nationalization

What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Part 2

Posted on Updated on

By Josh Richert

 

Continuing from the last blog , CSR is more of a global initiative that is being implemented, encouraged, and directed by various organizations as well as the UN to encourage corporate responsibility towards a common ‘good’.  One of those organizations is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  From their website:

“The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a leading organization in the sustainability field. GRI promotes the use of sustainability reporting as a way for organizations to become more sustainable and contribute to sustainable development.”

So, we have CSR which is a global initiative of corporate self-governance to encourage corporation to both regulate themselves and report on themselves in regards to changing and implementing business practices for the common good, such as making products that are environmentally friendly, avoiding slave and child labor, giving back to communities, etc.  In order to implement the CSR and encourage it worldwide, organizations like GRI have been created.  But there are other bodies in addition to GRI, such as the Integrated International Reporting Council.
The IIRC produced a
Discussion Paper in 2011 from which the feedback demonstrated overwhelming support for Integrated Reporting and endorsed the development of a global Framework. It also concluded that the primary audience of integrated reports is investors in order to aid their allocation of financial capital.

And then we also have the United Nations Global Impact, from there website:

“The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning with ten universally accepted principles for human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.
​The UN Global Compact and GRI signed an agreement in May 2010 to align their work in advancing corporate responsibility and transparency. As part of this agreement, GRI will develop guidance regarding the
Global Compact’s ten principles and integrate UNGC issue areas into the next iteration of its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The UNGC will adopt the GRI Guidelines as the recommended reporting framework for the more than 5800 businesses that have joined the world’s largest corporate responsibility platform.”

So, what I am getting at here is establishing the framework of what exactly CSR is, and from what I can see, CSR not a set of global laws, but a set of global initiatives for specifically international corporations to voluntarily adhere to (and arguably for their own good such as increasing market share and profitability due to increased consumer awareness of their ‘ethical and altruistic’ business practices) with the intent to improve living conditions for those living on this planet (a.k.a. the ‘common good’) through encouraging corporate responsibility to those living on this planet, of whom are commonly referred to as the ‘stakeholders.’ 

The guidelines, encouragement, and implementation for these standards are managed by various organizations, including GRI, UNGC, and IIRC, to name a few.  These organizations have created what is commonly referred to as ‘sustainability reports’ with specific guidelines and standards in specific categories such as human resources, environmental concerns, supply chain concerns (i.e. labor), philanthropy, volunteering, etc. wherein corporations are encouraged to report on each category based upon specific standards created by these organization.

But is this ‘global initiative’ of corporate ‘self-regulation’ for the common ‘good’ really effective?
Well, one interesting article from Nov 2012 found on the CSR-reporting website sheds some interesting light on that topic.  As a direct quote from the article:

banarra consistency

“Let me just repeat that so it’s clear:

Labor Indicators: 86% of companies claim they report and only 11% actually do.

Human Rights Indicators: 62% of companies claim they report and only 20% actually do.”

This research reveals a significant difference between claims made in GRI Sustainability Reporting and what actually gets reported (which was unpublished research as of November 17 2012 that was conducted by the Vienna Team in collaboration with Middlesex University London lead by Dr. Sepideh Parsa and Dr. Ian Roper); wherein we can see that the vast majority of corporations are reporting falsehoods, are reporting inaccurately, or claim to be reporting but are not even reporting at all.

Why so?  Well, I would venture that this would be expected for the following: Regardless of the motive, whether it be ultraistic or self-serving, for a corporation to self-regulate and comply with CSR reporting, the bottom line is that those with a controlling interest in these corporations, the shareholders, are looking for maximum returns on their investments which means that the corporations profit comes first, and that the consequences of the corporate actions come second.  Thus, if it is more profitable to ‘cheat’ on the CSR reporting then that is what will happen. Furthermore, if complying with CSR initiatives threatens the survival of corporations then that would be reason and justification for corporations to not allow any reporting (tell on itself in essence) that would undermine its ability to survive.  Another reason is that the shareholders are not stakeholders usually and thus are not really feeling the consequences of the corporate practices and thus it is easy to turn a blind eye and ignore the inconsistencies in the CSR reporting by the corporations they own.

