Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
General Strike Begins in British Columbia
In a matter of days, all of the contradictions that have been building over the last four years in British Columbia have come to the fore. Gordon Campbell's mis-named Liberals have spent their time in power attacking the working class - slashing social programs, closing schools and hospitals, ripping up collective agreements and sending tuition sky-rocketing. This has been met with several waves of unrest. The workers of this province have fought back with demonstrations, strikes and occupations. The movement has passed through many different stages; the working class has learned from bitter experience. Now this battle is reaching new heights. The province stands on the brink of an all-out general strike.
It wasn't long after the Liberals' May re-election that the working class swung into action again in British Columbia. For years the public sector had been battling the BC Government's cutbacks. But in recent months, the global crisis of capitalism has forced the ruling class to step up its attacks, affecting all sectors, and a strike-wave now gripped the private sector. It began in late June with Truck drivers striking over high gas prices, effectively shutting down the ports. This ended in an important confidence-boosting victory. This was followed by a strike at the Tech Cominco smelter and the Telus lock-out, both of which are on-going (although Telus and the TWU have reached a tentative deal awaiting ratification). These struggles set the stage for the mammoth battle that BCTF was about to launch.
Everyone in the province knew that the province's 42,000 teachers would soon be walking the picket line. On September 23, results of the strike vote were released. Teachers voted 88.4% in favour of a strike. But, most assumed that this would be rather short-lived and they would very quickly be legislated back to work. In a previous dispute, the BC Liberal government had declared teachers an essential service and removed their right to strike. Sure enough, on October 3, before the strike really even started, Bill 12 was introduced to extend the teachers' contract until June 2006.
Instead of giving in, the BC Teachers' Federation held meetings across the province to decide their next step. By the time the legislation was passed on October 6, the teachers had already taken another vote on whether or not to abide by the legislation. To the shock and horror of both the labour leaders and the government, the BCTF voted 90.5% in favour of an illegal strike. This mandate was even larger than the last. Campbell's legislation had not broken the teachers, but enraged them. The teachers' fight for decent pay and better learning conditions for students has now become a rallying point for the entire labour movment.
The Role of the Media
The province's mass media immediately began a slander campaign against the teachers. Newspapers and radio shows denounced the teachers as common criminals. Radio stations carried clips of government officials appealing to teachers to cross picket lines. Newspapers printed editorials and letters to the editor condemning the teachers.
"Jinny Sims and any teacher who breaks the law should be immediately placed in jail", demanded one such letter, "They would be defying the government that we elected to uphold the law. If the government doesn't act firmly, it will simply be opening the door for all of our students to ignore or self-interpret all laws that they don't like."
Radio call-in shows obviously pre-screened callers and had lengthy shows dedicated entirely to bashing the teachers. But amidst all of this, polls continued to show increasing support for the wildcat strike. A poll was conducted October 6-7 showing clear support for the teachers:
"The BC Government should not impose another settlement on Teachers because unhappy Teachers with no say in their pay or their working conditions won't be good for our education system and our students." Strongly Agree 31.1% Agree 35.9% Disagree 16.9% Strongly disagree 7.9% Don't know/refused 8.2%. "I'd support protests if the Campbell Government orders Teachers back to work without a wage increase or improvements in class sizes and working conditions." Strongly Agree 25.9% Agree 27.5% Disagree 26.7% Strongly disagree 11.5% Don't know/refused 8.3%
This poll was taken as the wildcat strike was just starting. Now opinions seem to be hardening and support fot the teachers growing. An October 11 rally at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Center drew at least five thousand supporters on short notice, but media reported much smaller numbers. The highest number reported by any newspaper was two thousand, and most media reported only a few hundred.
On October 13, The Province newspaper ran a story titled "Teachers begin to cross picketlines as union calls for member solidarity - Provincial government promises working educators protection". It was made to look as though the teachers were fighting back against their 'evil union'. "In Vancouver, at least four teachers have crossed picket lines at schools, said district spokeswoman Yvonne Eamor. In Surrey, at least a dozen teachers have returned to schools, said district spokesman Doug Strachan. In Langley, up to 10 teachers have crossed the lines, said district spokesman Craig Spence. In Sooke, district spokesman Ron Warder said: 'Three teachers have come to work at Belmont [Secondary] today.'" But these numbers are almost insignificant and actually show the strength of the BCTF. Of the 42,000 members on strike in British Columbia, only a few dozen are crossing the picket lines. Any union would be pleased with that level of strength and solidarity. Despite the vigorous attempts from the media to prop up the government and the "rule of law", nobody believes a word they say. BC's media has discredited itself completely.
The Courts Exposed
It is no accident that this dispute is facing bitter attacks from all sides. It is one thing to go on strike; it is another to do so illegally, ignoring legislation and court orders. This strike not only challenges Bill 12, but also the rule of law and the entire capitalist state. Such a challenge cannot go unnoticed.
With media and government demanding action from the courts, the BC Teachers' Federation faced the judge on October 13. The government was asking for massive fines to be levied against the teachers. There was talk of arresting the leaders of the militant strike. But the court decided that none of this would do.
In a move that shocked everyone, the judge ordered the assets of the BCTF frozen. The Judge argued "The BCTF acts through its members to commit the contempt.� It is apparent from the materials before me that the BCTF is using its assets to facilitate the continuing breach of the court order, in part by paying teachers."
And therefore "The BCTF is restrained for 30 days from directly or indirectly using its assets to facilitate breach of the court order of October 6, 2005. �In particular, the BCTF is enjoined from paying amounts to its members as 'strike pay' or to otherwise compensate members for loss relating to breach of the order of October 6, 2005; from providing guarantees or promises to pay to protect members from such losses; from using its books, records and offices to permit third parties to facilitate continuing breach of the court order."
The ruling effectively took the union under trusteeship. A monitor was assigned that would be given full access to the BCTF's offices, accounts and records to insure that the order was being followed. And as an extra slap in the face, this monitor's wages would be paid by the BCTF. This unprecedented move sent the labour movement in to a frenzy.
The "leaders" of the Labour Movement
Until now, the British Columbia Federation of Labour had done everything in their power to keep things under control. Even the token demonstrations that were organized by them were just that. They were so poorly advertised that the posters didn't even have the address of the rally location in Vancouver and used its technical name - Vancouver Trade and Convention Center rather than its commonly used name Canada Place. The posters did not even get posted, just sent by email. Despite this, thousands turned up.
This clearly caught the 'leaders' off guard. The sound system was much too small so that the majority of the rally couldn't hear the speeches. They clearly expected a much smaller turn out. But none of this dampened the spirits of the workers who immediately began chanting "General Strike! General Strike!" as Jim Sinclair, president of the BC Fed took the stage.
But this court ruling didn't just slap the teachers with a fine; it threatened the very right of unions to exist in British Columbia. The message to the labour movement was clear - only compliant unions allowed. Now with mass pressure from below, the BC Federation of Labour was forced to act. On Friday October 14, they held a press conference to announce their first step. A nervous Jim Sinclair announced that a mass rally would take place at the provincial parliament buildings in Victoria, on Monday October 17. "We expect shutdowns throughout Greater Victoria as union members, supportive parents and community groups take part in the protest of� Bill 12." The president continued, "This is the first stage of action we are announcing in an effort to get a fair deal for teachers. We hope the government reaches out to do the right thing so we don't have to make further announcements, but we have prepared a plan should the need arise and will update the public as necessary."
The BC Federation of Labour has called a general strike in British Columbia's capital for Monday, but it is also clear that this is only the first step. If the teachers are to be victorious, the strike must be spread. A one day general strike in one city is a fantastic show of force that may scare the government into backing down. But it will not be enough to defeat them if they decide to stand and fight. This strike is no longer about the teachers, but the very right of unions to exist in British Columbia. The entire labour movement must respond collectively against this provocation. The BC Federation of Labour must call an all-out general strike to shut down the province. Not a wheel turns without the consent of the working class; we must make this government understand that.
Amidst all of this, the New Democratic Party is nowhere to be seen. BC NDP leader, Carole James has confined herself to criticizing the BC Liberal government and won't come out in full support of the illegal strike. Initially she called on teachers to obey the law explaining that even though she opposed the legislation, once it was passed it should be respected. But Carole has refrained from condemning them outright. Continuing along her path of distancing the party from the labour movement (a ridiculous idea as it is literally the same people running the NDP and the major unions), Carole James can be found in the crowd at demonstrations, but never at the podium.
Danger of a Sell-Out
The leadership of the labour movement has been dragged into a fight that they never wanted. But with the BC Federation of Labour's convention only weeks away, they are hardly in a position to remain silent. Ever since Gordon Campbell's Liberal's were first elected to office in 2001, the union bosses have done everything in their power to keep the movement within legal and 'safe' boundaries. The NDP has tried (unsuccessfully) to funnel the movement into an electoral battle. But all of these attempts have been in vain.
If the leaders of the NDP and the BC Fed had an ounce of the courage displayed by BCTF president Jinny Sims, this battle could bring down the Liberal government. In fact, this is the only way it can be successful. A BCTF victory will either fall the government, or leave them so broken that they are incapable of ruling. But all of this necessitates a strong leadership capable of standing up to the pressure.
