what you can get away with or what the demend it to keep them in the job and to oversell the product) however:


he does so until it gets to a point where the government ends up having to legislate a minimum wage and a restriction on working hours to prevent people from being worked to death.


Pardon my ignorance but again isnt your line of thought here once again flawed?
Here in the U.K. minimum wage goes up every year and over the course of the last few decades the maximun hours a person can work goes down.

Your line of thought appears to only work in the world as it was a 100 years ago or so and not in todays modern world - in a modern western country as the U.K. at least.

[Kaos]

I of course understand what profit is and how it is achieved (buying materials at lowest cost, paying workers what you can get away with or what the demend it to keep them in the job and to oversell the product) however:



Pardon my ignorance but again isnt your line of thought here once again flawed?
Here in the U.K. minimum wage goes up every year and over the course of the last few decades the maximun hours a person can work goes down.

Your line of thought appears to only work in the world as it was a 100 years ago or so and not in todays modern world - in a modern western country as the U.K. at least.

My line of thought is not flawed. I don't see a problem with the government legislating, in fact I encourage it. Since my original post was in reply to the poster who didn't see a problem with the fact that many corporations now have more money and hence power than national governments, I'm pointing out that without government intervention things would be a lot worse.

Also, you seem to have some idea that the majority of the worlds workforce reside in developed nations.

Wrong.

Developing nations is where the world's workforce lies, and they are now reaching the extent of industrialisation and capitalism "we" (The current developed world) reached a hundred years ago. So it is in fact a lot more relevant then someone sheltered in the UK would believe. Developing nations either don't have minimum wages or a limit on working hours or they do but it's impossible to enforce.

Furthermore, the minimum wage in lots of countries (eg. Australia) has not risen, but due to government de-regulation wages and benefits have decreased while the number of hours worked has increased. This is also the case in the USA, Japan and Germany.

So your ignorance in believing that the way things are done in the UK (pop. 61 million) are the same as they are in the rest of the world (pop. 6.5 billion) is pardoned.

[Bunglo]

Furthermore, the minimum wage in lots of countries (eg. Australia) has not risen, but due to government de-regulation wages and benefits have decreased while the number of hours worked has increased. This is also the case in the USA, Japan and Germany.


I can't really say how things are going with wages and working hours for other countries but in the US, the minimum wage differs from state to state. In Washington state, the minimum wage is $7.93. That's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the US and that's an increase of the previous minimum wage. Also, there isn't really a minimum amount of hours you have to work in order to get paid, it all depends on how long you're working. From some of your guy's posts, it seems as though you have to work for at least X amount of hours to get your money? I could just be misreading that though. And most jobs that I've applied to actually start you at a little above minimum wage, especially Pepsi. I filled out and application for a part time general laborer (unloading/ loading trucks, moving crates etc...) and the starting pay was $10.90.

[Kaos]

I can't really say how things are going with wages and working hours for other countries but in the US, the minimum wage differs from state to state. In Washington state, the minimum wage is $7.93. That's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the US and that's an increase of the previous minimum wage. Also, there isn't really a minimum amount of hours you have to work in order to get paid, it all depends on how long you're working. From some of your guy's posts, it seems as though you have to work for at least X amount of hours to get your money? I could just be misreading that though. And most jobs that I've applied to actually start you at a little above minimum wage, especially Pepsi. I filled out and application for a part time general laborer (unloading/ loading trucks, moving crates etc...) and the starting pay was $10.90.

Few points.

You say the minimum wage increased, obviously it isn't the same as it was 50 years ago but the critical questions remain. Was the increase above inflation? (I just calculated that the minimum wage in Washington rose to $8.07 an hour, an increase of 1.77%. Inflation for the same period was a staggering 4.28%, already negating the effect of the 'increase'). Was the increase enough to counter the rising cost of oil? Has the lessening of IR laws and government regulation made tiny minimum wage increases redundant? Without taking these into effect a minimum wage increase is a superficial, token gesture to appease workers whilst proving the government are still slaves to corporations.

I think you misunderstood my previous posts. I was referring to the minimum time one needed to work to live on. Some countries have a law that one cannot work above a certain number of hours. This is to prevent them being forced into contracts where they have work up to 100 hours a week. France is a good example with a 40 hour a week limit.

Could you live on the minimum wage? Could you live on $10.90? As far as I understand, you're still living with your family. So most of your money would be going to things like movie tickets, computer parts and the like. If I'm incorrect and you are earning your own money to pay for food and rent, please correct me. However in that case you would understand that $10.90 is extremely difficult to live on.

Following on from this, as already proven, you would be getting $10.90 per hour for doing more than $10.90/hour's amount of work. That's where Pepsi's profit comes from. If you're happy being ripped off that's fine. But disgruntlement starts when people aren't getting paid they deserve, they're getting a pittance (cents an hour) and they see the fat cats on the board living it up.

And that's what I believe is fundamentally wrong with the world. When 1.2 billion billion people live on less than $1 a day and 3 billion live on less than $2 a day. Billions more are struggling yet the people who are to blame and the ones who can do something about it (I'm not talking about Make Poverty History or any crap like that) are too busy watching Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

[enigma]

Also, you seem to have some idea that the majority of the worlds workforce reside in developed nations.


Alas you have the notion that i have such ideas.

I state that your line of thought is flawed because, as you speak as though this is the general rule of thumb, i hjave pointed out exeptions to this thougt process you brought up and well you take quite a few liberties following that.


From some of your guy's posts, it seems as though you have to work for at least X amount of hours to get your money?

Nope, over here it basically depends. Today i have just came home sick (am sitting in bed typing this lol) however i will still be paid for my full hours this week.
However the contracts we run, our clients who are paid via ourselfs only get paid for the hours they work (which we have to double check because there fraudulent little bastards lol). They also do not get paid for being off sick although they do get paid for a full days work if they are off on holiday.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Few points.


And that's what I believe is fundamentally wrong with the world. When 1.2 billion billion people live on less than $1 a day and 3 billion live on less than $2 a day. Billions more are struggling yet the people who are to blame and the ones who can do something about it (I'm not talking about Make Poverty History or any crap like that) are too busy watching Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

That's what I was speaking about...Kaos seem to have similiar outlook on the world as do I.

The top 1 percent of the world has the same combined income as the 57 percent at the bottom. The United States, for example, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 40% of the world's resources. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what that's leading to.

And what does it mean- it does mean that a tiny precentage of rich white men(I'm speaking about CEOs and their gang) are not democrats- Because democracy is based on the respect of the majority- and majority of this world is not rich, they are absolutley terribly poor. I'm speaking about Thirld World. Let us analyze what Third World really is, and how it came into being, and then we will understood why this world is so fucked up.
It's not just shit talk, all my notions are based on personal life expirience.
I'm Russian, I know how to live on 24$ per month salary,being a honest and hard-working specialist with elite education, while some freakin' jeans cost 80$ and you have to pay for hot water and electriciy 50$ per month...



And there are terribly many things that are wrong with Corporations...
I will clarify them later, now I simply don't have time...

They do good, of course, because it would be a killing for them not to have a "nice image"...But that so called good is so much out-wieghted by evil they made so it's irrelevant to speak about "good" that Corporations are doing. Hitler also did "good" things.

I will write more, if I have time this evening...I like to talk with Europeans)))


And Russia is not the worst example of poverty in this world, belive me...

[lazlazlaz1]

Britain went through a period of low or unpaid labour with long hours and crappy hard and sickness causing work. Why shouldn't any other nation?
Surely the west should be rewarded for being the first to industralise? Else what was the point?
And no, its not at the expense of other nations, they have to go through the same industrialisation process as we did. If they happen to live a country which also suffers from drought and famine, well thats hardly my fault and it isnt my governments problem.
If they are willing to work for low pay, maybe thats because they have no other jobs to go for provided by their own country?
If they wanted a pay rise, perhaps they could go on strike? Set up their own companies? Work for their own country?
If they can't create their own jobs, then its their fault.

Yeh, so I'm fortunate to live in a country with easy to get jobs (well not easy really considering increased immigration), but I didn't choose my birthplace so its not my responsibility to change theirs.

[Bunglo]

Few points.

You say the minimum wage increased, obviously it isn't the same as it was 50 years ago but the critical questions remain. Was the increase above inflation? (I just calculated that the minimum wage in Washington rose to $8.07 an hour, an increase of 1.77%. Inflation for the same period was a staggering 4.28%, already negating the effect of the 'increase'). Was the increase enough to counter the rising cost of oil? Has the lessening of IR laws and government regulation made tiny minimum wage increases redundant? Without taking these into effect a minimum wage increase is a superficial, token gesture to appease workers whilst proving the government are still slaves to corporations.

I think you misunderstood my previous posts. I was referring to the minimum time one needed to work to live on. Some countries have a law that one cannot work above a certain number of hours. This is to prevent them being forced into contracts where they have work up to 100 hours a week. France is a good example with a 40 hour a week limit.

Could you live on the minimum wage? Could you live on $10.90? As far as I understand, you're still living with your family. So most of your money would be going to things like movie tickets, computer parts and the like. If I'm incorrect and you are earning your own money to pay for food and rent, please correct me. However in that case you would understand that $10.90 is extremely difficult to live on.

Following on from this, as already proven, you would be getting $10.90 per hour for doing more than $10.90/hour's amount of work. That's where Pepsi's profit comes from. If you're happy being ripped off that's fine. But disgruntlement starts when people aren't getting paid they deserve, they're getting a pittance (cents an hour) and they see the fat cats on the board living it up.

And that's what I believe is fundamentally wrong with the world. When 1.2 billion billion people live on less than $1 a day and 3 billion live on less than $2 a day. Billions more are struggling yet the people who are to blame and the ones who can do something about it (I'm not talking about Make Poverty History or any crap like that) are too busy watching Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

I see what you're saying, it's kind of like some one spending a sh*t load of money to go to college for a bachelors degree. If they get hired for a job, they might be getting payed more to start out than some one with out a degree, even if the person with out a degree knows a shit load more about what he's doing. I feel that's really messed up because my father is in the same boat. He works on jets for a living and he's pretty much the go to guy if some one doesn't know what they're doing. There are some people who go to AMP school and get payed a little less than what my dad is getting payed to start out but my dad has been working there for 10 years now... And these AMP graduates don't know shit. In both cases, you're not getting payed your full worth.

And I'm unemployed, Kaos, so I'm not getting ripped off yet lol. Another thing that pisses me off is that some jobs won't allow a male to have long hair (such as my self) but it's perfectly fine if a women does. And they file this under the "dress code". I had no idea I could take my hair off like an article of clothing. It's sexist really and I'm surprised jerk off companies are able to get away with it. It's like saying the length of my hair impacts my work ethic or I'm some kind of dirt bag because I have long hair. In case they didn't realize, long hair is what naturally happens. Cave men had it and it was pretty prominent from the 5th - 16th century. And it came back in the 60's and 70's.

