UK Royal Mailing Union Is About To Shoot Itself In The Foot

[Havet]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26244368-23109,00.html

Basically they're calling massive strikes, and all the business is going to non-government competition.

I predict royal mail will get privatized, then go bankrupt.

This will "potentially" be good for everyone, as we see a massive State monopoly collapsing, though i'm unsure if the private sector will still remain with massive privileges which might undertake any possible benefit for the consumer.

[ls]

You should come along tomorrow and say that to the picketers.

[Sam_b]

It is persuing legal action about the scab employees being hired.

Any socialist worth their salt should be supporting the workers and their strike action.

[rednordman]

As a commited communist, I sadly totally agree with you on this one. I wish this wasnt the case and do not like it, but things happen in life you do not like. It is a shame, as far as I see it, due to oncoming privitization (yes it was going to happen anyway), the unions had no other choice than to protest. And I understand them. The sad thing is that all they are going to acheive, is rather extreme public resentment. And yes, this will in the end kill them off.

Also you are totally right in assuming that the public will in the end suffer because of this. I guess its a case of people not appreciating a good thing untill its gone (just like the NHS very soon). A very common british attribute.

Its a sad sign of the times that capital has so much power that the royal mail really never did stand a chance. I guess in a sence we should respect them for not loosing with out a fight. I wish them all the best. (and I dont give a shit about missing out on some junk mail I dont care about).

[ls]

It is persuing legal action about the scab employees being hired.

Any socialist worth their salt should be supporting the workers and their strike action.

hayenmill is a capitalist though

[BobKKKindle$]

The sad thing is that all they are going to acheive, is rather extreme public resentment.Bullshit. This fight is not just about Royal Mail, it's the first in a series of battles that are going to involve working people defending our public services and coming into conflict with the bosses, and whilst it would obviously be better if the bosses weren't trying to attack the public sector in the first place (putting aside the impossibility of the government not trying to pass on the costs of the crisis to the working class - it's stupid to think that they would be happy to make the capitalists pay or to cut back on their own expenses) we need to realize that if the posties do win, then that will be a victory for us all, because it will give workers across the country and in other sectors of the economy the confidence they need to fight back, when the government comes for them. By the same token, if they lose, the confidence of the class will be diminished, and the government will be even more eager to attack our health services, our universities, our schools, and all of the things that working people depend on. There is no such thing as an inevitable or necessary privatization, as we've seen from recently-released documents that Maggie considered caving in during the Miners Strike on several occasions, and we can win this battle as well - and given that the miners retained support from the rest of the class there's no reason to think that working people are just going to reject what the posties are doing and tell them to get back to work, however much the bosses are trying to make it seem as if the posties are being unfair by standing in the way of "modernization". Sam_b is right, every communist needs to embrace this struggle, we need to be organizing collections, we need to be arguing with people when they raise false perspectives, and we need to be at the pickets themselves, showing solidarity.

hayenmill, and you seriously wanted to get unrestricted recently? fuck off.

[Havet]

Any socialist worth their salt should be supporting the workers and their strike action.

Especially when their action will backfire on them?

[Havet]

hayenmill is a capitalist though

Wrong

[Havet]

Bullshit. This fight is not just about Royal Mail, it's the first in a series of battles that are going to involve working people defending our public services and coming into conflict with the bosses, and whilst it would obviously be better if the bosses weren't trying to attack the public sector in the first place (putting aside the impossibility of the government not trying to pass on the costs of the crisis to the working class - it's stupid to think that they would be happy to make the capitalists pay or to cut back on their own expenses) we need to realize that if the posties do win, then that will be a victory for us all, because it will give workers across the country and in other sectors of the economy the confidence they need to fight back, when the government comes for them. By the same token, if they lose, the confidence of the class will be diminished, and the government will be even more eager to attack our health services, our universities, our schools, and all of the things that working people depend on. There is no such thing as an inevitable or necessary privatization, as we've seen from recently-released documents that Maggie considered caving in during the Miners Strike on several occasions, and we can win this battle as well - and given that the miners retained support from the rest of the class there's no reason to think that working people are just going to reject what the posties are doing and tell them to get back to work, however much the bosses are trying to make it seem as if the posties are being unfair by standing in the way of "modernization". Sam_b is right, every communist needs to embrace this struggle, we need to be organizing collections, we need to be arguing with people when they raise false perspectives, and we need to be at the pickets themselves, showing solidarity.

hayenmill, and you seriously wanted to get unrestricted recently? fuck off.

People who seem to support these actions are the same kind of idiots who would prefer Thatcher kept the mines nationalized, even though they were losing money.

You just blindly support any Union action, even though it has MASSIVE State support (and therefore acts to perpetuate its interests at the expense of all the population).

Getting unrestricted has to be with being a revolutionary leftist. Just because I think some actions are useless, pointless, and will do more harm than good, does that mean i'm not a leftist? Don't think so.

[Dejavu]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26244368-23109,00.html

Basically they're calling massive strikes, and all the business is going to non-government competition.

I predict royal mail will get privatized, then go bankrupt.

This will "potentially" be good for everyone, as we see a massive State monopoly collapsing, though i'm unsure if the private sector will still remain with massive privileges which might undertake any possible benefit for the consumer.

We should watch this closely. Its good that a government controlled monopoly might be in its death throws but we have to watch what happens with this 'privatization.' Its no secret that when most governments talk about 'privatization' it means simply transferring the monopoly to a favored corporation which still benefits from government protection, in other words , no change really but now they can blame inefficiencies on the 'free market.'

[Dejavu]

People who seem to support these actions are the same kind of idiots who would prefer Thatcher kept the mines nationalized, even though they were losing money.

You just blindly support any Union action, even though it has MASSIVE State support (and therefore acts to perpetuate its interests at the expense of all the population).

Getting unrestricted has to be with being a revolutionary leftist. Just because I think some actions are useless, pointless, and will do more harm than good, does that mean i'm not a leftist? Don't think so. __________________


Qft

[BobKKKindle$]

People who seem to support these actions are the same kind of idiots who would prefer Thatcher did not nationalize the mines, even though they were losing money.If you had any idea what former mining communities in places like Yorkshire are like now maybe you wouldn't be coming out with stuff like this, and you would be on the right side of the class struggle for a change. These pit villages and towns now have some of the highest rates of unemployment in the country as well as high rates of drug addiction (heroin and other hard drugs in particular) and domestic violence, all of these problems being the result of the measures that Thatcher was able to force through. A more important point here however is that socialists do not support strikes just because we think it's important to preserve jobs and pay - the concept of a job, in the sense of a worker selling their labour power to an employer, only makes sense within capitalism, and, given that we want to change society and not just defend the interests of the working class in the short term, we also back strikes because we recognize that radical forms of action like occupations (and ultimately the emergence of revolutionary situations, which offer the possibility of overthrowing capitalism) do not suddenly pop out of thin air, they are the product of other struggles, a long succession of preceeding struggles, in fact, as a victory in any struggle - especially strikes - makes workers more confident in their ability to challenge the bosses, it encourages the class to think about how society could be organized differently, and it's also through these victories that barriers and divisions within the working class are broken down. This was particularly true during the Miners Strike, as a victory then, in the middle of a period of defeat for working people, could have turned the tables, and supported a rejuvenation of struggle across the economy.

The fact that you see profitability as a good reason not to support the Miners Strike just shows that you don't have any conception of workers building their confidence (what I outlined above) and you're only interesting in making capitalism work - which means taking the side of the bosses.


You just blindly support any Union action, even though it has MASSIVE State supportThe strike does not have state support, MASSIVE or otherwise.


does that mean i'm not a leftist? Don't think so. Someone who doesn't support workers when they enter into struggle, someone who thinks that industries that don't make enough money (on that point - why shouldn't the bosses be the ones to accept cuts in pay? Why can't we cut dividends to shareholders if you're so interested in firms being able to make money? These things don't happen because the economy is organized in a way that suits the interests of the bosses, and profit is the bottom line for them, above and beyond the interests of working people) should be shut down and people left unemployed, is not a leftist.

[Sam_b]

First it was saying that the minimum wage in the UK is too high, now it is lambasting workers for trying to protect their jobs and provide for their families.

You don't know the reality of the situation at all, calling such action pointless from wherever the hell you are in the world. In my community, in Glasgow, we have set up weekly support meetings for strategy comprising of postal workers, activists, and other class conscious workers: we have been supporting them in the mass meetings of over 1,000 postal workers in the city centre, and will be joining the picket lines in solidarity with our comrades.

You don't seem to realise that every single postal depot and station in Glasgow walked out en masse in unofficial action, and held strong - prevented mail going through and forcing the hand of union bureaucracy. This action has been strong in Scotland and if carried out with correct tactics can win.

And there you are, pouring scorn on working people for fighting and resisting during the economic crisis. It is not this abstract idea of 'the unions': this was triggered by rank-and-file workers going out on unofficial action and forcing the union to go along with them. You're almost peverted yearning for its defeat (or so it seems) is reactionary. I dare you to come to Glasgow and pour your bile at these workers.

I hope you never get unrestricted. Better yet, fuck off away from this forum.

[Havet]

If you had any idea what former mining communities in places like Yorkshire are like now maybe you wouldn't be coming out with stuff like this, and you would be on the right side of the class struggle for a change. These pit villages and towns now have some of the highest rates of unemployment in the country as well as high rates of drug addiction (heroin and other hard drugs in particular) and domestic violence, all of these problems being the result of the measures that Thatcher was able to force through. A more important point here however is that socialists do not support strikes just because we think it's important to preserve jobs and pay - the concept of a job, in the sense of a worker selling their labour power to an employer, only makes sense within capitalism, and, given that we want to change society and not just defend the interests of the working class in the short term, we also back strikes because we recognize that radical forms of action like occupations (and ultimately the emergence of revolutionary situations, which offer the possibility of overthrowing capitalism) do not suddenly pop out of thin air, they are the product of other struggles, a long succession of preceeding struggles, in fact, as a victory in any struggle - especially strikes - makes workers more confident in their ability to challenge the bosses, it encourages the class to think about how society could be organized differently, and it's also through these victories that barriers and divisions within the working class are broken down. This was particularly true during the Miners Strike, as a victory then, in the middle of a period of defeat for working people, could have turned the tables, and supported a rejuvenation of struggle across the economy.

The fact that you see profitability as a good reason not to support the Miners Strike just shows that you don't have any conception of workers building their confidence (what I outlined above) and you're only interesting in making capitalism work - which means taking the side of the bosses.

The fact that the mining industry has dissapeared in the UK, was the reason for privatization, not the cause.

Causes:

A) coal reserves where depleting
B) labor costs where rising

Most UK coal mines dated back to the industrial revolution where the only way to get coal (from the same country).

Here's the FACTS about mining output (Obviously the privatized mines didn't last long, since the debt the mines were in was already huge).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45581000/gif/_45581765_uk_mining48_08_466.gif

Anyway, how does LACK of nationalization cause DRUG addiction? That's a typical make work fallacy (http://my.opera.com/weirdling/blog/show.dml/51894).

Also, if captialists only care about profit, why would they mine less if there was profit in it?


The strike does not have state support, MASSIVE or otherwise.

I'm not talking about the strike, i'm talking about unions.

The CWU website is the LARGEST communications union sanctioned by the State. Around a quarter million members. Check it out yourself (http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/yes-vote-shows-royal-mail-is-failing.html). Oh, and more proof (http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/growing-parliamentary-support-for-post-resolution.html).


98 MPs from seven different political parties - including Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat - have signed Early Day Motion 2035 which calls on the government to do all in its power to ensure that Royal Mail responds positively to the union's proposal of third party mediation in the current postal dispute.

Billy Hayes, CWU general secretary, said: "We think it is absolutely right that politicians put pressure on the government and Royal Mail to find a quick and reasonable settlement to this dispute.



Someone who doesn't support workers when they enter into struggle, someone who thinks that industries that don't make enough money (on that point - why shouldn't the bosses be the ones to accept cuts in pay? Why can't we cut dividends to shareholders if you're so interested in firms being able to make money? These things don't happen because the economy is organized in a way that suits the interests of the bosses, and profit is the bottom line for them, above and beyond the interests of working people) should be shut down and people left unemployed, is not a leftist.

You want it both ways:

first, its the evil capitalists fault for privatizing in the first place.

Then its they're fault for not mining enough

It seems you think greed is only bad when its other people
but when your talking about yourself (as in worker problems) its "need" and everyone else is "greed"

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing if you can't understand basic economic equilibrium.

[Dejavu]

I think socialist anarchists need to pull away from their knee jerk slips into statism by feeling obligated to support statist institutions ( many unions , universal healthcare , etc) as many social anarchists will freely admit that these statist measures are to give crumbs to the working class to take the focus off the bigger principles.

Supporting political unions and political institutions that throw crumbs to the working class isn't anarchist at all and , I believe , ultimately works against the interests of the working class.

My friend laughingman0x ( an anarchosyndicalist) elucidates my point to a statist apologetic that calls himself an anarchist :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjTXrOACxY

[Havet]

First it was saying that the minimum wage in the UK is too high, now it is lambasting workers for trying to protect their jobs and provide for their families.

Nice work mentioning only i don't like minimum wage laws, ignoring WHY i hate them.


You don't know the reality of the situation at all, calling such action pointless from wherever the hell you are in the world. In my community, in Glasgow, we have set up weekly support meetings for strategy comprising of postal workers, activists, and other class conscious workers: we have been supporting them in the mass meetings of over 1,000 postal workers in the city centre, and will be joining the picket lines in solidarity with our comrades.

You don't seem to realise that every single postal depot and station in Glasgow walked out en masse in unofficial action, and held strong - prevented mail going through and forcing the hand of union bureaucracy. This action has been strong in Scotland and if carried out with correct tactics can win.

And there you are, pouring scorn on working people for fighting and resisting during the economic crisis. It is not this abstract idea of 'the unions': this was triggered by rank-and-file workers going out on unofficial action and forcing the union to go along with them. You're almost peverted yearning for its defeat (or so it seems) is reactionary. I dare you to come to Glasgow and pour your bile at these workers.

I don't see how protesting IN FAVOR OF a State monopoly is "fighting" or "resisting" the economic crisis. There's no point in a business continuing to exist if the income it generates its LESSER than the costs needed to maintain it.


I hope you never get unrestricted. Better yet, fuck off away from this forum.

Seems I touched a nerve. Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?

[Sam_b]

I don't see how protesting IN FAVOR OF a State monopoly is "fighting" or "resisting" the economic crisis. There's no point in a business continuing to exist if the income it generates its LESSER than the costs needed to maintain it.

Nice one, so you obviously have no idea about the intentions of the striking workers. Fuck them for trying to resist wage cutbacks and job losses, eh?

[Havet]

Nice one, so you obviously have no idea about the intentions of the striking workers. Fuck them for trying to resist wage cutbacks and job losses, eh?

Would you rather the whole institution went out of business and everyone became unemployed?