Despite mass pressure from below, there is no guarantee the Jim Sinclair and his rotten clique won't betray the movement. This is certainly not lost on the rank and file of the unions. No one has forgotten the sell-out of the Hospital Employees Union strike in May 2004. The province was then brought to the brink of a general strike only to be sold out by the leaders. Hospital workers were slapped with a 15% wage cut and didn't even get a chance to vote on their own contract. But the BCTF has taken steps to prevent this, showing that they are well aware of the danger. While the membership was voting on whether or not to take illegal job action, they also voted that they would not go back to work until they had voted to do so.
Militant democratic trade unionism is the only way to protect against a sell-out. But that is not just voting. If this strike is to be successful, the rank and file must have absolute control over their fight. Community support groups must be formed allowing the mass of the population to be drawn into the struggle. Workers must be prepared to continue even if the BC Federation of Labour executive tells them not to. This is the only guarantee of victory.
Capitalism in Crisis
Around the world we see similar processes taking place. The capitalist system can no longer afford the kind of living standards it used to maintain. In every country without exception, we see massive battles either being prepared or played out. The ruling classes are doing everything in their power to drive down wages, privatize public assets, slash social services and squeeze every ounce of profit they can get out of an already squeezed working class. This is no accident; the anarchy of the "free market" is what is driving this race to the bottom.
This economic system creates the most horrific conditions, forcing billions to live in squalor, killing millions in imperialist wars and starving tens of thousands to death every day. It must be stopped. Only a democratically planned economy can replace this wretched system and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. The struggle of the teachers must be the first steps of a revolutionary movement to overthrow the capitalist system.
The Greatest of Victories, or the Most Terrible of Defeats
The consequences of the teachers strike will hang over the province for years. A defeat could have terrible consequences, demoralizing the labour movement. In this scenario the labour movement would not be prepared for the battle to come this spring when many other public sector workers' contracts will expire. Every defeat will demoralize the working class even more and this cycle could go on for many years.
A victory however could break government and their big business backers. It is even very possible that Gordon Campbell's rule would be untenable, forcing him to resign or call an election. This would strengthen the labour movement unimaginably, preparing them for even larger victories in the future.
This strike may go down in history as the decisive battle of the anti-Campbell movement. The government is prepared to do whatever they need to do break the labour movement. This they have proven time and time again. But despite all of the attacks, the legislation, the rhetoric, despite all of the court orders and injunctions and ripped up agreements, the working class is not defeated. On the contrary, today in British Columbia the labour movement is stronger than it has ever been.
The working class is ready to fight, but the weakest link is their leadership. These people are barely able to stand up to big business, let alone overthrow them. We can't even trust them to represent our movement, let alone lead it forward. The capitalist system will perpetuate one fight after another until it has been overthrown. But to do this, we need a leadership that isn't afraid to stand up and fight, a leadership that will point the way forward to socialism. Fightback is fighting for and building this leadership, join us in the fight for socialism!
Spread the General Strike!
No Sell-Outs!
Fightback for Socialism!
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Nothing happens in the economy without the working class? Who do you think risks their livelihood to create an environment where you can work? Who puts up the capital to ensure that you and many of your bretheren have a job in the first place. Employers and the taxpayers of Canada. If you don't like living here, go back to Russia. That's an experiment in socialism that worked really well.
Capitalism is here to stay. All you can hope to achieve with your socialist ideals is death, poverty and squalor. Show me a socialist experiment and I will show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine.
Can you not read a history book?
Capitalism is here to stay. All you can hope to achieve with your socialist ideals is death, poverty and squalor. Show me a socialist experiment and I will show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine.
Can you not read a history book?
> Can you not read a history book?
Can you not see what's right in front of you? Katrina, WMDs (or the lack thereof), Plamegate, etc.
If you want to delve into history though, how about: slavery, shooting strikers, jim crow, tammany hall, iran-contra, vietnam, and more dirty wars than one can count? Last time I look, the capitalist body count was pretty high.
In any case...authoritarian socialism isn't the answer, but neither is imperalist capitalism. If you'd take the time to look, you'd realize that capitalism is a flawed system, and that socialism's biggest problem is not socialism as much as authoritarianism.
Besides, doesn't the US promote socialism, but for the rich?
Can you not see what's right in front of you? Katrina, WMDs (or the lack thereof), Plamegate, etc.
If you want to delve into history though, how about: slavery, shooting strikers, jim crow, tammany hall, iran-contra, vietnam, and more dirty wars than one can count? Last time I look, the capitalist body count was pretty high.
In any case...authoritarian socialism isn't the answer, but neither is imperalist capitalism. If you'd take the time to look, you'd realize that capitalism is a flawed system, and that socialism's biggest problem is not socialism as much as authoritarianism.
Besides, doesn't the US promote socialism, but for the rich?
There is so much that is wrong with this last comment that it totally boggles my mind... so I'll try to cover this point by point.
> Nothing happens in the economy without the working class? Who do you think risks their livelihood to create an environment where you can work? Who puts up the capital to ensure that you and many of your bretheren have a job in the first place. Employers and the taxpayers of Canada. If you don't like living here, go back to Russia. That's an experiment in socialism that worked really well.
I see you liked the example of Russia so I'll use it too, though in an example which is actually appropriate. Russia was not a truely socialist country because the word socialist implies not only a social means of production but also social running of society, which was sorely absent in Russia. However, we can look at Russia as an incomplete example of what happens when society it's self "puts up the capital to ensure that [we] have a job in the first place". Strictly speaking in terms of jobs and economy, Russia -- after switching from the anarchy of the free market to a planned economy -- moved within a couple of decades from a backwards country (third world, if you will), to a superpower. If only capitalists can create jobs and production, then I would like very much to know how that is possible.
> Capitalism is here to stay. All you can hope to achieve with your socialist ideals is death, poverty and squalor. Show me a socialist experiment and I will show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine.
Show me a capitalist system and I'll also "show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine". Socialism hasn't happened. Socialism relies on society being run in a truely democratic way by the working class, which in 1917 Russia amounted to roughly 7% of the population. Any fool could take a look at the situation which faced the bolsheviks in 1917 and realise that it was impossible to build socialism in such an environment. What we see historically bares that out nicely. Wonderful economic progress, woeful social progress.
As for capitalism being here to stay, if that's true then I am terrified of our future. It will always be profitable to cut social programs such as health care and education. It will always be profitable to destroy the environment such that our grandchildren won't have a functional world to live in. It will always be extremely profitable to exploit and milk the working class as well as "developing" nations as much as possible. It will always be profitable to keep people at the bottom desperate so they can continue to be milked as much as possible and so they're unable to fight back. Within capitalism, profit is the highest goal. It is what makes society function. And profit comes with all these costs and many more. The teachers being denied their right to bargain is another example of profit winning over such things as the right to decent education, the right to collective bargaining, the right to defend one's self against attacks, and the very right to free speach.
The South African teachers federation recently came out with a statement comparing the situation in BC to the apartide government. This should say something about what profit motive does to the rights of people. Even the UN has condemed the BC government for their complete disregard of labour rights. This situation is reaching a point where working people must either stand up or be trampled for more profit by capitalists. I'm starting to feel like I'm rehashing the article, so I'll stop here, but I'm shocked by the level of ignorance shown in that response.
> Can you not read a history book?
Yes, I can quite well. It seems like perhaps you might need some help with it though, so I'll give you a few pointers.
1. Not everything in history books is true. Everything is presented from a perspective, which is nearly always dependant on class relations. Every class has it's own interests to protect and spread. Everybody has a bias. In order to begin to consider yourself well informed, it is necessary to look at more then one side of a situation.
2. It is not enough to read. It is necessary to THINK about what you're reading also. Sort out biases, get to the truth. Eventually, after much thought, you too will see the gaping holes in our society; holes which billions of people around the world fall through in their day to day lives.
3. Here's a bit of advice regarding Russia. Stalinist "historians" have a terrible bias which causes them to worship the Stalinist leaders and condem those who disagree without thought of accuracy. They also bend and twist the words of those who came before. Clearly you haven't taken them at their word, which is a very good thing.
Western "historians" have spent the better part of the last century fighting against the "red menace". It is a threat which has shown the upper elements of our society that they might not be capable of continuing their exploitation of the world's poor. These people have a bias every bit as terrible as the Stalinist one. They cannot see the positives which happened in Russia (such as the great economic progress made by the planned economy, or the great advances in such areas as health and education) because any positive would be too much of a threat. They cannot learn from the mistakes of the Russia because knowledge about how to construct a true socialism is an even larger threat then the tragic so-called "communism" of the USSR.
For a look at how Russia degenerated, it's strengths as well as it's weaknesses, you will have to look outside of these sources. There is one group represented by Leon Trotsky's Left Opposition, which was dispised by Moscow as well as Washington. They have a perspective which comes from trying to carefully analyse and understand the mistakes of the USSR so those mistakes won't be repeated. That is their bias because it is those mistakes -- those tragic faults of the USSR -- that led to so many Left Oppositionists being sent to Siberia and/or killed. Two works which will help round out a true understanding of the USSR (note points 1 and 2) are Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed" and Ted Grant's (a British Marxist and Left Oppositionist) "Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution". The first is available at http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?c=LT and the second can be read in a free online version or is available to purchase at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/ .