Being the person I am, I won't cut my hair just to get a job. It sounds stupid to a lot of people but it's the principle of the matter. I shouldn't have to change the way I look just because some idiots have these prenotions about men with long hair, especially if there's no real reason for it.

[SacredLizard]

However your conclusion of, Corporations therfore do not pay people what they deserve condricts your equation as they in fact do pay them therefore there is no unpaid labour.

Just to clarify. You are only thinking of human labor.

Do you remember a time when you called up Microsoft to get your copy of windows registered, and actually talked to a human being? Do you think they pay the recorded message? And when you finally press the right combinations of buttons and say all the magic words, and you finally do talk to a REAL LIVE PERSON (!) is it Floyd from Detroit making $7.69 an hour? or is it Drishti from Baharampur, India, making Ishvara-knows-what an hour? Oh, and who built your Honda? Was it a crack team of professional welders, riveters, metalworkers, automobile painters and strongmen? Or was it robbie the robot and his mechanical clan?

Furthermore, do you, think that corporations pay the few employees that can't be replaced by machines out of the goodness of their hearts?


I thoroughly agree with those who are alarmed at the ever broadening gap between the world's wealthy few and the masses of incredibly poor.

[2ltben]

The estimated world per capita GDP(world gdp divided by world population) is about $10,000 USD. That sucks. I want my Kantian global federation of liberal republics.


Do you remember a time when you called up Microsoft to get your copy of windows registered, and actually talked to a human being? Do you think they pay the recorded message? And when you finally press the right combinations of buttons and say all the magic words, and you finally do talk to a REAL LIVE PERSON (!) is it Floyd from Detroit making $7.69 an hour? or is it Drishti from Baharampur, India, making Ishvara-knows-what an hour?
Call center jobs in India are among the best paying of middle class employers.

[scottdog]

Human nature is too flawed, so there will never be a perfect world, nor near perfect.

I am starting to agree with Laz, all you can really do is look after your self.

Nothing in the end really comes out of being generous for the common man. You hardly make a difference. And when someone with alot, gives alot... he is praised, but when someone with little, gives little... he gets no regognition.

In the end, with all idealolgies included, No government works. Every form of government will have few controlling many. Heck even in Anarchy, In the end someone will have controll over others. It really all comes down to human nature, and we are all humans, so what can you do?

[SacredLizard]

Call center jobs in India are among the best paying of middle class employers.

Middle class in the United States, or in India?

well, that seems contrary to my understanding of the principles of outsourcing. but, of course, I only mention outsourcing based on the fact that many foreign countries do not share the labor laws nor the minimum wage requirements of the parent company's home country... not because of any grudge against microsoft for making me wait such a long time on hold... and Drishti was a good guy... got my computer up and running A-OK.

[Bunglo]

It really all comes down to human nature, and we are all humans, so what can you do?

Kill every one...

[ultrakill91]

Kill every one...

nonono...
the world dosent get better by killing everyone.
but better political leaders will definatly help

[scottdog]

nonono...
the world dosent get better by killing everyone.
but better political leaders will definatly help

Yes... I'm sure he meant that.

[enigma]

Just to clarify. You are only thinking of human labor.

Do you remember a time when you called up Microsoft to get your copy of windows registered, and actually talked to a human being? Do you think they pay the recorded message? And when you finally press the right combinations of buttons and say all the magic words, and you finally do talk to a REAL LIVE PERSON (!) is it Floyd from Detroit making $7.69 an hour? or is it Drishti from Baharampur, India, making Ishvara-knows-what an hour? Oh, and who built your Honda? Was it a crack team of professional welders, riveters, metalworkers, automobile painters and strongmen? Or was it robbie the robot and his mechanical clan?

Furthermore, do you, think that corporations pay the few employees that can't be replaced by machines out of the goodness of their hearts?


You do realise without automation and mass assembley lines we would not have mass produced cheap everything and that production times have been cut down.
Without them, the time to produce items would go through the roof, the prices for said item will go sky high etc and essentially we would return to a time were only the rich folks have decent stuff.


Or was it robbie the robot and his mechanical clan?
Just to add to this, car assembly plants still employ quite a number of people, working shifts to bring you your honda and make sure they are a-ok.

[SacredLizard]

Was merely pointing out that you were overlooking a prime source of unpaid labor.


therefore there is no unpaid labour.

I was not making an argument against mechanization or automation or even outsourcing, but I was simply trying to show you examples where unpaid labor occurs. I do not disagree that car manufacturers employ many human workers, but I do suggest that the reason for automation is not limited to just ensuring the safety and comfort of the company's human employees. If it were more expensive to have robots rather than humans in an assembly line, would their use be so prevalent in the modern factory?

[2ltben]

The mechanized factory assembly robots are still designed by engineers, programmed by computer technicians, and maintained by mechanics. You're not removing payment, merely created new avenues in which the payment is allocated. There are no non-zero sum games.

[SacredLizard]

that's not my point, either.

You can include all the different people that have to be paid in order to get automation to work, but that still does nothing to change the fact that those robots are performing a task that would otherwise be the occupation of much more costly human laborers.

I agree, though, that matter is neither created nor destroyed. But it changes, like when that Bass was an ale, and then later it was piss and farts. That scrap of metal was just a big thing that couldn't spot weld to save its life. Then some robot put it together and it was suddenly awesome at spot welding.

...And Johnny at the factory was also awesome at spot welding, and then the robots came and then there were no more spot welding jobs in town. It is not like all the robots, when they became employed at Johnny's factory, left a crumby spotwelding job at the Y. Johnny did go to the Y anyway, and he asked if they needed any spot welding done, but they didn't and they called the police because Johnny was drunk.


Later, Johnny shot his television and died from cancer.

[lazlazlaz1]

Well of course businesses are gunna use the cheaper option. Thats just common sense.


Kill every one...

I believe that was Stalins viewpoint.



I am starting to agree with Laz, all you can really do is look after your self.

Thats impossible, no one ever agrees with me.

[enigma]

that's not my point, either.

I hate to ask this then, but what is your point? :icon_confused:

[Bunglo]

Robots = mass production = modernization.

[SacredLizard]

I keep saying that there is such a thing as unpaid labor. You said that there wasn't, and I said, well, they don't pay robots, and they don't pay recordings... and then someone says, well, robots make products cheaper, and people have to make robots and those people get paid... and phone jobs in India pay well...

my point is that you aren't entirely right on the whole "there's no such thing as unpaid labor" issue. Maybe now it's more clear. I thought I'd been saying that the whole time.

[Lt. Hanley]

From the company's perspective, those robots are still not unpaid labor. A portion of the money they make has to go back into the maintenance, parts, upgrades, etc. of the robots, much like if they were paying someone on the floor to do the same job. It just costs them less.

Let's take your Johnny, for example. Let's say he makes $35,000 dollars a year, plus full benefits (health insurance, etc.) for installing seats on an auto assembly line. Let's also say there are 10 others on the assembly line making the same amount but doing other work. Currently, the company is spending $350,000 in salaries, plus whatever the benefits cost, to maintain those people on the floor per year.

The company decides to purchase 10 robots to do those jobs and lays off Johnny & co. Why do they do this? Well, they find out that it will only cost them $10,000 a year to maintain the robots, and they won't have to pay benefits and other ancillary costs associated with paying people. Now the company spends $100,000 dollars a year for work that cost them $350,000+ in the past. See? Those robots still aren't working for free. The company just spends less on the same amount of work being done.

Just because the robots don't get a check cut to them doesn't mean they are working for free. That's ridiculous!

Same thing with recordings. The system their on still has to be maintained etc.

[Corporate Ignorance]

-quote
Well of course businesses are gunna use the cheaper option. Thats just common sense.
-quote


It seems to me that we are discussing the details not the vital moments of the modern state of things in the world.
We spoke about Corporations, and are they ok or not, and I want to speak about them little more, since modern corporate world intrested me greatly and I spend much time reasearching the subject and came to quite disturbing conclusions.

Noone would argue, I guess, that international corporations play huge role in modern world, they infuence politics, political dicisions, mass media(they own it) etc...Corporations have a huge role in forgien policy of so-called developed countires(U.S. and Europe). Sometimes, rivalry between major transnational corporations even led to wars between countries(The War of Chako in Bolivia)
And that I found VERY disturbing. Let me explain why....

To understand how things are done, what is the leading motivation, moral basis behind such names as Fair Trade, Neoliberalism, Free Market etc. we must analyze big buisness,its international instutuations(IMF, World Bank, WTO) and impacts on modern world on global scale....

Corporations are global nowdays(and that's why they CAN bring global trouble, and I share firm opinion, that despite the fact that they do good, that "good" exists in the same terms as Hitler did that "good" for chosen Aryians. Statistics and the widening gap between white rich golden billion and rest prove that), a private, almost totally unnacountable tyrannies ,with the only bottom line-to recive maximum profit with minimum expenses.

One don't have to be a genious to comprehend that. It's pretty obvious and indeed, as Lazlazlaz said- it seems like common sense. But it SEEMs like it.

But common sense, exxagerated to egocentric madness, can turn to sheer evil.

We shoudn't forget how powerful corporations are.

When corproations are even more powerful then entire countries- with their own police, intellegence services,their own airlines, facilities in dozens of countries, political agendas and resourceful ability to pursue them in every corner of the known world.

And now comes the main questions- do corporations have moral? Or pity? Or empathy? Or compassion? When we see sweatshops, political tyrannical regimes(wich corporations activly support- just check out their record) destroyed ecosystems of India, Nigeria, Angola, Chad etc., privitized water(even that that falls from the sky) in Bolivia, we can perfectly realize that they DON"T really care...

Because if the profit is 200%, noone will even bother about human lives, social reforms or fates of black or Asian or slavic children...

Just try to think about it them in those terms...They want money. As much money as possible ,with minimum expenses...
I can bring out forth countless examples of such attitude by the most powerful institution of modern age to the poor, repressed people all over the world- from El Salvador to East Timor.

[Kaos]

This is cheating, but I'm tired and lazy.

+1 to what Corporate Ignorance said.

[Oddvin]

Thats impossible, no one ever agrees with me.

I agree with you too.

That said, i do want the third world to develop so that they can stop nagging my country for more money.

[Corporate Ignorance]

I agree with you too.

That said, i do want the third world to develop so that they can stop nagging my country for more money.

Stop robbing the Third World, LET THEM DEVELOP and nagging will stop..That's easy. But European civilization get used to luxury. And it get used to use force and sanctions to get what it want.

