Parasitic capitalists - a point to ponder.

[Rum]

I don't agree with by any means everything George Orwell wrote, but didn't somebody in 1984 say, "If there is hope for the future, it lies with the proles."

I'm going to have yet another go at this, hoping I can keep my temper if arseholes wrench my thoughts out of all recognition, and then make offensive personal attacks on me under the guise of "reason".

I hope that humanity is working towards a state in which we can all get on together motivated by altruism, and not (as at present) by materialism. Marxism was an attempt at that, and sadly its principles were perverted by totalitarians in failed societies such as the USSR. And I don't know how it can be implemented, but I believe it's the only way there can be genuine hope for humanity. No god, and nobody wanting more than they need, and everybody working for others.

"Man tae man, the warld owre, shall brithers be, for aa that."

Exactly why I am a Marxist, however 'neo' I may be.

We - be - long - to - a - myoo - choo - al
Ad - mi - ray - shunsociety.

Just, protect me from arseholes and my own temper.

Sadly can do neither old chum!

[Atheist-Lite]

Marxists kill to make everyone equal whilst Capitalists kill to make everyone unequal. Crumple is undecided on the issue...here.

[Tero]

Kill The Poor! Was a hit for dead Kennedys.

[Atheist-Lite]

Kill The Poor! Was a hit for dead Kennedys.

[Svartalf]

eat the rich.

[John_fi_Skye]

eat the rich.

Makes the most sense. Pound for pound, you'd need to kill and eat fewer of them, because there'll be more flesh on them than on the poor, and the poor will be easier to satisfy, because sustained impoverishment will have left their stomachs smaller.

[Pappa]

[maiforpeace]

[John_fi_Skye]

[Hermit]

A galling feature is the double standard concerning remuneration. Here is what happens in Australia. My guess is that it's similar in other countries.

When workers get a payrise, they are lucky to claw back the loss of their wages' buying power that was eroded due to inflation during the previous period. In that regard it is not even a rise. Even then business lobbies argue that "we can't afford it. It'll wreck the economy." That objection flies out the window when it comes to salary negotiations for executives. For example, in 2009, while warning his employees about the tough economic conditions and reminding them of the need for belt tightening, BHP Billiton’s CEO Marius Kloppers received a 51% pay rise, pushing his remuneration to $12 million for the year. That's an extreme case, but by no means the only one where executive salary increases were significantly higher than the rate of inflation. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of executives actually got raises at or below that rate.

Even more galling are the multi-million dollar golden handshakes CEOs get even when they had managed the corporations they were heading into suffering huge losses. National Australia Banks's Hugh Harris received a $4.53 million "performance based" lump sum when terminated for losing $4 billion in 2001. The same bank fired Joe Pickett after he lost the bank $4 billion. He left with $4.53 million worth of "performance based remuneration". Keith Lambert got fired by Fosters and walked away with termination benefits worth $4.4 million in 2003. John Prescott spent eight years as CEO of BHP. He made some "mistakes" which forced the company to write off $10 billion of its capitalisation. Prescott was rewarded with $11.17 million for his effort during the final year (1998). I don't know how many of them belonged to the termination payout. After building Centro into a debt-fuelled house of cards, CEO Andrew Scott was finally flicked in January 2008 with a golden goodbye worth $3 million. Tabcorp's Matthew Slatter was given the boot over its troubled financial performance, but still walked away with $3.2 million. If you want to read about more of these shenanigans, check this link out. and its list is by no means complete either.

What gets me, is how we take this state of affairs lying down. The only explanation I can think of that most of us have been successfully sucked in by the notion that each of us too can get on the gravy train if we work hard enough. It is the best system we have tried so far. It works. The trouble with it is that it works mainly for the few.

[John_fi_Skye]

A galling feature is the double standard concerning remuneration. Here is what happens in Australia. My guess is that it's similar in other countries.