 

So, what we are left here with is an interesting dynamic and that is: the corporations are left with finding the right balance between making their CSR reports – which of course is considered to be a competitive advantage – and also keeping profits up as much as possible in order to appease their shareholders and so ensure their survival and continued existence.  I mean, this is a real test of self-honesty even on an individual level in that, would you tell on yourself / disclose your secrets to another if that meant that it may imply that you would lose money, profits and make you less competitive?  So, that balancing point is where the company can be transparent and honest, yet still keep profits up within a satisfactory zone all at the same time.  Thus, this means for most companies that they are going to have fudge the numbers to make this work. This is just plain common sense.

 

csr

 

How can we change the system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and make significant changes to their practices that will benefit all / the stakeholders? 

Obviously there needs to be a change in the frame-work of the system because with the way the system is set-up now, there will be no true corporate responsibility taken by corporations as it really is not in their best interest, ultimately, as evidenced by the poor participation in reporting and making real changes thus far.  Thus, the framework of the economic system needs to be adjusted in a way that the corporations still work within self-interest / making profits but yet that self-interest will lead them to make real changes.  The economic system itself must change because the alternative to changing the system and attempting to police or enforce such a code of ethics would literally be impossible on a global scale within the realization that there just is not enough man-power, time, and ways and means to really be able to get inside the corporations and ensure their compliance.  Thus, the compliance must be considered essential to corporations, by corporations, for their survival – just as non-compliance is in essence essential to their survival now – and that will only be achieved by making some adjustments to the economic system.

Another point to consider, is that within the current economic structure, how can we even trust that CSR / eco-friendly / socially responsible measures taken by environmental groups and NGO’s are always working in our / the general populace / the stakeholders and the Earth’s best interest? 

There is strong evidence, if one spends any  time researching this point, that the CSR and Green concepts have been used to corner markets, drive commodity prices up, control resources and markets, and pass oppressive laws or push for potentially oppressive laws such as the ‘carbon tax’ scheme / meme.  It can be argued that this CSR movement has been used as a platform to create memes that the populace accepts as accurate and for their good to then lobby for ‘eco-friendly’ government policies that are really more like ‘Trojan Horses’ that when enforced actually play into the hand of those behind the scenes seeking profit and further oppressing the people.  There is strong evidence that the very corporations themselves use the environmental movement to control prices, markets, and resources.  The oil companies often times fund the very environmental movements that they appear to be in opposition to, as an example.

In sum, CSR and the related green movements are all well and needed, but within the current economic system structure, these initiative and movements are either ineffective or used to manipulate and control markets for the benefits of the shareholders and not the stakeholders.

Back to the question: how can we change our system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and actually make real changes upon themselves within a point of self-regulation?  The answer to this question is not simply in the details, yet it is simple within the point of considering how our economic system is currently structured.  So, there are a couple of points to consider here:

1.  LIG.  A Living Income Guaranteed needs to be initiated.  So, I ask the question: Who ultimately is in control of the corporations?  Answer: Those who buy their products and services, within the point that if corporations lose their customer base, they may cease to exist / go out of business.  So, ultimately, who is the corporation appeasing within all of its activities?  The customer. 

Even within the degree of fraud and manipulation in reporting and green movements today, the customer is ultimately in mind.  It’s like an abusive relationship.  If one party in relationship can ‘get away’ with it, they will, and they will continue to do, so long as the desired relationship stays intact.  However, once that relationship is threatened, the abuser will change his/her behavior in order to save the relationship, if possible.  And even if that change of behavior is within self-interest, the change will still be made in a way that will benefit all parties if the abused decides to no longer take the stance as the abused and force the abuser to change within that stance.

Thus, how do we get the people to take that stand? 

Right now, we as the people / the ‘stakeholders’, are not taking that stand that says ‘no you don’t.  You will not abuse the resources and the people for the sake of your own profit.’  And the primary reason is that most people only have enough money to meet basic survival needs as most people are existing in the bottom level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.   However, if people have enough money, they will move beyond survival and then start really looking at how to make themselves and this world a better place.