The thing is, that modern financial instituations are designed in the intrests of very few entites- actually, those who designed them. That is understandable. Every institution designed by men may have this flaw.And we have huge lot of historical examples.

One would of course, argue that developed world is actually helping the third world...Well, that is a grave mistake. I can explain the scheme of how it's done on example of Honduras.


Well, of course, in politics and big buisness good intentions on the publuc matters a lot- because "public image" should be maintained in the age of information.

In the new era, Apartheid as formal policy is antiquated and unnecessary. International instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex system of multilateral trade laws and financial agreements that keep the poor in their Bantustans anyway. Its whole purpose is to institutionalise inequity.

Why else would it be that the U.S. taxes a garment made by a Bangladeshi manufacturer 20 times more than it taxes a garment made in the U.K.? Why else would it be that countries that grow 90 per cent of the world's cocoa bean produce only 5 per cent of the world's chocolate? Why else would it be that countries that grow cocoa bean, like the Ivory Coast and Ghana, are taxed out of the market if they try and turn it into chocolate? Why else would it be that rich countries that spend over a billion dollars a day on subsidies to farmers demand that poor countries like India withdraw all agricultural subsidies, including subsidised electricity? Why else would it be that after having been plundered by colonising regimes for more than half a century, former colonies are steeped in debt to those same regimes, and repay them some $ 382 billion a year?


I wonder if England or Russia or anyone in the world would be able to develop independently when you are already incorporated in the "transnational buisness intrest"(wich often means 500% of profit and total exclusion of all the "external" factors- human rights, democracy etc.) with corrputed "tamed" elite and legions of the the poor.

[Corporate Ignorance]

-quote-
Why shouldn't any other nation?
Surely the west should be rewarded for being the first to industralise? Else what was the point?
And no, its not at the expense of other nations, they have to go through the same industrialisation process as we did. If they happen to live a country which also suffers from drought and famine, well thats hardly my fault and it isnt my governments problem.
If they are willing to work for low pay, maybe thats because they have no other jobs to go for provided by their own country?
If they wanted a pay rise, perhaps they could go on strike? Set up their own companies? Work for their own country?
If they can't create their own jobs, then its their fault.
-quote-

My post above is a nice illustration of how the international order of things is maintained and who wins and who looses.

Well, so you seriously belive that Britain now lives relativley ok only because of Industrial Revolution? But let us remmeber the historical context and the price. It seems, that England was humbly developing their plants and factories, while other nations were just not that highly involved.


Well, Industrial Revolution indeed made "developed world " developed. but at what cost? What was the resources, who was the material?

So, determined U.K. scientists invented machines and factorites wich led to industrializatioin , while the rest primtive world was simply eating bananas and laying in the sun?
Of course, you would object and say that Imperialism and colonization brings euroepean progress, but well... exploitation is a stagnation. Always. It throws nations back. China was not that diffrent in 15th centruy from England in terms of welfare. India was tremendoulsy rich. But, but...The only country that managed to develop was Japan, wich by coincidence was the ONLY Asian country that was not colonized and "enlightened" by European rulers of the world.

[2ltben]

I believe that was Stalins viewpoint.
Well then its a good thing Medvedev(read: Putin) got elected, now isn't it?

[SacredLizard]

From the company's perspective, those robots are still not unpaid labor. A portion of the money they make has to go back into the maintenance, parts, upgrades, etc. of the robots, much like if they were paying someone on the floor to do the same job. It just costs them less.

Let's take your Johnny, for example. Let's say he makes $35,000 dollars a year, plus full benefits (health insurance, etc.) for installing seats on an auto assembly line. Let's also say there are 10 others on the assembly line making the same amount but doing other work. Currently, the company is spending $350,000 in salaries, plus whatever the benefits cost, to maintain those people on the floor per year.

The company decides to purchase 10 robots to do those jobs and lays off Johnny & co. Why do they do this? Well, they find out that it will only cost them $10,000 a year to maintain the robots, and they won't have to pay benefits and other ancillary costs associated with paying people. Now the company spends $100,000 dollars a year for work that cost them $350,000+ in the past. See? Those robots still aren't working for free. The company just spends less on the same amount of work being done.

Just because the robots don't get a check cut to them doesn't mean they are working for free. That's ridiculous!

Same thing with recordings. The system their on still has to be maintained etc.

Wrong. When people work in a factory, why do they get paid? is it because the factory owner knows they need to eat so they don't die? No. Its because these people are trading something with the factory owner. They are trading hours of their LIFE in exchange for MONEY. That is what they are paid for. When a robot works at the factory, does the factory owner go up to the robot and say, "hey Unit 756, good job today. Here's 50 bucks go get yourself maintained. See you on Monday."

no. In fact, the factory owner does not have to pay anything for that machine to work. There are no intrinsic costs to the robot's use outside of modern necessity, and these fees are fees for services outside of the robot's existence; available to the factory owner as an alternative to fixing the robot himself, as an alternative to building the robot himself, as an alternative to powering the robot himself.

When you spend $50 bucks on gas for your car, do you say you are paying your car for driving you places? No, you say you are paying the gas station for having gas available for you to easily put in your car instead of having to have your own oil refinery. The same goes for the factory owner. He pays the maintainence guy for the convenience of fixing the robot, rather than the free option which is having to maintain the robots himself.

and furthermore, Corporate Ignorance's points are far too important to be carrying on about robots for so much time, I had only initially wanted to add a few cents about unpaid labor, but it turned into this mess.

I share the fears of Corporate in regards to international corporations, I fear not only the widening gap between the ultra-ritch and the dirt-poor, but the growing gap between the highly educated and those who are absolutely uneducated.

What chance do the impoverished have against exploitation when they are not educated in things beyond what is necessary to survive, or when they can concieve of nothing better than the current state of things?

[enigma]

Quite a number of the "points" being made now are clearly historical revisionism.

There is more to it then "i hate corporations" etc, rather more of a racial hatred of Europeans.
Deny this or nor, but fact is several times now it is the worlds condition is becase of the EU or USA and the "Rich white folk" while the "Blacks and Asisans" suffer.

Of course all these two continents did was fuck up the world and not giver anything back. Of course everyone elses problem is because of these two places.

So how is the current state of China because of the west? Should we look at there 2000+ year of trade and contact with Western Europe? The earliest example i can think of off the top of my head is trade with Rome (incentadly Roman soldiers ended up in China), there 1000+ years of interal conflict with one another and with outside sources? The major civil war which took place in the last centry and the communist takeover?

Of course all there problems is because of all of us. Japan, left alone? Funny considering one could look at the view point of the West made Japan the way she was during the late 1800s and early 1900s ... then the same argument applied to 1945 onwards.

India, now i admit that i dont know an awful lot about this countries past but before the British Raj how exactly was it ulter rich if one gets the impression that it wasnt a country but a bunch of seperate indvidually ruled kingdoms?

Africa, are all there problems due to Western interferance and explotation?
Should we again look deeper in the civil wars launched by men from there own countries vieing for power?
Should we look into the impact of forced decolonisation? The improvments made during colonisation? Should we look at the impact of events of those countries from internal and external sources following decolonisation? Or should we simply place all there problems on the shoulders of the "evil white europeans"?

Of couse again, these civil wars all started because the West want cheap limber and raw materials nothing to do with these peoples own personal ambition.

*sigh*



In fact, the factory owner does not have to pay anything for that machine to work.
What about the electrcity bill? :p

[SacredLizard]

What about electrcity? :p



yeah, I guess electricity is the only naturally ocurring thing in the world that you have to pay for. Cave man looks up at the sky and thinks, gee I could really use a fire, and waves his visa platinum at GOD and says "hey, how about some lighting?" God says, "sorry we have a $5 minimum charge. otherwise we don't make any money up here. Why don't you rub some sticks together?"

I swear you'd think this was hard to understand.

Think only of the robot. Ask yourself, What does the robot get in return for doing the work for the factory?

Now think of a hypothetical situation where the factory owner also posseses the ability to construct, maintain, and power the robots.

Yeah, the guy graduated from MIT, so he's all about fixing stuff, and the raw materials are all in his back yard. Meteorite landed there. And for the daytime, he has homemade solar panels and windmills and geothermal power, plus he has a stationary bike that he rides that uses the power of friction to make electricity. And the robots in his factory are used to make... more robots.

"Oh, pshaw! Nobody's that cool," you say.

[enigma]

Since the discussion has only been onsided thus far on many levels, lets discuss imperialism further.

Are we suggesting that empires have only created problems, destroyed the countries/states/kingdroms they took control of and in general exploited everything without giving anything back?

Should we use prehaps one of the best known empires of the world - the Roman empire.
Built upon terachery, genocide, slavery, murder etc however are we suggesting that said empire was itself soley evil and unable to do any good or bring a better quality of life to those who lived within?

Since none of us are "Romans" (although you never know we may be decendants) we can be impartial and have the benefit of over 1500 years hindesight on the matter.

[enigma]

yeah, I guess electricity is the only naturally ocurring thing in the world that you have to pay for. Cave man looks up at the sky and thinks, gee I could really use a fire, and waves his visa platinum at GOD and says "hey, how about some lighting?" God says, "sorry we have a $5 minimum charge. otherwise we don't make any money up here. Why don't you rub some sticks together?"

Argument is slightly flawed there, considering we do not harvest the power of lighting and actually "create" it ourselfs via other means.
All of which require maintance, construction, planning etc

:p

[SacredLizard]

Don't think about empires, but rather think about giant corporations.

Say You want a pair of cool leather boots so you can be all badass. Ok, so go weave in and out between all the dazed shoppers and the crying babies who may or may not be completely lost, and find that boot somewhere At the Walmart SUper store... put it on and try it out. Wow, the boot fits, and it's only 20 bucks.

But what if walmart wasn't there, where would you go to get your boots? AH, the leather worker down the country lane makes a fine pair of boots, so he does. Takes your measurements asks you for the style, and sets about working on your boots.

To be Sure, though, you're saying to me that would probably cost you $400 or greater. I say, maybe in a day and age where massive corporations are flooding the market with cheap products and drawing away business from the local guys. But if that was the only place in town to get your boots, don't you think your price would be lower?

So how does the giant corporation help? By putting the old leatherworker out of the business? Is it by offering minimum wage jobs? Is it by selling inferior quality goods at prices still far above their actual value? Is it by offering financial consideration to the local policy makers?


