From kpollak@portal.ca Sun Jun 16 17:17:48 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:71612 ont.general:42536 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!reptiles.org!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!nntp.portal.ca!news From: kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,ont.general,bc.politics,can.politics Subject: Re: NDP is a Marxist party Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:09:50 GMT Organization: Cdn. Infomaticon BBS, Richmond, BC Lines: 133 Message-ID: <4pqs8b$474@thoth.portal.ca> References: <4po3gh$foh@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: d136.portal.ca X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 smeece@chat.carleton.ca (Steven Meece) wrote: >Everyone >admits that there are classes in our society, and that these classes are >poised against another. I think you are attempting to build an argument where there is none. But to answer your sweeping statement, no, not everybody sees the world in terms of class and class warfare. I believe that to distinguish "working class" and attempt to pit it against a "capitalist exploiters class" is a very twisted view indeed. First of all, it implies the popular Marxist view that employers do not work themselves, produce nothing of economic value themselves and that their income is derived from exploitation of their employees. It blissfully ignores the fact that before an employer can build up a business to the level where he can afford to even hire any workers, he usually has slaved for years to get the business going. Then it completely ignores the risk of capital that is at work. It ignores that the employer is providing the worker with not only the premises and machinery to practice their trade, he also pays for all the materials, energy, marketing and distribution of the products of that worker. In fact, it is the enterpreneur he often creates the demand for the worker's skills in the first place. Much more balanced view would in my opinion be, to recognize that without the enterpreneur, the worker would in fact not be a worker, but an unemployed. And of course conversely, without his employees, the enterpreneur would not be an enterpreneur, but an independent tradesman. In other words, the distinction between "working class" and exploiting class" is just as lunatic as the rest of the Marxist theory. Both have an immediate interest in the economic success of the enterprise, though the nature of their contribution to the success may be different. Part of the German "economic miracle" was the recognition on the part of German unions that their cooperation is the crucial element in wealth creation. Instead of the traditional Marxist mentality of "us vs. them" or class struggle if you will, they recognized that labour is just as much a part of the equation or system as anything else. At the same time, it also required the recognition on the part of the enterpreneurs that unless the workers have some sort of interest and share in the economic success of the companies they work for, there will not be productivity to make it happen. By contrast, compare that to the economies of countries like Britain, USA or Canada, where workers are still engaged in their 19th century adversarial system, where union leadership is far more concerned with personal power and in "grab what you can" rather than recognizing that they are in fact on the same side as the enterpreneur in wealth creation. Of course the realization must be from both sides. In the late 1960s the government of Yugoslavia was experimenting with the idea of having company boards of directors run by the unions of workers employed there. It was an unmitigated disaster. Even in a largely centrally planned economy, the factories went bust after workers voted themselves unreasonable salaries without a corresponding improvements in productivity and marketing techniques. >Yes, you've illustrated the obvious, that Clark knows that classes exist. That is the whole problem. Clark THINKS he knows that. Just as 15th century astronomers thought they knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe. And of course Clark is just about as much out of date with his "knowledge" as the Flat Earth Society is with theirs. >You have failed to show that Clark believes in the Marxist interpretation >of class -- that the history of all hitherto existing society is the >history of class struggles. Actually, that proof is not required. What speaks volumes are his actions and his stated principles. His advocacy of the elimination of private enterprise, his advocacy of subjugating economic enterprises to common social purposes rather than to economic purposes, speaks volumes. >You don't even know what Marxism is. What you have pointed out is an >example of pinkism -- that's something very different from Marxism, from >socialism, and from communism, in either the large-C or lower-c varieties. That is nothing more than silly nitpicking. It is the same as trying to show that the NDP is different from the CCF who in turn was different from the Socialist Party of Canada, who of course was different from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who in turn was different from the All Russia Social Democratic Party (majority) and so on.... In fact, they are/were all Socialist parties and as such advocated abolition of private ownership of means of production and distribution of goods and services in favour of state ownership and control of the same. They