[Dejavu]

Nice one, so you obviously have no idea about the intentions of the striking workers. Fuck them for trying to resist wage cutbacks and job losses, eh?

And where is the money supposed to come from to subsidize the higher wages and keep the jobs in tact , especially if they are producing losses? Customers chose other services besides Royal Mail because they were clearly unsatisfied with the service anyway. So what? Are you for government force keeping Royal Mail at its current size while other workers ( tax payers) are robbed to keep this place running at its current size? This effects far more than some disgruntle employees at a failing company.

[Sam_b]

Do you actually believe in class struggle?

I'm not going to waste any more words on a so-called 'leftist' that sounds like he's parroting Vaclav Klaus.

[IcarusAngel]

The only statist measures here are the handing over to privatized corporations, who are essentially legalized landed slave owners, the resources and services which should remain in the PUBLIC - in this case, postal service. But it could just as well be health care or any other issue.

Striking workers is never really a 'good thing,' any more than the amount of abortions people are having. The fact that someone is striking means that the worker is in an uncomfortable situation, most likely due to greedy bosses. It's especially not a good thing when, apparently according to other posters, there is a chance it will lead to more market tyranny - i.e., further privatization of resources.

Privatized industry isn't good at anything, excpet running economies into the ground and creating inefficient monopolies with high package CEO compensation, and they certainly aren't good at innovation.

[BobKKKindle$]

The fact that the mining industry has dissapeared in the UKI never said anything about wanting the UK to produce coal, although I think there were some leftists at the time who tried to justify keeping jobs on the grounds of national self-sufficiency, a logic that I reject. The thing that you seem to be missing here is that it is not the job of socialists to run capitalism efficiently or to take into account things like profitability and comparative advantage when we're thinking about how we respond to struggles. Our key concern, the thing we orientate all our efforts towards, is the overthrow of capitalism, and so anything that we can do to get closer to that goal is worth fighting for. In this context, we support workers when they enter into struggle even if the industry in which they happen to be employed is no longer profitable or competitive because we recognize that working people will only be able to challenge the rule of the bosses and make themselves the subject of history if they are confident in their own ability to run society, and that, in turn, can only come about as a result of workers winning in struggles under capitalism. When workers lose they are less likely to be militant in the future, and more likely to accept what the bosses and the government throw at them just so that they can keep their jobs. If leftists sit back and say that we don't want to support striking workers because they're trying to save jobs in a failing industry, then you're instantly adopting a standpoint that is bourgeois and reactionary in the sense that it presumes the continued existence of capitalism (given that criteria like profitability having no meaning under socialism) and is therefore friendly towards the interests and priorities of the bosses. I repeat - it is not our aim or job to try and run capitalism, it is our aim to destroy capitalism and build a world in which the priority of profit - which disregards human needs and knows no limit - does not exist.



The CWU website is the LARGEST communications union sanctioned by the State. Around a quarter million membersHow does this show anything? In what sense is the CWU "sanctioned" by the state, and what difference does this make to whether socialists should show solidarity to workers on strike? The fact that it is the government that is carrying out attacks on the workers at Royal Mail as they have been doing for some time, across the public sector, just shows that workers shouldn't expect the state (which Marxists consider an instrument of class domination, unlike liberals, who believe that the state is capable of representing the interests of society as a whole, and can provide answers to the problems of working people) to protect their interests. Nor do I see why it is relevant that a group of MPs have encouraged Royal Mail to reach a speedy solution.


first, its the evil capitalists fault for privatizing in the first placeIt's not a matter of the capitalists being evil, it's perfectly rational for the bourgeoisie to attack the working class during periods of economic recession, because that's the only way they can make up for declining rates of profit and undermine the confidence of the class across the whole of the economy. I don't think it's possible to reconcile the interests of bosses and workers and that's why, unlike you, I don't accept the logic of capitalism, my politics and attitude towards working-class struggles aren't guided by concerns like profitability.


Then its they're fault for not mining enoughI simply don't understand what you're saying. I and all other socialists don't think that the bosses should be the ones making the decision of how much to produce and how many workers to hire, we want to see working people take over the property of the bosses by any means necessary in order to create a society in which all questions of production and distribution are centered around meeting human needs, not generating profit for the few. We do not expect the bosses to retain workers when it is not in their interests to do so and nor do we believe that workers have an obligation to think about the interests of the bosses when they take action - the interests of bosses and workers cannot be reconciled and as people who recognize the struggles of working people as their own, socialists support workers when they engage in class struggle against the bosses. If it didn't involve a clash of interests, they wouldn't call it class struggle. I get the feeling that you and I are different in that your thinking accepts the logic and assumptions of capitalism - you feel that courses of action are only justified insofar as they are consistent with capitalism's priorities.

I should also point out that in a socialist society we would be perfectly happy to close down all the mines, and, in all enterprises, we would also be happy to accept the introduction of labour-saving technologies. In a socialist society, this wouldn't result in people losing their jobs and being forced into conditions of abject poverty - if anything, it would reduce the amount of time people have to spend working, because society would be organized on a rational and humanitarian basis.


It seems you think greed is only bad when its other peopleI don't know what you mean by greed, but if you mean people going after their own interests, then workers certainly should be greedy, they should be as greedy as possible, because socialism won't come from everyone wanting to be nice to each other, it will come about when the vast majority of mankind fights for what is in their interests - namely, the abolition of capitalism - and the revolutionary process will definitely involve the interests of the small minority who currently run our societies and accumulate wealth at the expense of working people being violated. Again, that's why they call it class struggle.


I'm not going to waste any more time arguing if you can't understand basic economic equilibrium. This says it all - you swallow bourgeois economics in their entirety so that you can resort to concepts like equilibrium in order to justify your anti-worker politics. Like I said, we are operating under entirely different assumptions.

[IcarusAngel]

And where is the money supposed to come from to subsidize the higher wages and keep the jobs in tact , especially if they are producing losses? Customers chose other services besides Royal Mail because they were clearly unsatisfied with the service anyway. So what? Are you for government force keeping Royal Mail at its current size while other workers ( tax payers) are robbed to keep this place running at its current size? This effects far more than some disgruntle employees at a failing company.

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US the postal service is the third largest employer in the country and it runs at a loss, but it provides a CENTRAL SERVICE to the public in addition to providing thousands of people with jobs, and thousands more with jobs from people who make products that are associated with the postal service, so it stimulates weak demand.

Furthermore, the Post Office is now making reforms and often CHEAPER, and not to mention FASTER than UPS - and they ship out on Saturday.

I don't know the situation in the UK at all (hopefully Jazzratt and others can fill in the gaps) but if a government corporation runs at a loss it doesn't mean shit and may even be a good thing.

We know looking at history - in both the US and the UK - what happens when everything is privatized. PURE TYRANNY, which is certainly far worse than the current situation, and no labor rights.

[ls]

I think socialist anarchists need to pull away from their knee jerk slips into statism by feeling obligated to support statist institutions ( many unions , universal healthcare , etc) as many social anarchists will freely admit that these statist measures are to give crumbs to the working class to take the focus off the bigger principles.

Supporting political unions and political institutions that throw crumbs to the working class isn't anarchist at all and , I believe , ultimately works against the interests of the working class.

My friend laughingman0x ( an anarchosyndicalist) elucidates my point to a statist apologetic that calls himself an anarchist :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAjTXrOACxY

Stop posting, you're a fucking moron and the kind of person who gives anarchism a massively bad name.

[Havet]

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US the postal service is the third largest employer in the country and it runs at a loss, but it provides a CENTRAL SERVICE to the public in addition to providing thousands of people with jobs, and thousands more with jobs from people who make products that are associated with the postal service, so it stimulates weak demand.

Furthermore, the Post Office is now making reforms and often CHEAPER, and not to mention FASTER than UPS - and they ship out on Saturday.

I don't know the situation in the UK at all (hopefully Jazzratt and others can fill in the gaps) but if a government corporation runs at a loss it doesn't mean shit and may even be a good thing.

We know looking at history - in both the US and the UK - what happens when everything is privatized. PURE TYRANNY, which is certainly far worse than the current situation, and no labor rights.

The only reason why the US postal service exists is because they forbid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company) any other company to enter the competition of mail letters.

[graffic]

I think socialist anarchists need to pull away from their knee jerk slips into statism by feeling obligated to support statist institutions ( many unions , universal healthcare , etc) as many social anarchists will freely admit that these statist measures are to give crumbs to the working class to take the focus off the bigger principles.


The biggest travesty has been the way in which the Labour government has done absolutely nothing concerning the strike. The unions are not "crumbs" to the working class, they are the lifeline for workers.

My problem is that this strike is apparently very complex with a long industrial dispute history, I do question wether the "modernisation" is an excuse for employers to slash jobs but I think all workers should support the strike because of reasons explained by BobKKKindie

[IcarusAngel]

History proves them wrong. Everybody knows - bourgeois economist or not - what happens when you put everything in the hands of the market and bosses, and especially the people of the US and UK should know this, and how much terrible it becomes for the workers.

You can't have a revolution when the poor are in rags and cloths, barely able to take care of their own health, and the rich have all the resources.

This is the goal of anarcho-capitalists - to allow the government to function in such a way that the poor are virtually helpless, without even democratic rights or institutions, or access to the resources that they helped to fund.

[IcarusAngel]

The only reason why the US postal service exists is because they forbid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company) any other company to enter the competition of mail letters.


That doesn't explain the fact that they ship PACKAGES cheaper (and often better now - a standard rate for a certain package size no matter the weight) than the big boys over at UPS and FED Ex.

They pay decent too. The Post Office is still one of the best places to work if you're poor and uneducated.

UPS SUCKS (http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/06/17/playing-and-losing-the-ups-waiting-game/). And Fed EX is my opinion is even worse. They actually made me drive out to one of their "locations" to pick up a package.

Essential services I think are better run by the government - or - like the postal service - a hybrid of market/government forces.

[BobKKKindle$]

Supporting political unions and political institutions that throw crumbs to the working class isn't anarchist at all

What makes you think that workers not demanding things like minimum wage, the eight-hour working day, the five-day week, and the right to organize their workplaces - keeping in mind that all of these things are granted by the state and have been won through workers putting pressure on the bosses - is in their interests? If the state succeeds in attacking the minimum wage and public services like the NHS, then what makes you think that will give workers more confidence in their own abilities? This has nothing to do with "statism" and everything to do with that pivotal question that socialists always need to ask themselves and other socialists whenever we're about to enter into a struggle: which side of the class struggle are you on?

I have also changed the image attatched to this thread to a thumbs up as away of showing solidarity and annoying the anti-worker OP.

[Dejavu]

The only statist measures here are the handing over to privatized corporations, who are essentially legalized landed slave owners, the resources and services which should remain in the PUBLIC - in this case, postal service. But it could just as well be health care or any other issue.

I agree with how so called 'privatization' works , no argument there.
But Royal Mail did not have any of its shares forcibly sold to private corporations. The UK simply allowed for competition in 2005 and in 2008 a lot of the rest of Europe followed suit. Royal lost its monopoly due to the public choosing alternatives.


Striking workers is never really a 'good thing,' any more than the amount of abortions people are having. The fact that someone is striking means that the worker is in an uncomfortable situation, most likely due to greedy bosses. It's especially not a good thing when, apparently according to other posters, there is a chance it will lead to more market tyranny - i.e., further privatization of resources.

But you just said that its the state the forces privatization, now its market tyranny? The workers are unsatisfied because their company has to downsize to meet current demand for their services. This means cutting wages , capital , and jobs. Remember , in the case of the UK's mail service, nobody put a gun to peoples' heads and forced them to due business with other services besides Royal Mail. The public had a choice , they made it.




Privatized industry isn't good at anything, excpet running economies into the ground and creating inefficient monopolies with high package CEO compensation, and they certainly aren't good at innovation.

If we understand state directed 'privatization' is what you're talking about then we agree. The monopolies are only efficient as milking short term profit at the expense of long term growth which can be easily manipulated on the stock market due to government herding billions of dollars into the stock market at the point of a gun. Rampant speculation and capital raping are rewarded while honest business is punished along with a lot of working people.


I don't know about the UK, but here in the US the postal service is the third largest employer in the country and it runs at a loss, but it provides a CENTRAL SERVICE to the public in addition to providing thousands of people with jobs, and thousands more with jobs from people who make products that are associated with the postal service, so it stimulates weak demand.

There will always be a demand for mail and packaging. The postal service in the US , internally , is run a lot like UPS or FedEx anyway to the point of copy pricing. A state run monopoly can employ millions and provide a livable income but that does not answer the question if it is right or wrong to have such an institution.


Furthermore, the Post Office is now making reforms and often CHEAPER, and not to mention FASTER than UPS - and they ship out on Saturday.

Tbh , I haven't really noticed and packaging rates are the same as well as priority mail categories. Same with FedEx. On top of that I used to work in the Shipping Dept for a certain company so I've tagged zillions of packages using all kinds of shipping companies. Almost no business uses the Post Office in terms of package shipping but they use them for first class mail , obviously, since only the post office may ship first class mail.


I don't know the situation in the UK at all (hopefully Jazzratt and others can fill in the gaps) but if a government corporation runs at a loss it doesn't mean shit and may even be a good thing.

Do you think trillions spent on by the U.S. govt such as in Iraq which runs a net loss might be a good thing? Good for whom? In this case think of the DoD as a govt corporation.


We know looking at history - in both the US and the UK - what happens when everything is privatized. PURE TYRANNY, which is certainly far worse than the current situation, and no labor rights.

Do you think people should be made to chose between only two systems? Both corrupt. Either you have a direct govt monopoly or a govt proxy by offering privatization rights to a favored corporation? Instead of cheerleading for government monopolies just because you hate corporate ones don't you think you should be throwing out better alternatives to both?


Stop posting, you're a fucking moron and the kind of person who gives anarchism a massively bad name.

Wow. Very intelligent post...

[Havet]

I never said anything about wanting the UK to produce coal, although I think there were some leftists at the time who tried to justify keeping jobs on the grounds of national self-sufficiency, a logic that I reject. The thing that you seem to be missing here is that it is not the job of socialists to run capitalism efficiently or to take into account things like profitability and comparative advantage when we're thinking about how we respond to struggles. Our key concern, the thing we orientate all our efforts towards, is the overthrow of capitalism, and so anything that we can do to get closer to that goal is worth fighting for. In this context, we support workers when they enter into struggle even if the industry in which they happen to be employed is no longer profitable or competitive because we recognize that working people will only be able to challenge the rule of the bosses and make themselves the subject of history if they are confident in their own ability to run society, and that, in turn, can only come about as a result of workers winning in struggles under capitalism. When workers lose they are less likely to be militant in the future, and more likely to accept what the bosses and the government throw at them just so that they can keep their jobs. If leftists sit back and say that we don't want to support striking workers because they're trying to save jobs in a failing industry, then you're instantly adopting a standpoint that is bourgeois and reactionary in the sense that it presumes the continued existence of capitalism (given that criteria like profitability having no meaning under socialism) and is therefore friendly towards the interests and priorities of the bosses. I repeat - it is not our aim or job to try and run capitalism, it is our aim to destroy capitalism and build a world in which the priority of profit - which disregards human needs and knows no limit - does not exist.

