portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

community building | corporate dominance

Why Do We Even Need Rich People?

I keep repeating this because my ability to type is severely limited, so here it is again:

I am not for "communism." The present economic disaster has come about because everybody ignored the obvious fact that a nation that allows 1% to own almost everything, while 99% own almost nothing, cannot be free. The 1% exists because they have have accumulated so much power that they do not get taxed at all. Meanwhile, people with normal jobs, even minimum wage jobs (few are informed of this) are required to give up at least 25% of their income to taxes!
We are back in the Gilded Age of 1931; the 1% rich own it all; the 99% non-rich own virtually nothing. But there is a difference now. All of our productional industry has been sent off-shore, and our workers are without skills and sound education. Beware!

"George Washington famously said, 'Government is Force.'" Well he was as slave owner, wasn't he? But there is more to it than that. Force is not government. Owning slaves is real force! Property implies force, in fact. Too much property implies too much force! What right do the super-rich have to use GOVERNMENT FORCE to "protect" their extravagant wealth? Wealth is force without democracy. Money + information (about other people) = power.

We in the United States of America now have the purest form of what most people would call capitalism. We also have more people in jail than any nation has had in history. The average person has very few rights, you will notice. Only the rich oligarchs have real freedom, of course, as wealth is 99% similar to raw power in wealth-dominated societies. The average class cannot live in socialism, since they are basically too poor, and also, they have no rights. What right do the rich have to impose tyrannical wealth royalism over the rest of us? Why can't we be free of the absolute power of the super-rich economic royalty?

End The Rich!

The super-rich contribute NOTHING to our so-called "economy"! They have sold out 90% of our productional assets down the river to China, India, Japan, etc. All for pure Profit! They care about us about as much a they care about the Iraqi children their government burned to death with white phosphorus!

No one should be allowed to own more that 20 times what they need to make a living and live comfortably. People should be required to register their substantial holdings, and if they exceed the 20 times limit, a random jury should force them to sell off the excess to reduce their holdings to 15 times what they need. The proceeds should go to the commonwealth. Anything they fail to register should be confiscated, and those who willfully avoid registering assets should be punished. That is the only way to control economic royalism and protect freedom and human rights. Otherwise the 99% will inexorably be reduced to slavery.

Most of our industry has been sold for profit and shipped down the river to other nations, and there is perhaps only one way to rebuild it. All large industry should be owned and completely controlled by democratic communities and towns. Each community would own an industry, which could only be sold to another community. Some communities would have to be larger than others. For example, an ironmaking operation would require a large community, or consortium of communities. There could be government sponsored research and development communities too. Employees would have to live in the communities that own their industries, and thus there would be a powerful incentive to minimize pollution. Small businesses would be operated by ordinary companies.

There will be no more rich political parties. No more rich to be protected by vicious policing. Freedom at last!

Merely taxing the rich a little more will not accomplish enough. We really need to get rid of them. Anybody want to discuss this option? No?

There are many ways of doing communism, and they're not all bad. 06.Apr.2013 18:39

Proud Communist

blues wrote:
I am not for "communism."

Then blues also wrote:
No one should be allowed to own more that 20 times what they need to make a living and live comfortably. People should be required to register their substantial holdings, and if they exceed the 20 times limit, a random jury should force them to sell off the excess to reduce their holdings to 15 times what they need. The proceeds should go to the commonwealth. Anything they fail to register should be confiscated, and those who willfully avoid registering assets should be punished. That is the only way to control economic royalism and protect freedom and human rights. Otherwise the 99% will inexorably be reduced to slavery.

blues, most people would call what you are advocating "communism."

There are many ways of doing communism, and they're not all bad. Look at the Indian State of Kerala, for example, which achieved the best education, health care, and standard of living stats for all of India while governed by the Communist Party.

Be Communist and be proud, blues. I am.

Of Course It's Not “Communism” 06.Apr.2013 21:21

blues

It's the simplest form of communitarianism. There is no central planning. No "party". It's all decentralized, and there is no historical "mandate."

Hopefully, everything in each community industry is decided by simple score voting.

It has nothing to do with Marx's "communism."

Without some organization and ideology, how will your system survive? 07.Apr.2013 03:54

.

blues wrote: It's the simplest form of communitarianism. There is no central planning. No "party". It's all decentralized, and there is no historical "mandate."

So how do you maintain your communitarianism? How do you prevent it from evolving into local tryrannies, local feudalism, or local Mafias?

Without some organization and ideology, how will your system survive? 07.Apr.2013 03:54

.

blues wrote: It's the simplest form of communitarianism. There is no central planning. No "party". It's all decentralized, and there is no historical "mandate."

So how do you maintain your communitarianism? How do you prevent it from evolving into local tryrannies, local feudalism, or local Mafias?