all sought/seek the subjugation of the political system by controlling the economic system to the interests of the State, as determined by the ruling party, to the exclusion of all other points of view. But to bring Marx and his teachings in line with your remarks, you are attempting to make distinctions between Marxism, socialism and communism, when in fact, there are none. According to Marx's fantasies of class struggle and historical inevitability, capitalism was to collapse under the "weight of its internal contradictions" once it had reached the "historical development stage of imperialism". Marx's idea was that the Communist party, "as the avantguard of the working class" would hasten that collapse and proceed to "build a socialist society". That Utopian society also had, according to Marx, to pass through certain stages of historical development: 1, dictatorship of the proletariat (later renamed to people's democracy) 2, Socialism 3, Communism So, I would suggest you, my dear deluded friend, that no matter what you want to call it, it is all an integral part of the same plan. And what is more, the NDP is a part of it. >We're talking about a very simple argument here; it shouldn't be >this difficult for an adult person to grasp. Well, here it is then. Let's see how much difficulty do you have with grasping it. Karl Pollak FidoNet 1:153/965 Richmond, B.C. Canadian Infomaticon BBS From johannp@aimnet.com Sun Jun 16 17:22:06 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:70324 ont.general:41854 Path: elastic!lethe!abyss!news2.compulink.com!news3.idirect.com!tor.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!van-bc!news.rmii.com!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.exodus.net!news.aimnet.com!johannp From: johannp@aimnet.com (Big O ) Newsgroups: bc.politics,ab.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ca.politics,co.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: TO GEORGE ORWELL HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 14:37:01 -0700 Organization: Southwest Desert Rats Lines: 315 Message-ID: References: <4n2f93$m9i@steel.interlog.com> <4nag4d$sek@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4nhar4$fr2@mongol.sasknet.sk.ca> <4nqbb5$89u@julie.teleport.com> <4nva7q$qmd@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4oef7t$el9@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> <4p6eho$nrl@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.125.19 X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b7 In article <4p6eho$nrl@news-2.ccinet.ab.ca>, ar3@ccinet.ab.ca (Terry Johnson) wrote: =| In , johannp@aimnet.com (Big O ) writes: =| > =| >In short, the worker does not OWN any of his/her own labor - the state =| >does; thus implying that the worker does not even own him/herself - the =| >state does. The worker gets only the fruit of his/her labors the state =| >deems as surplus to the state's needs. And the state's needs will always =| >expand to consume nearly all the amount of wealth (fruits of labor) the =| >workers create. =| > =| >Just another name for feudal serfdom!!! With the state replacing the =| >feudal lords of yore. =| > =| But your contention--or at least that of the authors of the sophomoric =| critique of Marx's theory of value that you posted--is that everything =| that is not paid in wages to the worker is created by the capitalist. =| Or, in other words: =| "In short, the worker does not OWN any of his/her own labour--the capitalist =| does; thus implying that the worker does not even own him/herself--the =| capitalist does. The worker gets only the fruit of his/her labour that the =| capitalist deems as surplus to the capitalist's needs. And the capitalist's needs =| will always expand to consume nearly all the wealth (fruits of labour) the =| workers create." The worker very much owns his/her own labor in a capitalist system and he/she has basically these options from which to voluntarily choose from: a) To freely use his/her own labor to create whatever items and services they deem they require for their lifestyle. {The totally self-sufficient person.} b) To freely use his/her own labor to create whatever items and services they believe they can trade to acquire whatever items and services they deem they require for their lifestyle. {The self-employed business man/woman.} c) To freely exchange his/her own labor for whatever items they deem they require for their lifestyle. {Actually a subset of (b) above. The typical employee entering into a mutual contract with a business owner.} d) All of the above. {The typical everyday person.} Socialism does not offer these options to the individual for even the totally self-sufficient person is forcefully required to fork-over a portion of their fruits of labor to the collective. If a capitalist only gave the worker's that which was deemed as surplus the capitalist's needs, then why would capitalists give the workers anything since you are claiming that the capitalist's needs will always expand to consume nearly all the wealth the workers create? In such a system there would be no businesses existing for workers to exchange their labor for since there would be no items/services to be given in exchange to the workers. I.e. - the only options left open are (a) and (b) above. This claim of yours is unsubstantiated because it fails to explain why there are many places in the USA where very few jobs exist at the min-wage level -- employers are having to offer higher then min-wage wages