Quote:
#362
Jun 18 2007 14:10
Jun 18 2007 14:20
revol68 wrote:
Ret Marut wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure there will be plenty of responses to this saying "where does it say they support private ownership?", but given the history of statements made by el libertario and what they're saying here, one can read between the lines and see that they're saying that the situation was better under the previous industrial structuresAs I said, the situation may have objectively been better for consumers under "previous industrial structures"; saying that does not equal "supporting private ownership".
So provide us with a quote where they say they explicitly support private control of industry.nah your wrong it's like someone pointing out the better standards of living in Iraq under Saddam is actually supporting Saddam.
Wow. This is pathetic ... you're actually coming out in favour of foreign ownership and control of the oil industry.
Clearly there are two choices right now - either it's owned by foreign companies, or by the government [domestic groups not being powerful enough to sieze control or purchase the oil assets]. El Libertario is here arguing for private ownership.
It's a spurious argument saying that "maybe things were better for consumers" under private ownership - the profits were funelled out of the country, and oil prices were sky-high. Under nationalization of the oil industry, massive quantities of those profits fund the countries social programs, universal healthcare, etc. and the price of gasoline for the "average consumer" has dropped to unbelievably low levels.
Jun 18 2007 14:27
rise wrote:
Wow. This is pathetic ... you're actually coming out in favour of foreign ownership and control of the oil industry.
wtf?
rise wrote:
Clearly there are two choices right now ...
either you're with Chavez, or you're with the imperialists right George, sorry rise?
You know i've never supported the labour party. OMGZ i totally just supported the privatisation of the welfare state!111!!!1oneone 
Jun 18 2007 14:29
Ret Marut wrote:
So provide us with a quote where they say they explicitly support private control of industry.
anyone capable of performing basic deductive reasoning can see what they're saying.
Jun 18 2007 14:29
Quote:
This is definitely something communists should take sides on.
To not take sides is to side with capital.
Or possibly imperialism.
Jun 18 2007 14:34
navindra wrote:
Ret Marut wrote:
So provide us with a quote where they say they explicitly support private control of industry.anyone capable of performing basic deductive reasoning can see what they're saying.
the navindra school of syllogistic logic:
El Libertario oppose Chavez
Chavez opposes private ownership (allegedly)
therefore El Libertario supports private ownership
any schoolchildren care to spot the fallacy?
Jun 18 2007 14:39
Nicely put, JK.
Quote:
It's a spurious argument saying that "maybe things were better for consumers"
Read again - I said I didn't know if things were actually better, I said that could be a reasonable interpretation of what the quote was saying as opposed to the spin navindra was putting on it. And navindra - biased 'deductive reasoning' is not as convincing as a simple factual quote.
Jun 18 2007 14:41
Joseph K. wrote:
any schoolchildren to spot?
See what happens when you read between the lines Navindra style!
Jun 18 2007 14:48
In answer to Jack, I reckon imperialism is worse, because imperialism is capitalism plus racism.
Jun 18 2007 14:49
Rise might be interested to know his beloved Nepal maoists have recently publicly stated they are in no way opposed to private capital investment in Nepal and are encouraging maoists worldwide to embrace multi-party democracy. Will that change his support from unconditional to critical?
Jun 18 2007 14:50
revol68 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
any schoolchildren to spot?
See what happens when you read between the lines Navindra style!
rumbled by the powers of navindran deductive logic 
Jun 18 2007 14:54
Joseph K. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
any schoolchildren to spot?
See what happens when you read between the lines Navindra style!
rumbled by the powers of navindran deductive logic
don't worry the button will be along soon to defend your right to inconsequential 'bucolic pleasures'.
Jun 18 2007 14:57
revol68 wrote:
don't worry the button ... defend your right to inconsequential bucolic pleasures
your defence of the overage button's sphinctal integrity betrays your noncery in this not-at-all selective quotation 
Jun 18 2007 15:01
in their laundry list of things that they oppose, el libertario/cra include "breaking down of the industrial infrastructure, including the oil industry".
when the industrial infrastructure (private ownership) was broken down, it was replaced by nationalization.
el libertario/cra are clearly stating that, given a choice between the two options, they throw their support behind private ownership.
Jun 18 2007 15:03
Joseph K. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
don't worry the button ... defend your right to inconsequential bucolic pleasuresyour defence of the overage button's sphinctal integrity betrays your noncery in this not-at-all selective quotation
It's almost like my very words unravel themselves.
If only Derrida had spent his time uncovering latent paedophilic tensions in texts.
Jun 18 2007 15:08
Surely we can give critical support to the inconsequential bucolic pleasures of the oppressed?
Jun 18 2007 15:34
the button wrote:
Surely we can give critical support to the inconsequential bucolic pleasures of the oppressed?
This is the phrase of the day.
I reckon we can make Libcom top of the google search with ease.