How do you propose the workers survive if they are fighting for an institution which is going to fail looser or later? How will they remain employed if the public company is wasting more than it generates?


How does this show anything? In what sense is the CWU "sanctioned" by the state, and what difference does this make to whether socialists should show solidarity to workers on strike? The fact that it is the government that is carrying out attacks on the workers at Royal Mail as they have been doing for some time, across the public sector, just shows that workers shouldn't expect the state (which Marxists consider an instrument of class domination, unlike liberals, who believe that the state is capable of representing the interests of society as a whole, and can provide answers to the problems of working people) to protect their interests. Nor do I see why it is relevant that a group of MPs have encouraged Royal Mail to reach a speedy solution.

I just don't see how using the State to keep a clearly failed institution alive is going to help workers at all. Sooner or latter, whether it remains public or is privatized, it will go bankrupt, and then workers go unemployed.



I don't accept the logic of capitalism, my politics and attitude towards working-class struggles aren't guided by concerns like profitability.

Well, with all respect, you're being naive then. How do you expect anyone, anytime, anywhere, to survive on an institution, whether its capitalistic or communistic, if the revenue it generates its lesser than the costs it has to bear? It's physically impossible, no matter how many wish it weren't, that institutions defy laws of causality.


I simply don't understand what you're saying. I and all other socialists don't think that the bosses should be the ones making the decision of how much to produce and how many workers to hire, we want to see working people take over the property of the bosses by any means necessary in order to create a society in which all questions of production and distribution are centered around meeting human needs, not generating profit for the few. We do not expect the bosses to retain workers when it is not in their interests to do so and nor do we believe that workers have an obligation to think about the interests of the bosses when they take action - the interests of bosses and workers cannot be reconciled and as people who recognize the struggles of working people as their own, socialists support workers when they engage in class struggle against the bosses. If it didn't involve a clash of interests, they wouldn't call it class struggle. I get the feeling that you and I are different in that your thinking accepts the logic and assumptions of capitalism - you feel that courses of action are only justified insofar as they are consistent with capitalism's priorities.

I should also point out that in a socialist society we would be perfectly happy to close down all the mines, and, in all enterprises, we would also be happy to accept the introduction of labour-saving technologies. In a socialist society, this wouldn't result in people losing their jobs and being forced into conditions of abject poverty - if anything, it would reduce the amount of time people have to spend working, because society would be organized on a rational and humanitarian basis.

I don't know what you mean by greed, but if you mean people going after their own interests, then workers certainly should be greedy, they should be as greedy as possible, because socialism won't come from everyone wanting to be nice to each other, it will come about when the vast majority of mankind fights for what is in their interests - namely, the abolition of capitalism - and the revolutionary process will definitely involve the interests of the small minority who currently run our societies and accumulate wealth at the expense of working people being violated. Again, that's why they call it class struggle.

I should advise you that i agree with your analysis on markets, except i give a different meaning to them.

Generally people here, when they talk about markets, they talk of corporate capitalists, and i completely agree on that part.

The market i envision (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765) is very close to the ideal of most communists and socialists, except they usualyl arent aware of this.


This says it all - you swallow bourgeois economics in their entirety so that you can resort to concepts like equilibrium in order to justify your anti-worker politics. Like I said, we are operating under entirely different assumptions.

Unlike other people, i believe a knowledge of economics is essential to get ANYTHING done. And i believe a careful analysis of your part could convince you as well that its the best way to the workers to learn about basic economic principles.


I have also changed the image attatched to this thread to a thumbs up as away of showing solidarity and annoying the anti-worker OP.

I'm not anti-worker, i just have a different vision of what benefits and what hurts workers.

[Dejavu]

UPS SUCKS (http://www.anonym.to/?http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/06/17/playing-and-losing-the-ups-waiting-game/). And Fed EX is my opinion is even worse. They actually made me drive out to one of their "locations" to pick up a package.

Hey dude , that's all of matter of opinion and preference and you are surely entitled to yours. I'm sure many others out there agree with you. So whats the problem with the U.S. doing what the UK did and allow for competition ( NOT forced privatization of already PO assets) in terms of first class mail. Then we can really see if the rest of society agrees with you as they will continue to surely use the P.O. especially if alternatives do and will suck.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't know about the situation in the UK so I'll let someone else field that, but this isn't true:


If we understand state directed 'privatization' is what you're talking about then we agree.

The role the state played in most of the monopolies and recessions is standing by and allowing market forces to work. In the case of say, Standard Oil, the local, state, and federal governments were trying to prevent the monopoly. And the same is true with Microsoft etc.

The problem comes from the fact than in the persuit for 'privatization,' the state created the 'free-market' conditions that tied their hands in prosecuting the corporations.


There will always be a demand for mail and packaging. The postal service in the US , internally , is run a lot like UPS or FedEx anyway to the point of copy pricing. A state run monopoly can employ millions and provide a livable income but that does not answer the question if it is right or wrong to have such an institution.

State run corporations are just as moral as the private tyrannies that exist because of the state.


Almost no business uses the Post Office in terms of package shipping but they use them for first class mail , obviously, since only the post office may ship first class mail.

Not true. Amazon and many companies use the Post Office. I used the post office as well. Many small businesses use the post office, and even large ones, for package shipping.



Do you think trillions spent on by the U.S. govt such as in Iraq which runs a net loss might be a good thing? Good for whom? In this case think of the DoD as a govt corporation.

This has nothing to do with anything.




Do you think people should be made to chose between only two systems? Both corrupt. Either you have a direct govt monopoly or a govt proxy by offering privatization rights to a favored corporation? Instead of cheerleading for government monopolies just because you hate corporate ones don't you think you should be throwing out better alternatives to both?

You are the one cheerleading for complete privatization by the state. I'm arguing for a reorganization of the mail services in a way that benefits the public, and especially the workers. If it must be true that Royal Mail closes down, then maybe that is the case, but I would prefer a US style system to free-market systems.


And, of course, like the anarchists of the 20s and 30s, I support the working class struggle - which means not allowing the government to hand all of our resources over to unaccountable private tyrannies, and not allowing them to pay workers starvation wages, etc.

[BobKKKindle$]

How do you propose the workers survive if they are fighting for an institution which is going to fail looser or later?We don't support workers when they go on strike because we want the industry in which they're employed to keep making a loss within the framework of a capitalist economy forever (once again that presupposes the continued existence of capitalism) rather we support workers because we think that them inflicting a defeat on the bosses will bring us closer to the overthrow of capitalism and a society under which it will be possible to organize the economy rationally (including shutting down mines, on ecological grounds more than anything else) without incurring job losses or increased insecurity for the working class. Whether the industry workers are in at the moment is profitable when they go on strike in response to an attack like privatization isn't a concern for us because we reject the logic of the bosses, we are about fighting for the interests of the working class, both within capitalism, which means defending jobs and pay, and looking forward to the prospect of socialism.


How will they remain employed if the public company is wasting more than it generates?We don't want Royal Mail to be a public company as our ultimate goal because that presupposes an economy that encompasses a division between private and public sectors, i.e. a capitalist economy. We want an economy based on workers control and if workers, acting collectively through institutions of democratic planning, decide to close down mines, then that's fine. Think of it this way: if you have a family and they buy, let's say, a washing machine, then that would be a cause for celebration, because it means that the people who do household chores, women in particular, won't have to spend as much time working as they did before and can spend longer doing things they enjoy. If you have a capitalist enterprise, on the other hand, and they introduce labour-saving technology, or if the bosses decide that the enterprise/industry needs to be shut down because it no longer meets their interests, then what happens is that some (a lot, in the case of mining) workers get made redundant, and the workers who are left have to do the same amount of work they did before and maybe even have to work harder, now that they also face the threat of losing their jobs, and are less confident. In a socialist economy we would embrace opportunities to reduce production in industries like mining and introduce labour-saving technology because it would allow us to reduce the burden of labour for society as a whole, and wouldn't result in insecurity and redundancies.


anywhere, to survive on an institution, whether its capitalistic or communistic, if the revenue it generates its lesser than the costs it has to bear?Under socialism we wouldn't organize the economy around commodity production, though, we would organize around human needs, including ecological concerns, so we would use a range of criteria, none of which would be concerned with profitability and other forms of capitalist accounting, to decide how to allocate resources.


Sooner or latter, whether it remains public or is privatized, it will go bankrupt, and then workers go unemployed.If workers win in a major struggle, they wouldn't/don't just sit back and accept capitalism as it is, they become more militant, they are more daring in the way they challenge the bosses - the class moves one step closer to the point where it will be able to overthrow the whole system and not just defend its immediate interests. Again, your acceptance of capitalism's logic and priorities is coming through.



the best way to the workers to learn about basic economic principles.I'm pretty sure most workers are implicitly aware of all the economic principles they ever need to know - the bosses have an interest in making as much profit as possible, profit comes about through the exploitation of the working class, i.e. keeping labour costs as low as possible, workers have an interest in not having their jobs, pay, and working conditions attacked, therefore the workers and bosses do not have the same interests, and their interests are constantly in conflict with each other, sometimes leading to struggles like strikes. A book on bourgeois economics won't tell you much about this because bourgeois economics is about creating theoretical justifications for the existing order and obscuring the real character of capitalist societies.


I'm not anti-worker, i just have a different vision of what benefits and what hurts workers. Alright then, tell me when your argument that it was "stupid" to oppose the privatization of the mines, and that workers going on strike tomorrow against Royal Mail is also "stupid", gets a hearing, and not a request to fuck off. Also, tell me what happens when you tell someone that you need a knowledge of economics to get anything done, because my life has gone okay so far without me knowing much about your brand of economics.

[Dejavu]

What makes you think that workers not demanding things like minimum wage, the eight-hour working day, the five-day week, and the right to organize their workplaces -

Ok lets break this up. All of these things come at a cost and its worth considering. Its not as if these subsidies exist in a wealth creating machine. When you want the state to enforce these things it usually means taking rights away from other people.

Demanding a minimum wage. I don't think anyone is entitled to a wage just like I don't think businessmen are entitled to profits. There are many costs to demanding a certain wage and perhaps you are not seeing them all. Artificially created wages do lock in workers that get those wages , maybe they are safe, but it excludes other workers since you cannot keep on hiring applicants at said wage when losses are a result. The company would eventually go out of business and nobody is employed.

A demanded work schedule also meets some similar costs. As always , when you expect the government to 'give' these things to people it 'takes' it from somewhere else as the government actually does not produce anything. It merely transfers already existing wealth and resources. I don't think just because I get a welding license ( which I have btw) I am entitled to a job , eight hours , 5 day work week.

Workers organizing. Now I am totally for this. I think workers ought to be able to voluntarily organize and collectively negotiate for shared interests. Personally I am a fan of co-ops. The only difference between you and I in this regard is that I don't think institutionalized violence should be part of this equation. At my current job we have a non-state sponsored internal union in which we collectively negotiate for benefits. Granted its easier for us since not anyone off the street can do our job but it is nonetheless effective.


keeping in mind that all of these things are granted by the state and have been won through workers putting pressure on the bosses - is in their interests?

This is a narrow view. Its more like workers , as voters , putting pressure on politicians to support unions. The unions in turn negotiate with company representatives. Workers are not a single entity either. Union workers are very bitter towards non union workers to the point of attacking 'scabs.'

Some workers benefit at the expense of others. The very fact that there are a lot of people that would love to have any kind of work , typically called scabs, shows the level of worker exclusion.


If the state succeeds in attacking the minimum wage and public services like the NHS, then what makes you think that will give workers more confidence in their own abilities?

Their abilities are not determined by the wage they earn. Their wages are typically determined by how valuable their abilities are.


This has nothing to do with "statism" and everything to do with that pivotal question that socialists always need to ask themselves and other socialists whenever we're about to enter into a struggle: which side of the class struggle are you on?

Its always statism when you want to invoke the guns of the state ( socialist or capitalist) to organize society in a way you see fit. Violence is not the answer and is too often the creator of blood and mayhem. Have you ever thought why the working class isn't united? Those 'scabs' couldn't get into the unions yet they are just trying to make a living by exhuming the same amount of labor. The very state you want to use to protect the working class destroys it. I am really wondering when you are going to realize this. Like I told Icarus , why don't we look to promote alternatives instead of the state to combat capitalism since its very clear that same states perpetuate and sustain corporate capitalism?

[Dejavu]

The role the state played in most of the monopolies and recessions is standing by and allowing market forces to work. In the case of say, Standard Oil, the local, state, and federal governments were trying to prevent the monopoly. And the same is true with Microsoft etc.


So you're argument is that the state did not do 'enough' to prevent recessions? What you call Market forces I have a totally different definition of. I think it does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that the Central Bank is the largest contributor to the booms/busts our age and the last century. The trust laws that broke up Standard Oil were not demanded on the part of the public ( who knows , maybe later it would've been a public thing) but rather by S.O's competitors. Furthermore, Microsoft was protected by copyright laws. All of these things, Central Banking , corporations and loss subsidy, and copyrights are all granted and enforced by the state. It simply does not make sense to me why you would see the state as somehow the entity which can fix all these problems when it is at the core of a lot of this. Furthermore, how this is free enterprise ( at least the way I see it) is beyond me. Its state capitalism.


The problem comes from the fact than in the persuit for 'privatization,' the state created the 'free-market' conditions that tied their hands in prosecuting the corporations.


Again, I fail to see how the state is diametrically opposed to corporatism since it is the very reason corporations exist in the first place? The state was not helpless. Remember, they control the guns. Yes, don't forget the gun in the room. Many of these people in the state that put on these show committees to 'cut' the corporate corruption were closely aligned with the corporations, not because the corporations forced them in that position , but because representatives of the state willingly represented the corporations.



State run corporations are just as moral as the private tyrannies that exist because of the state.

Agreed. They are immoral.




Not true. Amazon and many companies use the Post Office. I used the post office as well. Many small businesses use the post office, and even large ones, for package shipping.


I was talking about major industrial shipping.




You are the one cheerleading for complete privatization by the state.

No I'm not. You're just making things up at this point.



I'm arguing for a reorganization of the mail services in a way that benefits the public, and especially the workers.

Me too. I'm just saying why not let the public decide by having a chance to do business with the government run service or the non government run service. Don't you agree that would be the best way in determining what the people want?



If it must be true that Royal Mail closes down, then maybe that is the case, but I would prefer a US style system to free-market systems.

Well at least we agree that the U.S. style system is not free markets so I'd appreciate it if you quit changing definitions when its suits you. Either you believe the state capitalism and corporatism are free markets or you don't. But a lot of our 'disagreements' are the result of petty semantics.