You see, right now, most people are only able to shop for things based upon price.  It may matter in the back of someone’s mind about all the abuses that were required to bring that product to market at that price, but if that is all one is able to afford and that is what one needs – that product will be bought regardless.  You see, corporations have us at our knees right now within the principle of ‘beggars cannot be choosers.’  The general populace simply does not have the money to truly vote with their money and thus corporations do not have to really answer to the consumer or the environment because either way, we are still buying from them.

Thus, a LIG will enable the populace to start voting with their money so long as we are able to structure it in a way that the LIG will lift people enough out of poverty to do so.  The LIG will create a new pool of money found in the common man zone, instead of only in the upper echelons where the shareholders of corporations primarily are.  The shareholders have so much money that they are disconnected with the realities on the ground and the abuses therein. Shareholders are concerned with increasing their wealth.  That is why they are shareholders in the first place.  Thus, an LIG will equalize that playing field in giving the common man voting rights with their money and thus lifting them up into a form of ‘shareholder’ as well as their existing status of stakeholder.

2.  Dare I say Nationalization?  Let’s call it: Converting Stakeholders (the common man) to Shareholders.  And let’s start with nationalization of essential resources and perhaps the energy sector.  Through nationalization, stakeholders will suddenly become shareholders of the resources that corporations use to bring energy, raw materials such as lumber, food, and water to market for consumption.  That means that wealthy hidden elite will not be in control behind the scenes in a way to increase their profits at the expense of us all.  That also means that people living within the borders of each country will suddenly have the wealth of these resources and thus will be able to sell or trade these natural resources to other countries or corporations. 
Once established, we can hold a democratic Internet voting system, in the form of a liquid democracy, accessible to the people / the citizens of certain geographic areas – to vote for how they would like the natural resources to be handled.

If this were to occur, then corporations would have to change their ways to conform to the laws of the land regarding these resources, because the owners of the resources, the people, will demand it; or these corporations would have to go somewhere else where these nationalizations have not occurred, YET.  Can anyone give me a good reason why ‘nationalization’ of the resources would be so demonized and how actually benefits from the demonization of the concept of nationalization?

 

3.  Increase Awareness: This is already happening in the CSR / Green movements.  This needs to continue and then be streamlined into a unified movement that is brought to everyone’s attention.  Thus, when people have the money through LIG and have ownership of the resources through Nationalization: they will make better decisions / votes as to how to manage them.

Within this public awareness that needs to be increased, as well as we need to de-polarize the movement and bring it into a practical point of consideration where we all as one see, realize, and understand the consequences and implications of our actions within the current state of affairs, within a fact-based platform.   As compared to where we are now, which has this CSR / ECO / Social awareness movement polarized between left and right / liberal vs. conservative, where the left embraces this movement and anything that comes with this movement, even the manipulated aspects of this movement that are contrived by certain groups to corner markets and drive up prices etc., and the right which rejects this movement in its entirety.

Thus within this polarization, all are consumed with the energy of right verses wrong and not are looking at the practical points that are right here in front of us.  I mean, we do have a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean that is the size of the United States, don’t we?  Can’t we start discussions on these points without getting all polarized into groups based on right vs. wrong?  So, the depolarization of this movement needs to occur so that people can start looking at this practically, and within that we can start really creating solutions that can be implemented through laws or mandates or simply the influence carried out with the populace who now has money through LIG or part ownership of at least the natural resources.

Once this is in place, corporations will have no other choice but to make decisions that are best for all in their practices or else face the prospect of going extinct / out of business.  Let’s do this.

