Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
OOOOhhh goody. You walked right into my trap. I deliberately left out the quotes and cites for US corporate law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh I never said it was a NEW thing, this kind of conditioning has been around since almost since history began.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's definitely been ways that the psychology of this country has changed for the negative.

---

Quote:

---

Because they're greedy? Same reason as greedy folk end up running some capitalist enterprises.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, but it's still people, not systems, that make the world what it is. You want to change the world, better start by convincing the people you have a better way.

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. And what we have NOW is a mindset/ philosophy of greed, individualism, and acqusitiveness. The mindset is based on several assumptions that run so deep most people don't even know they're there. One is that individual greed creates the MOST PRODUCTIVE economy. (Curiously, the exact opposite is true. If everyone were to behave like capitalists, we would have a society of thieves and scam artists, and NOTHING would ever be produced!) This, in turn, is based on a misinterpretation of Darwinism, an assumption that "natural selection" is based on fierce and unrelenting INTRAspecies competition. And finally, the reliance on nature as the model to which we should hew is based on yet ANOTHER assumption, that "nature knows best" (when, in fact, nature is a stochastic process full of blind alleys and catastrophic destruction. This assumption goes all the way back to the French Enlightenment and its rebellion against dogmatic religion.)

In fact, none of these assumptions are true. Cooperation yields a non-zero-sum system; a intraspecies competition is not the driver of natural selection; and nature is not an orderly phenomenon and certainly not one on which to base a purposeful system (society).

---

Quote:

---

Hartmann is considered to have progressive/liberal politics (although he describes himself as part of the radical middle).[4] He is the author of numerous books including Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights, in which he argues that the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) did not actually grant corporate personhood, and that this doctrine derives from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court clerk's notes. Hartmann considers this a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

---

Quote:

---

"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."

---

Quote:

---

"The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over. We cannot put the law up for sale and award government to the highest bidder."

---

Quote:

---

"I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions."

---

Quote:

---

"With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."

---

Quote:

---

"I think the Supreme Court decisions today are a big win for the First Amendment and a step in the right direction."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Those 5 Justices have just sold out our country.
In this case, I go for Presidential/Executive Emergency Order to negate it. Or at least big Congressional oversight on ORIGIN & CONTENT, with punative restrictions and rules from FCC on public airwaves. Hmm...public airways, now forever polluted against the overwhelming wishes of their audiences...maybe national boycotts against any media that goes along for the money. Or the always available Army tank to blow up the Court building. Need a new building guys? You Supreme Retards can now hold court in the basement lavatory of the Southern Poverty Law Center or something similar.

Yeah, and Mr. Boehner, potentially our next Speaker of the House in November. Hey pal, you EVER fucking stop to think before you shoot your claptrap off? Huh? EVER? Another pathetic disgusting example of ideological insanity. No American can/should want this. I will vote out anyone I am able to who utters a word of support.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can get Congress to work together (Good luck on that! I can already name you 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Wanna guess which ones?) to pass new laws restricting corporations' ability to poison the well, which will help for a little while, until the Supreme Court once again rules them unconstitutional. But at the moment, that's the only solution I see, and it's a mere patch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Thanks SignyM. Another thing is foreign corporations, isn't it? I work for a large international corporation. It is one of the top 10 employers of Americans in America, but it's a French company headquartered in Paris, France. We have operations in 78 countries. So how's that gonna work out for us little 'ole Americans? We have a headquarters in America too, so Paris can simply fund and direct all their wishes through the American Division. France now can buy our elections, and any other country can do the same. Perfect!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
We can get Congress to work together (Good luck on that! I can already name you 41 "no" votes in the Senate. Wanna guess which ones?) to pass new laws restricting corporations' ability to poison the well, which will help for a little while, until the Supreme Court once again rules them unconstitutional. But at the moment, that's the only solution I see, and it's a mere patch.

---

I guarantee you that not all Republicans like this ruling. Bring some legislation if possible, and it will pass easily.

---

Quote:

---

Russ Feingold is my new Hero, not just for this but for his stance on Health Care.

---

Quote:

---

There are, in my opinion, some things that are inherent in all people, but that doesn’t mean all people ACT or THINK according to those things.

---

Quote:

---

- the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
- the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature.
- characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature.
- the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind.
- the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements.
- a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But if the law requires equal shares of profit (not wages, profit) to all who participate in the co-op, where does greed come in?

---

Quote:

---

...that society is what we make it, and human behavior tends to what is rewarded... but hasn't so far.

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. And what we have NOW is a mindset/ philosophy of greed, individualism, and acqusitiveness.

---

Quote:

---

To deny the effect of society- it's assumptions and paradigms - is ANOTHER assumption on your part...

---

Quote:

---

SOCIETY MAKES A DIFFERENCE in overall human behavior, an undeniable fact that you keep sliding over. The question is not whether it does or doesn't, but how to construct it in such as way as to make its effect what we WANT it to be.

---

Quote:

---

NOW? I'm trying to think of a time in history when there weren't a lot of folks with the mindset of greed, etc. I'm aware there have been pockets of non-greed out there, as there are now, but I'm talking about generally and world or region-wide.

---

Quote:

---

But SOCIETY isn't just laws or regulations, and the ethics and philosophy of a society can't be forced on the people (unless you want to use methods which are unacceptable to a free society).