And, of course, like the anarchists of the 20s and 30s, I support the working class struggle - which means not allowing the government to hand all of our resources over to unaccountable private tyrannies, and not allowing them to pay workers starvation wages, etc.

I call myself an anarchist because I want to see an abolition of all state and corporate activity including the ones you mentioned.

[BobKKKindle$]

When you want the state to enforce these things it usually means taking rights away from other people.I reject your assumption that there are rights which people are morally bound to acknowledge and not violate. I've encountered loads of people such as yourself who give me the whole argument about property being the result of people mixing their labour with the natural world and about how by taking away someone's property or forcing them to pay taxes you're carrying out an act of aggression against them and violating their self-ownership but the fact of the matter is that all of the things that you term rights are ideas that have been developed in order to lend capitalism and other forms of class society a level of legitimacy (or rather, the appearance of legitimacy) that they would otherwise lack. If you want to argue that capitalism deserves our support because it's the most desirable system for the working class then please go ahead, I'm open to that kind of argument, but appeals to the rights of the bosses without some explanation of what those rights are and where they come from won't get you very far.


I don't think anyone is entitled to a wage just like I don't think businessmen are entitled to profits.I don't think that people have a right to a wage either, in fact I don't think there should be wages, because the concept of a wage presupposes that the vast majority of the populaton has been deprived of access to the means of production and are being forced to sell their labour power as a commodity to a member of the owning class in order to survive - a situation that is not conducive to individuals being in control of their lives and able to develop their abilities.


It merely transfers already existing wealth and resourcesIf you mean that having an eight-hour day enhances the position of workers at the expense of the capitalists, then that's an argument in favour of workers demanding and defending the eight-hour day, because I'm not impartial when it comes to which side of the class struggle I stand on.


The only difference between you and I in this regard is that I don't think institutionalized violence should be part of this equationExcept, capitalism is dependent on there being institutionalized violence. If I use or trespass on your property (this is a simple example, but the same would be true of workers occupying their factory and claiming it as their own) without you having given your consent then the legal superstructure of capitalism is such that armed bodies of men will come along and take me away, probably giving me a fine, or even putting me in jail, because the law in capitalist societies recognizes the right of individuals to accumulate as much property as they wish, and the inability of other individuals to use that owner's property without them having given their consent. This stands regardless of whether the violence is being exercised by the state, or whatever alternative you propose in a stateless society, which I believe would inevitably change into some form of state anyway.


Its more like workers , as voters , putting pressure on politicians to support unions.For the record, I don't believe that trade-union bureaucracies share the same interests as workers, in fact they are often on the same side of the class struggle as managment and politicians, acting in a way that limits the intensity and duration of class struggle, and forces workers to make concessions to the bosses. Nonetheless, workers do generally act through their unions, and what enables the unions to extract gains is not their success in allying with politicians, but their ability to threaten the interests of the bosses, as, whilst workers are on strike, and in the absence of temporary workers to fill in for the strikers, bosses cannot produce whatever commodity it is they happen to be producing, and, once their non-labour costs are taken into account, this means they are making losses as long as the strike continues and missing out on opportunities for exploitation. This in itself demonstrates that workers are the heart of capitalism as production cannot take place without their participation.


Union workers are very bitter towards non union workers to the point of attacking 'scabs.'What does it say about capitalism when some workers are so desperate for work that they're willing to endure the dislike of people who are part of the same class as them just so that they can earn a wage? What does it say about the interests of capitalists and workers and the central role that workers play in production when capitalists try and split the class by taking on scabs? How can you say that this is a result of workers being unionized and having the right to unionize when workers who go on strike without the support or consent or union bureaucrats, either because it's a wildcat strike or because the workers weren't unionized to begin with, also face attempts to undermine their struggle in the form of scabs?


Their abilities are not determined by the wage they earn. Their wages are typically determined by how valuable their abilities are.The distribution of wages and profit reflects marginal contribution to output...marginal contribution to output is measured by the distribution of income...oh wait.


Its always statism when you want to invoke the guns of the state ( socialist or capitalist) to organize society in a way you see fitI don't look to the state for solutions, though, as the state is an instrument of class domination in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The destruction of bourgeois society will also involve the overthrow of the state and the working class, thereafter raised to the position of the ruling class, will use whatever means possible to defend its gains against the resistance of former capitalists in the same way that capitalist elites used force to establish capitalist relations of production through enclosure, and defending themselves against the forces of feudalism. I don't believe using force against the bourgeoisie is an immoral act, I advocate it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Anyway, how does LACK of nationalization cause DRUG addiction?




Simple , you have generation after generation of young men growing up to be like there fathers working in the mines and in the factories , being brought up to work in these factories and mines and since the jobs disappeared many people find it difficult to work in service sector jobs because that simple is not something they were taught how to do in school , or by there parents meaning that the sparse amount of jobs go to the people who are not from areas and families that have traditionally being involved in an industry that no longer exists. Sitting around all day is boring , bored people take drugs. Its also worth mentioning that since the dole cant even come close to paying for them the addicts tend to commit crime to get the money.

[Havet]

Simple , you have generation after generation of young men growing up to be like there fathers working in the mines and in the factories , being brought up to work in these factories and mines and since the jobs disappeared many people find it difficult to work in service sector jobs because that simple is not something they were taught how to do in school , or by there parents meaning that the sparse amount of jobs go to the people who are not from areas and families that have traditionally being involved in an industry that no longer exists. Sitting around all day is boring , bored people take drugs. Its also worth mentioning that since the dole cant even come close to paying for them the addicts tend to commit crime to get the money.

I think thats just a petty excuse to dismiss one's personal responsability. Not all bored people take drugs, and it is certainly not scientifically proven that bored people have a higher chance of taken drugs than ordinary people.

[Havet]

We don't support workers when they go on strike because we want the industry in which they're employed to keep making a loss within the framework of a capitalist economy forever (once again that presupposes the continued existence of capitalism) rather we support workers because we think that them inflicting a defeat on the bosses will bring us closer to the overthrow of capitalism and a society under which it will be possible to organize the economy rationally (including shutting down mines, on ecological grounds more than anything else) without incurring job losses or increased insecurity for the working class. Whether the industry workers are in at the moment is profitable when they go on strike in response to an attack like privatization isn't a concern for us because we reject the logic of the bosses, we are about fighting for the interests of the working class, both within capitalism, which means defending jobs and pay, and looking forward to the prospect of socialism.

How is supporting the State in keeping its power and privilege and granting it to a small minority (some unions), at the expense of anybody else, is going to help overthrow Capitalism?

How will people have strength to help overthrow capitalism when workers cannot afford food or a home? Because they WILL become unemployed, whether they like it or not, the Royal Mail is very likely to go bankrupt, regardless of the ideologies that run it. It has been accumulating debt for so long it can no longer last at the current pace.


We don't want Royal Mail to be a public company as our ultimate goal because that presupposes an economy that encompasses a division between private and public sectors, i.e. a capitalist economy. We want an economy based on workers control and if workers, acting collectively through institutions of democratic planning, decide to close down mines, then that's fine. Think of it this way: if you have a family and they buy, let's say, a washing machine, then that would be a cause for celebration, because it means that the people who do household chores, women in particular, won't have to spend as much time working as they did before and can spend longer doing things they enjoy. If you have a capitalist enterprise, on the other hand, and they introduce labour-saving technology, or if the bosses decide that the enterprise/industry needs to be shut down because it no longer meets their interests, then what happens is that some (a lot, in the case of mining) workers get made redundant, and the workers who are left have to do the same amount of work they did before and maybe even have to work harder, now that they also face the threat of losing their jobs, and are less confident. In a socialist economy we would embrace opportunities to reduce production in industries like mining and introduce labour-saving technology because it would allow us to reduce the burden of labour for society as a whole, and wouldn't result in insecurity and redundancies.

You ignored my point. How will workers remain employed if the business spends more than it generates? It cannot be done, whether its a state or a private business.


Under socialism we wouldn't organize the economy around commodity production, though, we would organize around human needs, including ecological concerns, so we would use a range of criteria, none of which would be concerned with profitability and other forms of capitalist accounting, to decide how to allocate resources.

Profit is a physical fact. Every organism or institution in order to survive requires the income to be greater than the outcome. Its another subject entirely whether profit should come at the expense of the workers or not (and i agree with you, it shouldnt), but trying to oppose profit in principle is a physical impossibility.


If workers win in a major struggle, they wouldn't/don't just sit back and accept capitalism as it is, they become more militant, they are more daring in the way they challenge the bosses - the class moves one step closer to the point where it will be able to overthrow the whole system and not just defend its immediate interests. Again, your acceptance of capitalism's logic and priorities is coming through.

They are going to become unemployed regardless of their struggle. The uk royal company has been accumulating debt ever since it existed, and it has come to an impossible state. Its impossible for a company to survive if it spends more than it creates, regardless of the ideology which drives it.


I'm pretty sure most workers are implicitly aware of all the economic principles they ever need to know - the bosses have an interest in making as much profit as possible, profit comes about through the exploitation of the working class, i.e. keeping labour costs as low as possible, workers have an interest in not having their jobs, pay, and working conditions attacked, therefore the workers and bosses do not have the same interests, and their interests are constantly in conflict with each other, sometimes leading to struggles like strikes. A book on bourgeois economics won't tell you much about this because bourgeois economics is about creating theoretical justifications for the existing order and obscuring the real character of capitalist societies.

i'm talking of economic principles which aren't seen in this society. The economic principles behind a free market and its self-regulation, which allow for workers to not be exploited, and eliminates the artificial privilege granted to employers.


Alright then, tell me when your argument that it was "stupid" to oppose the privatization of the mines, and that workers going on strike tomorrow against Royal Mail is also "stupid", gets a hearing, and not a request to fuck off. Also, tell me what happens when you tell someone that you need a knowledge of economics to get anything done, because my life has gone okay so far without me knowing much about your brand of economics.

It was stupid to do anything about the mines. They were not profitable anymore, and the proof of that is that the privatized mining company didnt last long. What caused the unprofitability of the mines, like i said above, was the depletion of natural resources and higher labor costs. Something had to give.

I didnt say one needs a knowledge of economics to get anything done. One needs knowledge of economics to understand the best way to organize an economy (resources).

[Tungsten]

You should come along tomorrow and say that to the picketers.

Argumentum ad baculum. Hayenmill is probably right in saying it will get privatised. But if the picketers can't handle the fact that the threat of that looms and decide to get violent about it, that's evidence of a weakness on their part, not those pointing out the facts.

------


It is persuing legal action about the scab employees being hired.

Any socialist worth their salt should be supporting the workers and their strike action.

Oh really. So if you refuse to do a job and someone else decides that they're happy to do it instead (consider the high unemployment rate in the UK at the moment), you'd stop them? By why right?

Don't the unemployed have as much right to a job as they do?

------


Bullshit. This fight is not just about Royal Mail, it's the first in a series of battles that are going to involve working people defending our public services and coming into conflict with the bosses,

Come again? "Our" services? Not out of choice, Bob. The public sector has little in common with the private sector. In what way is it in the interests of people to be supplicants to a bloated sector of overpaid prima donnas who get rich simply by demanding money? Because that's what the public sector does and thats how it operates - it's the only way it could operate, given its overall level of competence.

I apologise for interfering with your fanatsies, but if you think that low income private sector workers are going to be standing in solidarity with a gang of £30k a year "community cohesion officers" (and other people with similarly stupid job titles) who have been systematically impoverishing them though high council taxes, then methinks you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

If you work for the public sector, you're part of the ruling class. You would do well to remember that.

-----


Privatized industry isn't good at anything, excpet running economies into the ground and creating inefficient monopolies with high package CEO compensation, and they certainly aren't good at innovation.


here in the US the postal service is the third largest employer in the country and it runs at a loss

Read the two quotes you've posted and tell me what wrong. I've made it nice an easy for you by highlighting the contradictions.

On the other hand, I think I've finally grasped the essence of your ideology:

1- Take reality.
2- Turn it on its head.

- The private sector produces wealth and needs to do so in order to keep going, the public sector does not - it is insulated from the marketplace and from any concequences of its actions by legislation. Ergo, it operates at a loss, which is why drives economies into the ground.
- A socialised industry is a monopoly by definition.
- A socialised industry does not need to inovate, as it has no competition and can push whatever crap it likes at people without fear of it being rejected, as its income is guaranteed through taxation.



The role the state played in most of the monopolies and recessions is standing by and allowing market forces to work. In the case of say, Standard Oil, the local, state, and federal governments were trying to prevent the monopoly. And the same is true with Microsoft etc.


So monoplies are bad things. Which is why we need to nationalise - which is to say, form a state-run monopoly. That's alright then.



Not true. Amazon and many companies use the Post Office.


FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/07/royal-mail-amazon-postal-strikes)

[Pogue]

Anyway, how does LACK of nationalization cause DRUG addiction? That's a typical make work fallacy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://my.opera.com/weirdling/blog/show.dml/51894).

Also, if captialists only care about profit, why would they mine less if there was profit in it?

I know your not really much up for empirical studies and the huamn impact of decisions, as seen by your position on the minimum wage and now this, but to deny there is a link between unemployment and crime/drug mates is the pinnacle of idiocy. Do you think everyone just suddenly decided to become depressed and shoot up?


I'm not talking about the strike, i'm talking about unions.

The CWU website is the LARGEST communications union sanctioned by the State. Around a quarter million members. Check it out yourself (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/yes-vote-shows-royal-mail-is-failing.html). Oh, and more proof (http://www.cwu.org/news/archive/growing-parliamentary-support-for-post-resolution.html).

'Sanctioned' by the state? Every union, including revolutionary unions like the CNT and the IWW are recognised by the state. Thats because we make them recognise us. Do you know what you are talking about? The CWU is a union, i.e. an organisation for the defence of the working class. Clearly it is not being 'supported' by the state, which has been criticising the workers for going out on strike.

Your 'proof' is nothing of the sort. I don't understand how you could let it pass you by that the 'evidence' you linked doesn't actually relate to your point. Clumsy. What you posted says that 98 MPs (out of over 650 MPs in the UK Parliament) have called for a quick resolution to the conflict. Not only is that not epxlicit support, its only 98 MPs. So your really not making a point at all.


You want it both ways:

first, its the evil capitalists fault for privatizing in the first place.

Then its they're fault for not mining enough

It seems you think greed is only bad when its other people
but when your talking about yourself (as in worker problems) its "need" and everyone else is "greed"

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing if you can't understand basic economic equilibrium.

OK dear, you just go lie down with a cup of tea nd watch corrie then, whilst us dumbfucks try and work out why we're being as absurd as to support striking workers.