 

corporate-social-responsibility - LIG

 

Watch the LIG Hangout on

Check Out the Links for More Information on Living Income:

Advertisements

The Shared Idea of Socialism and What to Make of it

Posted on Updated on

By Barbara Stängl

Socialism

Some history and the problem:

Socialism is an idea that has as its basis equality pertaining to property being shared by all and distributed equally. Unfortunately, when the idea was first put into practice by a British man called Owen in the US State of Indiana in 1825 on the huge property he bought and called New Harmony, it ultimately failed. This was not due to the fundamentals of the idea of socialism as such, but due to the organization of the distribution of the produce, the fact that the land was not owned by the residents themselves and in part in consequence to this, there was a lack of self-responsibility as to the cultivation of the land, the workforce needed to maintain self-sufficiency, and finally, due to the nature of the people that it attracted. Though the people who chose to live in New Harmony on the basis of the shared idea of socialism that received the tinge of its founder Robert Owen, were open-minded and socially oriented, they were very theoretically and philosophically minded. This set of characters and personalities gave the experiment a bias that ultimately tipped it toward being marked as not sustainable. However, Owen implemented a set of social rules to live by, such as no public drinking, personal cleanliness, emptying trash at specific intervals, free education in which the human character was to be developed in more fortunate ways and having to make time for family, he granted sick pay and shortened working hours. All of which were directed at changing human nature and optimizing the conditions of living together.

 

Owen-and-new-harmony

 

The idea was recast by two philosophers Engels and Marx later, who considered socialism to be humankind’s destiny which was considered to become a triumph over capitalism. It was thus directly placed to have a polarity nature toward capitalism, which allowed the idea of Revolution to settle in as a means to drive socialism forward and gain supremacy over capitalism. This was adopted as a point of self-identification that amounted to demonic obsession which found its most extreme manifestation and expression under the dictatorship of Stalin in the USSR. Here the term socialism was actually abused to cover up and, where not possible, to justify the atrocities against its population and the antagonists of the ideology. Socialism had been turned into communism, though the term was still used by the ruling figures to benefit from the moral appeal that true socialism had among large parts of the general world population.

 

Lidice_massacred_men

 

The ‘other side of the polarity’, the capitalistic states, the ‘States of Freedom’ as they were contrasted to socialistic states, used the label of socialism as a propaganda operation also but for the opposite reason, namely to defame socialism by way of association with this miserable and rapacious tyranny.

Socialism, as the core notion of working people being in control of production and of their own lives basically, on the principle of equality with respect to property and distribution of goods, has been evacuated of content over the last century, due to the Soviet Union being called a socialist society as a propagandistic means of directing the world to suit the vested interests of the elite by keeping the masses enslaved. It seems the few at the top are doing their best that nobody would be able to easily pick up the idea of socialism and try to establish a working structure on that basis for the common good of man.

 

chapter_corporate_profiles_bob

 

Solution

As a solution it is necessary to distinguish between the socialistic/communistic ulcerations of true socialism. The collapse of the Soviet Union can actually be counted as a small victory for socialism as such, because it has been freed of the radical revolution aspect as well as the aspect of tyranny and debasement toward the working class. The latter will have to be solidly embraced within the term of communism and within that, of course, dictatorship. Along those lines the term nationalization and nationalistic should be looked at and stripped of its associations with fascist developments and resulting atrocities of Nazi Germany leading to and in World War II. The pros and cons of the Israeli kibbutzim are to be investigated, and seen that these are said to have worked until they were ridden into a debt crisis in the middle of the 1980’s from which they weren’t able to recover. One must ask who is pulling the strings here and why. It is pretty obvious that they simply weren’t supposed to work in the public eye.

The solution to humanity’s demise should not be found in an idea or ideology, as that can be used within polarity and undermined, but within a living principle, that does not have to be named socialism or capitalism or democracy. It’s certainly not about the name or the idea.

Of course at first there must be something communicable as the name for a solution presented, such as a democracy on a real people-basis, a form of direct democracy, as has been proposed by the platform of Living Income Guaranteed. The realization must be fostered that life can only strive on earth – we can only strive, or even simply survive – when we give to the other what we ourselves would like to receive, on an equal and one basis. If we do not see that we are already equal on the basis of the substance of Life and are killing ourselves and others by not acknowledging and living this principle, we will perish.

One must realize that socialism is just a word – we are the ones who must take care of our reactions, associations, prejudices and fears within it and as it, and allow ourselves to establish a groundwork that supports all — as the sounding and individual letters of the word suggest: so-see-I-all-is-m(e)

We must turn to Life lived on the principle of equality and incorporate the lived realization of oneness, as we are all of and as Life here.

