COMMUNISME OR KAPITALISME ? ( Archived) (480)

Of course their job is to manage the company and increase profits. That's what they are HIRED to do, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

I mentioned US companies (be they multi-national or not) because they are the only ones I am familiar with. You are quite free to think what you want. I have ZERO interest in engaging in a childish bi#ch-slapping session with you of all people, so don't expect any further response - other than the fact that you probably should google the issue for your own edification.

I don't see where I implied any such thing in my initial comment. I was merely pointing out that US corporations give staggering amounts annually. But as it happens, there have been many occasions where companies (or someone in the company) was moved to do something simply because they read or heard the story and wanted to do something. It's not unheard of, you know. But the point isn't that they are all wonderful, altruistic entities...simply that they do routinely give sizeable amounts to charity.

Actually, Bull, I don’t recall making any claims to being intelligent, nor have I really tried to give a full opinion on the subject. My comments about corporations giving money was just to clear up ONE common misconception that is part of a much bigger picture.

I think what we need is a mix of socialism and free enterprise. We should recognize as a society that all people have basic needs and we should all chip in and make sure those needs are met. But socialism by itself does not work: the end of the cold war and consequent fall or the iron curtain has proven that. Similarly, capitalism by itself does not work, but there is no doubt that the more individuals who are encouraged to work by being rewarded for the work they do – the more wealth flows throughout the whole society to the benefit of everyone.

One of the worst mistakes our government made was to deregulate the Bell System and open it to free-market competition. When it was government-regulated the company was very fat and profitable because it did not have to compete with anyone, yet in exchange for that the company agreed to regulation and followed a plethora of government-mandated employment rules to ensure excellent and uniformly fair employment practices. Its history of giving and its contributions to research and technology were astronomical and had world-wide implications. In truth, it was for a long time the “gold standard” of the US corporate world. And it did this by basically following a more socialist road map.

So for the record, please don’t make the mistake of taking one comment out of context and assuming you know the whole picture. You do us both a big disservice. We all have different opinions and there’s much work to be done together to sort these things out. I just think we should all be a little more open minded in searching for solutions, and that starts with evaluating the facts rather than just listening to party rhetoric .

Peace out.

The Soviet's shot their own workers for striking, and if the soldier wouldn't shoot his own comrade, they shot him. See the Berlin uprising of 1953, where tanks were deployed against picket lines.

The law counts for proponents of the state, but never its opponents, as they by default become 'the enemy of the people'.

Exactly. A system of checks and balances is always needed or tyrrany will rule.

Agreed.