> Nothing happens in the economy without the working class? Who do you think risks their livelihood to create an environment where you can work? Who puts up the capital to ensure that you and many of your bretheren have a job in the first place. Employers and the taxpayers of Canada. If you don't like living here, go back to Russia. That's an experiment in socialism that worked really well.
I see you liked the example of Russia so I'll use it too, though in an example which is actually appropriate. Russia was not a truely socialist country because the word socialist implies not only a social means of production but also social running of society, which was sorely absent in Russia. However, we can look at Russia as an incomplete example of what happens when society it's self "puts up the capital to ensure that [we] have a job in the first place". Strictly speaking in terms of jobs and economy, Russia -- after switching from the anarchy of the free market to a planned economy -- moved within a couple of decades from a backwards country (third world, if you will), to a superpower. If only capitalists can create jobs and production, then I would like very much to know how that is possible.
> Capitalism is here to stay. All you can hope to achieve with your socialist ideals is death, poverty and squalor. Show me a socialist experiment and I will show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine.
Show me a capitalist system and I'll also "show you greater abuses of power then you can ever imagine". Socialism hasn't happened. Socialism relies on society being run in a truely democratic way by the working class, which in 1917 Russia amounted to roughly 7% of the population. Any fool could take a look at the situation which faced the bolsheviks in 1917 and realise that it was impossible to build socialism in such an environment. What we see historically bares that out nicely. Wonderful economic progress, woeful social progress.
As for capitalism being here to stay, if that's true then I am terrified of our future. It will always be profitable to cut social programs such as health care and education. It will always be profitable to destroy the environment such that our grandchildren won't have a functional world to live in. It will always be extremely profitable to exploit and milk the working class as well as "developing" nations as much as possible. It will always be profitable to keep people at the bottom desperate so they can continue to be milked as much as possible and so they're unable to fight back. Within capitalism, profit is the highest goal. It is what makes society function. And profit comes with all these costs and many more. The teachers being denied their right to bargain is another example of profit winning over such things as the right to decent education, the right to collective bargaining, the right to defend one's self against attacks, and the very right to free speach.
The South African teachers federation recently came out with a statement comparing the situation in BC to the apartide government. This should say something about what profit motive does to the rights of people. Even the UN has condemed the BC government for their complete disregard of labour rights. This situation is reaching a point where working people must either stand up or be trampled for more profit by capitalists. I'm starting to feel like I'm rehashing the article, so I'll stop here, but I'm shocked by the level of ignorance shown in that response.
> Can you not read a history book?
Yes, I can quite well. It seems like perhaps you might need some help with it though, so I'll give you a few pointers.
1. Not everything in history books is true. Everything is presented from a perspective, which is nearly always dependant on class relations. Every class has it's own interests to protect and spread. Everybody has a bias. In order to begin to consider yourself well informed, it is necessary to look at more then one side of a situation.
2. It is not enough to read. It is necessary to THINK about what you're reading also. Sort out biases, get to the truth. Eventually, after much thought, you too will see the gaping holes in our society; holes which billions of people around the world fall through in their day to day lives.
3. Here's a bit of advice regarding Russia. Stalinist "historians" have a terrible bias which causes them to worship the Stalinist leaders and condem those who disagree without thought of accuracy. They also bend and twist the words of those who came before. Clearly you haven't taken them at their word, which is a very good thing.
Western "historians" have spent the better part of the last century fighting against the "red menace". It is a threat which has shown the upper elements of our society that they might not be capable of continuing their exploitation of the world's poor. These people have a bias every bit as terrible as the Stalinist one. They cannot see the positives which happened in Russia (such as the great economic progress made by the planned economy, or the great advances in such areas as health and education) because any positive would be too much of a threat. They cannot learn from the mistakes of the Russia because knowledge about how to construct a true socialism is an even larger threat then the tragic so-called "communism" of the USSR.
For a look at how Russia degenerated, it's strengths as well as it's weaknesses, you will have to look outside of these sources. There is one group represented by Leon Trotsky's Left Opposition, which was dispised by Moscow as well as Washington. They have a perspective which comes from trying to carefully analyse and understand the mistakes of the USSR so those mistakes won't be repeated. That is their bias because it is those mistakes -- those tragic faults of the USSR -- that led to so many Left Oppositionists being sent to Siberia and/or killed. Two works which will help round out a true understanding of the USSR (note points 1 and 2) are Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed" and Ted Grant's (a British Marxist and Left Oppositionist) "Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution". The first is available at http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?c=LT and the second can be read in a free online version or is available to purchase at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/ .
Wasn't this all supposed to be about a "fair wage increase" (boy-oh-boy, does anyone out there agree 15% over 3 years is fair? ...) and "working conditions" - a euphemism for class size and composition? (Last time the union had control of class size and composition, the union itself slammed any teacher who dared use his or her own common sense when faced with situations the union's class size couldn't address.) Sure, give the right to determine class sizes back to teachers... but not to their the union. Give them a fair wage increase at the same time other government employees get it. Quit using them to further the polarization of this province. The casualties of this conflict: our ability to work together to strengthen the public education system. The BCTF is tilting at windmills, the government is being surly, the public is being fed a bunch of malarkey from both sides. Stop the madness.
hello this is melanie morris south surrey b.c and i attend ray shepard elementry and i am in grade seven, my teacher is Sid Prysunka and we have talked, and we want school.My teacher has said he is fine with the pay he gets.We should noty have to get taken out of school because some teachers dont like the pay they are getting.My mother kerry morris has been required by the goverment to search for a job and she has been stoped due to haveing to homeschool 9 chilldren .
all i am saying is that students and parents should'ent be held back due to teachers not getting what they want . that is all i have to say
thank you for reading
melanie morris
I'm in grade 11 and I believe the strike is good. Sure there may be hard times now with parents having to homeschool children, reworking schedules, problems with graduating students etc. But in the long run, it could benefit us all.
I imagine that you are the type of person that feels that by going to work and punching your time card, it puts you on an equal playing field as the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the Trumps of the world.
Here's another book and author you need to read.
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From Ayn Rand, The New Intellectual
Here's another book and author you need to read.
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From Ayn Rand, The New Intellectual
Sorry, my email was in correct it is .ca not .com. rand99992003 [at] yahoo.ca
>Where would you be without the employers?
Probably a lot happier. It's called worker collectives.
Probably a lot happier. It's called worker collectives.
Adam,
It's interesting that you bring in the concept of equal playing fields.
Many people like to site cases such as Gates as absolute proof that anyone can get ahead in a capitalist world if they posess a good buisness mind, and are intelligent and hard working. In reality, however, this is an illusion. Out of all the people who begin life outside the ruling class of society, there are a great many who posess such talents. The flaw in the idea that all these people can get ahead is that the organisation of society is by it's nature pyramid shaped. However, it's a pyramid with sides that curve inward, with the middle part being far smaller then the mid-point between the sizes of the base and top. For each Gates at the top, there must be many more the next level down, and each below that is an exponentially larger number of people. The reason why this must be the case is that in a capitalist system, each of the people at the top must rely on the lower levels for their profits. It is not Gates that makes Gates rich so much as all the many lower-level managers, programmers, marketers, etc. Sure, he started off on his merit as a deal-maker and buisness-man, but he would never be rich unless there were thousands of others tied to his spot in the pyramid, on lower levels. There are simply not enough spots at the top for everybody, or even everybody who posesses the needed skills.
Then there's another question. What if you aren't born with the smarts to succeed? Is it right to limit a hard-working individual to a min-wage type job for their entire life because of things they can't control? Might it be better for them to be employed as they are able, but also to earn a decent, living wage?
Finally, it is also an illusion that there is an equality in opertunity between the classes. These days, it is nearly impossible for a working class youth to attend university in even many western countries. When the world is viewed as a whole (as it is a whole economically speaking and tied together in the class question), a very large percentage of youth are unable to complete even a rudimentary education, regardless of ability. Even considering the possibility of starting a buisness and achieving riches that way, how many have the resources to start a buisness? It requires a certain investment (you refered to that in your first post), which only a very small percentage of the world can afford.
Rand is another interesting case. Yes, I have read some of her work, and her ideas are very interesting. However, many of her primary theses have great flaws, like your arguments. All these flaws can be seen easily as being products of her class (I am not entirely versed with Rand's biographical history, but to attend university when she did in St. Petersburg, one must be very well off), her experience as being part of the class which had been the exploiters in pre-1917 Russia, and her subsequent emigration to the US as those exploiters were (in early days) brought to a more level balence with society.
In your quote specifically, the fundamental flaws exist in thinking that:
1. Within socialism a man's life is controled.
In fact, within socialism, a man is more free then ever to do what he wants. Education is free, and any job is available to anyone who qualifies highly enough for it, far more so then capitalism. Posessions still belong to the man in question, as does living property, just not property that involves controlling other people's lives such as for example a rental property or a factory. Which brings me to...