Interesting 07.Apr.2013 11:39

nm<

blues wrote "All of our productional industry has been sent off-shore"

I didn't know I had "productional industry", if I did, why did I allow someone else to do this? Where was it sent? Was it sent to some other poor people to make their life better? Oh, wait, that's not the job of "productional industry", it's job is to turn the living into the nonliving.

I guess I have two points here
1) where ever they sent the "productional industry", it isn't making anyone's life any better. So, let's figure out how to do without it.
2) when it comes to the rich/poor divide, geography doesn't matter. There are rich and poor where ever you go and the rich need to be destroyed where ever they are.

As for organization, communism sounds great, it's about time someone tries it. For a good primer on a de-centralized collecitvisim check the book "The dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin

Here is why we need the rich 07.Apr.2013 11:47

nm<

MOTORHEAD

"Eat The Rich"

They say music is the food of love,
Let's see if you are hungry enough,
Take a bite, take another, just like a good boy would,
Get a sweet thing on the side,
Home cooking, homicide,
Side order, could be your daughter,
Fingerlicking good

[Chorus:]
Come on baby, eat the rich,
Put the bite on the son of a bitch,
Don't mess around, don't give me no switch,
C'mon baby eat the rich
C'mon baby eat the rich

Sittin' here in a restaurant,
Tell the waiter just what you want
Is that the meat, you wanted to eat,
How would you ever know?
Hash browns an' bacon strips,
I love the way that you lick your lips,
No fooling, I can see you drooling,
Feel the hunger grow

[Chorus]

Eat up, eat you, eat me,
Eat two, get one free
Shetland pony, extra pepperoni
Just pick up the phone,
Eat greek, or eat chinese,
Eat salad, or scarf up grease
You're on the shelf, maybe eat yourself,
Come on, bite my bone

[Chorus]


i don't get it 08.Apr.2013 15:19

Clyde

"No one should be allowed to own more that 20 times what they need to make a living and live comfortably. People should be required to register their substantial holdings, and if they exceed the 20 times limit, a random jury should force them to sell off the excess to reduce their holdings to 15 times what they need."

Ok, so who defines "comfortably"? Who in the hell are you to say that I can't keep what I earn, if I pinch pennies and don't spend my money? I bust my ass at work, pull overtime any chance I get, and hardly spend anything. In a few decades I might be very well off. You think it's ok to take that money from me? Not gonna happen.



"The average person has very few rights, you will notice. Only the rich oligarchs have real freedom, of course, as wealth is 99% similar to raw power in wealth-dominated societies

What rights does a rich person have that I don't have? I want specific examples.

Ever been hired by a poor person? 08.Apr.2013 19:25

anon

I like rich people and here's why:

- Most rich people I've met have better education
- Most rich people I've met have been poor, in some cases very poor
- Most rich people are very generous
- Most rich people I've met only have children if they can afford it
- Most rich people I've met are not drug addicts, alcoholics, racists or bitter
- Most rich people I've met are very concerned with the environment
- Most rich people I've met don't care about power
- Most rich people I've met are more likely to look you in the eye and tell you the truth, whether you like it or not
- Communism is for the lazy and people who want absolute power over other people and does not take in to account human nature

Redistribution 08.Apr.2013 19:48

Fidelity

I'm a big fan of redistributing money, though I don't think this makes me a communist. In fact, Judaism and Islam both have mechanisms within their society to automatically redistribute money and wealth. In Judaism this is referred to as the Jubilee, in Islam it is referred to as the Zakat. In the Christian religion, it is implied that you should give your maximum amount to the Church, and the Church will redistribute.

Obviously our generation of contemporary thinkers is not the first to analyze this great need, this "Reset" in society. Even Thomas Jefferson advocated for it.

The question is not of the need to do this, the question is: by what means should this be done, (and to a lesser degree) how often should this be done?

First understand that there is a natural inequality among people: some folks are born with more advantage (either talent or wealth) and they expand upon their advantage or squander it. We cannot blame people for how they are born. Nor should we dissuade people from seeking our great resources. Without great resources, the Pyramids of Egypt would have never been built, nor could we commission great art projects. Wealth is inevitable, and wealth should be the product of hard work and innovation. It would be foolish to try stomping out the goals of people who wish to accumulate resources.

It must be remembered that the general purpose of society is to innovate cultural and technical advancements. The innovation of culture and technology require substantial investments, hence there is a real need for single individuals to accumulate substantial resources to make those investments - there is a need for the Rich and Wealthy.

Today wealth has nothing to do with hard work or innovation, wealth is a byproduct of wealth. Wealth is maintained by wealth, and it is stagnant, illiquid. The primary problem in this economy is Usury: the abuse and over use of loans and debt. Islamic societies have long survived without Usury, and Roman society did for some time, along with Buddhist and Hindu societies as well, and the Orthodox Jewish people seem to survive with their limited practice. The purpose of Usury is to create debt, and the purpose of Debt is to create slaves. Just like Slavery, Usury should be prohibited.