EDIT:

DUDE, enough about the robots. IF you want to say everything costs something fine. that makes sense. because everything costs either energy, time, or skin cells - whatever. But I am astounded that you can't get past the idea of a robot not being paid wages. YOU DO NOT PAY ROBOTS MONEY FOR THE WORK THEY DO FOR YOU.
however, if you want your robot to function properly, you may have additional fees in today's current system of goods and services. That is not the same as payment. And they are by no means an essential aspect of the robot's functioning for your purposes. It happens to be an understanding that robots require electricity to function, but electricity is not something that is inherently paid for. It is only commonly bought because that's how we currently do that in today's system of goods and services. If robots did not run on electricity, but rather rainwater, or if by some miracle the electricity got to them witout having a check written to pg&e, what would you say?

Think of it another way:

Taken to the extreme, think of a spring. A spring functions of its own intrinsic nature. You arrange it in such a way, and it can perform specific tasks for you. Other than the time it took for you to put the spring in it's place, what do you pay the spring?

[Bunglo]

Well, we all know that the equation I posted earlier is eventually going to change to:

Robots = mass production of other robots = fall of mankind.

So, it looks like corporations will eventually destroy all humans and in the process, remove all corporations. It's just natures funny way of working itself out...

[Corporate Ignorance]

2Bunglo
Maybe, you are right, although it's sad.


2SacredLizard
Glad that you think that some of my points seem valid to you



2Enigma
Just for the sake of clarity.

I don't like revisionism and I never spoke that Europeans or Americans are bad and terrible, as whole nations...I'm not Anti-american, or anti-British(I love Britan, I said that several times, and I admire British(and American) culture and I never belived in stereotpyes and cliches that Europeans are all evil or anything.
And I'm also white. I'm not a racist and hate racism, if it's that you incline...It simply happened that way- that the majority of the world is not white and does not live in Europe. It happened due to several major factors, of course. But European colinization was very brutal, and it caused stagnation of the economy and fueled the machines of the West. And again, let us take the lessons from the past- but no, the order of thing is MAINTAINED with purpose. Because it is very profitable. To very few people. It's quite objective, to my mind.

And I don't hate corporations. I simply evaluate their nature and thier deeds...You don't agree that international system is working in the intrests of those who created them and that corporations are artificial creations with enormous powers wich try to make as much money as possibe with minimum expenses? India, China and JApan are several seperate topics, all that I can say is that Japan develped because it was never colonzied and managed to take the best
I spoke about States, political and finincial institutions. Period.

Very often, state propoganda tries to prove that State is People, but it's not so.

[enigma]

Mr Lizard, you may wanna lay off the analogies ;)

[SacredLizard]

Analogies are my bread and butter. Especially bad ones, I can go on and on for hours with one of those.

Think of an airplane, where passion for saying something random is velocity, a bad analogy is lift, and my keyboard is drag, and my pants are the ailerons and my tapping foot is the compass. The phone ringing is a puffy white cloud.

[lazlazlaz1]

Theres a lot of new stuff there so I skipped most of it, sorry.

I do agree in a way to the fact that coporations shouldnt exploit other nations. My ideal world view being one of isolation from each nation. It would be lovely if we just cancelled all third world debt, and bugged out of their countries and grew our own food, manufactured our own products and gave our own people jobs.
But if we did that I am certain that the majority of third world nations would fall into the chaos and civil war we see already in many African nations. But then at least it couldn't be blamed on the West.

Oh and the British Empire rocked.

[SuperSoldier]

Oh and the British Empire rocked.

Of course, other than the Atlantic slave trade, the opium trade, etc. :scholar:

Okay, back on topic. I believe colonization was helpful in some ways and bad in others I have to say it did help India out. It unified the country, gave it a good railroad system, and industrialized it. I also find it quite odd that human life began in Africa yet civilization began in the Middle East and the Roman Empire and modern day European states started in Europe.

[Kaos]

Sacred Lizard, I believe, is totally missing the point. No one is denying that employers are paying workers for their labour - that was my initial point, labour is merely a commodity. Yes that may seem callous, but that's how it is.

However, as I demonstrated and no one seemed to disagree with me, employers aren't paying workers their actual value.They are, in fact, (Especially in the developing world) paying them only enough to survive.

So it's a bit of both.

[enigma]

Of course, other than the Atlantic slave trade, the opium trade, etc. :scholar:

I know your only being a wiseass ;)

Am not defending the actions of the empire however slavery has been in common practice since the dawn of man and contuines today in other forms. I think its wrong that the prime minster still has to appoglise to groups about our actions so long ago, should we not also highlight that the empire was one of the first to bring it to an end and liberate people?

As for the opium trade, again it was legal back then :p

[lazlazlaz1]

Exactly enigma.

If a worker feels he is not being paid his true value, and there are lots of them, perhaps they should group together, leave their job and create their own new jobs?
You might say they dont have enough starting money, so? When man first started he had no money, now he has loads. It is perfectly possible to create money, even if the West doesnt get involved in helping.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Exactly enigma.

If a worker feels he is not being paid his true value, and there are lots of them, perhaps they should group together, leave their job and create their own new jobs?
You might say they dont have enough starting money, so? When man first started he had no money, now he has loads. It is perfectly possible to create money, even if the West doesnt get involved in helping.

What a wishful thinking...
If only life in the Third World was so easy...But imagine a life when you DON't have an opportunity for an American Dream...No opportunity at all...It's not because you are dumb, lazy or you can't do your work right- but the corruption and indiffrence of the system is so strong that you have only one chance- struggle for a piece of bread. When you live in society which survived a terrible war that maimed and killed thousands of people, where rural areas are devasted by bombs, political and buisness elite is "tamed" by international buisness", you live in a wooden shack, you have a family to feed, you are 16 years old,- and you have a chance to start working for Nestle Corp. for 5 cents per day- you will start to work for them. Because you have no choice,or your familty will starve to death. Literary. You can't create a new job...Because you are just a kid. You can't create a labor union because do you know what is sweatshop or a Third World factory? There are armed guards and barbed wires around. Unions are crushed. By any means nessecary.
Social Darwinism, eh?

So you inlcline that all those billions of men simply don't have enough guts or intellect to create new jobs? Or organize themselves into unions? Well, study history of Bolivia...Or El Salvador...Well, if in Europe there is a strike, labor union leader may be beaten by police- and it will be considered a grave violation of his rights. But in a Third World, his head will be cut down by machete. And international community don't care. If profits are coming, noone cares. Just study the history of the Catholic Church in El Salvador...They tried to start a resistance and protect the poor...All bishops were killed.

Remmeber, in my previous posts, I said that nowadays, the terribly unjust state of things, when few are prosperous, and rest are in deep and hopeless shit, is MAINTAINED with purpose by sanctions and means of trade, "investment", "development projects" by international finincial institutions? And sometimes(and very often) when other means are not effective by use of terror and brutal force.

How you can start a new job in Bolivia, where you even have to pay for water that falls from the sky?

When corporations use child labor, where eldest child must feed his starving family?
I suggest you visit Central America someday- Nicaragua or Honduras, for example.
I think it may change you outlook on things a little bit. Modern Corporations, of course, claim that they help those primitive hopeless societies...Of course. What a benevolence...

When I mentioned Honduras, that is just a symbol. That is a symbol of international buisness development policies everywhere. I mentioned Honduras because it was only one minute, but the point is not that Honduras is exporting snow peas, the point is that Honduras is not producing food. The effect of the Alliance for Progress policies in Honduras, in Costa Rica, in Nicaragua, everywhere was to lead to what American economists call an economic miracle. Gross national product went up, and so did child malnutrition, the death toll, misery and suffering. And the reason is, when you impose -- by force of course -- a development model, in which production for domestic used is replaced by agro-export for foreign use, people starve. And you make profits. So you take land that was used for subsistence agriculture, you turn it over to ranchers linked to American agro-business or the Hanover Company and so on, to produce specialized vegetables and flowers and beef for pet food for the American markets, GNP goes up. Profits go up. A small sector of the local economy profits and the population plummets into disaster. That is why there have been hundreds of thousands of people starving to death in Honduras in the last years, and in fact, pretty much the same story was true throughout most of Central America.


Take Nicaragua. Nicaragua did have an economic miracle in the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, child malnutrition doubled and general misery vastly increased. That laid the basis of the crisis of Central America. And similar things are true in much of the Third World, that is the effect of this development model.

[lazlazlaz1]

All that is exactly why I think no country should interact with another country. Its a waste of time, and only brings blame for someone elses misfortune.

But as I said before, many of these countries have shown themselves incapable of maintaining a modern style economy and government with what we consider acceptable standards of living.

If your own government is stopping your people from developing independantly, then why let them stay? If you can't vote them out, fight them out. If you can't do that, then sucks to be you but it isnt anyone elses problem but your own.

[enigma]

So what if we pulled all the Western Companies out of Africa and South America.

Is the suggestion that is without them they will be better off and economically they will prosper i think that is wisful thinking. My opinion is without any of them there all what will happen will be the loss of what am now dubbing "Blame the West syndrome" and they will still be the same position.

[2ltben]

Are we suggesting that empires have only created problems, destroyed the countries/states/kingdroms they took control of and in general exploited everything without giving anything back?
Yes. Look at modern Imperialism and Mercantilism for all the reasoning you want. India, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Africa, the Americas, Australia, Japan, China, Ethiopia, Poland, the Ukraine under both Hitler and Stalin. Empires during the Early Modern and Modern eras are built upon expansion and subjugation of others in order to increase the resources of the central authority and its first-class subjects. Empires only have the consent of their first class citizens, if they even have that to begin with.

Look at the Indian "citizens of the British empire" from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were treated just as badly as Bantus in South Africa and in India they were starving because they were forced into working the fields of British landlords who wouldn't let them grow anything but cash crops.

Do you honestly think Rome brought advances to everyone? Rome benefited Roman citizens and, in the waning days of the Empire, those who were "knighted" as Roman citizens (as was the case with a number of Briton warlords). A Roman citizen was guaranteed near infallibility against non-Romans and the mere mention of "civis Romanus" guaranteed safety, for any violation would surely mean the decimation of a village or two.

A government that does not treat its all of its citizens with absolute impartiality, does not have the consent of the governed, and does not put the people before the state is absolutely illegitimate. Say what you will about JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is about as Fascist as you can get short of getting Mussolini to say it himself.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Agreed with you 100%, Ben.
+1

[Corporate Ignorance]

So what if we pulled all the Western Companies out of Africa and South America.

Is the suggestion that is without them they will be better off and economically they will prosper i think that is wisful thinking. My opinion is without any of them there all what will happen will be the loss of what am now dubbing "Blame the West syndrome" and they will still be the same position.

1.If the slavery was legal, it dosen't solve anything...It dosen't make it acceptable ... any Legal system is subjective. In Nazi Germany it was perfectly normal to hate Jews and even make soap out of dead bodies...
So it depends on the spectrum of the legal system.

