From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: I ha.. Profuse apologies and reasonable discussion.
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:10:21 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

First, I apologise for being so abusive, for being narrow minded (short
sighted is closer to the mark) and for thinking that everything remotely LW is
rampant socialism at work.

In article <-9fn2pb.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> 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.
Oh?
 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.
Did I say it was a political entity. I think not. You seem to say that it does
do these things and needs no justification. This is not what I said.

Think about this: what is better, $100 million asset sale for one year, or
using it to generate $10 million per year, plus employment. Profit maximisation
is a long term thing. With the 'justify' bit, do you say that capitalism
accepts corporate raiding and does not need to justify that? Asset stripping is
not capitalism - that's piracy, and there's no justification for that.
Expand upon that for me anyway.

> 
> 	BTW, not all of us who are left wingers are morons. Stereotypes tend
> to distract from intelligent communications. Or was that the purpose?
The flames have started already - my fault. I apologise.
People can't be stuck into one of two baskets marked This and That. I agree
with someone's email to me. The same thing would happen to me too, being called
a socialist by one lot, and capitalist by another. It's a matter of degrees'
really, isn't it? Those who call themselves capitalists will by and large be
called capitalists, but not always. The same would no doubt apply to
socialists.
After reading through the well deservered flame you sent, I came to the
conclusion that it wasn't the capitalism that set you off, rather my arrogance
- correct? Yet again, I apologise for this.

> 
>>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.

My history is not the greatest. Comes from living in a nation proud to be little
more that a bunch of miners and sheep herders. As you might have been able to
tell, I wasn't born here. So, could you enlighten me here?

> 	I'd tell you to get a life, but I suspect that you'd be better off
> to get an education instead.
That's why I post...
> 
>>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?
I didn't say it was fun on the way up either. IMO, the IR didn't see real
capitalism till late nineteenth century in US. The Europeans just changed
methods of ripping off the poor. This is the probably the best time people have
had in all history, even with all the famine, and we have the wonderful actions
of the first unions to thank for it. It's a pity they're doing their best to
wreck it now.

> 	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."
I know this, and make apologies for abusing the old unions, but why have they
stopped? They seem to be stuck in the 1920's!!! Come on people ! The world is
changing wether you like it or not!
BTW, my History 101 text is entitled 'A graziers paradise', and it only goes as
far back as 1802......

>>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?
Yes Yes Yes! This is what I am saying - reward the better, jail the criminal
and help those who truly can't help themselves. I just think that a more
capitalist system does it better.

> 
> 	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. 
YES YES YES! agreement again. This is what I said in the taxes bit (later...)
Did you perchance read that other big rant I posted the other day; the severely
disjointed one starting off about family values, called 'Society should start
afresh' (a pitiful effort, I admit). I agree with you. Everybody should start
off getting the same - TWO full time parents, brothers and sistes to learn both
cooperation and competition, a roof, a good starting education. After you're
twenty one or so, you're on your own.
However, this wont happen since society insists that the bioparents be the ones
to raise children. This means that atleast one must stay at home to look after
them ( I could go on, but the whole story is in that post, if you can make
sense of it.Sorry about that. BTW, Yo jason, just when are U committing
suicide?? [sorry, couldn't help myself]).

> 	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. 
I think you are underestimating the scarcity part. The average salary of the
professional or better has increased over the last ten years since the number
of grads has dropped (august BWI). I can assure you, if everybody who could
attain a degree (by g.o.f. hardwork) and vied for professional positions or
started their own businesses, then executive salaries would soon be cut to
ribbons! Meanwhile, there'd be less people around doing the dirty work, so if
employers wanted that work done, they'd have to entice people by offering
increased wages, better conditions, security...
The conservative mob at the top don't want everybody to know this. Sure,
everybody knows about the market, but few Really *know* the real power of the
market - you included, I think.

The very
> provision of such a wage insures a class based society, rather than one
> based on any reasonable measure of equality. 
Que? 
As I see it, class is something the lucky get born with.

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!
Ah.. The second sentence is entirely correct - and what's wrong with that
anyway? For the first, however, you are falling into the 'background trap', for
the lack of a better term. All you can see is that they HAVE. So tell me, just
WHERE did they GET what they HAVE from? This is the refference to feudalism I
was talking about. There's nothing inherently wrong in being rich - it's how
you get there. Hardworking capitalists who also use their brains can soon build
up a tidy sum, which can be further increased by carrying out that investment
or being an entrepenuer. It's the born rich you ought to be taking your anger
out on. I'd join you.
When you look at an executive, you wont see the years of hard work, the
eighteen hour days for weeks on end, or the 3-4years of hard slog at uni.
Richness of that calibre doesn't appear over night. Not even Dill Gates could
afford the multimillion dollar house he is building after the first two years.


> 
> 	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).
Yeck! If I want an economist or an accountant, I'd hire one (and stick'em on a
very short leash....) Sorry. I intend to do just that when I finish my
engineering degree.
> 
>>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?). 
I think I was...

> _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. 
Yes it was. The use of public intelligence units for the priate gain of
individuals is corruption in EVERYONE'S books.

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.
You kidding? I read about that all the time in the likes of Green Left I have
to post in the student union building (council member), and in this newsgroup,
and in alien.visitors (epecially there), and many other places.