 

The reward is a state, where competition exacted on the basis of live or die / grow or perish will be of the past; where we implement our realization that we are able to stand as the living principle of equality and oneness and give to the other what we want for ourselves and our children, which is the kind of socialism that has not been compromised through fear and desire for control, greed and power. Giving to the other as one would wish for oneself means to distribute resources fairly and adequately, as required by each and on the basis of ensuring that everything used can be reconstituted and replenished, that resources are sustainable. This will provide for real, actual support of all equally resulting in peace and dignity. Responsibility will be more readily lived because there won’t be the point of ‘it’s not my responsibility – I don’t have a say anyway, I’m just a small keg in a big machine’ when equality is lived on principality.

We will see truly happy children that are able to play and enjoy themselves because they are cared for on a steady basis from the start with actual equal opportunity within education, good nourishment, and a stable social environment. One will find the ability to truly trust oneself and others within a trustworthy, self-responsible society that is not self-incapacitated through the allowance and acceptance of a maniac Elite that irrespective of the whole pulls the strings in utter self-interest. There will be no one to polarize to ‘defend’ a status of self-interested accumulation of wealth on the basis of democracy vs. socialism/communism when the principle of equality is truly implemented and lived.

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal and Join us for discussion.

 

Photo credits

‘New Harmony’

Massacres

Vested Interest

LIG

The Demon in Democracy

Posted on Updated on

By Barbara Stängl

Democracy

I’m having a look at Democracy here and how we are living this idea of ‘ruling a people’ according to the meaning of the word, where humanity needs a system platform from which it is possible to find and give direction to the basic decisions that have to be made to organize the essentials of this world, the food, resources for heating, shelter, water, territory, health and education.

 

Democracy

Basic decisions require principles which provide directives and criteria, so that a decision makes sense. The platform of Democracy functions on the basis of the principle of capitalism, free market forces and freedom of speech. It is a system that requires money to be able to take part in it, but it does not automatically grant this money to everyone unconditionally. You somehow have to be part of the ruling people, as someone having money, to be able to be heard, have a voice. Having walked the education and career system makes one eligible to be part of the system, as long as you remain competent and competitive. For this, however, you will have needed a ‘good start’ such as wealthy, well-to-do parents and the motivation or at least endurance to take the necessary exams to pass the set standards to survive within this system. Thus the statement can be made that within Democracy one is able to participate when one has education and money, or money as a stand-alone. These principles determine that most are struggling or are excluded from the get-go.

 

hands

 

The consequences of history have influenced the way democracy is legally set up and laid down for many countries. The Federal Republic of Germany, for example, strangely has no actual constitution, only a Basic Law that has been decided on, without the vote of the people, which brings forth the question of who / which people is ruling, when it’s supposed to be a democracy? In this case a number of 7 minister presidents have decided on the Basic Laws, which in its fundamentals has been suggested by the allied forces’ war governors that had the sovereignty over what was left of the Weimar Republic after the war. So a democracy and the principles by which it functions aren’t necessarily decided on by the people that are subject to this form of government.

 

Dictatorial DemocracyA constitution was to be enacted when the country reunified, a matter laid down under Art. 146 of the Basic Law. This was never followed up on. The Basic Law in Germany acts as a constitution and has entrenched the principles of democracy, republicanism, social responsibility and federalism, which cannot be removed or repealed by the normal amendment process. So it has come to be that the people of Germany has not given its vote in a free, independent, secret election, it hasn’t even been asked. This overshadows the execution of a true democracy from the very beginning when the process of establishing a fundamental framework for a people, which was to be of democratic nature in that it requires their majority vote, has been circumvented. It can be surmised that the minister presidents held the people to be too biased toward a non-acceptance of the Basic Laws and a constitution that would for the time being exclude a major part of the Germany left over from WWII, the whole 4th sector, the GDR – it being under communist rule – a state of affairs that constituted the dividing of Germany into East and West. The suspected bias was understandable as a written document would be based on the acceptance of the forced separation of families, friends and partners on the basis of ideologies inflicted on each side at the liberty of more or less self-proclaimed leaders in a very undemocratic manner. Is democracy in fact a dictatorship?