2. In the system we now live in, that concept of a man not existing for his own sake is absolutely true. A man tied hand and foot to debts, monthly rent, and a no-where job has absolutely no say about his own life. He must keep working his no-where job or else he falls through the crack and has nothing, but if he keeps working that job, he will never be able to go anywhere else. School or starting a buisness are no option to this slave of capitalism because he does not have the money or the time to do either.
I suppose that captures quite well what's wrong with Rand. She views socialism as being imprisoning, which reletive to capitalism it is only for the very highest point in that pyramid. For every level below, capitalism is the slave-driver and socialism breaks their chains.
It's interesting that you bring in the concept of equal playing fields.
Many people like to site cases such as Gates as absolute proof that anyone can get ahead in a capitalist world if they posess a good buisness mind, and are intelligent and hard working. In reality, however, this is an illusion. Out of all the people who begin life outside the ruling class of society, there are a great many who posess such talents. The flaw in the idea that all these people can get ahead is that the organisation of society is by it's nature pyramid shaped. However, it's a pyramid with sides that curve inward, with the middle part being far smaller then the mid-point between the sizes of the base and top. For each Gates at the top, there must be many more the next level down, and each below that is an exponentially larger number of people. The reason why this must be the case is that in a capitalist system, each of the people at the top must rely on the lower levels for their profits. It is not Gates that makes Gates rich so much as all the many lower-level managers, programmers, marketers, etc. Sure, he started off on his merit as a deal-maker and buisness-man, but he would never be rich unless there were thousands of others tied to his spot in the pyramid, on lower levels. There are simply not enough spots at the top for everybody, or even everybody who posesses the needed skills.
Then there's another question. What if you aren't born with the smarts to succeed? Is it right to limit a hard-working individual to a min-wage type job for their entire life because of things they can't control? Might it be better for them to be employed as they are able, but also to earn a decent, living wage?
Finally, it is also an illusion that there is an equality in opertunity between the classes. These days, it is nearly impossible for a working class youth to attend university in even many western countries. When the world is viewed as a whole (as it is a whole economically speaking and tied together in the class question), a very large percentage of youth are unable to complete even a rudimentary education, regardless of ability. Even considering the possibility of starting a buisness and achieving riches that way, how many have the resources to start a buisness? It requires a certain investment (you refered to that in your first post), which only a very small percentage of the world can afford.
Rand is another interesting case. Yes, I have read some of her work, and her ideas are very interesting. However, many of her primary theses have great flaws, like your arguments. All these flaws can be seen easily as being products of her class (I am not entirely versed with Rand's biographical history, but to attend university when she did in St. Petersburg, one must be very well off), her experience as being part of the class which had been the exploiters in pre-1917 Russia, and her subsequent emigration to the US as those exploiters were (in early days) brought to a more level balence with society.
In your quote specifically, the fundamental flaws exist in thinking that:
1. Within socialism a man's life is controled.
In fact, within socialism, a man is more free then ever to do what he wants. Education is free, and any job is available to anyone who qualifies highly enough for it, far more so then capitalism. Posessions still belong to the man in question, as does living property, just not property that involves controlling other people's lives such as for example a rental property or a factory. Which brings me to...
2. In the system we now live in, that concept of a man not existing for his own sake is absolutely true. A man tied hand and foot to debts, monthly rent, and a no-where job has absolutely no say about his own life. He must keep working his no-where job or else he falls through the crack and has nothing, but if he keeps working that job, he will never be able to go anywhere else. School or starting a buisness are no option to this slave of capitalism because he does not have the money or the time to do either.
I suppose that captures quite well what's wrong with Rand. She views socialism as being imprisoning, which reletive to capitalism it is only for the very highest point in that pyramid. For every level below, capitalism is the slave-driver and socialism breaks their chains.
For more information:
http://www.marxist.ca/
Hmmm. Let me put my comments in point form.
1. The teacher’s strike is about class size & mix,…. not
The teachers strike is about money, not about class size or class mix. I find it fascinating that every time Jinny Sims speaks she talks about class size and mix, and conveniently neglects to mention the 15% pay increase.
2. Comparisons to Rosa Parks, and Apartheid
Wow, this is just plain insulting. I don’t think Rosa Parks (A black women in the southern USA who refused to get out of a seat on a bus designated for a white person), or any individuals governed under apartheid would compare themselves to teachers in BC. I may be wrong on this,…and look forward to a response from someone.
3. What is fair?
A new teacher get a salary of 43K + benefits which include 21 paid days off, they get summers, xmas, and spring break. By my estimate they seem to work approx. 160 day/year. Wow, that is a pretty good salary.
4. What does a union know about class size or mix?
I’m in full agreement that class size and mix is and issue that has to be addressed. But what does that have to do with the teachers strike? Let’s let the union administer the schools, I bet they’d be great at it. Maybeeee they can come up with a 3 day work week while they are at it.
Hey I’ve got an idea,…why don’t we come up with a way to elect people to represent our interestrs. At “election time “you can vote for a representative who will make class size and mix an issue, then they can legislate controls that the schools boards can implement. Ta-da what a great idea,…what’s that,…someone already came up with that,..it’s called democracy. Oh yeah Democracy.
1. The teacher’s strike is about class size & mix,…. not
The teachers strike is about money, not about class size or class mix. I find it fascinating that every time Jinny Sims speaks she talks about class size and mix, and conveniently neglects to mention the 15% pay increase.
2. Comparisons to Rosa Parks, and Apartheid
Wow, this is just plain insulting. I don’t think Rosa Parks (A black women in the southern USA who refused to get out of a seat on a bus designated for a white person), or any individuals governed under apartheid would compare themselves to teachers in BC. I may be wrong on this,…and look forward to a response from someone.
3. What is fair?
A new teacher get a salary of 43K + benefits which include 21 paid days off, they get summers, xmas, and spring break. By my estimate they seem to work approx. 160 day/year. Wow, that is a pretty good salary.
4. What does a union know about class size or mix?
I’m in full agreement that class size and mix is and issue that has to be addressed. But what does that have to do with the teachers strike? Let’s let the union administer the schools, I bet they’d be great at it. Maybeeee they can come up with a 3 day work week while they are at it.
Hey I’ve got an idea,…why don’t we come up with a way to elect people to represent our interestrs. At “election time “you can vote for a representative who will make class size and mix an issue, then they can legislate controls that the schools boards can implement. Ta-da what a great idea,…what’s that,…someone already came up with that,..it’s called democracy. Oh yeah Democracy.
You know you are right. Rand knew the evils that socialism brought to Russia, because she lived it. You and the rest of the Canadian socialists have merely dabbled in it over the course of NDP’s last two terms. Even that little experiment shows you what your brand of extortion brings. Bingogate, Fast Ferries, Hydrogate, debt, etc.
Capitalism is based on free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Value for value. Value and productivity is made possible only by the men who produce.
“The ruling class” as you call them are average folks that take responsibility for their own lives and know in their heart of hearts that it is not the government’s job to support us, nor is it their neighbours job. When you accept your paycheque at the end of the two weeks, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of effort of others.
Take a look at all of the goods you consume on a daily basis and tell me that it is the bottom 10% of today’s minds that created them? No. They might have assembled them. They might have packaged them or mailed them… but create them, never. “Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.” Again, Ayn Rand.
Your suggestion that the rich make their money at the expense of the poor is appalling and disgusting. You do a disservice to the poor. You lead them to believe that they have to live that way. It is people like you that have created this situation, not the one or two bad companies like Tyco or Enron.
A man is only tied to his rent and his debts as he chooses. These are choices, not demands. Man trades his abilities for shelter, food, and any other things that he might consume.
“An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. “ Rand again.
I say that it is people like you that have created this situation, because, you give the disadvantaged free license to feel the hopelessness. To be poor and to expect someone else to wipe up after them.
Whenever you say socialism allows one to be more free and that their possessions will still be their own, you speak from the relative comforts that capitalism and its value of free will have provided. I have spent some time living in Eastern Europe and I have heard story after story of people that were brilliant writers, craftsmen, etc. who were told that they were now cold miners, street sweepers, and less. Whenever you tell a man that his work and efforts will be handed to every other man because it is for the common good, you de-motivate that man even further. Why seek to do your best? Why try to learn more? Why work any harder? The end result as I have lived it, is corruption and death. Death of the mind and of the spirit. There can be no other alternative. It has always gone this way. If you don’t like your job, get another one. If you can’t, that is your fault, no one else’s.
I am a business owner. My parents were strong NDP supports through the 70’s and 80’s. They were on welfare regularly. We were poor. And all around me, there was rampant welfare fraud. Amongst my parents and their acquaintances, they wore it like a badge. I started my business with very little. That’s the great thing about today’s technology. All you need is a library card and you can surf the net and find out how you can start your own business.
So go ahead, sit in your desk and over intellectualize your theory of a perfect Marxist Utopia. Where everyone sings “koom by ya” and passes the bowl for a hand out.
I'd write more, but I have a business to run and employees to exploit.
Capitalism is based on free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Value for value. Value and productivity is made possible only by the men who produce.
