From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: RE: Amway
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:54:51 GMT

In article <12AUG92.19582067@meena.cc.uregina.ca>, isilver@meena.cc.uregina.ca writes:
>       Regarding Pete's latest posting, I again have a lot of
> thinking to do. I have laid, I think, my ideological cards on the
> table, in terms of my political views. I happen to have strong
> religious views, as well. I still feel that I'd prefer to hold
> off taking a rock-solid position until I've read all the material
> available. The book on legalities & ethics should be enlightening
> - what I have found so far is that neither book I'm reading does
> an adequate job of acknowledging sources to substantiate some
> pretty florid statements, both pro & con.

>       I think I can see, however, that there are some major
> sleezoids in Amway, just as in any other occupation.

There may very well be, but can you name one, or at least describe one
whom you have met and in your opinion deemed to be a major sleezoid?
Or are you perhaps speculating the existance of someone based upon 
ignorance of the company and its distributor network, using rumour
and innuendo picked up somewhere along the way?

>   ... I too have
> had parttime sidelines over the years, including running a not
> unsuccessful consulting operation. 

Does this mean, as the way you have stated it suggests, that you, too,
are a major sleezoid?

>  ... I am also convinced that Amway
> makes a healthy profit.

Well, this is not too hard to see. All you have to do is check the numbers.

>       What I want to sort out, is the ideological direction
> Amway takes. To me, capitalism is exploitation, but I'm still
> taking advantage every day of a modified capitalist economy,
> here in Canada. Maybe mao was right, & socialism allows for all
> types of contradictions (qwhich leads me to the story of the
> died-in-the-wool leftie I know who took his friends for 7 million
> bucks). Conclusion: there are sleazebags on both sides of the
> fence...
>       Still thinking,
>                   Ian

Well, this is indeed a mouthful. Capitalism is exploitation of 
the masses. Oh my. A man wants to go to work to help feed his family,
so someone comes along and gives him a job, so he is exploited. There
is work to be done, and the capitalist goes out and gets it started,
creating many hundreds of jobs for others by his fruitful efforts, and
he is called an exploiter. Someone sells their products and services
for somewhat more than they cost to produce, by which they add value
to society, and their profits are considered to be dirty, filthy
lucre, produced of the backs of the enslaved. What utter crap.

So you have this faulty view of capitalism, and you feel guilty about 
it. You are a victim of mysticism. You should reexamine your strong
religious and political feelings, and come to your senses. There is
nothing wrong with capitalism. There are some bad capitalists, true,
but there are bad people of all types. My father used to call them
the 10 per cent ring. Ten per cent of everybody everywhere are crooks,
burglars, thieves, vandals, ruffians, rapists, and mystics.

Maybe Mao was wrong and socialism allows all types of contradictions.
Whether Mao was right or wrong is totally irrelevant, for any system
of ideas which does not allow for all types of contradictions is not
in tune with the universe. But the altruistic opinion that my efforts
should go to serve your needs and not my own is a crock. Sure we have
to take care of the sick and needy, and have some social fabric to
put in the plumbing and take out the garbage, but socialism is the
exploiter, not capitalism. Capitalism is the provider of jobs, the
increaser of standards of living, the motive force to drive disease
from the land. Not the lazy way of living off the results of others.

Your sound like you are admitting your original anti-amway stance 
seems to have been wrong, by virtue of the dialogue in this thread,
even though it is difficult to come right out and say it, but let's
not leave it with some pseudo-intellectual irrationalizations.
-- 
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| What a wonderful bird the frog are.  | "In fact, except for protecting  |
| When he stand, he sit, almost.       |  individual rights, no valid     |
| When he hop, he fly, almost.         |  reason for government exists."  |
| He ain't got no sense, hardly.       |       ... Dr. Frank Wallace      |
| He ain't got no tail, hardly, either.|----------------------------------|  
| When he sit, he sit on what he ain't |          Bill Garland            |  
| got, almost.          -anonymous     |      bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.business.multi-level