The main thing, to my mind, is that in 19th century there were GOOD, caring, normal people who hated and bitterly condemned slavery. In British Empire. Among others. Of course, they were the minority and good people are always a minority.


2. There are plenty of evidence to see what Companies are doing in those primitive ignorant countires. They rob them and they deprive people of any sane hope to get a better living...

You see, crime and social unrest comes from poverty. So, all those African nations and Central American countires were deprived of many things...Tens millions of slaves were taken out, huge resources were plundered and worked only for metropoly, for chosen ones. Such things thrown nations back. Exploitation=Poverty=Crime, Corruption, Stagnation
Or you think that Africans, Chinese, Indians, Slavs are not humans and are not capable of making something without big buisness?
And by the way, it's not Western Companies. There is no Western Companies anymore- there is transnational buisness...There is an elite in every Third World country that loves and prays to Transnational Corporations- goverment officials, top managers, army commanders- because they are allies and loyal servants- corrupt huntas of central America, elite buisnessmen of Russia, military officers in Indonesia- they are on the payroll of International Buisness Order.

[lazlazlaz1]

So what if we pulled all the Western Companies out of Africa and South America.

Is the suggestion that is without them they will be better off and economically they will prosper i think that is wisful thinking. My opinion is without any of them there all what will happen will be the loss of what am now dubbing "Blame the West syndrome" and they will still be the same position.

I'm not sure this was directed at me or not, but I agree with you Enigma. My line of thought is that they would be worse off.
Had we never gone into the nations in the first place? Well I doubt many of them would be as technologically advanced, have as good health care or sensible, centralised government.

Yeh, so slavery was bad. But it was something that was practised by many of the African nations well before we got there, we just increased it. Which no, wasnt a good thing, but you cannot blame people for thinking the way they are told to think at the time they live in. If you are taught that evolutionarily black people are less developed as white people and are almost animals, then why wouldn't you think it? It took someone who thought outside the normal line of things, with inspiration and help from God, to change it.

[Kaos]

All that is exactly why I think no country should interact with another country. Its a waste of time, and only brings blame for someone elses misfortune.

You realise if England (for example) didn't interact with any other country - starting hundreds of years and continuing now through wars, conquest and corporate domination you'd still be living in a mud hovel and painting yourself blue.

[SacredLizard]

Sacred Lizard, I believe, is totally missing the point. No one is denying that employers are paying workers for their labour - that was my initial point, labour is merely a commodity. Yes that may seem callous, but that's how it is.

However, as I demonstrated and no one seemed to disagree with me, employers aren't paying workers their actual value.They are, in fact, (Especially in the developing world) paying them only enough to survive.

So it's a bit of both.

yes, I brought up that thing about replacing human laborers with machines simply as a minor interjection in response to someone's mentioning of the non-existence of free labor. I hadn't meant for it to become such a focus.

[Kaos]

Had we never gone into the nations in the first place? Well I doubt many of them would be as technologically advanced, have as good health care or sensible, centralised government.

Here's a list of countries that were at one time part of the British Empire:

Aden (Yemen)
Ascension Island
Anguilla
Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Basutoland (Lesotho)
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
Bermuda
British Cameroon
British Guyana (Guyana)
British Honduras (Belize)
British Somaliland (Somalia)
British Solomon Islands
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Canada
Cayman Islands
Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
Cook Islands
Cyprus
Falkland Islands and dependencies
Egypt
Fiji
Gambia
Gibraltar
Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Kiribati & Tuvalu)
Gold Coast (Ghana)
Grenada
Guernsey
Hong Kong
India (included Pakistan & Bangladesh)
Iraq
Ireland
Jamaica
Jersey
Kenya
Kuwait
Malaya (West Malaysia)
Maldive Islands
Malta
Mauritius
Montserrat
Newfoundland (Canada)
New Hebrides (with France) Vanuatu
New Zealand
Nigeria
North Borneo (Sabah)
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Palestine (Falestin/Israel)
Pitcairn Island
Qatar
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia)
Sarawak (East Malaysia)
St Helena
St Kitts
St Lucia
St Vincent
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanganyika (Tanzania)
Tonga
Transjordan (Jordan)
Trinidad
Tristan Da Cunha
Trucial Oman (United Arab Emirates)
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Western Samoa
Zanzibar (Tanzania)

Out of those how many are now "democratic", with a stable government and have good health care? Apparently your benchmarks for a good country. 5%? Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Jordan, Trinidad, Samoa and Uganda? They sound like nice places to you?

Some countries like Australia and New Zealand have a decent system worked out by their weren't so much "imperialised" as colonised. Even then the colonists managed to destroy the environment, plunder the local people and attempt genocide.

I suggest you take your antiquated, imperialist and white supremacist views elsewhere.

[enigma]

am rather drunk atm so pardon this but atm i thnk only lazlo is the only one with any sence and am thinking you are all very very very naive and ignorant of the world.

Koas you post a list of countires which once formed our wonderful little empire however you pry on the ones which have fell apart since we have left but how the fuck is that our fault?
Forced to decolonise ASAP ... countries who have since then had 60 years to fuck themselves up is not our fault.

Kaos your saying were being white supremist racists however you have not commented on anything which is clearly racist when people are stating its the white europeans faults and only harming the black/asian/slav babies.

Everyone elses fucksups are not are responcability!


Corp: you cant answer a basic quesiton you have twisted an turned around it like a ture polatician and then counterattacked ...

quite simply ... would all those problems be in those countires if Coca Cola decided to remove its bottlaing factory?


2ltben: how about the modern legel system which is based upon roman foundations, the catholuic church, rich culture, trace to its peoples, road networks, linking China and other eastern countries to the west ....

Ceaser may have killed up to a million men however our you saying that for the next couple of centries Gaul stayed as some primative backwash cesspitt of a hell hole were everyone still lived in there little hill top forts or Brittania after the occupation, slaugter of the Druids and putting down of the rebeliions did not benefit one bit from the Roman Empire? Surely if we had not we would still be "painted ourselves blue"



Funny ... i made a simple question to attempt to get people to show impartiality and you all cant. Your all bigots .... only willing to accept the terrible things empires/people etc do without highlighting the posative.

At least i accept people, empires, businesses are flawed but also know they can all do good and bad. Although to say that am also a bigot as i hate facisits ,,, see am not perfect i admit it

[SacredLizard]

I think I'll have a beer, too.

[Kaos]

Koas you post a list of countires which once formed our wonderful little empire however you pry on the ones which have fell apart since we have left but how the fuck is that our fault?

I'm not saying it's your fault (even though it is), but lazlazlaz stated that they were "technologically advanced, have as good health care or sensible, centralised government". Which they clearly don't.

Sober up man.

[SuperSoldier]

As for the opium trade, again it was legal back then :p

Not in China though. Around one in four Chinese were addicted back then. Then, the Chinese got pissed and got their ass kicked in the war, which caused further estabalization and the eventual collapse of the Manchu and the resulting Chinese Civil War killed millions more and the Communists took over and Mao Zedong's policies killed 10's of millions so, yeah. The British were well aware of the damages of opium and wanted money. I do agree that the modern government shouldn't apologize for anything though.

[Bunglo]

Damn, I'm ganna go spark up a "J" (as you young folks call it) and see what comes out of my posts!

Speaking of pot, that's one thing that I find messed up with the world (when I say world I mean America). In the US, they have all of these commercials saying your ganna kill some one or do something horrible like that when it's all bullshi*t. There's no reason for it to be illegal in the first place.

American Government: "Jesus H. Christ! This mary jane is making every one feel great, let's make it illegal to sell it or smoke it. Hell, let's make it illegal to have it any where in your possession, too!"

Pot is a natural weed that causes no harm what so ever (except maybe a low sperm count if you smoke enough) and yet nicotine cigarettes that cause lung cancer and are purposely addictive are just fine and dandy.

I don't even smoke pot, I've never even tried it, but it doesn't take a genius (damn it that's a hard word to spell...) to figure out how f*cking stupid it is to make a plant illegal...

[Kaos]

Damn, I'm ganna go spark up a "J" (as you young folks call it) and see what comes out of my posts!

Speaking of pot, that's one thing that I find messed up with the world (when I say world I mean America). In the US, they have all of these commercials saying your ganna kill some one or do something horrible like that when it's all bullshi*t. There's no reason for it to be illegal in the first place.

American Government: "Jesus H. Christ! This mary jane is making every one feel great, let's make it illegal to sell it or smoke it. Hell, let's make it illegal to have it any where in your possession, too!"

Pot is a natural weed that causes no harm what so ever (except maybe a low sperm count if you smoke enough) and yet nicotine cigarettes that cause lung cancer and are purposely addictive are just fine and dandy.

I don't even smoke pot, I've never even tried it, but it doesn't take a genius (damn it that's a hard word to spell...) to figure out how f*cking stupid it is to make a plant illegal...

It's funny you should mention that because lately people from a broad spectrum of society (church leaders, politicians and health experts) have been calling on the Australian government to legalise heroin. Yes, I do realise that heroin is quite different to marijuana in terms of both production, use and side-effects yet there are arguments that apply to both.

Illegal drugs contribute less than 10% of all drug related deaths and injuries in Australia - the rest is made up of tabacco and alcohol. Why should these be legal when other drugs are not? Naturally grown marijuana (not grown hydroponically) has no adverse side effects as the level of THC present is not enough to cause chemical addiction or any other mental problems such as schizophrenia. There have also been no deaths caused by marijuana in history. Compare that with the tens of thousands of deaths caused by smoking nicotine and drinking alcohol. And you can't say it's because those drugs are legal and more people use them because 1/3 of Australians have smoked pot, 53% of 17 males have and 20% have smoked it in the last year. Those statistics are almost on par with cigarettes yet we have 20,000 cigarette deaths every year and 0 deaths from marijuana.

If it was legalised and regulated (The way tabacco and alcohol are currently) it would probably be even more safe since the government could ensure there were no unsafe chemicals in it and in doing so would destroy illegal drug crime which often fuels gang-related activity. In addition, it could be taxed and spent on harm minimisation programs.

Heroin is a slightly different case. However I believe that it was legalised and sold through retail outlets with the most stringent of requirements with clean needles and even injecting rooms there would be a lower number of deaths attributed to it. It's hard to say for sure since there's never been a study on legalised heroin. It makes sense that if someone is using heroin which is of a known purity and passes government benchmarks, with safe equipment and in a safe area they are less likely to come to harm then someone buying it from a shifty dealer in the streets, not knowing the real purity or how many dangerous chemicals have been thrown in, using needles picked up from the street and shooting up in an alley.