“The ruling class” as you call them are average folks that take responsibility for their own lives and know in their heart of hearts that it is not the government’s job to support us, nor is it their neighbours job. When you accept your paycheque at the end of the two weeks, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of effort of others.
Take a look at all of the goods you consume on a daily basis and tell me that it is the bottom 10% of today’s minds that created them? No. They might have assembled them. They might have packaged them or mailed them… but create them, never. “Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.” Again, Ayn Rand.
Your suggestion that the rich make their money at the expense of the poor is appalling and disgusting. You do a disservice to the poor. You lead them to believe that they have to live that way. It is people like you that have created this situation, not the one or two bad companies like Tyco or Enron.
A man is only tied to his rent and his debts as he chooses. These are choices, not demands. Man trades his abilities for shelter, food, and any other things that he might consume.
“An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. “ Rand again.
I say that it is people like you that have created this situation, because, you give the disadvantaged free license to feel the hopelessness. To be poor and to expect someone else to wipe up after them.
Whenever you say socialism allows one to be more free and that their possessions will still be their own, you speak from the relative comforts that capitalism and its value of free will have provided. I have spent some time living in Eastern Europe and I have heard story after story of people that were brilliant writers, craftsmen, etc. who were told that they were now cold miners, street sweepers, and less. Whenever you tell a man that his work and efforts will be handed to every other man because it is for the common good, you de-motivate that man even further. Why seek to do your best? Why try to learn more? Why work any harder? The end result as I have lived it, is corruption and death. Death of the mind and of the spirit. There can be no other alternative. It has always gone this way. If you don’t like your job, get another one. If you can’t, that is your fault, no one else’s.
I am a business owner. My parents were strong NDP supports through the 70’s and 80’s. They were on welfare regularly. We were poor. And all around me, there was rampant welfare fraud. Amongst my parents and their acquaintances, they wore it like a badge. I started my business with very little. That’s the great thing about today’s technology. All you need is a library card and you can surf the net and find out how you can start your own business.
So go ahead, sit in your desk and over intellectualize your theory of a perfect Marxist Utopia. Where everyone sings “koom by ya” and passes the bowl for a hand out.
I'd write more, but I have a business to run and employees to exploit.
Well Said Steven. Bravo.
Well written. Unfortunately not too many of my fellow teachers realize just how historic this moment is. Jim Sinclair was unwilling to proceed with the GENERAL STRIKE over the health services fiasco claiming he was unwilling to bring down a democratically elected goverment. I'M NOT SO CONSTRAINED. Gordon Campbell is the very embodiment of evil. He is a sociopathic ideolog without even a shred of compassion. If you have the resorces to explore the topic, look into his tactics as a land developer in Vancouver and his shameful treatment of Gordon Wilson.
All union workers in B.C. must now stand together and be strong. We need to realize that we hold the ball now not the liberals. It is time to leave our posts and not return untill we have shown that no more will the hard working people of B.C. be treated unfairly.As a ferry worker I know my fellow workers are ready to support not only the teachers but the rights of all workers for many years to come.
I will gladly be the first to go to jail .
We need only stand together and there is no possible way we can be "liberalized"
Dukes
I will gladly be the first to go to jail .
We need only stand together and there is no possible way we can be "liberalized"
Dukes
Hundreds of thousands of workers in British Columbia are poised to join walkouts in the coming days in support of the province’s 40,000 public school teachers and the challenge that they are mounting to a battery of antiunion laws and the BC Liberal government’s agenda of slashing public and social services.
On Monday, public transit, mail delivery and other government services in the provincial capital, Victoria, and the Vancouver Island region were disrupted when thousands of workers walked off the job in response to a call from the BC Federation of Labour. The highlight of the “day of action” was a rally of more than twenty thousand teachers, trade unionists, and parents and their children outside the BC legislature.
Meanwhile, Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government is ratcheting up its efforts to use the powers of the state to force an end to the strike. As the protest was unfolding in Victoria, the government announced that it has appointed a special prosecutor to examine whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated against the union and teachers.
On Oct. 9 BC Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown ruled the teachers’ strike illegal. Then last Thursday she effectively seized control of the finances of the BC Teachers Federation to rob teachers of their $50 per day in picket pay. Were she to rule that the strike constituted criminal contempt, she would have the power to jail union leaders and fine individual teachers.
The government’s increasingly draconian stance against the teachers is born of its fear that the strike could become the catalyst for a working-class counter-offensive. Support for the teachers is swelling because masses of working people recognize that in fighting for caps on class sizes and more support for children with various learning challenges, the teachers are fighting to defend public education. Also many rightly see the teachers’ action as a means of striking back against a government that during four-and-a-half-years in office has ruthlessly imposed the dictates of big business by slashing social spending, promoting the contracting out of hospital and other public service jobs, gutting labour standards and environmental regulations, and redistributing wealth to the most privileged through cuts in corporate taxes and the taxes levied on high-income earners.
At a press conference Sunday, BC business leaders accused the teachers and their supporters of fomenting chaos and anarchy and undermining the province’s economy. While charging the teachers and their supporters with flouting democracy, the message of business leaders was that if workers continued to resist Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government the corporate elite would resort to an investment strike, as they did during much of the 1990s, in a successful campaign to push the then New Democratic Party government to abandon its timid reformist program and impose capitalist austerity.
Exclaimed Kevin Evans of the Coalition of BC Business, “There’s no question this is harkening back to some of the bad old days of British Columbia where instability ruled.” Evans went on to voice concern that if the strike was not broken it “may look small in comparison” with “what we are in for in the spring” when many other public sector contracts expire.
Read More
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/bc-o19.shtml
On Monday, public transit, mail delivery and other government services in the provincial capital, Victoria, and the Vancouver Island region were disrupted when thousands of workers walked off the job in response to a call from the BC Federation of Labour. The highlight of the “day of action” was a rally of more than twenty thousand teachers, trade unionists, and parents and their children outside the BC legislature.
Meanwhile, Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government is ratcheting up its efforts to use the powers of the state to force an end to the strike. As the protest was unfolding in Victoria, the government announced that it has appointed a special prosecutor to examine whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated against the union and teachers.
On Oct. 9 BC Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown ruled the teachers’ strike illegal. Then last Thursday she effectively seized control of the finances of the BC Teachers Federation to rob teachers of their $50 per day in picket pay. Were she to rule that the strike constituted criminal contempt, she would have the power to jail union leaders and fine individual teachers.
The government’s increasingly draconian stance against the teachers is born of its fear that the strike could become the catalyst for a working-class counter-offensive. Support for the teachers is swelling because masses of working people recognize that in fighting for caps on class sizes and more support for children with various learning challenges, the teachers are fighting to defend public education. Also many rightly see the teachers’ action as a means of striking back against a government that during four-and-a-half-years in office has ruthlessly imposed the dictates of big business by slashing social spending, promoting the contracting out of hospital and other public service jobs, gutting labour standards and environmental regulations, and redistributing wealth to the most privileged through cuts in corporate taxes and the taxes levied on high-income earners.
At a press conference Sunday, BC business leaders accused the teachers and their supporters of fomenting chaos and anarchy and undermining the province’s economy. While charging the teachers and their supporters with flouting democracy, the message of business leaders was that if workers continued to resist Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government the corporate elite would resort to an investment strike, as they did during much of the 1990s, in a successful campaign to push the then New Democratic Party government to abandon its timid reformist program and impose capitalist austerity.
Exclaimed Kevin Evans of the Coalition of BC Business, “There’s no question this is harkening back to some of the bad old days of British Columbia where instability ruled.” Evans went on to voice concern that if the strike was not broken it “may look small in comparison” with “what we are in for in the spring” when many other public sector contracts expire.
Read More
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/bc-o19.shtml
If you watch the local news in BC, they reported that less than half of teachers participated in the 2nd vote to disobey the law. Jinny Sims confirmed this. Teachers were told before they went out that the action was not illegal...they became very confused, like my mother, who is a grade 1 teacher, with 12 kids in her class...they just want to go back to work. We would appreciate it if you reported facts that are checked, rather than making such idiotic assumptions. There will not be a general strike, as much as that makes you sad.
I don't have the time to be as long-winded as yesterday, but I feel the need to make a very brief reply to some of these comments. (I just finished writing the post and it isn't as brief as I wanted, but oh well *sigh* now what happened to my time?)
First Steven:
> 1. The teacher’s strike is about class size & mix,…. not
The teachers strike is about money, not about class size or class mix. I find it fascinating that every time Jinny Sims speaks she talks about class size and mix, and conveniently neglects to mention the 15% pay increase.
It is about working conditions, plain and simple. I know many teachers and have talked to many more on the lines and during rallys since this started, and working conditions are the main point. 15% pay increase is a cost of living issue for a union that has had virtually no cost of living increases in the last decade. It is necessary to keep up with inflation and nothing more. All the teachers I've spoken to would gladly give it up and make less money (in real terms as cost of living raises every year) in exchange for a better working environment in which they are able to again do their jobs properly. The fact that the government has steadfastly refused outright to bargain about working conditions and even made it illegal to do so is that breach of bargaining rights I talked about. Imagine if your boss forced you to each year work more hours and hit higher quotas and when it came time to bargain, they passed a law making bargaining on quotas illegal. That would be a breach of rights, as this is.