[Skooma Addict]

I reject your assumption that there are rights which people are morally bound to acknowledge and not violate. I've encountered loads of people such as yourself who give me the whole argument about property being the result of people mixing their labour with the natural world and about how by taking away someone's property or forcing them to pay taxes you're carrying out an act of aggression against them and violating their self-ownership but the fact of the matter is that all of the things that you term rights are ideas that have been developed in order to lend capitalism and other forms of class society a level of legitimacy (or rather, the appearance of legitimacy) that they would otherwise lack. If you want to argue that capitalism deserves our support because it's the most desirable system for the working class then please go ahead, I'm open to that kind of argument, but appeals to the rights of the bosses without some explanation of what those rights are and where they come from won't get you very far.

I agree with you that there are no objective "rights". The right to property-just like the right to life, or any other right-is a social construct. I support private property for economic reasons, and because I think that most of the time the person who first uses a certain piece of land has the most legitimate claim to that piece of land.


I don't think that people have a right to a wage either, in fact I don't think there should be wages, because the concept of a wage presupposes that the vast majority of the populaton has been deprived of access to the means of production and are being forced to sell their labour power as a commodity to a member of the owning class in order to survive - a situation that is not conducive to individuals being in control of their lives and able to develop their abilities.

I would say that forcibly preventing people from working for a wage is not conductive to individuals being in control of their lives. If I offered you 1 million dollars per hour to water my garden, I don't think you could really claim that working for a wage in this case is bad. So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the wage system. Maybe if the LTV were true it would be a different story. But as we all know, the LTV is incorrect.


If you mean that having an eight-hour day enhances the position of workers at the expense of the capitalists, then that's an argument in favour of workers demanding and defending the eight-hour day, because I'm not impartial when it comes to which side of the class struggle I stand on.

I reject the idea of a class struggle. I do not think it is as black and white as workers vs. capitalists.


Except, capitalism is dependent on there being institutionalized violence. If I use or trespass on your property (this is a simple example, but the same would be true of workers occupying their factory and claiming it as their own) without you having given your consent then the legal superstructure of capitalism is such that armed bodies of men will come along and take me away, probably giving me a fine, or even putting me in jail, because the law in capitalist societies recognizes the right of individuals to accumulate as much property as they wish, and the inability of other individuals to use that owner's property without them having given their consent. This stands regardless of whether the violence is being exercised by the state, or whatever alternative you propose in a stateless society, which I believe would inevitably change into some form of state anyway.

Why do you believe it will change into a State?


I don't look to the state for solutions, though, as the state is an instrument of class domination in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The destruction of bourgeois society will also involve the overthrow of the state and the working class, thereafter raised to the position of the ruling class, will use whatever means possible to defend its gains against the resistance of former capitalists in the same way that capitalist elites used force to establish capitalist relations of production through enclosure, and defending themselves against the forces of feudalism. I don't believe using force against the bourgeoisie is an immoral act, I advocate it.

Not only do you advocate the use of force against many innocent people, but you do so in the name of a dogmatic and flawed ideology.

[Havet]

Do you think everyone just suddenly decided to become depressed and shoot up?

Do you think every unemployed person just suddenly decides to take drugs?

It may not be obvious...but...

DRUGS ARE EXPENSIVE


'Sanctioned' by the state? Every union, including revolutionary unions like the CNT and the IWW are recognised by the state. Thats because we make them recognise us. Do you know what you are talking about? The CWU is a union, i.e. an organisation for the defence of the working class. Clearly it is not being 'supported' by the state, which has been criticising the workers for going out on strike.

Your 'proof' is nothing of the sort. I don't understand how you could let it pass you by that the 'evidence' you linked doesn't actually relate to your point. Clumsy. What you posted says that 98 MPs (out of over 650 MPs in the UK Parliament) have called for a quick resolution to the conflict. Not only is that not epxlicit support, its only 98 MPs. So your really not making a point at all.


Billy Hayes, CWU general secretary, said: "We think it is absolutely right that politicians put pressure on the government and Royal Mail to find a quick and reasonable settlement to this dispute

Political pressure is explicit support. They are actively saying that the Government should do something about it, even though the decision was a minority one.

A lot of the State support to unions is usually done by unions obtaining special privileges at the expense of everybody else, from which there are plenty of examples (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).


OK dear, you just go lie down with a cup of tea nd watch corrie then, whilst us dumbfucks try and work out why we're being as absurd as to support striking workers.

I don't like tea, and you forgot to actually adress my arguments.

Blindly supporting any Union action, even though it has MASSIVE State support (and therefore acts to perpetuate its interests at the expense of all the population) is very naive IMO.

I'm not interested in make work fallacies (http://my.opera.com/weirdling/blog/show.dml/51894) and neither should you. They waste resources at the expense of everyone else, and try to avoid the inevitable.

[Pogue]

Argumentum ad baculum. Hayenmill is probably right in saying it will get privatised. But if the picketers can't handle the fact that the threat of that looms and decide to get violent about it, that's evidence of a weakness on their part, not those pointing out the facts.



Right, so workers deciding to take strike action when management go back on a deal they made whichh promises not to force them to do extra hours with no pay 'is weakness'. I suppose strength to you is when you just roll over and die then.


Oh really. So if you refuse to do a job and someone else decides that they're happy to do it instead (consider the high unemployment rate in the UK at the moment), you'd stop them? By why right?

Don't the unemployed have as much right to a job as they do?


If workers are striking for better pay and conditions in the jobs they have, and management intend to break that strike by bringing in desperate workers who want a job because capitalism deprives a 'reserve army' of labour of worker as a constant threat against the jobs of workers, then yes, as an act of self-defence, we will try to prevent them doing so. This is a basic piece of acting in yuor self-interest - scabs break a strike, threatening all those striking and also the power of the class generally. Most working class people recognise whats wrong with scabbing, and a picket line often educates those who don't. A very common site is potential scabs being brought in, seeing a solid picket line and deciding to join the strike.


Come again? "Our" services? Not out of choice, Bob. The public sector has little in common with the private sector. In what way is it in the interests of people to be supplicants to a bloated sector of overpaid prima donnas who get rich simply by demanding money? Because that's what the public sector does and thats how it operates - it's the only way it could operate, given its overall level of competence.

I apologise for interfering with your fanatsies, but if you think that low income private sector workers are going to be standing in solidarity with a gang of £30k a year "community cohesion officers" (and other people with similarly stupid job titles) who have been systematically impoverishing them though high council taxes, then methinks you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

If you work for the public sector, you're part of the ruling class. You would do well to remember that.


These services are what working class people rely on. They were brought in out of neccesity by post-WW2 governments and have remained intact out of neccesity. 30K a year workers are still working class. If you think that those of us who believe that will get a 'rude awakening' then you clearly no nothing of the dynamic of the working class movement in this country which isn't really that suprising.

Council workers don't impoverish people through high or wasteful taxing, thats higher government. The frontline workers don't decide policy (that's what they do in communism, silly).

On the notion of public sector workers being part of the ruling class (might I add that public sector workers can range from 14k a year paramedics through to nurses who can work a career spanning 30 years and only ever peak at a pay of 36k, not so much in an ever increadingly costly world, including firemen, who risk their lives for what is average pay, well I could go on for ever, etc etc):

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7508/cheii.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/cheii.jpg/)


Actually though I will add some words. When I go into training next year for a job role in the NHS I will spend about three years getting paid £500 a month, i.e. for a month I have to live on £500. If your lucky you can get rent for a couple of hundred, so obviously I'll be absolutely rolling in it. I can't wait to ascend into the ruling class. maybe I'll join a golf club and go to strip clubs in the city and spend a grand on champange in a night out. Maybe then I'll go exploit some workers, execute some peasants and tell the army what to do. All part of my ruling class experience and for only £500 a month, aren't I lucky (and I actually am because some people will have it worse than me). I don't think I really need to explain what the underlying message of this paragraph was do I.

[Havet]

Argumentum ad baculum. Hayenmill is probably right in saying it will get privatised.

I still think it will go bankrupt, regardless if its privatized or not.

[Pogue]

Do you think every unemployed person just suddenly decides to take drugs?

It may not be obvious...but...

DRUGS ARE EXPENSIVE

OK, let me try and understand what you are actually saying here.

Are you arguing that these miners in fact had drug habits before they became unemployed, or are you denying that they have drug habits now?

Are you denying the fact there there is a storng correlation between substance abuse and unemployment? Are you trying to suggest it is impossible for unemployed people to take drugs? You do understand the main implication of a drug habit is that you try to find a way to fund it, no matter what, because its an addiction? Do you actually understand the outside world at all?

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/workplace/index.html

A report on drug abuse in ex-mining areas: http://www.mentorfoundation.org/uploads/UK_CEMA_Lit_Review.pdf


Political pressure is explicit support. They are actively saying that the Government should do something about it, even though the decision was a minority one.

A lot of the State support to unions is usually done by unions obtaining special privileges at the expense of everybody else, from which there are plenty of examples (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).

Again, the MPs were calling for a solution to the problem. If you told me 98 MPs joined a picket line and threw a brick at a copper maybe then I'd achknowledge your non-existant point. Most politicians have called for 'a solution to the problem'. That is totally different from delcaring you supprot a strike. So this is not 'explicit support' for anything other than talks or mediation and such. So again, your point is null, the source you used failed to back up your argument, so your point is void.

I like how you, someone who called to be unrestricted, thinks that they can source their claims on 'union priviliges' to an organisation whose motto is 'Defending America from the abuses of compulsory labour', i.e. your referncing an organisation whose sole purpose is to criticise unions and somehow 'defend' America against them.

Have you heard of blacklists? Have you heard of those of us who are sacked by management for union organisation?

Again, you clearly, so very clearly, have not experienced the reality of how uninos are dealt with in the United Kingdom. Did the Thatcher period pass you by? Did the supression of our unions that now makes them the weakest in Europe pass you by? We can't do sympathy strikes or secondary pickets, for christs sake. You really are clueless. I think it shows, like the rest of your opinions, now detached you are from everday working class life.

[Robert]

We have to agree that profitability can not be the sole test for the legitimacy of an essential public service; mail distribution is such a service at this time (not everyone has a computer and internet connection).

As for the strikes, what is your (you, anyone) test for the legitimacy of a strike by workers in an essential public service?

Is it "whatever a majority of mail workers in a given post office or region or city decides"?

Or "whatever their elected delegates decides"?

Or "whatever any individual worker decides"?

Or "whatever disrupts private commerce"?

The People will never recognize an unqualified right of public sector workers (think airline traffic controllers, firemen, and nuclear plant operators), to drop whatever they are doing at any time whenever they feel aggrieved and stand in the way of necessary replacements.

[Havet]

Are you arguing that these miners in fact had drug habits before they became unemployed, or are you denying that they have drug habits now?

I was contesting the sentence that they will have a higher chance of becoming drug addicts just by becoming unemployed.


Are you denying the fact there there is a storng correlation between substance abuse and unemployment?

No, i was simply not aware of the correlation. I never believe people's opinion, only data. Until someone supplies it, then i'll change my mind.


Are you trying to suggest it is impossible for unemployed people to take drugs?

Nope


You do understand the main implication of a drug habit is that you try to find a way to fund it, no matter what, because its an addiction? Do you actually understand the outside world at all?

I understand that addicted people tend to act in a way to fund their addiction, but this does not prove the statement that unemployment causes drug addiction. Furthermore, if a person is unemployed, they will usually act in order to SURVIVE, especially since they are usually poor people or people with small wages.


http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/workplace/index.html (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/workplace/index.html)

Finally you bothered to send a link. Indeed, it appears that there is a correlation (which does not equal causation) that unemployment incites more drug use. However, i have to ask you a couple of questions:

How do you know the reason for more unemployed people consuming drugs is not, for example, a higher availability which results in lowered prices?

Also, "An estimated 17.4 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or older were current illicit drug users compared with 8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time."

Seems like a small number, all things considered. More people (8.2%+10.5%=18.7%) who are employed consume more drugs than the unemployed (17.4%)


A report on drug abuse in ex-mining areas: http://www.mentorfoundation.org/uploads/UK_CEMA_Lit_Review.pdf

I'm sorry but that one is irrelevant. It only adresses young people, and we were talking of unemployed workers (which are not underage).


Again, the MPs were calling for a solution to the problem. If you told me 98 MPs joined a picket line and threw a brick at a copper maybe then I'd achknowledge your non-existant point. Most politicians have called for 'a solution to the problem'. That is totally different from delcaring you supprot a strike. So this is not 'explicit support' for anything other than talks or mediation and such. So again, your point is null, the source you used failed to back up your argument, so your point is void.

I like how you, someone who called to be unrestricted, thinks that they can source their claims on 'union priviliges' to an organisation whose motto is 'Defending America from the abuses of compulsory labour', i.e. your referncing an organisation whose sole purpose is to criticise unions and somehow 'defend' America against them.

I did not care about their moto. I looked at the facts they presented and their sources. Their motives with the facts did not concern me, only the FACTS which proved how unionism is currently highly privileged due to the State.


Have you heard of blacklists? Have you heard of those of us who are sacked by management for union organisation? Yes i have. So?


Again, you clearly, so very clearly, have not experienced the reality of how uninos are dealt with in the United Kingdom. Did the Thatcher period pass you by? Did the supression of our unions that now makes them the weakest in Europe pass you by? We can't do sympathy strikes or secondary pickets, for christs sake. You really are clueless. I think it shows, like the rest of your opinions, now detached you are from everday working class life.

So you'd prefer unions were stronger at the expense of anybody else? Unions rely on the State which grant them privileges, so those unions are part of the ruling class. Obviously none of those unions would want to lose its privilege, and they always, like the capitalists, seek to expand it. All i'm saying is that unions can exist without the State and in a non-capitalist society, but that right now supporting those who CLEARLY are using the State power at the expense of everybody else should not be supported, because they ARE hurting all the other non-unionized workers.

[ls]

We have to agree that profitability can not be the sole test for the legitimacy of an essential public service; mail distribution is such a service at this time (not everyone has a computer and internet connection).

As for the strikes, what is your (you, anyone) test for the legitimacy of a strike by workers in an essential public service?

The workers raise a legitimate concern about their immediate future economically, we have to work to keep their conditions at least level or preferably to get them improved.

This must include solidarity on many levels; including with sacked workers.


Is it "whatever a majority of mail workers in a given post office or region or city decides"?

You will find just about every postal worker (no matter what they do at the office apart from management) approves of the strike. Just sayin'.


The People will never recognize an unqualified right of public sector workers (think airline traffic controllers, firemen, and nuclear plant operators), to drop whatever they are doing at any time whenever they feel aggrieved and stand in the way of necessary replacements.

That's funny, there was a lot of solidarity when I was there and just two bald patch creepy middle-classish guys who said GET BACK TO WOOOORK.

Loads of black cab drivers beebing and waving, black cab drivers are largely considered right-wing here in london, I think that says something important myself.

[Dejavu]

I reject your assumption that there are rights which people are morally bound to acknowledge and not violate.