It should also be considered if there could be a mechanism incorporated into our society, perhaps by law, that automatically deconstructs the centers of power and wealth within our society from time to time? Perhaps as an element of our Constitution. I think this is ultimately what is needed.

Just Don't "Bust Your Ass At (Non-Existent) Work" 08.Apr.2013 20:25

blues

A jury of your peers decides whether you have 20-times too much to live comfortably and make your living. If you own any more you will control the Communist State of the U.S.A. (Power corrupting).

The U.S.A.: Is Oligarch-doomed, just like the USSR.

Each community should have its own productional industry. If you don't like it's simple score election democracy, you can simply MOVE!

Bring back industrial productionality and LIVE!

Make America (and every other simple score voting democratic nation) really just WORK!

Then you get to live free!

Fuck rich people and here's why: 08.Apr.2013 20:53

blues

- Most rich people I've met have better education; they have better indoctrination
- Most rich people I've met have been poor, in some cases very poor. Bullshit! 99% of rich were born of super-rich parents. ALWAYS!
- Most rich people are very generous. They are academically proven to be less generous than the very poorest!
- Most rich people I've met only have children if they can afford it. They can ALWAYS afford it!
- Most rich people I've met are not drug addicts, alcoholics, racists or bitter. They rather are bomb throwers on poor nations. They burn children to cinders.
- Most rich people I've met are very concerned with the environment. Their own deep underground "environment."
- Most rich people I've met don't care about power. They have 10% who turn the power screw gleefully for them.
- Most rich people I've met are more likely to look you in the eye and tell you the truth, whether you like it or not. Like any pig.
- Communism is for the lazy and people who want absolute power over other people and does not take in to account human nature. Who cares about that? We want communitarianism.

How is communitarianism not simply socialism or communism relabeled? 09.Apr.2013 14:58

Lefty

@ blues:

I agree with you about the rich, but you also wrote: "We want communitarianism." Who is we? How do you define communitarianism?
That question is relevant and important, because communitarianism has been defined differently by various persons; the Wiki page on Communitarianism describes a lack of consensus on the meaning of the term.

Acknowledging that there is no consensus definition of communitarianism, what I would like to know is YOUR definition of communitarianism.

The definitions of political "isms" will always be subject to partisan spins. Citizens of the USA have been taught to believe that communism is always totalitarian, although that is not what Marx had in mind. Many communist regimes have been totalitarian, but there are also totalitarian aspects to many so-called Democracies, including the USA.

I'm not suggesting that Wiki is the best authority on communitarianism, and I don't know who, if anyone is. According to Wiki,

"Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, which are rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution. [Sounds good to me.]

A common objection is that by providing such rights, communitarians violate the negative rights of the citizens; rights to not have something done for you. For example, taxation to pay for such programs as described above dispossesses individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies—a central tenet of communitarianism—and thus have a personal responsibility to give something back to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of natural rights. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics, as well as historically; for example, whether or not universal health care, private property or protection from polluters can be considered a birthright."

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communitarianism&printable=yes

Many people would describe the above as socialism or communism. In what ways is communitarianism [your definition of it will suffice] not simply socialism, or communism, relabeled for resale in a new package?

Forget Wikipedia’s Banal Definitions. Or Call It Communitalism 10.Apr.2013 07:58

blues

It should be clear that nothing in my original article has the least bit to do with Wikipedia's maunderings.

And what it advocates is nothing at all like communism, which entails a de facto wealthy ruling class based on state and party status. People are simply not allowed to become too rich. Even if they compulsively work themselves to death, and pinch pennies, a randomly selected jury will stop them from acquiring excessive wealth and power. They would be living an unhealthy lifestyle anyway, and would end up requiring too much healthcare.

Large productional industry would be controlled only by local communities elected by simple score voting. Not by a national government. See:

Petition The Puppet? Ha! Get SIMPLE Score Voting!
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/01/421615.shtml

If a person dislikes their local industry, they could quit and form small private businesses. Or they could elect new community representatives. Or they could protest. Or they could simply move to a new community.

Of course there would have to be a simple score voting elected central government, but it could not control the regional productional industries. It would provide for the sick, disabled, and elderly. And provide national defense. It would establish tariffs to protect the community industries from foreign slave states. This system could work for any nation in the world.

This would not be Utopia; there would be various dilemmas to deal with.

This could be a way for people to live freely and reasonably, without being tyrannized by plutocratic bosses or political masters. There are always some people who wish to be dominated, and they have to live too. So they could form their own cultish communities, but with simple score voting elected masters.

Are the current ways of the world working for you? Probably not!