to get qualified employees to come to work for them. =| Marx's point is that, once the capitalist were removed, the workers owuld be =| free to make their own decisions about how much of their product should be =| expended on their personal consumption, and how much for investment, =| social goods, and provision for the poor. His point is that these decisions, =| instead of being made privately, by the capitalist, would be made =| democratically, by the workers as a whole. Marx's concept that people can democrately decide what they can steal/extort from each other is proof that Marxism does NOT recognize that the individual owns his/her labor. Marxism only works in a society where ALL of people do not believe that they own themselves and thus do not own their labor -- a society where the state owns all -- a society of absolutely marxist perfect individuals (which have not, do not, nor will ever exist). Therefore, Marxism, to function on a large scale, must resort to the use of initial force against those that refuse to put the collectivist ring through their noses. In a truely free society, marxism can exist on a small scale in small communities where ALL the members of the community have ***voluntarily*** accepted to follow the doctrine and where initial force will not be used to increase or maintain membership in the community. On a large scale, socialism, in all of its may forms, must resort to the use of initial force against those individuals that refuse to ***voluntarily*** accept and follow the doctrine established. Friedrich A. Hayek: "That socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past." =| >No. Scarcity, what they can be used for (besides in jewelry), and what =| >some one is willing to pay for them. =| >Why do you think most industrial grade diamonds in the USA are now =| >man-made (requiring very little humn labor) instead of being imported? =| If you'd read some Marx, I read Marx over 30 years ago! =| Price, as I said, is a product of supply and demand. Marx did not argue =| otherwise. But long-term changes in the average price of a commodity, he =| argued, were the result of changes in the amount of socially necessary =| labour required to produce it. It doesn't matter who does the labour. It's =| the fact that it requires labour to produce that gives it value. The value of my old books has nothing to do with the labor that went into producing them. In fact, adjusting for inflation, they would be probably valued at far many times than they are now if the labor was the ruling factor. =| >Regardless how much labor goes into producing something, if there is no =| >buyers then the value of the labor is zero. Otherwise, we would still be =| >producing lots of buggywhips and those owning the inventory would be =| >wealthy. =| > =| How many times do I have to repeat the words "socially necessary labour"? =| It's not a difficult concept to understand. Labour expended in the creation of =| a commodity that does not sell does not create value and is not socially =| necessary. It's wasted. Under capitalism one only looks at "necessary labour", not "socially necessary labour" -- because the later very quickly leads to featherbedding and creating jobs that produce no services and products that have 'value-added' and thus are not creating wealth, just consuming it at the expense of others, who do produce services and products that have 'value-added' and thus are ,creating wealth, through higher prices and taxes. =| >The value is because there is a demand for it; with no demand, then =| >regardless of how much or how little labor goes into extracting it, it is =| >has no value. Otherwise, we would still be producing lots of buggywhips =| >and those owning the inventory would be wealthy. =| =| Repeating yourself just makes you look stupid. Preaching Marxism just makes you look stupid. =| Here's a question for you. =| How much woudl a car be worth if it took the labour of 1,000 men to produce =| it? Would it be worth less if one man could produce the same car with his =| own labour in a single day? Did 999 of the 1000 do nothing but collect a paycheck? Did the self-employed person do such with a tremendous investment in technology? Very possibly the cost of the investment in technology to allow a single person to produce a vehicle in a day could exceed the cost of the 999 additional employees and the price to sell it would have to be set higher to at least recover costs. If it didn't sell at the higher price, then the self-employed person would very quickly be out of business. The actual worth, in both cases, is what people are willing to pay for it. =| The supply of commodities is a function of the amount of social labour =| required to produce them. If a new technique reduces the amount of necessary =| labour, then the value--and price--of the commodity will fall. Why? Because =| the effective supply will increase. New technology is not limited to just reducing the amount of labor required. New technology can provide better materials which didn't exist, regardless of the labor; and can provide new processes to handle materials which weren't usable before, regardless of the labor. These can lead to significantly lower prices without changing the labor involved. These can also lead to many new products and services that basically were not possible, regardless of the labor and thus create many new jobs. =| >That is still very typically before the products are sold in most =| >businesses. Therefore, for most