Then I don't know how you can make an argument for exploitation of workers because how can you reason that what is being taken by the capitalist rightfully belongs to the workers? Why should a capitalist then behave ethically regarding the property of the worker?
Furthermore, how can you demand that people have a positive obligation to provide workers with certain resources if it is not the workers' right to said resources? Going by your reasoning, any ethical argument on behalf of the worker goes out the window. Do you really want to maintain this position?


I've encountered loads of people such as yourself who give me the whole argument about property being the result of people mixing their labour with the natural world and about how by taking away someone's property or forcing them to pay taxes you're carrying out an act of aggression against them and violating their self-ownership but the fact of the matter is that all of the things that you term rights are ideas that have been developed in order to lend capitalism and other forms of class society a level of legitimacy (or rather, the appearance of legitimacy) that they would otherwise lack.

I don't buy into the concept of self-ownership and I've written several posts/threads regarding that issue. The concept of ' you ought not steal , murder , rape, etc.' did not arise out of capitalism. These are common values shared throughout most of humanity. They evolved with our species.

When is an act of stealing an act of stealing to you or do you believe theft is impossible?


If you want to argue that capitalism deserves our support because it's the most desirable system for the working class then please go ahead, I'm open to that kind of argument, but appeals to the rights of the bosses without some explanation of what those rights are and where they come from won't get you very far.

I never made that argument. Don't lapse into fighting straw men.


I don't think that people have a right to a wage either, in fact I don't think there should be wages, because the concept of a wage presupposes that the vast majority of the populaton has been deprived of access to the means of production and are being forced to sell their labour power as a commodity to a member of the owning class in order to survive - a situation that is not conducive to individuals being in control of their lives and able to develop their abilities.

I mostly agree. I see nothing inherently wrong with people coming up with work and compensation agreements between each other but the current wage system is unacceptable to freedom, at least in my opinion.

People ought to have a reasonable opportunity to either work for someone else for just compensation or go into business for themselves so long as they are willing to internalize the risks.



If you mean that having an eight-hour day enhances the position of workers at the expense of the capitalists, then that's an argument in favour of workers demanding and defending the eight-hour day, because I'm not impartial when it comes to which side of the class struggle I stand on.

I would like to be on the side that benefits all workers and not just a few workers coddled by unions which obviously comes at the expense of other workers. Supporting the state , even if its seems like its 'helping' the workers, is not beneficial to the workers in the long run. Nothing comes for free and the little benefits a few workers might receive now comes at a huge cost to them and their children later on. As I stated , I don't think another individual 'owes' me an 8 hour work day simply because I earned a welding license. It should not be up to them or me , its up to society to decide if they value what I have to offer.


Except, capitalism is dependent on there being institutionalized violence.

If we understand capitalism to mean corporate capitalism today, then sure I agree. Demands of mass distributions of wealth and central planning also necessitates institutionalized violence. I don't see how its otherwise.


If I use or trespass on your property (this is a simple example, but the same would be true of workers occupying their factory and claiming it as their own) without you having given your consent then the legal superstructure of capitalism is such that armed bodies of men will come along and take me away, probably giving me a fine, or even putting me in jail, because the law in capitalist societies recognizes the right of individuals to accumulate as much property as they wish, and the inability of other individuals to use that owner's property without them having given their consent. This stands regardless of whether the violence is being exercised by the state, or whatever alternative you propose in a stateless society, which I believe would inevitably change into some form of state anyway.

We're running the risk of slipping into the confusing world of semantics again. If you break into my house for example I do believe I am permitted to remove you from my house. I don't think many people would object to that on moral grounds no matter what economic system they encourage. I may not know if you're armed and not be sure of your intentions. There is a huge risk there to me and my family. I believe I would be permitted to work out an agreement with security to help keep me , my loved ones , and my stuff safe.

(Corporate) capitalist societies only allow for a few individuals to acquire massive amounts of resources with little risk. I am in agreement with you and do not find this justified. The accumulation of property should be proportional to the real costs of maintaining those resources , those costs ought to be internalized obviously.

I think if you have system that discourages externalizing costs you decrease your chances of having a state. A state functions fundamentally differently than most non-coercive human organizations.


For the record, I don't believe that trade-union bureaucracies share the same interests as workers, in fact they are often on the same side of the class struggle as managment and politicians, acting in a way that limits the intensity and duration of class struggle, and forces workers to make concessions to the bosses.

My point exactly. This is what I was saying the whole time. And they monopolize labor with the force of the state like favored state-supported corporations do to capital. It would be very difficult for a genuine workers' union to rise so long as the statist system is supported and defended by people like you. Because then you say :


Nonetheless, workers do generally act through their unions, and what enables the unions to extract gains is not their success in allying with politicians, but their ability to threaten the interests of the bosses, as, whilst workers are on strike, and in the absence of temporary workers to fill in for the strikers, bosses cannot produce whatever commodity it is they happen to be producing, and, once their non-labour costs are taken into account, this means they are making losses as long as the strike continues and missing out on opportunities for exploitation. This in itself demonstrates that workers are the heart of capitalism as production cannot take place without their participation.

In other words it really sounds like you're saying ' It's either this or nothing right now.' A defeatist attitude and this ultimately puts you in a position to support the capitalist state just because it offers a couple welfare incentives. In practice , it makes you no different than a social democrat.

Btw, why are you mentioning exploitation if you stated earlier that you don't recognize peoples' right to not be stolen from? Surely you cannot see exploitation as wrong if you do not acknowledge the ethical premise that people ought not be unjustly coerced.

I see workers as important and central to production in any society. I don't exclude honest risk takers and savers ( i.e. businessmen) as workers though. I believe the labor worker is capable of being a businessmen ( handling the 'white collar' aspect as well if the skills suit him) at the same time as well. I see capitalists which use the state to make profit as a problem for sure as well as the politicians that supply them with the force.



What does it say about capitalism when some workers are so desperate for work that they're willing to endure the dislike of people who are part of the same class as them just so that they can earn a wage?

It says several things. Least of which can any system provide all people, everywhere, a productive job? I am somehow doubtful especially if the method of achieving that involves massive central planning in a complex modern economy. It says that the task that the striking workers perform are low skill ( especially if anyone off the street can do it) and that if this labor was allowed fair access into these professions ( i.e. taking down Union supported barriers to entry enforced by the state) then more people would have a job but probably be paid less equalizing to the value of the skill.

As I said before , we have an internally organized union at my work but it is high skill and not anyone off the street can do it. Its true that it gives us more bargaining power but at the same time I went through years of education and work to be at the level I'm at right now. Quite different than starting off low in some plant or factory right out of high school. Btw, I am still paying off debt so its no cake walk for me either.

But the questions you raise are good ones. It makes me wonder that if all of these workers are willing to do the job , then what is the level of demand for this work? Is it high or is the supply of workers artificially kept low?



What does it say about the interests of capitalists and workers and the central role that workers play in production when capitalists try and split the class by taking on scabs?

If you consider union leaders capitalists , then ok. The managers of the factory only know they have to get X out at a certain time or they lose money. At that point , almost anyone willing to work for them they'll take on board especially if the regular employees walked out. They are not thinking of class struggle ideology , they are thinking about getting their product from A to B.

But lets take a look at the unions real quick. Amazingly , if people are willing to work for less , they have relatively low skill , and can accomplish the same task as the workers in the factory then they are fundamentally the same as the striking workers in terms of productivity and skill. One of my first questions is , why weren't these people hired before along with the regular workers and why are they not all part of the same union? Like these unemployed people just came out of the woodwork and are filling up position after position. What was keeping them out of work in the first place?

As far as I know , even if company management are assholes , I'm sure they would want to hire these guys anyway regardless of race , creed , or whatever. I highly doubt companies' managements are keeping them out of th workforce. Of course , it makes more sense when you think about the role of unions. Its workers' exclusivity. Sure , a few workers benefit from all the workers' empowerment talks , the fixed and forced high benefits and pay, but it comes at a huge cost. That's all the other workers in society that doesn't benefit from the Union. As you said , you can really see that they care about class interests when they walk out of meetings with company representatives and each go to their BMWs afterwords and drive out while workers are still striking or poor 'scabs' are being driven in by protective buses.

I know how this works. I was part of the largest union in the U.S. and on strike for 5 months at one time. I was a ground floor worker , shipping , the quintessential laborer.



How can you say that this is a result of workers being unionized and having the right to unionize when workers who go on strike without the support or consent or union bureaucrats, either because it's a wildcat strike or because the workers weren't unionized to begin with, also face attempts to undermine their struggle in the form of scabs?

Read above.


The distribution of wages and profit reflects marginal contribution to output...marginal contribution to output is measured by the distribution of income...oh wait.

Productivity isn't measured by distribution of wealth. Do you even know what you're talking about? Wages are determined by the demand for that labor skill.


I don't look to the state for solutions, though, as the state is an instrument of class domination in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The destruction of bourgeois society will also involve the overthrow of the state and the working class, thereafter raised to the position of the ruling class, will use whatever means possible to defend its gains against the resistance of former capitalists in the same way that capitalist elites used force to establish capitalist relations of production through enclosure, and defending themselves against the forces of feudalism. I don't believe using force against the bourgeoisie is an immoral act, I advocate it.

Violent revolutions have always crushed the dreams of revolutionaries at some point. If you don't look to the state for solutions and want to get rid of it then that should be your position. Anytime you advocate a state institution , even if it seemingly helps your cause , you are only adding legitimacy to that state and eventually the very people you want to break away from the capitalist state become dependent on that state and will fight tooth and nail to keep it around. In other words , I don't see how the state helps the struggle out at all.

[Havet]

Also i'd like to add, for the admin responsible, that adding "hayenmill is an anti-worker fuck" in tags not only shows how seriously commited administrators are to silence dissent (Stormfront anyone?), but that they prefer to use their privilege as an argument rather than address the points made with logic and reason.

Simply because my arguments are not the "classical" arguments in favor of workers does not immediately dismount the logic or reason in my arguments. The hasty generalization that just because its an union/worker action then its justified, or rational, or worth worker's time, is flawed.

I urge people here to analyze worker activities independently and to keep their reason and logic at all times. Yes, it's true workers are being exploited. But becoming an apologetic for State action (which is the ruling class) seriously undermines any commitment towards a revolution.

[RGacky3]

I urge people here to analyze worker activities independently and to keep their reason and logic at all times. Yes, it's true workers are being exploited. But becoming an apologetic for State action (which is the ruling class) seriously undermines any commitment towards a revolution.

Heres the problem, you prefer private power/action, which is accountable to no one but profit and causes most of the exploitation and oppression, to state power/action, which IS somewaht accountable and is not motivated by profit.

The fact is your a Capitalist in the sense that you want to give private corporations all the power.

Supporting Workers decision to strike for better conditions means supporting democracy.

[Tungsten]

Right, so workers deciding to take strike action when management go back on a deal they made whichh promises not to force them to do extra hours with no pay 'is weakness'. I suppose strength to you is when you just roll over and die then.

That's not what I said. Read the post I was responding to. Threats of violence are not valid arguments.

[QUOTE]If workers are striking for better pay and conditions in the jobs they have, and management intend to break that strike by bringing in desperate workers who want a job because capitalism deprives a 'reserve army' of labour of worker as a constant threat against the jobs of workers, then yes, as an act of self-defence, we will try to prevent them doing so.

What are you defending yourself from? Other workers? It must be, because it certainly isn't the management.

Again, if I offer to do a job that you refuse to do, you have no right to prevent me from doing it - who are you to decide who does or doesn't deserve the job? Voluntary association. That's what it's all about.

You voluntarily stepped out, I voluntarily step in.


This is a basic piece of acting in yuor self-interest

Yeah, depriving the unemployed of a job is really in their self interest.


These services are what working class people rely on. They were brought in out of neccesity by post-WW2 governments and have remained intact out of neccesity.

If they were a necessity, they'd have been around a lot longer than "since WW2". The fact that the state has monopolised certain services and the removal of said services would prove inconvenient does not justify their continued state ownership.


30K a year workers are still working class.

If you want to get technical, capitalists are also working class; everyone besides the royal family "works" to some extent.


If you think that those of us who believe that will get a 'rude awakening' then you clearly no nothing of the dynamic of the working class movement in this country which isn't really that suprising.

This is mythology. There is no dynamic working class movement. Most people with a functioning brain realise that paying taxes to pay the salary of someone in a £30k non-job while they themselves struggle to keep a roof over their head is not in their interest. The only people who would defend or accept such a position are those who share the state's ideology.


Council workers don't impoverish people through high or wasteful taxing, thats higher government.

Yes, they do. They set their own tax rates. Even if they didn't, they're still part of the same system.


The frontline workers don't decide policy (that's what they do in communism, silly).

But they're quite happy to keep picking up the cheques. "Just doing my job" is no excuse.


On the notion of public sector workers being part of the ruling class (might I add that public sector workers can range from 14k a year paramedics through to nurses who can work a career spanning 30 years and only ever peak at a pay of 36k, not so much in an ever increadingly costly world, including firemen, who risk their lives for what is average pay, well I could go on for ever, etc etc):

They're the ruling class in the sense that they desire higher pay and status, which for them involves the expansion of the state and the raising taxes, which is not the interest of the rest of us, as we have to pay more for it, and endure more state interference.

And if you are telling the truth about your choice of career, then realise that the people who come to you in the NHS will come to you as supplicants, not customers.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to the sarcastic BS. You know what I'm getting at.

-----


The concept of ' you ought not steal , murder , rape, etc.' did not arise out of capitalism. These are common values shared throughout most of humanity. They evolved with our species.


Most of humanity?! The entirety of every culture's history is full of these things. Some cultures still consider some of them a-ok. Morals/Religions aren't products of evolution either. Take the middle-east for example, how on earth is wearing a burka or slashing your head a survival advantage? It's the opposite if anything.

[Havet]

Heres the problem, you prefer private power/action, which is accountable to no one but profit and causes most of the exploitation and oppression, to state power/action, which IS somewaht accountable and is not motivated by profit.

Nah, you misunderstood me. And it's understandable, given my ancap past.

I judge private power, cooperative power and communal power equally. I think that in a free society they would be distributed far differently than in the current one, with more observed emphasis on cooperatives and communal organizations.


The fact is your a Capitalist in the sense that you want to give private corporations all the power.

I actually want to remove corporations on principle. They are fictions created by the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personality). I oppose all kinds of centralization of wealth and resources, whether they are public or private, whether they occur by force or naturally. In that sense I am an anarchist, and not a capitalist.


Supporting Workers decision to strike for better conditions means supporting democracy.

Yes, I have nothing against workers striking to demand better conditions. I do have something against when the State meddles in, whether to maintain the status quo or to "privatize" and supposedly "fix" the problem.

The point is, the Uk Royal mail has long ceased to be profitable, not in the capitalist sense, but in the sense of all living things. In order for any organism (and institution) to survive, the income in that system has to be greater than the outcome. The UK Royal Mail was kept only alive by the taxes exploited from everyone, especially the working class, which had to support the few who were still employed. Whether or not the current workers strike is irrelevant. That company has accumulated too much debt over the years, and it's time is up, and I think using arguments defending the State is cognitive dissonance by someone who wishes to help the workers organize a revolution to get rid of the State.