> 2. Comparisons to Rosa Parks, and Apartheid
Wow, this is just plain insulting. I don’t think Rosa Parks (A black women in the southern USA who refused to get out of a seat on a bus designated for a white person), or any individuals governed under apartheid would compare themselves to teachers in BC. I may be wrong on this,…and look forward to a response from someone.
Well, it was not me who said this, it was people from South Africa who did. What I meant by refering to it was not necessarily to say it's an equal denial of rights but merely to say that if they are saying something like this about BC, it's obvious enough that something is very very wrong.
> 3. What is fair?
A new teacher get a salary of 43K + benefits which include 21 paid days off, they get summers, xmas, and spring break. By my estimate they seem to work approx. 160 day/year. Wow, that is a pretty good salary.
Most teachers work brutal hours during the school week. Most of their work takes place outside of classroom hours with marking and lesson planning. Even during weekends, any half decent teacher will be working to prepare for the week. Including professional development days as days off is rediculous. Those days are spent in the classrooms preparing.
> 4. What does a union know about class size or mix?
I’m in full agreement that class size and mix is and issue that has to be addressed. But what does that have to do with the teachers strike? Let’s let the union administer the schools, I bet they’d be great at it. Maybeeee they can come up with a 3 day work week while they are at it.
Simple. Working conditions. What other union is not allowed to bargain for the amount of work they are forced to do??? Teachers cannot do their jobs properly with class sizes as they are. Again, I'd use the analogy of a factory worker with completely unreasonable quotas who isn't allowed to bargain for lower quotas.
And for Adam...
> You know you are right. Rand knew the evils that socialism brought to Russia, because she lived it. You and the rest of the Canadian socialists have merely dabbled in it over the course of NDP’s last two terms. Even that little experiment shows you what your brand of extortion brings. Bingogate, Fast Ferries, Hydrogate, debt, etc.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the shit hits the fan regarding the deregulation of construction workers in BC. The housing bubble will soon burst and a large part of BC's workforce will be jobless... and thanks to deregulation they will recieve absolutely no support. A scandle like that should put fast ferries to shame. I could go on with other issues neo-con policies have created, such as power shortages in Ontario, raising prices on BC Ferries, and the list goes on forever... but I'm being short today, or trying to. Suffice it to say for each example you could bring up, I could bring up one too. As fast ferries go anyway, the real intention was to spark local buisness by creating a world class large ferry building yard. That would have been very helpful to the province and brought alot of jobs, and tax dollers had the Liberals not scrapped it immediately. So they blame the NDP for the downside of the plan, and themselves scrap the upside. Sounds like good governing to me. :P
> Capitalism is based on free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Value for value. Value and productivity is made possible only by the men who produce.
Right... your point is? This paragraph actually totally counters some of your future ones. Men able to produce them? Does that mean factory workers? How about shipping workers? Yes? Well, there you have your working class which is required for production. I'll get to the full scope of this contradiction later.
> “The ruling class” as you call them are average folks that take responsibility for their own lives and know in their heart of hearts that it is not the government’s job to support us, nor is it their neighbours job. When you accept your paycheque at the end of the two weeks, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of effort of others.
I have no qualms with people who are higher up in society. Everyone must live in the world they were born into, and ones who succeed certainly do not do so because they are bad people. The only thing I have an issue with is a world in which for one to succeed another must fail, and that is very true of ours. It is utopian to assume anyone can have anything. For every item one person consumes, there is one less of that item for another person. Either the rich are a little bit richer and the impoverished are a little more impoverished, or everyone is a bit closer to the middle. Unfortunitely, within capitalism money is power, so you can guess which way that scale goes.
> Take a look at all of the goods you consume on a daily basis and tell me that it is the bottom 10% of today’s minds that created them? No. They might have assembled them. They might have packaged them or mailed them… but create them, never. “Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.” Again, Ayn Rand.
So I assume all the industrial productivity of for example the USSR was all a figment of an overactive imagination? The working class creates production. Without tilling the soil, planting seeds, harvesting, and other labour, there would be no food obtained at all. To suggest that because a person is working class, they have no knowledge to do that work is not only insulting, it is a complete contradiction. There is no workplace where a manager guides each employee's hand through every aspect of their work. Clearly the employee has some expertise and ability to do his job, or else it wouldn't happen. In a true socialism (NOT the USSR) it is committes formed by these workers with their expertise who design product lines, and do all the other tasks of management. The fact that two brains tend to outhink one means that these committees are actally more effective then a single manager, especially since the single manager is completely cut off in most cases (larger scale buisness) from the realities of production. Within capitalism, investors must facilitate production not because of some magical knowlege, but because money is needed to fund overhead, however that is not always necessary in other forms of society. This is the crime of capitalism, that it puts all the power to create employment and production in the hands of capital instead of the hands of the people who need and benefit from it.
> Your suggestion that the rich make their money at the expense of the poor is appalling and disgusting. You do a disservice to the poor. You lead them to believe that they have to live that way. It is people like you that have created this situation, not the one or two bad companies like Tyco or Enron.
And here is where you have contradicted yourself.
"...free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them..."
Men to produce them. Bingo. Either these men who produce them can be slaves to the profit of their employer, or they can be their own employer and be working for themselves. But within capitalism, unless you are to be a small buisness man with yourself as a sole employee, if production of any kind is desired, there must be someone below you to make it happen. This is the nature of the class system. For every owner, there must be employees. So yes, that owner necessitates the employees existing. Tyco and Enron don't even enter into it, pick a large company and I'll show you people working to make that company profits who don't share in those profits in an equal way because it would cut into the company's margins. In a world where profit margins wouldn't be important, and the break-even point would be the goal, employees could benefit far more from the production they create. I do not lead anyone to believe they have to live any way, however, in capitalism there must be a lower working class. It is just the way the system works. If people do not want to live that way, then it's time to build socialism.
> A man is only tied to his rent and his debts as he chooses. These are choices, not demands. Man trades his abilities for shelter, food, and any other things that he might consume.
“An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. “ Rand again.
So, if I'm living in Vancouver (which I am), and just for argument's sake, I don't have an education, or qualifications to land an over min wage job (which is a very large percentage of the workforce), and maybe for argument's sake I have a family to support, and rent here for a very small living space for my family would be over $1,000, then let's do the math. Min wage in BC means roughly $1,500 per month if I work hard. So I have my rent, and just to be on the low side, we'll call that $1,000. That leaves $500. Then there's a bus pass, which is $70, so we're at $430. Phone line is needed, so that's down to $380. Now food for the month, and groceries for one person is maybe $200. Now I'm down to $180 per month. That's what I have to feed my kids, buy clothing for my entire family, perhaps pay for daycare so I can keep working these hours I have to, not to mention every other day to day expense. Is that enough money to live on? Do I have a choice about those purchases? You tell me.
Of course, I could also get into the reality that many people even after a university degree STILL can't get a far above minimum wage job, and they are left with crippling debts...
> I say that it is people like you that have created this situation, because, you give the disadvantaged free license to feel the hopelessness. To be poor and to expect someone else to wipe up after them.
Right, because if every working class person in the world wanted to they could get rich, nobody would have to work in any labour oriented job, and we could all keep up our standard of living (not to mention our food source) out of thin air, right? We don't need production to create wealth, right??? No, of course not! It's my choice to be poor! Right?
You like to talk about utopias. This is, by far, the most rediculous one I have heard yet.
> Whenever you say socialism allows one to be more free and that their possessions will still be their own, you speak from the relative comforts that capitalism and its value of free will have provided. I have spent some time living in Eastern Europe and I have heard story after story of people that were brilliant writers, craftsmen, etc. who were told that they were now cold miners, street sweepers, and less. Whenever you tell a man that his work and efforts will be handed to every other man because it is for the common good, you de-motivate that man even further. Why seek to do your best? Why try to learn more? Why work any harder? The end result as I have lived it, is corruption and death. Death of the mind and of the spirit. There can be no other alternative. It has always gone this way. If you don’t like your job, get another one. If you can’t, that is your fault, no one else’s.
Yes, this is a great crime of Stalinism, that it has tarnished the name of socialism by making people think this is the only way. Eastern Europe was turned by the USSR into a place I would never want to live in. That is a crime. It's a crime against the people, and a crime against the very idea of socialism. I cite the USSR as an economic example, but certainly not a social one. As for finding another job if you want one, that is possible in a real socialism, however for many it isn't in today's world. Think about my example of an impoverished worker in Vancouver. Does that worker have time (or money) to goto school to improve his qualifications so he can get a job higher on the food chain? You tell me.
> I am a business owner. My parents were strong NDP supports through the 70’s and 80’s. They were on welfare regularly. We were poor. And all around me, there was rampant welfare fraud. Amongst my parents and their acquaintances, they wore it like a badge. I started my business with very little. That’s the great thing about today’s technology. All you need is a library card and you can surf the net and find out how you can start your own business.
That's a fantastic story. However, while it is reasonable for a few to pull themselves out of that life as you have, it is impossible to assume everybody can. There are limits to possibilities in sectors of the economy where little capital is required. If everyone were to start up a buisness like that, there would not be nearly enough clients to go around, and quickly everyone would be in much worse shape then when they started after their buisnesses go belly-up.