 

The Grundgesetz, Basic Law, holds the statute of Democracy as the form of government for the German people, with a majority vote allowing for the formation of a consensus to set the direction of politics in the country supporting the idea one is able to participate in the forming of decisions that influence one’s own life. Reality proves to be different. The German Federal State is constituted of 16 member countries, most of which have their own constitution which upholds the Basic Laws and some kind of allegiance or subjection to the Federal Republic. Thus the representation of a citizen in a country goes along the administrative pathways of the country and the federal state and then through the overhead structure of the European Union for political decisions on that level.

rettungsschirm

 

In comparison to a liquid democracy where the individuals’ voices can be heard in a poll, the system of a democracy of a majority ruling with indirect representation waters down the voting power of a citizen and thus no new solutions and perspectives get to the responsible organs of the government. There is also the law of Federal Law breaks State Laws and Union Law breaks Federal Law, where the Union is able to overrule anything.

World politics is about money and who controls money, because those who are in control of money are also in control of everything else. This lies in the hands of very few who through their standing within these vast amounts direct nations on the level of the unions, the United Nations and the European Union, where regional, country and national representatives of the peoples are simply overridden by creating events that seemingly justify measures that lie outside of even the European constitution, let alone that of countries and states. Such events and justifications constitute the designation of an enemy or an imminent danger as for example communism after the second world war through the placing into the public awareness through media the polarity of democracy and communism, the former being the state of freedom, the latter one of totalitarianism; or after the reunification of Germany and the breaking down of the communist block, there were oil and financial crises, the 911 tragedy allowing terrorists to be generated as a general threat, also the Moslem Brotherhood threat – all in turn allowing for vast constitutional breaches and thus Orwellian privacy transgressions and enslavement on all levels.

 

orwellian_governmentThis goes to show that the true meaning of democracy – of the people ruling – is quite in reverse as everything else in the world. People one doesn’t know and hasn’t voted for determine the policy of the country, the elite, those with the vast money have the power. They make decisions that aren’t based on the principle of best for all people and manufacture a mock choice that is presented in form of two bureaucrats like Schröder and Merkel or Bush and Carey who represent the same ideas, so it is actually not relevant who one votes for, because they actually represent the guys pulling the threads, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations.

Democracy is just a label for one pole of the polarity that is upheld in order to maintain conflicts in this world and has been laid down in the Truman doctrine after WWII where the US makes it constitutional for herself to protect the Democracy as the liberty of a people and wherever a threat to this is manufactured, a conflict/war zone can be created and resources and people exploited and more power usurped.

 

Solutions

The Solution to this is definitely to get the media out of the hands of those controlling it by supporting free journalists and investigators, sites that are able to see and present the full picture and solutions to this demise, individual presentations of what we are allowing and accepting here. Equally it is to see that there are two fronts to work on – oneself within/as the allowance and acceptances within the polarities that are reflected on the outside in the world events and creations and walking towards establishing a platform for true equality starting with equal opportunity to receive money, food, housing and clean water for everyone and actual education, where this must be completely revised and restructured. This will require bringing awareness of the situation to the people and what can be done by each individual to make it count on a grand scale.

 

Education Kindergarten KidsWith respect to Human Rights and the right to Life, the establishment of ‘ LIG’, a Living Income Guaranteed, is principal. Considering the implementation of nationalization, the redirection of military budgets and changes toward indirect taxation as a solution to be able to use the profit and savings for the common good, such as providing for one’s direct and basic needs as having dignified housing, clean water, food, health services and education, by way of a provision of an actual ‘living income’ for each eligible citizen as a reasonably sized financial security on an as-needed basis.

As an incentive for those who are able to, guaranteed minimum wages are being suggested of double the living income for people who actually work, produce and create added-value. Doing research on this to see what works and what doesn’t from history, why or why not, to remedy what crystallizes from this and implement what is supportive are essential steps toward a change that serves the principle of best for all equally for a democracy where people/living beings – vs. corporate entities – are at the heart of the system, where their interest and well-being are at the center of focus. A means toward this aim can be a party that promotes the conceptual basis for open source democracy/ liquid democracy and the support of transparency in public affairs.