There still remains the question that if it was legalised and available at retail stores would more people be willing to try it? I think not. I think people who are that curious already have sources. I also believe that with proper education (Which we sort of have already, could be improved) telling people the cons of heroin use there wouldn't be some huge take up of heroin users. Just like how people stopped smoking when the health consequences came to light.

In addition to this are the economic benefits. Instead of growing stupid crops like cotton and rice in Australia (Sorry if you're getting sick of my Australian examples, but they're the most relevant to me) which require a lot of water which we don't have considering we are 2/3 desert, we could grow more suitable crops like cannabis which can be used as a fibre and smoked. Growing opium would cut out heroin traffickers and destroy their source of revenue which supports other illegal enterprises like gun smuggling, people smuggling and even the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[enigma]

Not in China though. Around one in four Chinese were addicted back then. Then, the Chinese got pissed and got their ass kicked in the war, which caused further estabalization and the eventual collapse of the Manchu and the resulting Chinese Civil War killed millions more and the Communists took over and Mao Zedong's policies killed 10's of millions so, yeah. The British were well aware of the damages of opium and wanted money. I do agree that the modern government shouldn't apologize for anything though.

How are the Opium Wars, the last one being around 70 years before the Chinese Civil War ... connected? It didnt bring about the collaspe of the Qing Dynasty although it did help foster interal rebellions agaisnt the unpopular Dynasty it wasnt until the early 1900s it finally collasped (but due to internal uprising and nothing to do with the 2nd Opium War) and not until later on the massive civil war and communist take over took over.

[Corporate Ignorance]

How are the Opium Wars, the last one being around 70 years before the Chinese Civil War ... connected? It didnt bring about the collaspe of the Qing Dynasty although it did help foster interal rebellions agaisnt the unpopular Dynasty it wasnt until the early 1900s it finally collasped (but due to internal uprising and nothing to do with the 2nd Opium War) and not until later on the massive civil war and communist take over took over.

There is a direct connection between 100 years(all 19th century) of semi-colonial disaster in Chinese history and initial collapse of Chinese economy, growth of national liberation movements, scorn for Europeans and destruction of Qing Dynasty...


Will answer all your question later, Enigma.

What I like about British is that they are still very confident in their progressive stance, and Englishmen are proud nation.:))) Of course, British have lots of things to be proud about. I say again- I admire British culture- litrature, landscape, pubs, sad Irish ballads, green hills, JRR Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, G.Orwell etc, but well, imperial ambitions are still in the air)))

[Lt. Hanley]

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/82-hating-corporations/

Ran across that yesterday. All I could think of was this thread.

[lazlazlaz1]

I suggest you take your antiquated, imperialist and white supremacist views elsewhere.

I have none of those, I have nationlistic views. Not in the way that my nation is inherently better than any other, just that I am proud of my nations history and culture, as anyone should be.

And I totally agree with Enigma's last long post, it is exactly how I think. Empires have increased the bad already in existence and create their own wrongs, but they have also brought about much good.

[2ltben]

2ltben: how about the modern legel system which is based upon roman foundations, the catholuic church, rich culture, trace to its peoples, road networks, linking China and other eastern countries to the west ....
I'm not sure what your point is. That culture would exist independent of empire. Culture exists because people exist, not because empires exist.


Ceaser may have killed up to a million men however our you saying that for the next couple of centries Gaul stayed as some primative backwash cesspitt of a hell hole were everyone still lived in there little hill top forts or Brittania after the occupation, slaugter of the Druids and putting down of the rebeliions did not benefit one bit from the Roman Empire? Surely if we had not we would still be "painted ourselves blue"
If you consider non-Romans to be mere "barbarians," I suggest you do more historical research on the subject. What of Carthage? The Hellenic states? Germania was never conquered, Augustus tried and had the shit beaten out of him.




Funny ... i made a simple question to attempt to get people to show impartiality and you all cant. Your all bigots .... only willing to accept the terrible things empires/people etc do without highlighting the posative.
I'm bigotted for taking the viewpoint that empires are built upon ideas of superiority and that all people deserve the right to self-determination. Funny that...


At least i accept people, empires, businesses are flawed but also know they can all do good and bad. Although to say that am also a bigot as i hate facisits ,,, see am not perfect i admit it
Wake up and smell the world, friend. Governments are extensions of popular will, not a device to slake the greedy aspirations of the social or military or economic elite. Look at Robert Mugabe. He lives in a 25-bedroom mansion while his nation's inflation is so high that money is a useless concept and commodities in miniscule amounts. Bars of soap are sliced into thin pieces, cooking oil is traded by the tablespoon. In 2005 the Mugabe administration ordered the bulldozing of almost 2 million homes because the people had no other choice but to squat. Are you saying this military junta has the right to do this, that the Zimbabwe self-sovereignty should be respected regardless of its violations of human rights?

[enigma]

If you consider non-Romans to be mere "barbarians," I suggest you do more historical research on the subject. What of Carthage? The Hellenic states? Germania was never conquered, Augustus tried and had the shit beaten out of him.

Still cant admit that Brittania and Gaul benifited can you, or that the Roman Empire brought about some good instead you once again bring up the negatives a do or die struggle with Cathage, the absobtion of the Greek City States and for some bizare reason .... the Germanic tribes.


Governments are extensions of popular will, not a device to slake the greedy aspirations of the social or military or economic elite. Look at Robert Mugabe.
Well Mr Mugabe's government sure as hell is not an extension of popular will.


Are you saying this military junta has the right to do this, that the Zimbabwe self-sovereignty should be respected regardless of its violations of human rights?
I dont believe stated anywhere if i did or did not support such actions.

I stated quite simply, that i recongise that men/empires/governments/corporations can all do both good and bad things and do not focus soley on the negatives of them all. Just because i believe that the Mugabe regime is a pile of shite and that man needs shooting does not mean i all of a sudden cannot see any good in the British Empire, the Stalinst government or the bloody McDonald corporation.


That culture would exist independent of empire
We wouldnt have museams full of crap we found/stole/looted/dug up/gave to us if it was not for the empire.
This country now has a rather strong Indian culture within, mainly because of the Empire.
As for the Romans ... they stole most of there culture off the Greeks did they not? Without there imperialist aims would we still marvel at the cultural background of republic and empire?


I'm bigotted for taking the viewpoint that empires are built upon ideas of superiority and that all people deserve the right to self-determination. Funny that...

Yes :)


big·ot
–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

You appear to be unable to accept that Empires are not all these evil facist regimes and can actually do good. Since you cannot accept this opinion and are intolerant of others who do you therefore are ;)

Funny that....

[SuperSoldier]

How are the Opium Wars, the last one being around 70 years before the Chinese Civil War ... connected? It didnt bring about the collaspe of the Qing Dynasty although it did help foster interal rebellions agaisnt the unpopular Dynasty it wasnt until the early 1900s it finally collasped (but due to internal uprising and nothing to do with the 2nd Opium War) and not until later on the massive civil war and communist take over took over.

It helped cause the Taiping Rebellion and the Boxer Rebellion and foster the internal uprising which collapsed it. The wars, along with the First Sino-Japanese War, really did do alot to cause internal uprising. It wasn't the only reason, and I never said it was, for the Chinese Civil War. The war was caused because the Qing Collapsed, which was an effect of the Taiping and Boxer rebellions, which was mostly due to the Opium Wars. The wars opened the ports of China to trade, which noone wanted, which in turn caused strife, etc. The collapse caused China to be divided by warlords (which I'm sure you know of). The Civil War was to unite the two rivals, KMT and the CCP (which existed because of the collapse, which was a because of a multitude of things including the Taiping and Boxer rebellions, which were in turn caused mostly because of the Opium Wars). Both wanted to get rid of the "warlord problem" which could only be dealt with after the destruction of either the Nationalists or the Communists.

[NicholasJohnson]

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/82-hating-corporations/

Ran across that yesterday. All I could think of was this thread.

That site has now been set as my homepage. Thank you.

:indian_chief:

[Corporate Ignorance]

-quote-
Corp: you cant answer a basic quesiton you have twisted an turned around it like a ture polatician and then counterattacked ...

quite simply ... would all those problems be in those countires if Coca Cola decided to remove its bottlaing factory?
-quote-


Well, I never twisted and turned anything...))) And surly, I'm not a politician.
Honestly, I can't really understand what we are debating?

You see, I can't accept(and as far as I understood, Kaos, Ben and SacredLizard more or less agree with me) your argument that emipres and corporations do good...I think it's a very general statement.i.e as I said, Stalin did "good", and maybe Charles Manson also did good, but a person or an institution is not acceptable even if it has something "good", but at the same time, "evil" that is made by it is so terrible that it simply makes speaking in those general terms of good and evil senseless...

We can't debate pros and cons of imperalism, as we can't debate pros and cons of a rape.
Using the same approach, we also can say that Germans did good when they feed prisoners of Aushwitz and allowed them to sleep. The same scheme applies(in my opinion, of course) to corporations and modern state of things in the world...

I think that all that I have stated are based on actual facts and coherent logic- one have not to be a real genious to understand how corporate world works- it is proved by simple look on the phenomena of the First World, former Second World and Third World-we can debate historical roots of such division or we can debate modern state of things in our unhappy world but the truth is - I stated-
1.Every human interenational instituation of finance and trade now works overwhelmingly in the intrest of selected few companies who are richer then entire countries(look the statistic on the progress- poor are getting poorer rich are getting richer through New Mercantilism. Analyze WTO policy, or I can give huge lot of examples how corporations support brutal regimes for the sake of profits and don't hesitate to step over any moral or even legal barriers to get 500% profit.

2.The suffering and injustice, repression and terrible violence is often supported by those corporate entites, becaues they are making VERY BIG money. That is also comes as no surpirse. To them. But not to people who have a tiny spot of compassion for some forsaken shitholes as Rwanda or Bangladesh. I don't think that some people are allowed to live, and some are not, and can be repressed, exterminated or tortured by opressive regimes, installed in the intrest of international commerce...I belive that is just wrong. World is stepping towards greater inequality and that can bring a great unrest and may lead(and already is leading) to a complex, senseless conflict of uneducated, deprived, embittered against content, confident and rich.



And if Coca Cola went out of Russia, for example, Russian air would be cleaner and rivers and forests would be more pure.

Becaues Coca Cola decided that Russians can bear with their worst toxic facilities, while Americans and Europeans can't...
Very often the most toxic facilites are moved to Third World. Especially to Africa,China and Latin America.

So they moved all their most toxic facilities(it's not a secret or a conspiracy theory, by the way, it's a well-known fact) to Russia- our local ruling and buisness elite said "ok, it's just fine, if you pay us."...

But ordinary people suffer. But who cares about ordinary people when we speak about crazy money?