> So go ahead, sit in your desk and over intellectualize your theory of a perfect Marxist Utopia. Where everyone sings “koom by ya” and passes the bowl for a hand out.
I never intellectualize a "perfect Marxist Utopia". I think about real ways of changing the terrible conditions people live in today, in the real world. And I'm not simply talking about Canada either. In today's economy, we are all linked in the capitalist system. The workers in sweatshops are as much a piece of the puzzle as the workers here in Canada. And certainly, no world can be perfect, or a utopia, but it can be alot better then it is now.
The only utopia I see in this thread of comments is your utopia of everyone being able to be rich, if only they want to. A capitalist utopia, so to speak, which will never be possible.
> I'd write more, but I have a business to run and employees to exploit.
I would never cite a small buisnessman as being the problem in this whole system. In fact, most small buisnessmen have much more in common with workers then capitalists. However, the net result of any buisness is that an employee of your's MUST make less money then the value he produces for you. If he made as much as he put in, he wouldn't make you any money, which would obviously be unsustainable. A world where those people you employ could do the same thing they do now, but could make an amount equal to the value they put in would certainly be preferable to them. This is also vastly different from the USSR example, where the beurocracy (and it's connections) took that same margin that you take today.
You pay so much attention to your great sources of wisdom (Rand, and all...) that you ignore the truth of the situation. Actual wisdom can only come from a balanced look, not only at what is right but what is wrong also, which is sorely lacking in your posts. The obviousness of the contradictions in what you say is proof enough of that. I suggest you get reading and thinking if you want to have a real idea of the way the world operates.
First Steven:
> 1. The teacher’s strike is about class size & mix,…. not
The teachers strike is about money, not about class size or class mix. I find it fascinating that every time Jinny Sims speaks she talks about class size and mix, and conveniently neglects to mention the 15% pay increase.
It is about working conditions, plain and simple. I know many teachers and have talked to many more on the lines and during rallys since this started, and working conditions are the main point. 15% pay increase is a cost of living issue for a union that has had virtually no cost of living increases in the last decade. It is necessary to keep up with inflation and nothing more. All the teachers I've spoken to would gladly give it up and make less money (in real terms as cost of living raises every year) in exchange for a better working environment in which they are able to again do their jobs properly. The fact that the government has steadfastly refused outright to bargain about working conditions and even made it illegal to do so is that breach of bargaining rights I talked about. Imagine if your boss forced you to each year work more hours and hit higher quotas and when it came time to bargain, they passed a law making bargaining on quotas illegal. That would be a breach of rights, as this is.
> 2. Comparisons to Rosa Parks, and Apartheid
Wow, this is just plain insulting. I don’t think Rosa Parks (A black women in the southern USA who refused to get out of a seat on a bus designated for a white person), or any individuals governed under apartheid would compare themselves to teachers in BC. I may be wrong on this,…and look forward to a response from someone.
Well, it was not me who said this, it was people from South Africa who did. What I meant by refering to it was not necessarily to say it's an equal denial of rights but merely to say that if they are saying something like this about BC, it's obvious enough that something is very very wrong.
> 3. What is fair?
A new teacher get a salary of 43K + benefits which include 21 paid days off, they get summers, xmas, and spring break. By my estimate they seem to work approx. 160 day/year. Wow, that is a pretty good salary.
Most teachers work brutal hours during the school week. Most of their work takes place outside of classroom hours with marking and lesson planning. Even during weekends, any half decent teacher will be working to prepare for the week. Including professional development days as days off is rediculous. Those days are spent in the classrooms preparing.
> 4. What does a union know about class size or mix?
I’m in full agreement that class size and mix is and issue that has to be addressed. But what does that have to do with the teachers strike? Let’s let the union administer the schools, I bet they’d be great at it. Maybeeee they can come up with a 3 day work week while they are at it.
Simple. Working conditions. What other union is not allowed to bargain for the amount of work they are forced to do??? Teachers cannot do their jobs properly with class sizes as they are. Again, I'd use the analogy of a factory worker with completely unreasonable quotas who isn't allowed to bargain for lower quotas.
And for Adam...
> You know you are right. Rand knew the evils that socialism brought to Russia, because she lived it. You and the rest of the Canadian socialists have merely dabbled in it over the course of NDP’s last two terms. Even that little experiment shows you what your brand of extortion brings. Bingogate, Fast Ferries, Hydrogate, debt, etc.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the shit hits the fan regarding the deregulation of construction workers in BC. The housing bubble will soon burst and a large part of BC's workforce will be jobless... and thanks to deregulation they will recieve absolutely no support. A scandle like that should put fast ferries to shame. I could go on with other issues neo-con policies have created, such as power shortages in Ontario, raising prices on BC Ferries, and the list goes on forever... but I'm being short today, or trying to. Suffice it to say for each example you could bring up, I could bring up one too. As fast ferries go anyway, the real intention was to spark local buisness by creating a world class large ferry building yard. That would have been very helpful to the province and brought alot of jobs, and tax dollers had the Liberals not scrapped it immediately. So they blame the NDP for the downside of the plan, and themselves scrap the upside. Sounds like good governing to me. :P
> Capitalism is based on free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Value for value. Value and productivity is made possible only by the men who produce.
Right... your point is? This paragraph actually totally counters some of your future ones. Men able to produce them? Does that mean factory workers? How about shipping workers? Yes? Well, there you have your working class which is required for production. I'll get to the full scope of this contradiction later.
> “The ruling class” as you call them are average folks that take responsibility for their own lives and know in their heart of hearts that it is not the government’s job to support us, nor is it their neighbours job. When you accept your paycheque at the end of the two weeks, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of effort of others.
I have no qualms with people who are higher up in society. Everyone must live in the world they were born into, and ones who succeed certainly do not do so because they are bad people. The only thing I have an issue with is a world in which for one to succeed another must fail, and that is very true of ours. It is utopian to assume anyone can have anything. For every item one person consumes, there is one less of that item for another person. Either the rich are a little bit richer and the impoverished are a little more impoverished, or everyone is a bit closer to the middle. Unfortunitely, within capitalism money is power, so you can guess which way that scale goes.
> Take a look at all of the goods you consume on a daily basis and tell me that it is the bottom 10% of today’s minds that created them? No. They might have assembled them. They might have packaged them or mailed them… but create them, never. “Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.” Again, Ayn Rand.
So I assume all the industrial productivity of for example the USSR was all a figment of an overactive imagination? The working class creates production. Without tilling the soil, planting seeds, harvesting, and other labour, there would be no food obtained at all. To suggest that because a person is working class, they have no knowledge to do that work is not only insulting, it is a complete contradiction. There is no workplace where a manager guides each employee's hand through every aspect of their work. Clearly the employee has some expertise and ability to do his job, or else it wouldn't happen. In a true socialism (NOT the USSR) it is committes formed by these workers with their expertise who design product lines, and do all the other tasks of management. The fact that two brains tend to outhink one means that these committees are actally more effective then a single manager, especially since the single manager is completely cut off in most cases (larger scale buisness) from the realities of production. Within capitalism, investors must facilitate production not because of some magical knowlege, but because money is needed to fund overhead, however that is not always necessary in other forms of society. This is the crime of capitalism, that it puts all the power to create employment and production in the hands of capital instead of the hands of the people who need and benefit from it.
> Your suggestion that the rich make their money at the expense of the poor is appalling and disgusting. You do a disservice to the poor. You lead them to believe that they have to live that way. It is people like you that have created this situation, not the one or two bad companies like Tyco or Enron.
And here is where you have contradicted yourself.
"...free exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them..."
Men to produce them. Bingo. Either these men who produce them can be slaves to the profit of their employer, or they can be their own employer and be working for themselves. But within capitalism, unless you are to be a small buisness man with yourself as a sole employee, if production of any kind is desired, there must be someone below you to make it happen. This is the nature of the class system. For every owner, there must be employees. So yes, that owner necessitates the employees existing. Tyco and Enron don't even enter into it, pick a large company and I'll show you people working to make that company profits who don't share in those profits in an equal way because it would cut into the company's margins. In a world where profit margins wouldn't be important, and the break-even point would be the goal, employees could benefit far more from the production they create. I do not lead anyone to believe they have to live any way, however, in capitalism there must be a lower working class. It is just the way the system works. If people do not want to live that way, then it's time to build socialism.
> A man is only tied to his rent and his debts as he chooses. These are choices, not demands. Man trades his abilities for shelter, food, and any other things that he might consume.
“An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced. “ Rand again.
So, if I'm living in Vancouver (which I am), and just for argument's sake, I don't have an education, or qualifications to land an over min wage job (which is a very large percentage of the workforce), and maybe for argument's sake I have a family to support, and rent here for a very small living space for my family would be over $1,000, then let's do the math. Min wage in BC means roughly $1,500 per month if I work hard. So I have my rent, and just to be on the low side, we'll call that $1,000. That leaves $500. Then there's a bus pass, which is $70, so we're at $430. Phone line is needed, so that's down to $380. Now food for the month, and groceries for one person is maybe $200. Now I'm down to $180 per month. That's what I have to feed my kids, buy clothing for my entire family, perhaps pay for daycare so I can keep working these hours I have to, not to mention every other day to day expense. Is that enough money to live on? Do I have a choice about those purchases? You tell me.