instances of employement, the BOTTOM LINE =| >is that the business is making a major advance while the worker makes a =| >very minor advance. A business is typically assuming a greater risk =| >because the employeer has a contract with the employee to regularly pay =| >the employee but the business does not always have a contract with buyers =| >to purchase all of the product made. =| > =| How does risk create value? Without rewarding 'risk taking' there will be little or no risk taking and thus new products, services, processes, businesses formed, etc., etc., etc. and all the jobs associated with such will not appear as quickly -- thus the value derived from 'risk taking' is faster economic growth and better products and services in a shorter period of time. =| Why do you assume capitalists are the only risk-takers? I didn't say they were the 'only' risk-takers. But risk-taken has to be done smartly and capitalism seems provides far more incentives to do such. =| All capitalists risk, if they risk anything at all, is their capital; workers, =| in the course of their jobs, risk their lives. Where did the capitalists get that capital in the 1st place -- mostly from taking risks with their own lives. You are a typical marxist under the delusion that all capitalist are born in beds lined with millions of dollars. An overwhelming majority of the millionaires in the USA are self-made out of their own hard work and risk-taking. Suggestion -- go into business for yourself and after 5 years come back and tell us how easy it was to become a wealthy capitalist. I'm a capitalist. I work as an electronics engineer and take risks with some of the fruits of my labor and invest in stocks, bonds, etc. =| Saying capitalists are paid well because they take risks with their capital =| is like saying generals are paid well because they take risks with their =| military reputations. Capitalists are paid well because they are suppose take wise risks with their capital; just like generals are paid well because they take wise risks with the military resources at their command. Capitalists that don't make enough wise decisions are soon broke and out of the business; generals that don't make enough wise decisions are soon relieved of ther command, captured, or killed. =| >Can be done, though, if the landlord believes you are a good credit risk. =| >Or you might even offer the landlord a share of the profits for assuming =| >some of the risks. =| > =| Come on. How common is it for landlords to collect the June rent on June =| 30, and not June 1? How often have you moved into an apartment and =| paid neither rent, nor damage deposit, until after your first month's =| occupancy? =| You won't get anywhere by treating me and anyone else following this =| thread as if we were shut-ins or imbeciles. Obviously, most landlords don't consider most people to be good credit risks or don't want to assume some of the risks (if the place being rented was for a business). But that is their FREEDOM to make that choice. It is not your right to dictate to them how they will make that choice. =| >Furthermore, it does not account for what is a $20 bottle of red wine =| >today being worth only $5 (in constant $) 5 years later and then $5,000 =| >(in constant $) 50 years later yet the labor "worked up or crystallized in =| >it" never changed. =| > =| You're making two logical errors. =| One, you're assuming that storage of a commodity doesn't come at any =| cost. Commodities generally increase in price over time as a direct function =| of the cost of storing them--until, that is, they can be replaced by another =| commodity of equivalent value. That's why grain prices drop at harvest and =| rise through the winter and spring--all other factors being equal. The cost of storage, in the above example has very little, if anything, to do with increase in value. A different bottle of wine setting right next to the first might get sold for $4 fifty years later yet it would have been stored the same amount of time as the first. The cost for storing grain has very little to do with the changes in the prices. Supply and demand do! The cost of the grain storage facility, depreciated over its useful life span, is very little and the operation and maintenance of such is typically very little. Currently wheat prices in the USA have gone from $3.50 to $6.50 per bushel and it ain't because of storage costs. =| Two, you're assuming that because some wines appreciate in value over time, =| all do. That isn't true. The average price of wine, of any vintage, is a function =| of the labour required to produce it, Marx would argue; but the price of each =| individual bottle of wine will vary according to supply and demand, or to =| changing consumer preferences. =| A 30-year-old Bordeaux commands a high price because it takes a great deal =| of labour to produce another commodity of equivalent quality. But its price-- =| and its underlying value--will change in conjunction with changes in the =| productivity of labour. =| Otherwise, we'd ALL be expending our labour producing wine. I didn't say all wines wines appreciate in value over time, most depreciate after being 10 years old. Price per vintage year is far more influnced by the quality of the grapes which is a function of that year's growing season. The labor typically remains the same year-to-year but prices can vary signiicantly year-to-year. =| >Thus they have to create a new product (e.g. - custom or to-order =| >hand-weaving) and/or