Not to say that local Russian lemonade companies(and we had quite a lot of them) went bankrupt- because how can a new small Russian firm beat such a giant as Coca Cola...? So you think that Corporate Ignorance is kinda second sorted Third-Worlder, and he deserves to breath poisoned air and swim in polluted rivers, only because some chosen lord in tie agreed with out chosen lord in tie that we are ok with it?))) No, I don't think so...You can say "Life sucks and Life is unjust" but if all toxic facilites were situated in England you woud not agree with that state of things...Nither do I.

And I give you very concrete example...Now think in broader terms- the pollution of nature is the least what coproprations may do and are doing.

[lazlazlaz1]

So what would you do if all the coporations ceased to be? Where would you get your petrol? Much of your food? Drink? Day to day commodities?
Would you rather that everyone was equally poor and living in rubbish conditions just so you would feel less guilty?

[enigma]

Using the same approach, we also can say that Germans did good when they feed prisoners of Aushwitz and allowed them to sleep. The same scheme applies(in my opinion, of course) to corporations and modern state of things in the world...
Now ive seen friggen everything.... :icon_rolleyes:


but if all toxic facilites were situated in England you woud not agree with that state of things...
Yes because here on our wonderful island we breath in fresh air unpolluted by the philistines we screw over who live beyond our borders.

Realilty check boyo.... Business and Industry, commerce, travel etc creates pollution, thats everywhere.

*Where i live, we use to have a massive plant from one of the worlds largest chemical producers (its still there but downsized from what it was iirc) who were dumping so much shit into the Mersey they have contaminated the land and had to fork out Billions for the cleanup.
*This and other industries and business etc polluted the Mersey that bad that it took decades of all sorts of treatment to get just portions of it habitable for marine life again.
*We have all sorts of other chemical plants and other industries pumping shite into the air, if you not from around here the air bloody stinks until you get use to it.
*Only a few years back we were still having chemical leaks from the plants and having orders sent around to stay inside and keep doors etc locked. Others have stated that within the last decade or so simlar orders have been given because of sudden acid rain clouds etc brought on by leaks
*We have sewage plants here
*There was proposals to build a garbage incenarator here
*Were in the middle of major road, rail and air networks
*Have some of the highest cancer rates, from what ive have been told, in all of the U.K.
etc etc

and your trying to tell me i have no idea?

And am sure if Coca Cola moved there bottling plants out of your country that wouldnt stop the pollution of the rivers, forests, air etc .... in fact to suggest:

And if Coca Cola went out of Russia, for example, Russian air would be cleaner and rivers and forests would be more pure.

Is living up the second part of your user name.

[Corporate Ignorance]

I don't say that U.K is not polluted...I've been in England, by the way, and I visited Birmingham.:) I have travelled quite far and wide and worked in several countries, and have some notion(maybe it's wrong, but it's backed by personal expirience) about this world, bro.

I was not trying to be cocky, man, that entirly was not my point- to teach you about this life.

So, I maybe ignorant, but not entirly- industry causes pollution, but again, my point was not in pollution in general but that the worst toxic facilites are moved into the less developed countires by mutual agreement of corrupted authorities, and it's the LEAST evil that comes from corporate entities. I did not speak about supressed massacres, support of tyranical regimes(Nigeria, Rwanda before 1994, ) repressions, market monopolization, dirty layoffs, total unconcern for the fate of ordinary people, cooperation with special services etc.



But you ignored the important part of my post-
that almost all Russian lemonade companies went bankrupt, people were fired and are on the streets. Law of free maket? But the thing is, that free market rules are for the poor, for the rich we got nice little protectionism.

[2ltben]

Still cant admit that Brittania and Gaul benifited can you, or that the Roman Empire brought about some good instead you once again bring up the negatives a do or die struggle with Cathage, the absobtion of the Greek City States and for some bizare reason .... the Germanic tribes.
Some bizarre reason? What? The attempts at Germanic conquest were fundamentally important to Roman military history. Rome benefited Romans, which are in the vast minority in the Roman Empire. Even then, the Romans who enjoyed those benefits most were the patricians, not those living under the organized crime of the collegiates or the draconian practices of the military.


Well Mr Mugabe's government sure as hell is not an extension of popular will.
Neither are empires. The will of a select class of oligarchs is, by definition, not popular.


Just because i believe that the Mugabe regime is a pile of shite and that man needs shooting does not mean i all of a sudden cannot see any good in the British Empire, the Stalinst government or the bloody McDonald corporation.
Then tell me, specifically, what those good points are. I've yet to see them.


We wouldnt have museams full of crap we found/stole/looted/dug up/gave to us if it was not for the empire.
And you won't for much longer. Egypt wants that shit back and eventually it's going to get it.


This country now has a rather strong Indian culture within, mainly because of the Empire.
And the Indians were treated as second-class. I hope the dead of Amritsar appreciate that their culture influenced Britain.


As for the Romans ... they stole most of there culture off the Greeks did they not? Without there imperialist aims would we still marvel at the cultural background of republic and empire?
Yes, since you just said that Greco-Roman culture was predominantly Greek. Don't forget that Hellenic states existed independently of Rome and that, up until the military reforms of the 1st century BC, were substantially stronger. Modern Italian culture is dominated by the Renaissance, Byzantine culture was based on Greek Orthodoxy and Hellenic culture, France, Spain, and Portugal had cultures of their own develop from the fall of Rome, and Britain was never very Roman to begin with, even less so with the invasions by the Anglo-Saxons and Normans. Latin was a prestige language but that gave way to it being an academic and ecumenical language. Please tell me where the Roman is, because the Migration Period really screwed all of that up.


You appear to be unable to accept that Empires are not all these evil facist regimes and can actually do good. Since you cannot accept this opinion and are intolerant of others who do you therefore are ;)
This is a debate, that's the only point. Seriously, do you know where you are? You may as well just say "Shut up, you're wrong because you're debating me in the debate I initiated."

[enigma]

You want me to list some pros of the British Empire?

The Legal System?
Benifit System?
NHS?
Trains?
Indsutrial Revolution?
Commuication improvements?
Increase of tradable goods?

Ok there is just a few off the top of my head, are you telling me not one of them is a posative thing?
How can you contuine to say that Empires are soley evil when they do much more then just conqour, rape and pillage .... above are several examples which benififted the many rather then the few elite or just the people from the motherland.
And am sure you have seen them ;)


Seriously, do you know where you are? You may as well just say "Shut up, you're wrong because you're debating me in the debate I initiated."
No ... i called you a bigiot and you asked why, i told you.

Now if you dont mind, Shut up, you're wrong because you're debating me in the debate i initiated!

[2ltben]

You want me to list some pros of the British Empire?

The Legal System?
Georgian Indians and Australian/New Zealander Aboriginies will probably disagree. The penal colonies were more of an exception, though the British/white police forces did tend to lose their cool when native populations didn't do as instructed.


Benifit System?
Need some more explaining, but I think the Indians and South African natives would disagree.


NHS?
Didn't exist until after the empire dissolved.


Trains?
"Get in the back, Coolie." Locomotives were also based on wagonways that spread across Europe from Germany.


Indsutrial Revolution?
India, China, Afghanistan. Opium, cotton, indigo, and other cash crops were the primary concern. And industrialization was a great benefit to the native South African population forced to leave their families and wage-slave in the mines. Even in Britain it destroyed cities, hell, Manchester was worse than Pittsburgh. On that note, also, the US, which was never an actual empire, outpaced British production not long into the late 19th century.


Commuication improvements?
Telegraphs were a German invention. Wireless communication was Italian. The Royal Mail was before the Empire. If you mean infrastructure, again, the US did that and more during the Empire's existence.


Increase of tradable goods?
For Britons, perhaps. British imports destroy local economies outside of Britain. so much so that boycotting British goods often greatly improved economic conditions.

I never said empires are evil, only that empires only benefit their first-class citizens and that they repress the remainder. Imperialism is based upon conquest, through either the military (South Africa), the economy (China), or colonists (Australia).

I don't mean to say there arn't good things, but those good things generally only benefit the few at the expense of the many. Empires are irresponsible and don't look after their entire population, and don't think because I used the US as anti-imperialist examples that my own country gets away scot-free. The United States shares plenty of blame as well.

[enigma]

NHS was drawn up in 1942 and established soon after the war ended, the empire at this point had not dissolved. We went through decolonisation throughout the 50s and 60s, and handed over Hong Kong in '97.

As for some of other points, i wasnt talking about invention but implementation, but i cant be bothered discussing this further as the two of us will never see eye to eye on this subject and will surley find some negative comment about everything.

What did the Roman's ever do for us? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A&feature=related) I think Python illustrate the point pretty well 40 seconds onwards....

[Kaos]

NHS was drawn up in 1942 and established soon after the war ended, the empire at this point had not dissolved. We went through decolonisation throughout the 50s and 60s, and handed over Hong Kong in '97.

As for some of other points, i wasnt talking about invention but implementation, but i cant be bothered discussing this further as the two of us will never see eye to eye on this subject and will surley find some negative comment about everything.

You know the Empire doesn't equal Britain. If you want to say "Imperialism was great for England!" Go ahead and say it. But do not for a second pretend that it was good for those who were made English slaves and subjects. The only reason it was good for the English was because it was shit for everyone else. They were taking from them to live their lives better. And even in that case the majority of English were getting robbed by factory owners.

NHS exists in Britain. Where else in the old empire? Go through the list of countries I posted and tell me what percentage? Any countries that did develop their own healthcare systems did so much later and after independance - Australia in the 1970's. Don't try and give Britain credit for individual countries and individual citizens coming up with ideas, getting elected and implementing them.

You can talk about implementation all you like but please once again point out which ex-colonies have your famous and supposedly superior legal system and benefit system? Yemen? Anguilla? Bahrain? Lesotho? Botswana? Brunei? Burma? Sri Lanka? Egypt? Gambia? Iraq? Pakistan? Bangladesh? India? Jamaica? Kenya? Kuwait? Malaysia? Nigeria? Borneo? Malawi? Oman? Papua New Guinea? Palestine? Qatar? Zimbabwe? Zambia? Sierra Leone? South Africa? Swaziland? Tanzania? Tonga? Jordan? Trinidad? The UAE? Uganda? Samoa? Tanzania?

Furthermore, which of those countries are not third-world basket cases.

Look at that list and then read some newspapers and look for mentions of those countries. Then tell me that imperialism was so good.

[enigma]

Yea because its the British fault if those countries (Egypt was never a colony btw and Papua New Guinea was under Austraian control and some of them are certianlly not 3rd world "basket cases") fell apart after forced decolonisation, have merged with other countries or if they have had coups etc Appratently if they decide to make choices on there own afterwards thats the UK's fault :snore:
Should we take credit then for the successes too, funny how you leave them off any list...