Of course, I could also get into the reality that many people even after a university degree STILL can't get a far above minimum wage job, and they are left with crippling debts...
> I say that it is people like you that have created this situation, because, you give the disadvantaged free license to feel the hopelessness. To be poor and to expect someone else to wipe up after them.
Right, because if every working class person in the world wanted to they could get rich, nobody would have to work in any labour oriented job, and we could all keep up our standard of living (not to mention our food source) out of thin air, right? We don't need production to create wealth, right??? No, of course not! It's my choice to be poor! Right?
You like to talk about utopias. This is, by far, the most rediculous one I have heard yet.
> Whenever you say socialism allows one to be more free and that their possessions will still be their own, you speak from the relative comforts that capitalism and its value of free will have provided. I have spent some time living in Eastern Europe and I have heard story after story of people that were brilliant writers, craftsmen, etc. who were told that they were now cold miners, street sweepers, and less. Whenever you tell a man that his work and efforts will be handed to every other man because it is for the common good, you de-motivate that man even further. Why seek to do your best? Why try to learn more? Why work any harder? The end result as I have lived it, is corruption and death. Death of the mind and of the spirit. There can be no other alternative. It has always gone this way. If you don’t like your job, get another one. If you can’t, that is your fault, no one else’s.
Yes, this is a great crime of Stalinism, that it has tarnished the name of socialism by making people think this is the only way. Eastern Europe was turned by the USSR into a place I would never want to live in. That is a crime. It's a crime against the people, and a crime against the very idea of socialism. I cite the USSR as an economic example, but certainly not a social one. As for finding another job if you want one, that is possible in a real socialism, however for many it isn't in today's world. Think about my example of an impoverished worker in Vancouver. Does that worker have time (or money) to goto school to improve his qualifications so he can get a job higher on the food chain? You tell me.
> I am a business owner. My parents were strong NDP supports through the 70’s and 80’s. They were on welfare regularly. We were poor. And all around me, there was rampant welfare fraud. Amongst my parents and their acquaintances, they wore it like a badge. I started my business with very little. That’s the great thing about today’s technology. All you need is a library card and you can surf the net and find out how you can start your own business.
That's a fantastic story. However, while it is reasonable for a few to pull themselves out of that life as you have, it is impossible to assume everybody can. There are limits to possibilities in sectors of the economy where little capital is required. If everyone were to start up a buisness like that, there would not be nearly enough clients to go around, and quickly everyone would be in much worse shape then when they started after their buisnesses go belly-up.
> So go ahead, sit in your desk and over intellectualize your theory of a perfect Marxist Utopia. Where everyone sings “koom by ya” and passes the bowl for a hand out.
I never intellectualize a "perfect Marxist Utopia". I think about real ways of changing the terrible conditions people live in today, in the real world. And I'm not simply talking about Canada either. In today's economy, we are all linked in the capitalist system. The workers in sweatshops are as much a piece of the puzzle as the workers here in Canada. And certainly, no world can be perfect, or a utopia, but it can be alot better then it is now.
The only utopia I see in this thread of comments is your utopia of everyone being able to be rich, if only they want to. A capitalist utopia, so to speak, which will never be possible.
> I'd write more, but I have a business to run and employees to exploit.
I would never cite a small buisnessman as being the problem in this whole system. In fact, most small buisnessmen have much more in common with workers then capitalists. However, the net result of any buisness is that an employee of your's MUST make less money then the value he produces for you. If he made as much as he put in, he wouldn't make you any money, which would obviously be unsustainable. A world where those people you employ could do the same thing they do now, but could make an amount equal to the value they put in would certainly be preferable to them. This is also vastly different from the USSR example, where the beurocracy (and it's connections) took that same margin that you take today.
You pay so much attention to your great sources of wisdom (Rand, and all...) that you ignore the truth of the situation. Actual wisdom can only come from a balanced look, not only at what is right but what is wrong also, which is sorely lacking in your posts. The obviousness of the contradictions in what you say is proof enough of that. I suggest you get reading and thinking if you want to have a real idea of the way the world operates.
For more information:
http://www.marxist.ca/
Mr. Haggerty,
Finally you did hear me correctly. I do believe that you chose to be poor, if in fact your example is truthful. You see, you chose to live in Vancouver. Virtually tied with Toronto and Calgary.(http://www.ottawaregion.com/lifestyle/cost.asp) It is also the 87th most expensive place to live in the world. (Its moved up 9 places this year over last)
As for your education, BC ranks
You and/or your hypothectial Vancouverite DECIDED to have kids. You chose that life. That life costs money. Under a socialist government a family would receive more money because they need it. People start to breed to get benefits. I have seen it. I have been there.
Don't you see? These are all choices.
If your rent is too high, please move. Come to the interior of BC where anyone who can hold a hammer can get a job. Your rent will be 1/3rd less. You won't need the bus pass for the most part.
The people who can't get jobs with a university education are people who did not keep the end result in mind. I have friends that stayed in University well beyond their initial degrees, because they chose courses like Art History, Logic, Literature. While I see nothing wrong with any of these, I don't expect their to be too many art historian jobs waiting for them on the outside.
Haven't you ever worked at a job where you were appalled at the wages another less competant worker was making? Usually because they had been there longer than you? Do you dimiss it? "He needs it. He has a family." I worked a union job one summer in college. (Yes cheap affordable Community College - which I worked an paid for myself) I remember being asked to go sit behind a wood pile for a few hours because I was working too quickly and they were concerned that someone ask them to do it that quickly in the future.
Make no mistake about the differences between Stalin's Communism and your Socialism. While Stalin and the rest of them enslaved their people by force, Socialism enslaves them by vote. You will vote away every individual's right to profit from their own efforts. You see, Socialism says why have that machine dig that whole, when there are 10 good men over here that needs jobs and can dig it? You are right, there are only so many jobs available to those who do not think and are not motivated.
What do you think that companies do with their profits? Sure some get rich and and display their wealth, so what? The very large majority of that profit goes to investing in technology, research and development, making workplaces safer, expanding their businesses and creating jobs. Companies WANT to grow. They do not want to sit idly by and watch the rest of the world pass them by while they have no profits to invest in the future.
I was at the Calgary airport a few years ago and there were parking booths as you left the terminal, with people manning the booths who were there to take your money. Slowly these people were replaced by machines. Why? Certainly because it was less expensive, but mostly because a MONKEY could do the job. Go live in a Socialist Republic or a former communist country and see for yourself. They all want to live here in the west. Why? Because they know that if they work hard, they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
Finally you did hear me correctly. I do believe that you chose to be poor, if in fact your example is truthful. You see, you chose to live in Vancouver. Virtually tied with Toronto and Calgary.(http://www.ottawaregion.com/lifestyle/cost.asp) It is also the 87th most expensive place to live in the world. (Its moved up 9 places this year over last)
As for your education, BC ranks
You and/or your hypothectial Vancouverite DECIDED to have kids. You chose that life. That life costs money. Under a socialist government a family would receive more money because they need it. People start to breed to get benefits. I have seen it. I have been there.
Don't you see? These are all choices.
If your rent is too high, please move. Come to the interior of BC where anyone who can hold a hammer can get a job. Your rent will be 1/3rd less. You won't need the bus pass for the most part.
The people who can't get jobs with a university education are people who did not keep the end result in mind. I have friends that stayed in University well beyond their initial degrees, because they chose courses like Art History, Logic, Literature. While I see nothing wrong with any of these, I don't expect their to be too many art historian jobs waiting for them on the outside.
Haven't you ever worked at a job where you were appalled at the wages another less competant worker was making? Usually because they had been there longer than you? Do you dimiss it? "He needs it. He has a family." I worked a union job one summer in college. (Yes cheap affordable Community College - which I worked an paid for myself) I remember being asked to go sit behind a wood pile for a few hours because I was working too quickly and they were concerned that someone ask them to do it that quickly in the future.
Make no mistake about the differences between Stalin's Communism and your Socialism. While Stalin and the rest of them enslaved their people by force, Socialism enslaves them by vote. You will vote away every individual's right to profit from their own efforts. You see, Socialism says why have that machine dig that whole, when there are 10 good men over here that needs jobs and can dig it? You are right, there are only so many jobs available to those who do not think and are not motivated.
What do you think that companies do with their profits? Sure some get rich and and display their wealth, so what? The very large majority of that profit goes to investing in technology, research and development, making workplaces safer, expanding their businesses and creating jobs. Companies WANT to grow. They do not want to sit idly by and watch the rest of the world pass them by while they have no profits to invest in the future.
I was at the Calgary airport a few years ago and there were parking booths as you left the terminal, with people manning the booths who were there to take your money. Slowly these people were replaced by machines. Why? Certainly because it was less expensive, but mostly because a MONKEY could do the job. Go live in a Socialist Republic or a former communist country and see for yourself. They all want to live here in the west. Why? Because they know that if they work hard, they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network