From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: I hate socialists and far right wingers alike.
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:36:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au: 

>Let's get one thing straight with you block-headed left wing morons.
>Capitalism is about improving one's self.
>It DOES NOT, repeat, NOT justify pitiful wages, corporate raiding leading to
>the loss of jobs, unfair lockouts, nor the fact that there are too many
>people out there with little to no hope for the future.
>
	How absurd. Capitalism is an economic system based upon maximizing
profits. It has no NEED to justify itself. It isn't a political entity, its
an economic system.

	BTW, not all of us who are left wingers are morons. Stereotypes tend
to distract from intelligent communications. Or was that the purpose?

>Say we take capitalism to it's extreme form: Nobody cares about anybody
>else. Nothing will get done ! It is absolutly impossible to get anywhere
>without the help of someone else. Hence it is in people's interest to work
>together. This leads to corporations and the like.

	Funny. It works fine in Corporatist and neo-corporatist economies.
It wasn't exactly a failure during the mercantilist era, either.

	I'm sure individuals such as John D. would have been happy to hear
from you that they were interested in working with others as well.

	I'd tell you to get a life, but I suspect that you'd be better off
to get an education instead.

>Without the bigh business you love to hate, we'd have no decent communications,
>no great medicenes, pitiful technology, and generally living life as it was
>prior to the industrial revolution - terrible.
>
	Yep. And the life of the working class during the Industrial
revolution was pretty marvelous, wasn't it?

	It wasn't the businesses who brought about change, in case you
haven't read that far in your History 101 text, it was those groups you tend
to define as "block-head left wing morons."

>Socialism: equal distribution of wealth. Sounds nice on the face of it - only
>to those who don't have what it takes to improve. If everybody got an equal
>share af all that was produced, the whole world would collapse. Theoretically,
>if everybody worked hard, we'd all be better off. But, there will always be
>those who will work the minimum they can for a given amount. These people would
>get exactly the same as everybody else. The hardworking would soon become
>pissed off with this. Seeing that an individual increase in work would net that
>worker an infinitely small increase - why bother?
>
	Most of us on the left agree in principle with much of what you are
saying. Certainly those who contribute a great deal to our society should be
rewarded for that contribution. Yet does that mean that those who do not (or
cannot) contribute a great deal should be shoved aside like so much garbage?

	Many of us believe that ALL human beings are entitled to certain
minimum standards - including food, medical treatment, education, protection
from danger, and shelter from the elements. To us it is inconceivable that a
society could call itself civilized which did not provide those minimimums
to its citizens (assuming it was able to do so, as are most Western
nations). Beyond this, we also believe that simply because an individual is
not capable of contributing a great deal to society, this does not justify
treating that individual in a demeaning or belittling manner. 

	On the other hand, it IS reasonable to award acheivement. Certainly
to pay a higher wage to those who have spent years of their lives obtaining
an education, or to reward creativity (whether in the arts or in enterprise)
is emminently reasonable. What we DO dispute is the enormous discrepancy
between the wages paid to the laboror and to the corporate executive. It is
one thing to state that the executive deserves a higher wage, by reason of
their greater levels of responsibility, higher educational attainments, or
greater scarcity. It is another thing altogether to claim that the
individual deserves a wage 40 or 50 TIMES that of the laboror. The very
provision of such a wage insures a class based society, rather than one
based on any reasonable measure of equality. In addition, by providing such
wages overall labor costs are increased (contributing to increases in
product costs) without any compensatory increase in the buying power of the
worker.

>Under capitalism, those who work get,those who don't work don't get.

	No, under capitalism those who HAVE get more, those who have not
STAY that way. Capitalism is based on principles of investment and
entreprenuership, not wage-power!

	At least consider taking an introductory course in Macro Economics
before you start sprouting off about the subject (one in Micro Economics
wouldn't hurt either).

>Now, consider those that want to but for some reason can't. We pay a tax
>on our work which is for the benifit of all, and an insurance for when we can
>no longer work (pensions, disablitity allowances, etc). These taxes are for
>those who can't. It is not for the purpose of maintaining a few's self
>interests, or the use of intelligence units to knock off those with different
>opinions - this is corruption, not capitalism.
>
	I'm not terribly sure what you are talking about (are you?). You
_seem_ to be ranting about money being spent on espionage or state
sanctioned murder and arguing that these are not capitalist expenditures.
If, in fact, this IS what you are saying, I tend to agree with you. But then
again, no one but you has ever expressed any indication that these MIGHT be
considered capitalist expenses, so my agreement is hardly isolated or
indicative of any deep insights on your part.

	Special interests, on the other hand, are a VERY different matter.
It is _extremely_ difficult to seperate tax spending from such matters,
particularly with the strong influence of the larger corporations on the
political mechanisms within modern governments. Perhaps (although I doubt it
seriously) Australian politics are immune from such influences, those in the
US very definately are NOT!

>It is typical of the two extremes (left & far right) to claim that anyone not
>them is in the other extreme - you left wing shits think everyone who has a
>white collar job is a raving fascist who just loves to trample over blue collar
>workers. Conservative scum love to claim that anyone comlaaining about the lack
>of civil rights is a pinkovegetariancommolesbianpacifist etc. Utter crap.
>
	Interesting. Liberals are "shits." Conservatives are "scum." You
hate everybody, don't you?

	When you grow up (particularly after you take a couple Poli Sci
classes and learn the meaning of the words you use), do you think you might
learn to be a bit more tolerant of others? And, perhaps, a bit more polite
as well?

>If unions were REALLY interested in the plight of their members, they'd tell
>their members to avoid products from countries that have pitiful wages instead
>of jumping up and down about how rich the rich are. There are some unions which
>do what they are supposed to, but they hardly get any news. These are the best
>unions, those which don't activly support socialist movements, are happy to
>have meaningful discusions with management.

	How absurd. A union is concerned with the needs of ITS workers, not
those in other industries. No domestic union I've ever heard of has the
slightest concern for the wages of workers in OTHER nations - they are too
busy trying to protect their OWN members.

	I would criticize your statement that unions should not support
socialist movements, but since you make it so apparent that you don't have
the vaguest idea what socialism IS that such a statement is pointless. Even
someone as ill informed as yourself, however, should be aware that a union
which is highly supportive of management is not necessarily one which is
looking out for its members best interests!

>Some managements are just as bad in this respect. They (like those rail ones)
>want to screw as much out as they can, calling anyone who disagrees with them a
>leftwingcommovegolesbianpinkopacifist. However, there are managements who are
>happy to come to terms with realistic requests from properminded union
>officials. Again, these don't get much news.
>
	"Properminded," presumably, means sympathetic to management in your
vocabulary.

>So, you lefty shits (most of you are), think about the consequences of what
>would actually happen if socialism took over the whole world - and don't blame
>us decent capitalists for the curruption of a rich feudalist elite.
>
	Excuse me?

	Corruption of a rich feudalist elite?

	Are you serious?  You blame socialists for _corrupting_ the feudal
elitists?

	You REALLY should consider getting an education (or at least a good
reference book) before posting such messages. 

	There's an old saying, to the effect that "it's better to remain
silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

	You might contemplate that sentiment before you post any additional
attacks on everyone else's values.

>Those who believe in an afterlife will not be disappointed.

	Nope. They won't even notice its absence.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)