[revolution inaction]

Also, "An estimated 17.4 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or older were current illicit drug users compared with 8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time."

Seems like a small number, all things considered. More people (8.2%+10.5%=18.7%) who are employed consume more drugs than the unemployed (17.4%)



you fail maths

[Havet]

you fail maths

I don't think I did, but I could be wrong. Where exactly have my adding abilities failed?

[Dejavu]

Heres the problem, you prefer private power/action, which is accountable to no one but profit and causes most of the exploitation and oppression, to state power/action, which IS somewaht accountable and is not motivated by profit.

The fact is your a Capitalist in the sense that you want to give private corporations all the power.

Supporting Workers decision to strike for better conditions means supporting democracy.
http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/facepalm.jpg


Did you even read what he wrote in the thread?

He does not favor state or corporate rule and does not see those as the only two possible options. Its incredible that people still believe that states are even somewhat accountable to the people , especially the working class. I would guess its Chomsky's reasoning to sort of herd people into supporting the state and mentally placing the state as diametrically opposed to corporate interests. Fact is , the state is the greatest tool , in any country, for only a few peoples' private interests to dominate everyone else. There has not been , at least to my knowledge, a better tool for this.

Anyone disagree?

[Dejavu]

I don't think I did, but I could be wrong. Where exactly have my adding abilities failed?


Also, "An estimated 17.4 percent of unemployed adults aged 18 or older were current illicit drug users compared with 8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time."

Seems like a small number, all things considered. More people (8.2%+10.5%=18.7%) who are employed consume more drugs than the unemployed (17.4%)Nevermind. Just read it over again. :P

One could argue that a higher proportion of employed people do drugs more than unemployed but I question if that is really a correlation since it does not seem like much of a difference at all. If anything , this information would suggest that drug use is not strongly causally related to employment status.

[Havet]

You did not place down enough information to make your conclusion true. The pure arithmetic was fine but was not enough information to make your conclusion true.

How many unemployed, employed, and part time employed people are there? If 8.2% and 10.5% of full time and part time employees meant more actual people than the 17.4% of unemployed then your conclusion would be true but its relevance is questionable. One could argue that a higher proportion of employed people do drugs more than unemployed but I question if that is really a correlation.

IF ANYTHING it would not be a math problem, but rather an interpretation problem of my part.

[Dejavu]

IF ANYTHING it would not be a math problem, but rather an interpretation problem of my part.


Actually I don't see a problem with it at all. I read it again. My only observation was that based on that info employment/unemployment stats do not have a direct causal relation to drug use.

I rewrote it after poorly reading it the first time. :P

[Havet]

Actually I don't see a problem with it at all. I read it again. My only observation was that based on that info employment/unemployment stats do not have a direct causal relation to drug use.

I rewrote it after poorly reading it the first time. :P

Oh alright. Anyway, I concluded that the same. Just because there is a correlation does not mean that there's a causal relation (the famous scientific sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)).

[revolution inaction]

I don't think I did, but I could be wrong. Where exactly have my adding abilities failed?

Your ability to add appears to be fine, but percentages don't work that way.

if "8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time" take illegal drugs then that doesn't mean that the percentage of all employed people who take illegal drugs is 18.7 percent. Infact based on these figures the percentage of all employed people who take illegal drugs is not higher than 10.5 percent, although it is not possible to actually calculate this percentage based just on these numbers because we don't know the number of people employed full time or part time.

I'm curios how many people didn't understand this? Its pretty basic, i almost didn't bother to reply cause i thought you'd have seen what is wrong by now.

[Jazzratt]

While all the free-market fucks are crowing over how everyone who is unemployed is all just brightness and smiles without ever considering doing drugs to escape the hideous fucking reality of their existance: have you considered that maybe, because of expense issues that you have so "astutely" raised, they concentrate more on legal drugs like alcohol which is available for much less?

Actually, fuck it I don't care what you anti-worker fucks think.

[ls]

There are a few more days of postal strikes scheduled, you still have your opportunity to tell the workers themselves what you think, be sure to do that hayenmill and co.

Oh and tell them the managers have the right idea about privatisation and the free markets (the mgrs probably do actually agree with you).

[Havet]

have you considered that maybe, because of expense issues that you have so "astutely" raised, they concentrate more on legal drugs like alcohol which is available for much less?

Yes I have. Yet nobody has still shown proof of a causal relation (as in cause-effect), only of correlation. And I can correlate things as well:

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply.
Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

Obviously this example is proof only of correlation, not of causation.

Actually, fuck it I don't care what you anti-worker fucks think.

I am not anti-worker, I just prefer not to be an apologetic for the State, the same institution anarchist communists wish to eliminate during the revolution.

[eyedrop]

I can't believe that people are disputing that people that are getting half the point of their life shattered, their self-confidence destroyed and end up failures with nothing to do are mnore likely to turn to drugs. Getting prolonged unemployed does that to you.

When people have the statistic analytical skills of a duck it's understandable though.

[Havet]

There are a few more days of postal strikes scheduled, you still have your opportunity to tell the workers themselves what you think, be sure to do that hayenmill and co.

If you pay me the plane ticket.


Oh and tell them the managers have the right idea about privatisation and the free markets (the mgrs probably do actually agree with you).

I don't agree with the privatization.

And we don't have a free market.

Strawman R' Us is having a discount, it seems...

Seriously though, the whole point of this thread was for me to talk how the Royal Mail was just sucking resources without returning any corresponding benefit other than just to keep some workers employed, at the expense of all the other workers who payed taxes.

Given its monopolistic history, it has been accumulated to much debt, at the expense of everyone else. From an utilitarian approach, the answer is simple. Favor the option which helps the greatest amount of workers. And that option is to let Royal Mail internalize its own costs.

Also, using arguments defending the State is cognitive dissonance by someone (anarchist communists) who wishes to help the workers organize a revolution to get rid of the State

[revolution inaction]

Also, using arguments defending the State is cognitive dissonance by someone (anarchist communists) who wishes to help the workers organize a revolution to get rid of the State

which anarchist communist is defending the state and where?

[Havet]

which anarchist communist is defending the state and where?

You, for example, thanked this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1575458&postcount=2), which means you agree with its rhetoric.

Such post is defending unions which are heavily supported by the State, legally speaking (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).

As other authors have said, which I included in my thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765), unions these days are part of the ruling class in the sense that they act fiercely to defend and expand their own interests, at the expense of all the other population (including workers of other unions, workers whose unions do not bribe the State, and workers who are not unionized):


The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. (6 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=316#6))

It is for the benefit of this class that most state intervention into the economy and into society is done. It is this class who are the primary beneficiaries of the most extravagant entitlements such as social security, Medicare, civil service pensions and agricultural subsidies. It is the New Class who make their living staffing the government’s social engineering programs, teaching in state schools and universities, working for state-financed foundations and managing the bureaucracy of corporations that are dependent on state subsidies and contracts. Tariffs and other forms of protectionism are set up in part to protect the employment interests of state-connected unions. Professional licensing schemes create monopolistic guilds for New Class professionals. Zoning and land use regulations serve to inflate the real estate values of affluent New Class property owners. These examples are just a drop in the bucket.

Source: "Liberalism and Social Control", by Carson

[Dejavu]

Your ability to add appears to be fine, but percentages don't work that way.

if "8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time" take illegal drugs then that doesn't mean that the percentage of all employed people who take illegal drugs is 18.7 percent. Infact based on these figures the percentage of all employed people who take illegal drugs is not higher than 10.5 percent, although it is not possible to actually calculate this percentage based just on these numbers because we don't know the number of people employed full time or part time.

I'm curios how many people didn't understand this? Its pretty basic, i almost didn't bother to reply cause i thought you'd have seen what is wrong by now.

He was speaking in proportion and based on the information that was presented.

[Dejavu]

While all the free-market fucks are crowing over how everyone who is unemployed is all just brightness and smiles without ever considering doing drugs to escape the hideous fucking reality of their existance: have you considered that maybe, because of expense issues that you have so "astutely" raised, they concentrate more on legal drugs like alcohol which is available for much less?

Actually, fuck it I don't care what you anti-worker fucks think.


While all the free-market fucks are crowing over how everyone who is unemployed is all just brightness and smiles without ever considering doing drugs to escape the hideous fucking reality of their existance: have you considered that maybe, because of expense issues that you have so "astutely" raised, they concentrate more on legal drugs like alcohol which is available for much less?

Actually, fuck it I don't care what you anti-worker fucks think.

You've never been the calm and collective type, Jazz. This is 'classic you' but could we have it any other way?;)
I think you're jumping ahead of yourself and I hope you bothered to read the posts in the thread before making this foolish comment. ( With all due respect of course.)
Nobody claimed that the unemployed life was sunshine and smiles. I would bet that at least some people do drugs because they can't get a job like you suggest but based on the evidence we have been finding, weak correlation does not suggest causality between unemployment and drug use. Being hooked on drugs is a terrible illness. The reasons can be very wide ranging which is another reason people can get hooked to them so easily. I am fairly certain that this is a complex physiological and psychological illness that is far beyond curing by simply 'giving them higher pay' or changing the economic system.

[Dejavu]

I can't believe that people are disputing that people that are getting half the point of their life shattered, their self-confidence destroyed and end up failures with nothing to do are mnore likely to turn to drugs. Getting prolonged unemployed does that to you.

When people have the statistic analytical skills of a duck it's understandable though.

Hey, you might be right but it does not seem that you have contributed much to the conversation except a snark little comment.

[Dejavu]

which anarchist communist is defending the state and where?

I think he's trying to say that other anarchists, which do not identify as communists, believe that any use of the state is destructive to freedom and , indeed, the working or productive class. Some anarchists reject state capitalism/socialism even as a small term fix and reject programs like those you would typically find in a welfare state. Some anarchists support these measures even as a 'temporary fix' while others do not support it out of principle and know that getting people dependent on the state does not convince them of the virtues of statelessness. Some anarchists find alternatives to both statism and corporatism that exists today.

[IcarusAngel]

I recommend the book Arithmetic for the Practical Man or even "Mathematics for the Millions" - both explain radicalgrafitti's point: the amount of part time workers who took drugs is an additional sub division of part-time workers, and you'd have to know the higher division, the number they used to calculate the percent. Like if it was T = p/100 * 2, T = the amount of part-time workers on drugs, 2 is the amount of PT workers, and p = 50 (so we get 50%) then 1 part time worker is on drugs. But that wouldn't mean then that the amount of all workers on drugs is OVER 50% at that point.

Per cent means divide by 100 - since you're only getting T percent value- so the amount of PT workers could be just about anything; it is indeed 'proportional' or relational.

This reminds of when I called a company a while ago to report a problem, and I said something like, 'So, this only happens to like 10% of people, then,' and he goes 'no, It's not even that many, it's more like 1 in 10 people.'

Education in capitalist society lol.

[eyedrop]

Hey, you might be right but it does not seem that you have contributed much to the conversation except a snark little comment.
Yeah, it was probably unnecessary of me.

[Dejavu]

I recommend the book Arithmetic for the Practical Man or even "Mathematics for the Millions" - both explain radicalgrafitti's point: the amount of part time workers who took drugs is an additional sub division of part-time workers, and you'd have to know the higher division, the number they used to calculate the percent. Like if it was T = p/100 * 2, T = the amount of part-time workers on drugs, 2 is the amount of PT workers, and p = 50 (so we get 50%) then 1 part time worker is on drugs. But that wouldn't mean then that the amount of all workers on drugs is OVER 50% at that point.

Per cent means divide by 100 - since you're only getting T percent value- so the amount of PT workers could be just about anything; it is indeed 'proportional' or relational.

This reminds of when I called a company a while ago to report a problem, and I said something like, 'So, this only happens to like 10% of people, then,' and he goes 'no, It's not even that many, it's more like 1 in 10 people.'

Education in capitalist society lol.

Hayenmill made an accurate statement based of the information he was citing. You can still count PT employees as employees. Please get a more accurate study relating to the English employment v drug use statistics and present it if you strongly disagree or say you strongly disagree but have no evidence to support your disagreement.

I've stated , and hayenmill agreed , it was proportional.

[danyboy27]

if the modernisation plan dosnt involve massive layoff of people then i dont see a reason to be on strike for that.

but i am not familiar with the deal so i cant really tell.

[eyedrop]

Hayenmill made an accurate statement based of the information he was citing. You can still count PT employees as employees. Please get a more accurate study relating to the English employment v drug use statistics and present it if you strongly disagree or say you strongly disagree but have no evidence to support your disagreement.

I've stated , and hayenmill agreed , it was proportional.

If "8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time" are current drug users that means that the amount of drug users of employed people lies between 8.2% and 10.5%. Where the percentage lies between 8.2% and 10.5% is dependant on the makeup of employed people between part time and full time employment.

There is no way you can get 18.7% for the whole population (employed people) provided those numbers are correct.



Let's say we have 2 group of people.

GRoup 1 consists of 5 guys and 2 of them are drug addicts so (2/5) 40% are drug addicts
Group 2 consists of 6 guys and 3 of them are drug addicts so (3/6) 50% are drug addicts

If we are to find the percentage of group 1 and 2 together we can't add the percentages together as Hayenmill did. Then we would end up with (40+50) 90% of the whole group as drug addicts, or 9.9 persons of the whole population group of 11 which is clearly absurd.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. The point is though that you do not know the exact percentage yet, either. (There are an infinity amount of numbers between two points.)

Keep in mind Miseans don't really believe in mathematics. They have their own logical principles that they go by.

[Havet]

Keep in mind Miseans don't really believe in mathematics. They have their own logical principles that they go by.

Who said anything about Miseans?

[Havet]

If "8.2 percent of those employed full time and 10.5 percent of those employed part time" are current drug users that means that the amount of drug users of employed people lies between 8.2% and 10.5%. Where the percentage lies between 8.2% and 10.5% is dependant on the makeup of employed people between part time and full time employment.

There is no way you can get 18.7% for the whole population (employed people) provided those numbers are correct.



Let's say we have 2 group of people.

GRoup 1 consists of 5 guys and 2 of them are drug addicts so (2/5) 40% are drug addicts
Group 2 consists of 6 guys and 3 of them are drug addicts so (3/6) 50% are drug addicts

If we are to find the percentage of group 1 and 2 together we can't add the percentages together as Hayenmill did. Then we would end up with (40+50) 90% of the whole group as drug addicts, or 9.9 persons of the whole population group of 11 which is clearly absurd.

It seems i truly fucked up regarding this question. I stand corrected.

So, anyone else got anything more to say about any other of my points?

No?

Good.

[ls]

Your points are shit. :thumbup1:

[Havet]

Your points are shit. :thumbup1:

Too bad I can't convince you. Keep living in your little world.