He asked for examples of what the Empire did in a good light. The NHS is, just because it didnt spread across the whole of the empire which was in a period of forced decolonisation it doesnt automatically mean that it isnt something inheratiently good which the government did for its subjects.

[Kaos]

Yea because its the British fault if those countries (Egypt was never a colony btw and Papua New Guinea was under Austraian control and some of them are certianlly not 3rd world "basket cases") fell apart after forced decolonisation, have merged with other countries or if they have had coups etc Appratently if they decide to make choices on there own afterwards thats the UK's fault :snore:
Should we take credit then for the successes too, funny how you leave them off any list...

He asked for examples of what the Empire did in a good light. The NHS is, just because it didnt spread across the whole of the empire which was in a period of forced decolonisation it doesnt automatically mean that it isnt something inheratiently good which the government did for its subjects.

First of all it's arguable about whose fault it was. Secondly I never stated it was Britain's fault for the conditions in those countries, I was merely arguing against your assertion that they had tip-top legal systems, a robust government and welfare.

Egypt's ruler was deposed by Britain in 1882 and a puppet was installed. British troops invaded Egypt and defeated the Egyptian military as well as deposing the government. The British continue to occupy the country for decades and declared it a protectorate. So while it was not a "Colony" it was most definitely part of the British Empire. It's not considered good sport to change the definition halfway through a debate.

Papua New Guinea is a different case. Australia was given a mandate to govern New Guinea but at the time Australia was an un-federated alliance of British colonies. The British were ruling by proxy. Papua, on the other hand, was considered to be a "possession" of Australia thought it was actually owned by the British. So once again they were part of the Empire.

Please tell me which countries you would not label as 3rd world or with having a poor economy? India? The country where 30% of citizens live below the poverty line? Is that your best counter argument - pick two or three countries that *may* not have been technical colonies or that you believe aren't basket cases and that somehow proves your point?

Once again I never said the state of those countries or their problems was due to the British, you just made that up. Purposely misconstruing my point because you have nothing to argue against isn't a very fair tactic. It was your job to point out what you see as "successes" and my job to point out that their are none. At least none attributable to the British.

As I said before "the Empire" does not equal the government of Britain. If you wish to say that Attlee did a good thing for the citizens of Britain by introducing the NHS Act go ahead and say so. Do not say that "the Empire" brought it in but it's not our fault that it didn't spread. It never applied to any other country. It's the National Health Service. It was a domestic policy. "Just because it didn't spread across the whole empire". Once again - it never left the British Isles.

[enigma]

Which of those countries are not 3rd world shit holes?

well i just to name a few i would have to say:
Anguilla,
Bahrain,
Egypt,
Jamaica,
Kuwait,
South Africa,

Should we add the former colonies come Dominions then Free States?

Canada,
Australia,
Ireland,
New Zealand.


It's not considered good sport to change the definition halfway through a debate.
Not good sport ... i was pointing out an error.

The NHS has actually spread past mainland Britain, into Ulster and to some although am not sure if all of the oversea terratorys.


I never stated it was Britain's fault for the conditions in those countries....Once again I never said the state of those countries or their problems was due to the British, you just made that up
QUOTE]

Well one surely gets that impression when you purposly post something like this:

[QUOTE]You can talk about implementation all you like but please once again point out which ex-colonies have your famous and supposedly superior legal system and benefit system? Yemen? Anguilla? Bahrain? Lesotho? Botswana? Brunei? Burma? Sri Lanka? Egypt? Gambia? Iraq? Pakistan? Bangladesh? India? Jamaica? Kenya? Kuwait? Malaysia? Nigeria? Borneo? Malawi? Oman? Papua New Guinea? Palestine? Qatar? Zimbabwe? Zambia? Sierra Leone? South Africa? Swaziland? Tanzania? Tonga? Jordan? Trinidad? The UAE? Uganda? Samoa? Tanzania?

How can one point out the benifit of the English law system in countries which have in some cases tore themselves apart, merged with other countries or have had regime takeovers in one form or another. What you are asking is a purposing trick question.

At any any rate, Anguilla, Bahrain, Australia, Lesotho, Jamaica, New Zealand, Canada and even our cousins across the pond in the US have there basis in the basic English law system ... i cant be bothered going through the rest of them for you.

[2ltben]

He asked for examples of what the Empire did in a good light. The NHS is, just because it didnt spread across the whole of the empire which was in a period of forced decolonisation it doesnt automatically mean that it isnt something inheratiently good which the government did for its subjects.
Yes it does, because it only had any effect on the first-class citizens. The substantial majority of the Empire got shit.

And if you want to split hairs, the Empire died in 1949 when "British" was removed from the name of the Commonwealth, but the Empire wasn't really an Empire anymore after WWI. The nations not under control by the British authorities directly were almost entirely independent. It was in the 1890s that Britain was first referred to not as an empire, but as a Commonwealth of Nations.


well i just to name a few i would have to say:
Anguilla,
Bahrain,
Egypt,
Jamaica,
Kuwait,
South Africa,
Seriously? Egypt and Jamaica arn't third world shitholes? Egypt is under de facto dictatorship and Jamaica is horrendously impoverished. South Africa was saved only through the end of Apartheid, which is a spit in the face of any accomplishments happened there and should rightfully be taken as such. Kuwait is essentially a puppet state of Western business interests because if they went against the will of the Western oil industry, they'd destroy their economy.

[Exteral]

One thing I've been wonder over. For me, it seems as the international community has been stable after the end of U.S.S.R. But I guess im just living in a fairy world in a country where we have it too good. But whats the "villain" of the dawn of the 21th century? Is it actually just as chaotic with the different nations as it always have been? Are we on the beginning of the down-spiral of the U.S? And who would be their new deputy? China? Is it war looming in the air? And if so. between who? U.s and Iran?

[Sgt So and So]

In my opinion (which any one can shut down if deemed wrong), it seems like there is once again a growing divide between the weakening US and Russia, with the EU and UN stuck in the middle. Although Iran has been played up as a threat, it really is nothing compared to the military juggernaut that Russia has still barely maintained.

China, too, seems a bit overplayed. They are too busy playing down the Tibetan protests and keeping their country dapper enough for the Olympics to be any serious threat to anyone at this point.

Finally, there's the wild card of Africa, which, as we can see with Mogadishu, can be a point of conflict between the rest of the world and Islamic interests. The violence and hostility there is eventually going to come to a head, and one of the superpowers is going to try and make a play there once things have cooled down. But who knows: as long as the US is bogged down in the Mid-East and the violence escalates in Africa, things can go in any direction at this point.

[ajeganwalsh]

If US-Russian relations keep getting frostier I would say that there will be a small scale war in the mid-east that will escalate into something bigger.
(although the relations would have to get a lot more frosty).
e.g. The US invades Iran. Russia pledges support for Iran and supplies tanks,combat jets etc. The US sinks a Russian ship on the way to Iran.
Russia sinks a US destroyer or bombs a US base or makes some other retaliatory move. The war would escalate with tit for tat attacks until there was A) a limited ground war in mid-east between Coalition forces and a Russo-Iranian alliance or B) possible conventional attacks by both the US and Russia on each others mainland which would possibly result in nuclear war?
If this happened then china, undamaged from the nuclear exchange, would step in as the worlds only superpower and 50 or so years after that we're all speaking mandarin.

[Corporate Ignorance]

Highly unlikley that anything that you've described can happen.))))

Russia will not engage in any military conflict with US in the near future due to objective reasons.

[ajeganwalsh]

You never know, at the moment the US is badly overstretched with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is entering a economic recession. It would be the perfect time to strike for a resurgent Russia.

[Exteral]

I dont really think that russia could do that! Unless they go nukie nukie.


But what with religion? Is islam getting angrier and angrier over the other religions? Will there be a war berween jews/christians and muslims in the closest future? Is the christian faith going downwards! At least I feel that. Or is it because those christians whos really "fanatic" (sorry if thats a bit offensive) dont go public with that like I see muslims do?


And how many commy countries are there left? It looks like the democrats have won this one.

[Kaos]

Or is it because those christians whos really "fanatic" (sorry if thats a bit offensive) dont go public with that like I see muslims do?

Of course they do. It's just when it happens be it a war, a bombing, a killing, a suicide or any kind of protest the media don't say "A Christian killed 3 people today". "A Christian country invaded a non-Christian country". "Christians protested against finding a cure to Parkinson's Disease".

Remember in 2003, when Bush was laying down his arguments for invading Iraq, he used the word "crusade" a number of times. Now that has very religious connotations. Not only that but it only relates to Christian soldiers.

The same thing when Israel attacks Palestinians they refer to it as "The Israeli army today killed 14 Islamic militants". Why not say "Jewish extremists hell-bent on destroying the Palestinian nation and it's peoples murdered 14 people", like they do when it's the other way around.

Now I'm not supporting any of these groups, Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'm really not a fan of any religion, or killing, but I really despise these double standards regarding Islam vs. Christianity and Judaism especially when all three are so damn similar, and the reasons members from these groups commit horrendous crimes is also pretty much the same.

[Kaos]

And how many commy countries are there left? It looks like the democrats have won this one.

First of all there have never been any Communist states in existence in the world at any point in time. Secondly, it was never "Communism" vs. "Democracy" because Communism, in theory, is one of the purest forms of democracy. It was "Communism" vs. "the Free Market" which hasn't actually been "free" for at least 100 years.

However there are still a few nations calling themselves "communist" including Cuba and Vietnam.

Btw I could have easily answered your question with one word beginning with "C" and by most peoples standards it would have shown "communism" won. Have a guess at what that word is. Hint, it's the biggest country in the world.

[2ltben]

There's a big difference between hating Jews and hating military occupiers who won't even let an ambulance carrying a Palestinian pass a checkpoint. Or who won't let people return to their homes. Or just takes them and bulldozes them. I have no problem with a Jewish Israel. I have a big fucking problem with an Israeli-controlled Apartheid.

And Kaos, China has had a market economy since, I believe, the 70s. Don't quote me on that, but nevertheless, they have stock exchanges. The only difference is that domestic investors can't invest outside of China, but foreign investors can do whatever they want. I think Rosa Luxembourg could have made a sea-change to the nature of Communism were it not for the Freikorps fucking things up during the German Revolution(s).

[Kaos]

And Kaos, China has had a market economy since, I believe, the 70s.

Obviously. The biggest corporation in the world is currently owned by the People's Republic of China. The point that I'm making is that if you're calling a country "communist" just because it's in the country's title - you aren't that bright. You have two options. Either a) they aren't actually communist never truly were so you can't say that "Communism has proven to have failed". Or option b) they are communist because they have Communism in their name, in which case they've won - see China.