 

The benefits are obvious: The allowed separation from one’s own self-responsibility with respect to government and self-government will gradually be worked out and walked within/as self-authority by implementing a method /a system, where one can be heard, because money is not the pre-requisite, as it’s provided unconditionally from the start.

iraqi-kids-by-adamhenning-via-flickr

 

One will be able to have better relationships due to competition not being at the heart of the system as necessary part of survival, where one can stop analyzing what the other has that I haven’t and focus on simply enjoying the presence of the other and be with them and allow creativity to flow into the time and space of togetherness. Thus, peace, freedom and trust is given true potential with this external structure and one will also have more time for the development of self-honesty within self-investigation to undo one’s separation on a more individual level.

The benefits also include actual self-expression or a process thereof, without the fear of disadvantages. Herewith a movement from survival to Life can be initiated. We are able to bring Heaven to Earth, with clean water, luscious and abundant nature, resources for all with a system that represents who we are as self-empowerment and self-responsibility, a Democracy that is based on the living principle of what is best for all equally.

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal and Join us for discussion.

 

Photo Credits

‘Power to the People’
‘Hands’
‘Dictatorial Democracy’
‘War is Peace…”
‘Iraqi kids…”

Yearly Salary “Raise”

Posted on Updated on

It sounds cool when the company sends you the letter about the raise in your salary yet when taking the inflation into account which is two times higher than the raise we then realize that our purchasing power has actually diminished. And that’s what has been happening for many many years now where the human labor is slowly but surely devalued.

It is a slow process where the change is not very noticeable ensuring that there is no reason in peoples minds to have any uprising and claim for their rights. Corporations keep doubling their profits while people that do the actual labor remain stuck in the mode of survival and constant fear to try and move for any change.

When I hear people having a conversation about the guys on top and how they exploit us a common statement keeps appearing in the end ” aaa it’s a useless fight”. That’s how deeply we have accepted our condition, because as far as we see it’s always been that way and always will be. You can try and go against the big guys and possibly win few percent increase in your salary or some little improvement in your working conditions but beyond that is a no go area, useless to even consider. So yeah the programming is surely deep where alternatives don’t ever enter the conversation in any way, only sometimes in a form of a joke.

 

I would like to bring, however, a new consideration, which is not actually new but is basically disregarded due to effective brainwashing which was pushed by those that fear and understand that this consideration does actually make sense and that if this idea would reach people without being filtered through the imposed filters of fear, majority would agree and most likely push for the realization of this idea.

 

 

Nationalization of Resources

Yes, it has been portrayed as something unholy where we have been made to prefer the free market to take care of things for us without realizing that free market only allowed a few to freely abuse all others. Government is bad, too much corruption and abuse, we keep reading daily in the newspapers and of course that is a problem because even there we have completely abdicated our responsibility to make any decisions or have any say in what happens with our daily affairs. Still in many ways government still works for the people while corporations are only interested in the well being of their shareholders.

Isn’t it strange that those shareholders are sitting somewhere far away from all the real processes that happen daily while common people work their assess off to keep the company running, yet they don’t have a share in this company, nope, they are no shareholders. They get only the tiniest piece of cake, it’s called a crumble which again, as I mentioned above, gets tinier with each passing year. How is this fair? How can this be allowed to continue unquestioned and ever even considered?

There is a need to start the process of bringing this awareness back into the minds of people by explaining through past examples about the benefits of having resources nationalized and how this can work for all people. What changes need to be done within governments in order to avoid any abuse and how to best allocate this huge increase in available resources that could really accomplish great things in bettering lives of all human beings of let’s say that specific country.

Suggestion is to start looking at our global initiative called Living Income Guaranteed which besides this suggestion has other crucial points, ideas which upon their realization would, through mathematical determination, bring enormous improvement in the quality of peoples lives. There is still much work to be done and the more of us join and participate the faster we can move and end the current accepted slavery once and for all.

 

higher salaries - living income guaranteed