From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: FAR future programs
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:24:11 GMT


In a previous article, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) says:

>
>>: I think it is neccessary now to discuss programs for the FAR future, as
>>: a prerequisite for not going in the wrong direction when it comes to short-
>>: term proposals. Here follow some thoughts about such a far-future program.
>>: If it seems like a high-tech scenario of communism in the classical sense,
>>: that's quite intentional.
>>[text deleted]
>
>High tech communism...just like China and the former Soviet Union.
>Great. Mass poverty for all.
>
No but it wasn't high tech *communism* - China and the former Soviet Union
are countries where there is no oversight of govt. 

(by the poeple)

That's the case in the U.S. as well - there needs to be govt. activity
dealing with the problems, but some way that people can monitor and keep
their eyes on what government is doing.

The Flint Sit Down Strikers (UAW pioneers)created an uncesored
local unioon press to watch their trade union leaders, govt. officials,
and management - and they said that until there were such an uncensored
local union press in the Soviet Union - the Soviet union was NOT 
communist.

>>: - Automation is a good thing
>I agree.
Good to see that there is agreement about something. Now how does one 
achieve automation?
It cannot be achieved via unregulated private self serving corporations.


>
>>: - Higher wages which lead to more automation is a good thing
>
>Pushing up nominal wages above the market price hurts production.

There is no *market price* - that's just a code word for starvation
wages.

HIgh wages encourage automation. Low wages discourage automation.
With low wages it is not cost effective to put in new machinery.

With high wages it is.


>
>>: - Shorter work hours accompanied by job-sharing is a good thing.
>
>Totally wrong. The depression the the 30's lasted so long because of this
>mentality.

No the depression was the result of the Hoover and corporate agenda to deny
workers any rights via company unions and company spies - and the constant
undercutting of any standards which the blue eagle began to reverse.

The CIO movement (Committee on Industrial Organization in the early 1930's
followed by the Congress of Industrial Organization in the later 1930's) 
helped to solve the problem of the depression - the domination of 
the corporate agenda could only be broken by more democratic unions in
the U.S. - unions that gave workers the ability to oversee their union
officials and to establish standards in industry via their greivance
procedure.
>
>>: - Less people in industry and more people in education/health
>>:   care/culture is a good thing.
>>: - More people employed taking care of other people - AND THIS
>>:   CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE "AUTOMATED" - is a good thing. In
>>:   countries with a publicly financed health care and education, like
>>:   my own country, this means the public sector taking a BIGGER piece
>>:   of the GNP. This, in my view, is a sign of an advanced society, and
>>:   I therefore find the persistent wailing from industry, finance and
>>:   the political right against growth in the public sector totally
>>:   reactionary and lacking any long term perspective.
>
>You are an utter fool. The public sector can only get what it has taken

This attack on the public sector is what is causing the decay of 
our current society - the self serving agenda of private corporations 
who have no social obligations but believe that only their narrow
profit making purpooses are important are ruining the U.S. economy and 
pushing the U.S. into another depression.

>away from the private sector. This a sign of society in decline. The more
>public spending there is, the more it hurts production (the true cause
>of wealth), and the more impoverished everyone will consequently become.

What kind of production do you say is the *true cause of wealth*?

It is social production -

The original conception in the period of the rise of capitalism of the 
govt being a *commonwealth* clarified that industry does not exist
on an island - it exists in a contest of a social compact  - if 
any corrporation wants to go and live on an island and make their own
rules- that's their perogative - but if they are part of a society 
like the U.S. or any other country, they have obligations to 
that society - they have obligations to follow the rules and standards of 
that society - but all this has to be imposed via things like democratic
functioning unions, 
    and uncensored local union press
               etc

All these institutions that exist to watchdog govt to see that it 
watchdog's unbridled corporate self serving agendas
they have all broken down.


Rousseau, writing in the Great French Encyclopedia, on Political
Economy explained that their is a public economics and a private economics
and they are different. The society must institute an economics that takes into
account public interests and obligations - and that a private economics
will not function.

With a public economics - the public officials must be watched  - the 
public interests must be considered.
Production of goods and services is not the achievement of any individual
corporation - it is the result of a social organization of society - and it 
is the achievement of the labor of the workers acting on nature who 
have done the production.




Rome fell because it became a huge welfare state. It won't work.
>


There is no analysis here - just a self serving conclusion.

>>I also agree with this statement.  It makes me wish I lived in Norway.  I
>>just don't know if the US will ever get to this point because of the way we
>>are socialized in the education system and society to believe that too much
>>government regulation and 'hands-on' is a bad thing.  This isn't my opinion,
>>but it seem to run rampant here.  By the way, is Norway in need of any
>>computer technician/musician/political scientists in the near future?  I'll
>>be graduating in August and I'll need a job.   ;-)
>
>I suppose that in your beautiful world you would use the benevolent coercion
>of the government to decide for all people what they should do with their 
>lives.

No one said anything about government decising - the point was the opposite that
people would have more ability to choose because automation and public services
would do the needed work of the society as far as providing for the necessities
and conveniences of life.

The alternative that is being proposed is to have people be slaves working
at starvation wages so some inefficient business can continually lower
working and safety standards so they can beat out their competitor.

>
>Like HELL we are socialized to believe too much government is a bad thing.
>Goddamn it, we have a HUGE GOVERNMENT. AND PEOPLE WANT IT THAT WAY.

We live at a time when there is a need for government - but that government must
have some oversight from the peopple. To say get rid of government -
basically leaves the government unregulated by people - it leaves them at
the whim of large corporations who are always working to influence them.


>Politicians don't get elected without saying they will fucking save everyone
>from themselves or from the cruelties of life. (See Clinton--National Health
>Care). I can't believe anyone would believe this. The New Deal is glorified
>in public school. Capitalism is spat upon. I wonder if those who spit upon

The New Deal isn't glorified - its virtually undiscussed - no one knows about
the LaFollette Committee hearings with thousands of pages documenting how the 
lartgest of U.S. Corporations spent millions of dollars to have elaborate
spy systems to keep workers from organizing into independent unions.

>Capitalism spit upon all the nice luxuries it provides (lengthened life
>span, high standard of living, drastic reduction in poverty, etc)


Capitalism doesn't provide any of these - its taken an incredible fight
for the union rights nad government regulatiolns that have provided any
of the amenities of life for the working people whose labor creates
the wealth under this economic system.

>Please go to Norway. We don't need people like you around to aid in the 
>downfall of the United States.
>
How sad - what a low level of tolerance for opposing opinions to 
tell anyone that has a different point of view that they are 
subversive and have to leave the country 

The Flint Sit Down Strikers quoted Voltaire - "I may disagree with what
you have to say but I will duel to the death to defend your 
right to say it" as the motto of their local union newspaper the 
Searchlight. They understood that thru debate and discussion among
workers the path forward would become clear.

But many of us welcome debate and the chance to clarify the differences :)


>
>My ultimate warning for Socialists and Welfare Statists:
>As you sow, so shall you reap.

And as you sow, you shall reap - by cutting our government services 
and increasing the speculation now rampant in the American eocnomy -

And we end up with rampant speculation, no government services,
a huge national debt, states playing each othere off to offer
concession to big corporations leaving the people with huge bills
and no unemployment, no workman's compensation, etc.


The one party state in the Soviety Union meant that there was no
one to oversee the government - the same trend in the U.S. functions
via the so called anti socialists calling for "less government" which
means that they take the public funds and put them into their own
pockets.


>
>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu
>

ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.theory,comp.society.futures