Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to LIBERAL = COMMUNIST? JUST CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA
America...
...has become the global Propaganda Capital in recent years, I fear!
I've worked as consultant in large corporates where the 'lower' ranks definitely have a clearer and more realistic idea of the way forward than do the insulated board and CEO, so I agree with you on that.
I also agree that the disparity is now unsustainable between rich and poor. As one example, JP Morgan came out in the late 60s or 70s and said that the optimum multiple of the CEO's pay over the lowest-paid employee is, from memory, 265. In other words, the highest paid employee should never recieve more than 265 times the wealth of the lowest paid in that company in any given year. When Jack Welch left GE, he was "earning" over 35,000 times the salary of the lowest paid GE employee.
And yes - since stock options came into vogue, the CEO naturally spends his time focused on targets and stock price which, sadly, are often far removed from the overall health of the company.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on December 5, 2004 at 8:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Communism=Atheism
That is the fuel that is feeding the conservatives and what most people see as the EVIL of Communism. The movement of Communism was derailed by the Pope and the language that religions would be suppressed in a Communistic State is still the echo of liberalism today. If you are a liberal, you are willing to accept any form of religion as one's individual right and the State should not sanction any religon over another. Christians, Muslims and Jews have intense fear that their religon and their dogma will be marginalized and their "Moral Values" minimized by the State--so that they cannot discriminate against non-believers and that anyone can serve in civil context, regardless of their moral belief system, ie, women, atheists, socialists, etc.
Religon is at the root of all the ills society--but it is those in religon who do not want to see it. Greed is running rampant and the ones who think it is ok voted for Bush and his fascist regime as jobs are being moved over seas and corporations are getting State Welfare that would make everyone prickle with anger if they knew how much was not being contributed to the General Welfare Fund by corporations--not even a fair share---but the millions of dollars not collected in fair taxation are millions not going into America's infrastructure, economy, or business.
Rome fell due to the excesses of the upperclass patrons as the lower class revolted against receiving less and less of their basic needs provided. Russia had its revolution because of this same disparity of income and resources. France destroyed the aristocracy because of the same disparity. It is in history, all we have to do is read, learn and change for the better.
Peace,
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on December 2, 2004 at 12:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: tomcopley:
Half agree. The Liberal part of the political spectrum (the left) started off as being opposed to Consetrvatism (the right), which was then intended to support the status quo. The difference was, effectively, individualism vs the State.
But, by the time of the American and French revolutions, Liberals were less interested in individuals than they were in the rights of the masses, ie collectivism, and the nearest part of the political spectrum to individualism fell to the conservative factions. So, what we have today (virtualy world-wide) is liberalism being highly socialistic (state controlling means of production, which is close to communism) vs conservatism being highly oligarchic (the rich controlling the means of productionm which is close to fascism).
Either way, the individual is left out in the cold (but it's more comfortable in the conservative cold).
posted by
L.E.Gant
on December 1, 2004 at 4:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Misusing the terms
Liberalism is the opposite of socialism. Liberals are anti-state control and pro-individualism where socialists/communists are pro-state control and collectivist. Theoretical liberalism is all about personal freedom and small government. Most people who describe themselves as conservatives are economic neo-liberals as they believe in lower taxes and lower state spending.
Liberalism is a term often misused in America.
posted by
tomcopley
on December 1, 2004 at 5:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Being an anarchist, I'm against both conservatism and liberalism. However, what I've observed about most liberals is that they are socialists, and most communists are also socialists. They want dictatorship through the majority. Not that the conservative factions are any better - they just want the dictator to be one of their own.One set is as bad as the other!
posted by
L.E.Gant
on November 30, 2004 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
The ex-CEO of Freightliner almost tanked the
company and created blackholes of debt and pink slips, still collected a 41 million dollar bonus upon his termination b/c it was in the contract upon his hiring. The deal was, if he met his production goal, he'd get the bonus. Well, to meet the production goal he had to create these voids with excess borrowing. The production far exceeded the sales, and loads of brand new trucks sat on dealership lots for years. Dealerships were lost, production labor was no longer needed, and the debt wasn't dissappearing. This is when companies "reorganize" to excuse some of their debt. Why is this legal? These are the kind of people that vote for bush. I wonder why?! There is no fear of consequences as long as the CEO gets his. This does not make the CEO brilliant, it makes him dangerous.
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on November 30, 2004 at 8:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Good post, Kook. I'm surprised no one's called me a pinko yet.
posted by
roofpig
on November 30, 2004 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply