It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don’t the workers simply ‘buy out’ the owner of the factory instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem to make more sense for all parties involved.

Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts – not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don’t the workers simply buy the owner out instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem more just for all parties involved.

Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts – not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don’t the workers simply buy the owner out instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem more just for all parties involved.

Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts – not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

I hope you are open to discussion instead of living under a western rock, because I think you clearly don’t see the havoc globalization wreaks on the environnment and the society’s of third world countries.
And on the western countries for that matter, read Marcuse and understand the term “repressive sublimation”

Agreed corporations have too much power, I won’t fight you there, but the answer to your problems is not fighting globalization and preaching for protectionism. If you got your way with that trade barriers would increase, restricting imports and exports, leading too lower economic growth and is that really what you want after a recession? Last time that happened it lead to the Great Depression. But hey, having a job putting the windshield on a corolla is more beneficial to society right?

Go get an education so you can learn what the **** you are talking about and maybe your eyes will open just a little bit more.

Changing human nature seems futile.

There is no such thing as perfect competition, which would be the premise for perfect capitalism.

All I wish for is a little after-thought. Like – do I really need more? Or do I just want?

The senseless consumerism today seems to stand unchallenged. As long as there is enough to go around, no problem. I could not care less, if my neighbor wants a yacht or a golf course.

But what compels human nature to care more about self-entitlement and less about community?

I personally do not feel good, when I am confronted with other human beings living in poverty, hunger, despair? Especially since I do not want for nothing myself. Just seems unfair – what makes me better and more entitled than the next person.

I guess it boils down to ‘the human view’: do I see people as untrustworthy, anti-social, greedy, and selfish by nature or as a product of environment?

I believe that people are – by nature – constructive, active, social beings seeking meaningful lives. And if meaning is achieved, there is no need for greed.

With the extra profit Pete could invest in technology which lowers the production costs and enables him to drive his competitors out of the market , if he does not do so his competitor will, and Peter will lose his business sooner or later.

What I am trying to say is that we should not focus on fixing human nature in the sense that if Peter was not greedy the workers would not have suffered, or without human greed capitalism would be fine. The cause for this fascination for profit is mostly if not only the system.

I have to disagree a little bit with you about the one that is always going to lose out, labor. Only under perfect competition ( practically impossible), when companies can not raise their prices because they’d lose costumers, only then, is labor the only victim, since labor is the only element on which “Peter” can increase his profit, and he does that through lowering its wages.

However, nowadays far from perfect competition as we are He exploits not only his labor but also his costumers in the sense that we pay much more for goods than we actually should be, sometimes even labor is protected by regulations but the costumer is not.

I agree with you on your last sentence though, last centuries socialism was a disaster, nobody wants it back , or at least me coming from the Balkans, do not want it repeated. Nonetheless, that is not enough of an argument to stop working for a better system.

sorry for the long reply just felt tempted to write something after thinking about the “(because?)” you used :P:P

Paul sees that Peter is making a good living and also wants to make and sell the product, and so they would have to compete to sell.

But Peter does not want to risk missing out on potential sales revenue, so he trademarks his product, so that no one else is allowed to copy it. Again his company is growing, producing more, selling more, making more profit.

At some point the market stops expanding, but Peter is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs. So he moves the production to a low cost country, and he scores more profits again.

But now some people in the low cost country discovers that Peter is selling the products at a very high price at home and paying very little wages to the workers there. They are able to think and calculate, and they are so poor that they can barely exist on the pay that they are receiving from Peter.

One of them gets a brilliant idea. He sets up business and manufactures a product just like Peter’s. He sells it in Peter’s country, although at a much lower price than Peter,which is illegal, but he still makes a lot more money than he would working for Peter, so he does it anyway.

But at some point he is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs.

And who is ALWAYS going to lose out? The workers – in both countries.

Because that is the nature of capitalism when PROFITS are PROTECTED by regulation.

There is no pure capitalism and no pure socialism anywhere in the world. Because even supposedly socialist/communist countries are ruled by – capitalists.

Argentina’s recent history is a story of struggle of the courageous people of Argentina against globalization and austerity. Indeed, Argentina is a study of bankster globalization, Argentina was the banksters first global terrorist attack to test their financial weapons of mass destruction.
Argentina is a model of globalization and what the United States and the rest of the world have to expect from the IMF and the centralized banksters.
There are two must see documentary films that records Argentina’s recent history and the central banksters globalization model that currently is being used to attack the United States economy.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/argentinas-economic-collapse/
The other is follow up documentary
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/

What is really remarkable is how the destitute but courageous people of Argentina determined their own destiny by reclaiming abandoned factories that were going to be sold as scrap by the global banksters.

Argentina is a remarkable story of non violence and resistance, the peoples struggle against fascist tyranny, and so far, the people have won peaceful change!