find a new market that is willing to pay the same or =| >higher wages for the same amount of effort as before. =| > =| Yep. Maybe you are getting it? That's what capitalism and the free market are about!!! Glad to see that you're dumping marxism. =| >Otherwise, they either have to accept progress or join it; but stop the =| >belly-aching. =| > =| Nope. You're not. =| This isn't about belly-aching. =| It's about economics. And marxism is NOT doing well when compared to the Austrian School of Ecomonics. Read von Mises and Hayek. -- "Big O" "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Frederic Bastiat "Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." Alexander Hamilton "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." Frederic Bastiat "Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible." Friedrich A. Hayek From naleckid@cadvision.com Sat Jun 29 10:42:31 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:75129 ont.general:44378 Path: elastic!lethe!gts!reptiles.org!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!van-bc!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.agtac.net!news.cadvision.com!usenet From: naleckid@cadvision.com (Derek Nalecki) Newsgroups: carleton.talk.politics,ont.general,bc.politics,can.politics Subject: Re: NDP is a Marxist party Date: 29 Jun 1996 06:38:32 GMT Organization: CADVision Lines: 168 Message-ID: <4r2j18$c7a@elmo.cadvision.com> References: <4po3gh$foh@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> <4pqs8b$474@thoth.portal.ca> <4q4i44$c6a@nic.ott.hookup.net> <4qb19k$1tfu@elmo.cadvision.com> <4qq876$d76@nic.ott.hookup.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: sprintd198.cadvision.com X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+ In article <4qq876$d76@nic.ott.hookup.net>, Mark_Burchell@on.infoshare.ca (Mark Burchell) says: > >naleckid@cadvision.com (Derek Nalecki) wrote: > > >>> >>> Where does Marx say such a silly statement that the capitalist class >>>doesn't work?!? He calls some of them lazy, but who in their right >>>mind wouln't agree that some owners are lazy? Anybody? > >>Like many leftists, desperate for an argument you seem to seize on part >>of the thought expressed and taking it out of context. Marx indeed di >>not actually used the literal phrase that 'capitalist class doesn't work'. >>However thatis not the entire meaning of what the original poster said. >>Marx's Labour Theory of Value argues that workers are paid only subsistence >>wages fopr their labour, with the remaining proceeds of their work >>accumulated by the owners of the means of production as surplus value. >>That provides enough of inference to argue that MArx did see the capitalists >>as not working, merely accumulating value from exploitation of workers. > > > You have certainly go the Theory of Labour Value by Marx correct. As >far as I understand Marxist analysis, a capitalist is one who does not >have to work because they can live comfortably on their >investments/profits. There is no condradiction in saying that and >saying Bill Gates is a workaholic spending 70 hours a week in the >office. But by definition, a capitalist doesn't have to work, and >thus during golf season, many don't. They travel, drive their nice >cars, and relax at black jack tables. Its a nice life by any measure >but few suggest liesure is work... except them of course. Wait just a minute. Sheath the sting of envy for just one moment. _Then_ you do concede that Marx did imply - not said it literally - but implied, in a kind of 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' way that 'capitalists do not work?!? ... Which is what you objected to so violently to when the original poster stated it. Now, continuing _on_ the idea advanced by the original poster [sorry, I seem to have lost the name], Marx's idea that capitalists do not work, or your follow-up that some of them are lazy, are both preposterous. Capitalists _do_ work, even when we are not physically in the office, when we drive those nice cars, or are playing golf, which you view with such an envious hatred. People who do physical labour are the only ones who have to be physically present to perform their work. The same cannot be said for people who do intellectual work. They do much of _their_ work playing golf or driving cars. Finnaly, people who use capital as _their_ tool of work, need not be physically present for the task at hand. And if you want to get right down to it, capitalists are the only people of the three labour categories who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When I invest my money - which by the way provides jobs, oportunities, good life to many people - I cannot ring a bell a say: "stop everything, I wanna take a half-hour coffe break, leave my money as it is until I get back". No the work goes on non-stop, and if I loose my money, _while_ taking this coffe break or playing golf, I _don't get to go to Labour Relations Board and say: "faul, I was *entitled* to my coffe braek, this happened while I was taking it, it doesn't count, I want my money back". No mister, *lazy* is someone who works a lousy 8 hours a day, five days a week _and_ expects 99% of the enterprise's profits to be awarded to him for that. > >>> If the NDP are marxists, they are closet marxists. To root up some >>>lip-service to the working class to prove that the party is comprised >>>of Bolsheviks is surely inadequate research. >>> >>> A true marxist would look at the actions of a government and