---

Quote:

---

At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between the worker-owners who do executive work and those who work in the field or factory and earn (in theory) a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1. That is, the general manager of an average Mondragon cooperative earns 5 times as much as the theoretical minimum wage paid in his/her cooperative. This ratio is in reality smaller because there are few Mondragon worker-owners that earn minimum wages, their jobs being somewhat specialized and classified at higher wage levels.

Although the ratio for each cooperative varies, it is worker-owners within that cooperative who decide through a democratic vote what these ratios should be. Thus, if a general manager of a cooperative has a ratio of 9:1, it is because its worker-owners decided it was a fair ratio to maintain.

In general, wages at Mondragon, as compared to similar jobs in local industries, are 30% or less at the management levels and equivalent at the middle management, technical and professional levels. As a result, Mondragon worker-owners at the lower wage levels earn an average of 13% higher wages than workers in similar businesses. In addition, the ratios are further diminished because Spain uses a progressive tax rate, so those with higher wages pay higher taxes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Most women, and many men, are cooperative. Having and raising children is cooperative... it can't possibly be done by a single person...

---

Quote:

---

There is a difference between GREED and REWARD. Just because people work for REWARD doesnt' mean they're GREEDY. For example, it's possible to gain a bigger REWARD through COOPERATION.

---

Quote:

---

Bull. Crap.

---

Quote:

---

You make it sound as if OUR system isn't being constantly reinforced, corporate thought, corporate interests being pushed on us from all directions, deviants crowded out.

---

Quote:

---

I know people from Russia, and they say that the propaganda here in the USA is worse than in their home country.

---

Quote:

---

And that is why you question the ability of people to cooperate...

---

Quote:

---

Every day, in every way, we're propagandized- Signy
Examples, please- Wulf

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, the point of cooperation is NOT that it's selfless. Who the frak wants selfless cooperation?

---

Quote:

---

The point is that cooperation is instinctive in humans BECAUSE it is necessary for species survival.

---

Quote:

---

I've answered all of your objections/ questions more than once already

---

Quote:

---

You keep making unsupported statements which I'm supposed to accept on faith.

---

Quote:

---

Where's the motivation for the hard-working, innovative, but not crooked guy who wants to provide for his family, but knows he'll be paid the same as the lazy schlub bachelor who's getting a free ride and dragging profits down?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Like...???

---

Quote:

---

Simple. The lazy schlub gets booted out. That's how cooperatives work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Every day, in every way, we're propagandized."

Examples, please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Not in your example of everyone in a co-op being paid the same. Where's the motivation for the hard-working, innovative, but not crooked guy who wants to provide for his family, but knows he'll be paid the same as the lazy schlub bachelor who's getting a free ride and dragging profits down? Can't kick all the lazy schlubs out of the co-ops, or they'll starve and smell the place up.

---

Quote:

---

Then again, try to write a law that requires that everyone cooperate and work their unselfish best. Think that'd work?

---

Quote:

---

Do the people you know in Russia have a mindset similar to yours? If so, your citing them is sort'a like a racist citing a Klan conventions opinions on civil rights.

---

Quote:

---

Nope. What I question is the ability of all (or most all) the people to cooperate selflessly all(or most all) the time. Even if you make laws that require it, as the Soviet Union did, there will be people who find ways around it - because their personal ethics and philosophies find nothing wrong with using less-than-selfless means to get ahead.

---

Quote:

---

And then the lazy schlubs, or the folks who aren't able to contribute, for whatever reason, starve to death? If the government supports them, then the hard worker still pays for it. I'm not sure I like your utopia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think you have the wrong idea of co-ops if you think they're all about driving profits up, which you do seem to think, if you're that concerned with the lazy schlub who's "dragging profits down".

---

Quote:

---

So are you against laws just because there are SOME people who won't follow them?

---

Quote:

---

Again, I point out that MOST of us DON'T murder people on a regular basis, which is a pretty selfless thing at times, considering... And yet we still make laws REQUIRING us not to murder people.

---

Quote:

---

...you can't even comprehend a society that isn't driven by a constant need for increasing profits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Do you agree with anything I've said here, Geezer? Once we have a foundation we agree on, THEN I think we can start discussing things like incentives for work, and whether profits are really a useful incentive on a societal level.

---

Quote:

---

So, who is considered lazy? From what I understood of this viewpoint as it was explained to me, laziness equates to someone who does not produce anything that society considers useful or valuable.

---

Quote:

---

That's been pretty much your argument - backed up by nothing, since there are plenty of examples of corporations that do not live specifically for profit or exploitation, and of capitalists who are not thieves or scam artists and produce things - at least if you don't define by fiat corporations as only those who exploit or capitalists as only the thieves and scam artists.

---

Quote:

---

since I figured required membership in a co-op would be the Social Security of her system.

---

Quote:

---

I'd also have to disagree with your idea that farming is an easy life. My mother's family are mostly farmers, and they'd tell you, as they have told me, that it's hard and uncertain.

---

Quote:

---

Not my viewpoint at all. The viewpoint explained to you would seem to include folks who are unable, due to illness, incapacity, age, lack of skill, or lack of work, to be productive. Any system needs to consider ways of providing for those who can't provide for themselves.

To me, lazy schlubs are those who could produce things considered valuable and provide for themselves, but choose not to do so, instead living off the labor of others. Unfortunately, you have to consider how to provide for them too, since most folk have the basic humanity that requires it, and if they died, they'd clutter up the place.

---

Quote:

---

The viewpoint explained to you {by whom???} would seem to include folks who are unable, due to illness, incapacity, age, lack of skill, or lack of work, to be productive. Any system needs to consider ways of providing for those who can't provide for themselves.

---