As for those who truly can't make a living for themselves, we pay taxes to help
them lead a decent sort of life (that bum's comment about 'losers' was a little
harsh, wasn't it.) There are some that just cannot get by. OA pensioners,
invalid pensioners, disablity pensioners and temporary disablement pensions (but
you can get that one on private insurance)
We really should help them of our own volition, but force someone and they will
resent it.

> 	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

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Sounds like corruption again...

> seriously) Australian politics are immune from such influences, those in the
> US very definately are NOT!
No no, you are quite correct. Infact, I'd probably be correct in saying that
there is a Bigger influence here.
Just about every majorish business (100 emp. +) is a corporate member and
supporter of the conservative party (called the 'Liberal' party - more on that
later..).
On the other hand, EVERY union keeps telling it's members to vote for the
Labour party, even the most moderate of unions. However, they have been
non-plussed with the performance of our PM - he's been leaning to the right a
little too much.....

> 
>>It is typical of the two extremes (left & far right) to claim that anyone not
>>them is in the other extreme - you left wing s***s 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 "s***s." Conservatives are "scum." You
> hate everybody, don't you?
No. Just misguided and failed ideas.

			 faster every day...
> 	When you grow up^ (particularly after you take a couple Poli Sci
(I tried. On a small campus, you don't get much choice)
> 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?
Hehe. Here we are both right and both wrong. The 'Liberal' party (as it is
euphemistically called - no sarcasm here...) is the resident conservative
			       liberal
party. At first, it really was^. Now, it is just a conservative party. If they
called it that, it would lose the support of the small business people, and
wouldn't have a hope of getting votes from the general populus.
As for the other side, the Labour party, that's just a mouthpeice for the
unions. They created it at the turn of the century, most of the members are
union officials and generaly, the unions own it.

>>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.

 If this is their typical attitude, then they will go down the tube with the
rest of us. I'm a mix of free-trade and protectionist (i'll explain..). I think
it is morally wrong to place a duty of more than say 3% on products from
countries with similar wages and conditions just to protect inefficiency.
However, anyone who believes in the level playing field AND no protection at
all is in cloud cuckoo land. Our clothing industries, for example, cannot
compete with less than dollar a day wages in Indonesia, no matter how efficient
our mills are. If the unions were really serious about the long term prospects
of their members, they'd tell their members to boycott products from these
countries. If they were really serious about worker rights, they'd set up
branches in these countries. If they can't see that, then they will find
themselves without any members at all and be in a country with high
unemployment (high, like 20% high, or worse. It's already 12% here).

(quick explanation of a 'ratio' duty I'd play about with if elected:
Say country X has an ave. nat wage of $d an hour, and the US is $13. Divide the
$13 by d and multiply the price of incoming product by the result. The big
difference between the $d and if the product were made at $13 in the samw
country would reflect that that country is likely to have pitiful environmental
and safety regs).


> 	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!

I'll start on this in the next post...

> 
>>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.

NNNNG!!

They should be looking out for their members, not just out to get
bigger pay cheques for a month (soon followed by redundancy payments...). When
I say realistic, I mean things like employee share plans, guaranteed employment
for those with the company >4yrs (don't say this is a stupid request - it is
being done..succesfully. Please get me some more info on a company called
'Lincoln Electric'), skill based pay instead of position based pay, bring back
base-wage plus peicework (this is not the early nineteenth century dark ages
anymore. With today's watchdog TV programs, they'd never get away with that
kind of exploitation) and so on. Did you seriously think I meant 'Lie down.
There' a good doggy' Come on!

> 
>>So, you lefty s***s (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 got realy angry by this point, didn't you? I wouldn't blame you, but that
last statment was pretty obvious, and anyone in a rational state of mind would
see that I DIDN'T blame socialists for feudal corruption. Ye gods...

The Feudal comment:
===================
Remeber that old joke; you climb the corporate ladder only to see the boss's so
take the elevator? THAT's feudalism. It may not have the grand titles or the
popular prestige, but any system that lets power and wealth be handed from
parent to child without that child physically earning it has Very strong
feudal tendancies...

Remeber the 'Power Triangle' the Chinese were fond of displaying?

				/\
			       /  \
			      /____\
				$$
			    /--------\
			   /	      \
			  --------------
this is an example of mistaken identity. They associated this with capitalism,
didn't they, yet the break in continuoty is clearly a feudal one, that only
those with good breeding get into the top part.
(..the conservatives have a novel way of disarming noncons. It occasionally
opens up its ranks and lets its enemies in. Never heard from again... from A
Very British Coup by Chris Mullins).

> 
> 	You REALLY should consider getting an education (or at least a good
> reference book) before posting such messages. 
I am. That's why I am here.
Thanks for some refs , Dave.
> 
> 	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."

He who asks no questions learns little.
Rule #1 for the discerning uni student, but you're right in saying that this
does not justify the abusive rants I have put up over the few days. Again, I
apologise for these.

> 	You might contemplate that sentiment before you post any additional
> attacks on everyone else's values.
Likewise...
> 
>>Those who believe in an afterlife will not be disappointed.
> 
> 	Nope. They won't even notice its absence.
Glad you liked it. I bet you thought it was the first intelligent thing I had
to say. My fault.

BTW Dave, thanks for wiping my chin, it was starting to dribble all over mu
clothes.

Last thing, Dave. To whom were you reffering in the lack of groovyness - the
unskilled, uneducated, or those who no fault of their own are unfairly *BORN*
into poverty?

--
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Enic Eng Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'
   				--Don Marquis
Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions......
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15403 misc.headlines:5931 sci.econ:7126 talk.politics.misc:41824