not so >>>much the rhetoric. The NDP government of Ontario did not act like >>>Marxists. They did not nationalize the minds, mills and factories. >>>The workers of Ontario were not deciding production and distribution >>>as would be expected by a genuine party adhering to Marxist ethics. >>>Perhaps they are just arm-chair or lazy marxists. > >>Modern Marxism, as adapted by P. Baran and P. Sweezy however, does include >>and accomodate elements of sympathetic, more modern economic theories >>such as Keynesianism. The Cambridge School was also instrumental in >>adapting Labour Theoy of Value and Transformation Problem. NDP is very >>much a party of such a modern, "revisionist" Marxism. Indeed apart from >>the cooks in North Korea, no one follows classical Marxism, as laid out >>150 years ago. That would be preposterous. > > The base theories of Marx have taken a revival in the 1990's in >Canadian universities from anthropology to sociology and definitly in >politics. The theory is strongly rooted in political analysis of >systems though often adopts different names. One can't revise marxism >to the point were it is incompatable with the origianl idea. >Capitalism with government intervention and socialism are still quite >different economic systems. But the revisions proposed by Baran, Sweezy and the Cambridge School are _not_ incompatible with the original idea. They are adaptations of a 150-year old system to modern circumstances. A cynical man would say they are the same old ideas in new packaging, to mask, but not disavow, unworkable, inhuman facets of the ideaology. That is _why_ the practitioners of the revised theory, like the NDP, are called "marxists" - again what you objected to in your first response. Capitalism with government intervention is a contradiction in temrs, it _is_ socialism, which in turn is Marxism with "a human face". > >>However you are incorrect about the workers of Ontario *not* deciding >>production and distribution. Just because they did not made such decision >>directly, does not mean they did not do it at all. Many indirect avenues >>of such direcint were established, a labour code forbidding replacement >>workers - which in essence forced the owners to do the unions bidding - >>is only one example. > > Anti-scab legislation hardly gave workers the ability to 'dictate' >what is produced and how it is distributed. Capitalists still It definitely gives the workers ability to dictate how it is distributed. And in many - agreed not all - cases also what is produced. In case you haven't noticed strikes are usually about two things: pay and "benefits". The question of distribution, I would think is straight forward, it comes out of potential profits, and therefore curtails future investment. It is a kind of 'negative feedback' decisionmaking, but still, it is there. But then the same negative feedback decisionmaking plays a large part in decisionmaking of production. "Anti-scab" legislation prevents the owners from hiring other workers and continuing the production and distribution, the way they [the owners] decide it should happen. >determined that in conjecture with market demands. You are suggesting >the absurd when you say this legislation "...in essence force the >owners to do the unions bidding." Are you saying that from 1990-1995 >the workers of Ford decided production and distribution of Ford >products in Ontario? I hope I've misunderstood you. No, see above. The union demands played a large part in decisionmaking of the firm of what type and how many models to produce, indeed whether to abandon some models compeltely because of them being "unprofitable" [actually they were only unprofitable. _after_ unions extorted wages in excess on the value of work provided by their members]. Many Ford products were not produced at all because strikes at various suppliers have prevented their production. The same goes for distribution of Ford products. Strikes at trucking companies have a great impact on distribution. In a highly competetive market a loss of a few weeks to competition means potential loss of market share, with the result that the product does not get distributed. Of course many of the above did not happen. The company caved in, accepted union demands, for the sake of continuing production and distribution. But that means unions played a large - some would say primary - part in this decisionmaking, which _was_ my point. > >>Also as Hitler's national socialists have shown successfully, one does >>not have to actually change the formal ownership status of the means of >>production to exercise effective control over them. > > I hope this isn't a "was Hitler a socialist" arguement that are all to >common and boring, at any rate, business activities in Nazi germany >weren't completely controlled. Though once again, I hope your not >comparing the anti-scab legislation to that of Hitlers economic >programs. > It certainly _is_ boring. After all it should be beyond question, beyond any argumentation. Hitler _was_ a *national* socialist. All business activity in Nazi Germany was controlled and part of the machinery of the state. And anti-scab [sic] legislation is little more than anti-semitic legislation of Nuremberg adapted to modern sensitivities. derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq. "Reality is what bumps into you when you stand still with your eyes open." David Gerrold after Solomon Short ********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP ********************