Forget Wikipedia’s Banal Definitions. Or Call It Communitalism 10.Apr.2013 15:20

blues

It should be clear that nothing in my original article has the least bit to do with Wikipedia's maunderings.

And what it advocates is nothing at all like communism, which entails a de facto wealthy ruling class based on state and party status. People are simply not allowed to become too rich. Even if they compulsively work themselves to death, and pinch pennies, a randomly selected jury will stop them from acquiring excessive wealth and power. They would be living an unhealthy lifestyle anyway, and would end up requiring too much healthcare.

Large productional industry would be controlled only by local communities elected by simple score voting. Not by a national government. See:

Petition The Puppet? Ha! Get SIMPLE Score Voting!
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/01/421615.shtml

If a person dislikes their local industry, they could quit and form small private businesses. Or they could elect new community representatives. Or they could protest. Or they could simply move to a new community.

Of course there would have to be a simple score voting elected central government, but it could not control the regional productional industries. It would provide for the sick, disabled, and elderly. And provide national defense. It would establish tariffs to protect the community industries from foreign slave states. This system could work for any nation in the world.

This would not be Utopia; there would be various dilemmas to deal with.

This could be a way for people to live freely and reasonably, without being tyrannized by plutocratic bosses or political masters. There are always some people who wish to be dominated, and they have to live too. So they could form their own cultish communities, but with simple score voting elected masters.

Are the current ways of the world working for you? Probably not!

How can you add a bird on it? 10.Apr.2013 17:05

Fidelity

It's ironic that the other day I wrote about bullshit political philosophy in Portland as, "Most of it is pumped from the halls of Portland State University, from the Urban Planners, Environmentalists or other Collectivists who ultimately want to recreate Pol Pot with a smile, a bird on it, and call it 'Sustainable'."

Then I read Lefty's comment and hop over to Wikipedia. Then I read through @Blues's statements and I'm thinking, I definitely should have added, "... and some of the bullshit comes from Portland Indymedia."

Didn't Pol Pot and Stalin both feel the same about "community should have its own productional industry." Central Planners then went about forcing this on communities without any knowledge of the community's actual strengths or abilities.

And how, exactly, would the government go about stealing everyone's money? By force, of course. If one were to claim that their 20x living expenses were not extraordinary, but needed, then the government would simply take it. If that person objected, then woe be to them when their family is invoiced for the executioner's $10,000 dollar bullet.

And then what about the rulers of it all? The people who dictate decisions, would they really want to surrender their wealth "for the greater good"? No, of course not. Imagine a dictator who believes not only in the use of force, but also has the means of preventing the accumulation of wealth from his opponents. While the King needs to eat goose for breakfast, lunch, and dinner - the opposition should be eating oats, gruel and potatoes. The King would naturally have higher expenses, and so would the Bishops and State Planners.

Where would this dictator come from? Obviously national election would be impossible, even the race for the governor of Oregon would cost more than 20 times what a person needs - I can't imagine the investments needed to run for an executive of Cascadia. Perhaps each peon could put forth a few small cents towards their candidate, this would surely guarantee a victory for the candidate with foreign money.

How could you ever build an apartment building if no one could get financing? How would financing large expenditures even work? Or, does @Blues believe that Corporations & Banks exclusively should be able to accumulate massive resources, perhaps the Government, but not the individual. Or, more likely actually, @Blues wants Forced Relocation to the farm lands, so that the brilliant Welder or talented Software Developer can go back to producing a "sustainable" product for society, like Kale, instead of internet applications or ambulances. The Industrial Farmer's machinery is too expensive, and his land too massive, so portions should be given for "The Greater Good" and we should transplant people from the city to these areas, perhaps by lottery to ensure it is just.

The fallacies of logic, economy, and politics that @Blues is pimping here are so short-sighted that it's laughable. Own up to this @Blues: you're looking to come up with a solution for every single person, then impose that solution on every single person, because you perceive some people to be a threat to you. I'm really curious about the people who don't want or don't like your solutions...

Much easier: If you don't like rich people, don't work with them. Don't go into debt with them, don't use their money, don't work with them or participate in their games. Make choices for YOURSELF, not for other people.

I don't think that's what Karl Marx had in mind. 10.Apr.2013 20:38

Lefty

blues wrote: "communism, which entails a de facto wealthy ruling class based on state and party status"

I don't think that's what Karl Marx had in mind.

well 11.Apr.2013 10:57

Clyde

What Karl Marx had in mind has never seen existence on this earth. I don't know if Karl Marx would have approved of totalitarian top-down rule that ruthlessly crushed dissent, as has been the case in every half-sincere implementation of communism to this day. If you have to coerce people through brute force into accepting your version of the revolution, chances are your version isn't worth shit.

Capitalist governments and faux-Democracies also trample the poor. 11.Apr.2013 18:52

.

Well, Clyde, there hasn't been any Capitalist government that didn't trample the workers either.