[IcarusAngel]

If we don't know the original division of workers, there could be more than just part time and full time, like contractual workers, we don't know what exactly the 'bounds' are for the workers. That's why I said we know 12% of what NUMBER.

Part time workers are often forced into part time worker, because corporations don't want to keep them on full time, thus, more people who want to work are denied the right to work. They turn to drugs. And an even higher percent of unemployed turn to drugs. It's a sick, capitalist society that says if you want to work, you can't. In socialism, you can always work.

The type of 'market anarchism' being promoted here is closer to the type of Misean reasoning people like Dejavu buy into.

For true, socialist-market anarchism, you need to have democratic economics. See David Schweickart for a good intellectual who supports something that resembles socialism yet still maintains a market.

On Amazon.com he has a few books on post-capitalism, and there is a debate of him on Youtube.

Interestingly, he is also a mathematician.

[RGacky3]

As other authors have said, which I included in my thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarcho-socialist-t116765/index.html?t=116765), unions these days are part of the ruling class in the sense that they act fiercely to defend and expand their own interests, at the expense of all the other population (including workers of other unions, workers whose unions do not bribe the State, and workers who are not unionized):

What? So I suppose schools are bad, because the state supports them, or I guess you suggest only sending kids to private schools? Whats wrong with you.

EVERYONE, works to defend and expand their own intrests, the difference is, is your intrest in power over other people? Capitalist interests are, worker interests are not.

[IcarusAngel]

When hayenmill and Dejavu advocate privatizing resources, they are advocating what's called 'reformism.' This wouldn't even be that bad, if they were advocating a reformism that is good. But they are advocating a reformism that's bad: and besides, putting more resources into the hands of private tyrants just means more statism (because of the statism needed to protect the corporations), more corporatism, fewer rights for workers, and so on.

Nothing more needs to be privatized, if anything, there is too much privatization. We need economic democracy, decentralized socialism.

[Havet]

What? So I suppose schools are bad, because the state supports them, or I guess you suggest only sending kids to private schools? Whats wrong with you.

EVERYONE, works to defend and expand their own intrests, the difference is, is your intrest in power over other people? Capitalist interests are, worker interests are not.

I don't suggest sending kids to private schools. i never said that. i always suggested getting rid of the state and the corporations.

please dont' strawman anymore

[Havet]

When hayenmill and Dejavu advocate privatizing resources, they are advocating what's called 'reformism.' This wouldn't even be that bad, if they were advocating a reformism that is good. But they are advocating a reformism that's bad: and besides, putting more resources into the hands of private tyrants just means more statism (because of the statism needed to protect the corporations), more corporatism, fewer rights for workers, and so on.

Strawman

I never advocated reformism

I never advocated privatization (in fact, i posted a video several times which criticized the so called privatization. ill do it again)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhgSmlFc5V8


Nothing more needs to be privatized, if anything, there is too much privatization. We need economic democracy, decentralized socialism.

Please stop strawmaning.

[Havet]

If we don't know the original division of workers, there could be more than just part time and full time, like contractual workers, we don't know what exactly the 'bounds' are for the workers. That's why I said we know 12% of what NUMBER.

Then look for better resources. It wasn't me who found those resources. It was Pogue.


Part time workers are often forced into part time worker, because corporations don't want to keep them on full time, thus, more people who want to work are denied the right to work. They turn to drugs. And an even higher percent of unemployed turn to drugs. It's a sick, capitalist society that says if you want to work, you can't. In socialism, you can always work.

Good then, because I never claimed the current system is acceptable.


The type of 'market anarchism' being promoted here is closer to the type of Misean reasoning people like Dejavu buy into.

Wrong. My interpretation of these events have nothing to do with market anarchism. Market anarchism is the solution I offer, not the analysis. My analysis comes from historical precendents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984%E2%80%931985%29), analysis of fallacies and others.
(http://my.opera.com/weirdling/blog/show.dml/51894)

For true, socialist-market anarchism, you need to have democratic economics. See David Schweickart for a good intellectual who supports something that resembles socialism yet still maintains a market.

On Amazon.com he has a few books on post-capitalism, and there is a debate of him on Youtube.

Interestingly, he is also a mathematician.

I appreciate the references. I have one for you as well:

http://www.youtube.com/user/LaughingMan0X

[IcarusAngel]

Dejavu advocated eliminating the post office.


The reason Miseans advocate the elimination of public resources is because - if proven successful - even though it has failed disasterously time and time again - it proves the Misean calculation theory and other Misean theories that suggest people are too stupid to figure out what to do with resources if there aren't prices attached to them.

See the intellectual I linked to above - even he (someone who supports markets) admits that the Soviet Union WAS able to increase production without the free-market. Their problems were more political.

Let's say we're Dejavu and we believe we should force the post office to privatize, which you didn't seem to have problems with. Why then can't the government get involved in the health care market through the public option? The government is ALREADY outcompeting the market in medicare and most working class seniors - including my grandpa - use medicare, which is better than my insurance?

Because he knows that hybrid market would work in favor of the government, that's why he supports it.

See, this is the type of back and forth that Libertarians get themselves into.

I say, eliminate corporatism NOW. Eliminate all capitalism NOW, and have a workers democracy.

IF you agree then good for you.

[ls]

Too bad I can't convince you. Keep living in your little world.

You are the one living in a little word my friend, you think that anarcho-capitalism can actually work which is just a fucking joke.

[IcarusAngel]

He claims he's not an anarcho-capitalism which is a fair point.

hayenmill, Laughingman0x is the one who HOSTS the videos of the anti-capitalist Daivd Schweickart.

Laughingman also hosts Chomsky videos, a libertarian-socailist that says that privatization is an even worse tyranny than state tyranny.

Instead of watching youtube just READ some of these intellectuals, and please don't drown out my important post about the flawed analyzis of privaization.

[Havet]

You are the one living in a little word my friend, you think that anarcho-capitalism can actually work which is just a fucking joke.

Strawman again, this really is an inspirational night!

I don't think "anarcho"-capitalism could actually work. That's why i'm not an "anarcho"-capitalist anymore.

[ls]

Strawman again, this really is an inspirational night!

I don't think "anarcho"-capitalism could actually work. That's why i'm not an "anarcho"-capitalist anymore.

Then what are you, feel free to go into detail.

[Havet]

Dejavu advocated eliminating the post office.

Because it's a fucking waste of money, not just because its public (at least, that i'm aware of), although getting rid of the whole system would be better.


Let's say we're Dejavu and we believe we should force the post office to privatize, which you didn't seem to have problems with. Why then can't the government get involved in the health care market through the public option? The government is ALREADY outcompeting the market in medicare and most working class seniors - including my grandpa - use medicare, which is better than my insurance?

Well, since the beginning of this thread, I never claimed the post office should be forced to privatize. I just say its the most likely outcome (even though I still oppose it).


I say, eliminate corporatism NOW. Eliminate all capitalism NOW, and have a workers democracy.

IF you agree then good for you.

I agree entirely :)

[Havet]

Then what are you, feel free to go into detail.

Thought you'd never ask!

Technically, i'm an Anarchist Without Adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives), but I have a personal preference towards mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) (=market anarchism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc)).

I tend to pick up ideas from the general current of Left Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism), and I strongly support the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (http://all-left.net/).

[Havet]

He claims he's not an anarcho-capitalism which is a fair point.

hayenmill, Laughingman0x is the one who HOSTS the videos of the anti-capitalist Daivd Schweickart.

Oh, good then, no?


Laughingman also hosts Chomsky videos, a libertarian-socailist that says that privatization is an even worse tyranny than state tyranny.

And it is. It is a monopoly handed over a plate.


Instead of watching youtube just READ some of these intellectuals, and please don't drown out my important post about the flawed analyzis of privaization.

I didn't drown any of your post. I always replied to them (unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying?)

Anyway, i'll make sure I read about some of these intellectuals, especially the one you mentioned. I don't see whats wrong with watching videos as well, though.

[Skooma Addict]

The reason Miseans advocate the elimination of public resources is because - if proven successful - even though it has failed disasterously time and time again - it proves the Misean calculation theory and other Misean theories that suggest people are too stupid to figure out what to do with resources if there aren't prices attached to them.

Err...No. Miseseans advocate the elimination of many public services because they think the services can be provided more efficiently by the market. I see you misunderstand the calculation problem. The calculation problem says that in the absence of the markets price system, the information required to rationally allocate resources is not available. It has nothing to do with peoples stupidity.

[ls]

Thought you'd never ask!

Technically, i'm an Anarchist Without Adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives), but I have a personal preference towards mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) (=market anarchism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc)).

I tend to pick up ideas from the general current of Left Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism), and I strongly support the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (http://all-left.net/).

Awesome, you're a mutualist. Congrats on ahving a completely coherent and non-redundant ideology that hasn't not got a hope of ever, ever, ever working. :thumbup1:

[Skooma Addict]

And it is. It is a monopoly handed over a plate.

What do you mean by this?

[Havet]

Awesome, you're a mutualist. Congrats on ahving a completely coherent and non-redundant ideology that hasn't not got a hope of ever, ever, ever working. :thumbup1:

We'll see about that

Care of sourcing your criticisms?

[Havet]

What do you mean by this?

I mean that the legal monopoly (acquired by the State) is simply transferred to an individual or group of individuals which work in a private business.

Check out both (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhgSmlFc5V8) these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWWOb7Pzems) videos for a better explanation of what i'm talking about.

[IcarusAngel]

It's important to know that the second guy supports anarcho-capitalism. Just because an anarcho-capitalists admits that the corporations and the government are connected doesn't mean he offers good solutions.

Keep the camps separate. They have their beliefs, leftists have their beliefs. Libertarian-socialism and anarcho-capitalism are as different as night and day.

[Havet]

It's important to know that the second guy supports anarcho-capitalism. Just because an anarcho-capitalists admits that the corporations and the government are connected doesn't mean he offers good solutions.

Keep the camps separate. They have their beliefs, leftists have their beliefs. Libertarian-socialism and anarcho-capitalism are as different as night and day.

Out of curiosity, where does thorsmitersaw state bad solutions?

[Skooma Addict]

I mean that the legal monopoly (acquired by the State) is simply transferred to an individual or group of individuals which work in a private business.

That would only be objectionable if the state gave its property to a private individual, or if the state sold its property to the highest bidder or whatever. But there are different ways to "privatize" government services.

I can't watch the videos at the moment because I am in A library.

[ls]

We'll see about that

Care of sourcing your criticisms?

Nah, I think you've proven yourself quite the anti-worker fuck on this thread already. I would prefer it if you sourced the fact that mutualism has really caught on.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

One of the main arguments against the postal strike seems to be "our boyz in paki country wont get there mailz", good.

[revolution inaction]

I think he's trying to say that other anarchists, which do not identify as communists, believe that any use of the state is destructive to freedom and , indeed, the working or productive class. Some anarchists reject state capitalism/socialism even as a small term fix and reject programs like those you would typically find in a welfare state. Some anarchists support these measures even as a 'temporary fix' while others do not support it out of principle and know that getting people dependent on the state does not convince them of the virtues of statelessness. Some anarchists find alternatives to both statism and corporatism that exists today.

Are you saying i support state capitalism?

[Havet]

Are you saying i support state capitalism?

He was saying you supported the State to some extent

[Havet]

One of the main arguments against the postal strike seems to be "our boyz in paki country wont get there mailz", good.

Where has that argument been posted? And who posted it?

[Havet]

Nah, I think you've proven yourself quite the anti-worker fuck on this thread already. I would prefer it if you sourced the fact that mutualism has really caught on.

I'm not anti-worker. Its most people here who can't understand that actions like these, although honorable in the sense that "they don't die without a fight", are a waste of time because the whole institution was living on a debt, and was exploiting the (majority) of the rest of society.

Also, just because you cannot understand how supporting those kinds of unions is supporting the state, and the ruling class, does not automatically dismiss any of my points.

I have argued, I have replied. I have not been answered back. Pretending that I didn't say anything does not mean I am wrong.

(also, this matter has nothing to do with mutualism, like i said above: Market anarchism is the solution I offer, not the analysis. My analysis comes from historical precendents (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984%E2%80%931985%29), analysis of fallacies and others. (http://my.opera.com/weirdling/blog/show.dml/51894))

[Havet]

That would only be objectionable if the state gave its property to a private individual, or if the state sold its property to the highest bidder or whatever. But there are different ways to "privatize" government services.

I can't watch the videos at the moment because I am in A library.

The only "ethical" method would be to just get rid of the legal monopoly.

Just converting a statist business into a private business is exploitative in many ways, because either they will get the monopoly, or they will still be in a privileged position due to the governmental pivilege granted to capital.

[Dejavu]

Dejavu advocated eliminating the post office.No I did not.


it proves the Misean calculation theory and other Misean theories that suggest people are too stupid to figure out what to do with resources if there aren't prices attached to them.
That's not what the criticism is about. The reasons are not 'they are too stupid.' The reasons are they lack information to make cost analysis. Nobody ever claimed that things can't be produced in a socialist economy.


See the intellectual I linked to above - even he (someone who supports markets) admits that the Soviet Union WAS able to increase production without the free-market. Their problems were more political.Sure it was. Its not difficult to force resources to go somewhere especially if you are using a gun. That's not what the criticism is about, the criticism is about not being able to accurately know the costs of doing that.


Let's say we're Dejavu and we believe we should force the post office to privatize, Why the fcuk do you keep on attacking straw men?


which you didn't seem to have problems with. Why then can't the government get involved in the health care market through the public option? The government is ALREADY outcompeting the market in medicare and most working class seniors - including my grandpa - use medicare, which is better than my insurance?

When people are forced to pay for a service , even if they don't want it , then its not fair competition. Its like saying I can chose to shop at Store B if I want but no matter what I still have to pay tribute to Store A. Besides, your grandpa's generation will not be sent the bill for medicare/medicaid. That was a liability thrown on people not even born yet in most cases.


Because he knows that hybrid market would work in favor of the government, that's why he supports it.
Wut?


See, this is the type of back and forth that Libertarians get themselves into.Maybe but you were clearly attacking straw men and not any of my positions.

[Skooma Addict]

The only "ethical" method would be to just get rid of the legal monopoly.

Just converting a statist business into a private business is exploitative in many ways, because either they will get the monopoly, or they will still be in a privileged position due to the governmental pivilege granted to capital.

Once you get rid of the government, all of the governments hospitals, roads, vehicles, ect. won't just disappear. I am saying there are ways to "privatize" these things in a way that isn't exploitative.

For example, maybe a certain community decides to give each member an equal share of stock in the former public roads in the area. This would still be an example of privatization, but I wouldn't consider this as being exploitative.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Where has that argument been posted? And who posted it?

See the facebook group about poor old murders not getting presents.

[Havet]

See the facebook group about poor old murders not getting presents.

Sorry but I don't understand. Can you link?