When workers get a payrise, they are lucky to claw back the loss of their wages' buying power that was eroded due to inflation during the previous period. In that regard it is not even a rise. Even then business lobbies argue that "we can't afford it. It'll wreck the economy." That objection flies out the window when it comes to salary negotiations for executives. For example, in 2009, while warning his employees about the tough economic conditions and reminding them of the need for belt tightening, BHP Billiton’s CEO Marius Kloppers received a 51% pay rise, pushing his remuneration to $12 million for the year. That's an extreme case, but by no means the only one where executive salary increases were significantly higher than the rate of inflation. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than a handful of executives actually got raises at or below that rate.

Even more galling are the multi-million dollar golden handshakes CEOs get even when they had managed the corporations they were heading into suffering huge losses. National Australia Banks's Hugh Harris received a $4.53 million "performance based" lump sum when terminated for losing $4 billion in 2001. The same bank fired Joe Pickett after he lost the bank $4 billion. He left with $4.53 million worth of "performance based remuneration". Keith Lambert got fired by Fosters and walked away with termination benefits worth $4.4 million in 2003. John Prescott spent eight years as CEO of BHP. He made some "mistakes" which forced the company to write off $10 billion of its capitalisation. Prescott was rewarded with $11.17 million for his effort during the final year (1998). I don't know how many of them belonged to the termination payout. After building Centro into a debt-fuelled house of cards, CEO Andrew Scott was finally flicked in January 2008 with a golden goodbye worth $3 million. Tabcorp's Matthew Slatter was given the boot over its troubled financial performance, but still walked away with $3.2 million. If you want to read about more of these shenanigans, check this link out. and its list is by no means complete either.

What gets me, is how we take this state of affairs lying down. The only explanation I can think of that most of us have been successfully sucked in by the notion that each of us too can get on the gravy train if we work hard enough. It is the best system we have tried so far. It works. The trouble with it is that it works mainly for the few.

BASTARDS!

And we take it lying down mainly because of Bread and Circuses. Few of us in the first world are hungry, and we've all got our tellies and our laptops and our boys' toys and our foreign holidays. We're too well-fed to cause trouble to those who have the real power (ie the money.)

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I don't agree with by any means everything George Orwell wrote, but didn't somebody in 1984 say, "If there is hope for the future, it lies with the proles."...

Unfortunately, I think the ultimate message of the book was that there was no hope (in the situation as described anyway) as the thought police could all-too-easily manage the proles simply by picking off those occasional individuals who showed any signs of intelligence or of developing 'consciousness' of their situation. While the vast majority of the population, left to their own devices, could be trusted to remain docile just as long as they were fed cheap entertainment and porn.

Applying this idea to our real world situation, I'd say by far and away the biggest prop holding-up the ruling classes in this country is the rampant anti-intellectualism infecting the masses. By knocking down, from childhood onwards, anyone who shows the first sign of wanting to know or understand "clever stuff" - the proletariat do the 1%-ers work for them.

[Blind groper]

The flaw in the current system is weak government, subject to pressure from powerful lobby groups, with many corrupt members being bought off in assorted different types of coin.

Capitalism works better than Marxism, as history shows. However, too many powerful and wealthy people get to dictate what governments do. A non corrupt government would instead tell those wealthy and powerful what to do. For a start, to pay their full share of taxes.

[Audley Strange]

I take issue with the op definition. Firstly parasitic suggests detrimental to the body. In this case society. Capital flowing throughout a system, even if certain parts of that system are restricted is not parasitical. What is parasitical, is financial vampirism which is detrimental to capitalism. This, like the rolling banking collapse con, is not capitalism, it is the removal of funds from the body politic, capital doesn't flow. This also happens with tax avoidance, the money is removed from the system.

Parasitic capitalism is not capitalism, it is plutocracy.

[maiforpeace]

I take issue with the op definition. Firstly parasitic suggests detrimental to the body. In this case society. Capital flowing throughout a system, even if certain parts of that system are restricted is not parasitical. What is parasitical, is financial vampirism which is detrimental to capitalism. This, like the rolling banking collapse con, is not capitalism, it is the removal of funds from the body politic, capital doesn't flow. This also happens with tax avoidance, the money is removed from the system.

Parasitic capitalism is not capitalism, it is plutocracy.

Excavation and exploitation capitalism...the worst kind.

You might enjoy this interview/discussion.

Capitalists who Make vs. Capitalists who Take