Jun 18 2007 15:38
navindra wrote:
el libertario/cra are clearly stating that, given a choice between the two options, they throw their support behind private ownership.
exactly, like pointing out the NHS is breaking down clearly means i want US-style healthcare
one thing they do clearly reject though is precisely being "given a choice between two options":
El Libertario wrote:
the anarchists who, today, seem to be the only way to an alternative future, considering the opposition and the pro-government factions that we see around us.
but where's the fun in looking at what they actually say instead of reading in nefarious imperialist propaganda between every line?
Jun 18 2007 15:52
navindra wrote:
i'm sure there will be plenty of responses to this saying "where does it say they support private ownership?", but given the history of statements made by el libertario and what they're saying here, one can read between the lines and see that they're saying that the situation was better under the previous industrial structures (e.g. - private ownership by bp plc, exxon, chevron, total sa, statoil, conoco-phillips, etc).
Actually, CRA has in the past repeatedly criticized Chavez for continuing to do business with foreign oil companies, so "given the history of statements made by el libertario" it's quite clear that they don't "support private ownership". All they are saying is that Chavez has managed the state oil industry badly. And most of the oil industry was state run also before Chavez.
Jun 18 2007 16:18
Maybe it had to do with the 19,000 oil workers (labor aristocrats) that Chavwez fired.
Jun 18 2007 16:23
How's the IWW purge of ChuckO going?
Jun 18 2007 18:54
Hey porkchopper I heard on the news the other day that a CtW delegation went to China to meet with the all-china federation of trade unions.
I'm sure that organizing all those workers must wear you out, so I hope you got a great vacation out of it, but I'm also curious: A maoist friend told me that the ACFTU had achieved complete industrial democracy - did you learn anything from them? Maybe they gave you some tips on how to organize Wal-Mart, or strategies on how to build a union where the leadership can tell the workers what the strategy is?
Please please please tell us retarded syndicalists everything you learned from the ACFTU, so that we can get industrial democracy just like they have in China! Whoopee!
Jun 18 2007 18:59
OliverTwister wrote:
Hey porkchopper I heard on the news the other day that a CtW delegation went to China to meet with the all-china federation of trade unions.I'm sure that organizing all those workers must wear you out, so I hope you got a great vacation out of it, but I'm also curious: A maoist friend told me that the ACFTU had achieved complete industrial democracy - did you learn anything from them? Maybe they gave you some tips on how to organize Wal-Mart, or strategies on how to build a union where the leadership can tell the workers what the strategy is?
Please please please tell us retarded syndicalists everything you learned from the ACFTU, so that we can get industrial democracy just like they have in China! Whoopee!
http://p-crac.blogspot.com/2007/06/tarpinian-on-ctws-trip-to-china.html
Jun 18 2007 19:04
OliverTwister wrote:
Hey porkchopper I heard on the news the other day that a CtW delegation went to China to meet with the all-china federation of trade unions.I'm sure that organizing all those workers must wear you out, so I hope you got a great vacation out of it, but I'm also curious: A maoist friend told me that the ACFTU had achieved complete industrial democracy - did you learn anything from them? Maybe they gave you some tips on how to organize Wal-Mart, or strategies on how to build a union where the leadership can tell the workers what the strategy is?
Please please please tell us retarded syndicalists everything you learned from the ACFTU, so that we can get industrial democracy just like they have in China! Whoopee!
i iz in your forums makin' crazy talk
Jun 18 2007 19:09
You certainly are... please go back to telling us why Venezuelan unions should be repressed...
Jun 18 2007 19:14
OliverTwister wrote:
Well there goes your alleged internationalism!
Jun 18 2007 19:14
OliverTwister wrote:
You certainly are... please go back to telling us why Venezuelan unions should be repressed...
Wasn't that you just suggesting that CtW visiting China is about learning how to suppress workers better? If you believe that to be true then wouldn't you support repression against CtW unions?
Jun 18 2007 19:15
Black cat, white cat... meh. As longa as it pukes out industrial democracy, right Duke?
Jun 18 2007 19:29
OliverTwister wrote:
Black cat, white cat... meh. As longa as it pukes out industrial democracy, right Duke?
Its hard to tell if you're making a critique or having a psychotic break. Are you seriously advocating against industrial democracy?
Jun 18 2007 19:37
Do you know what industrial democracy even means?
Here's a hint: it's not something that can exist under capitalism...
Oh, I see the confusion!
Here's wikipedia:
Quote:
Industrial democracy and Revolutionary Socialism
In late 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century industrial democracy, along with anarcho-syndicalism, represented one of the dominant tendencies in revolutionary socialism and played a prominent role in international labour movements. While their influence declined after the defeat of the anarchists in the Spanish Revolution in 1939, several unions and organizations advocating industrial democracy continue to exist and are again on the rise internationally.
The Industrial Workers of the World advance an industrial unionism which would organize all the workers, regardless of skill, gender or race, into one big union divided into a series of departments corresponding to different industries. The industrial unions would be the embryonic form of future post-capitalist production. Once sufficiently organized, the industrial unions would overthrow capitalism by means of a general strike, and carry on production through worker run enterprises without bosses or the wage system. Anarcho-syndicalist unions, like the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, are similar in their means and ends but organize workers into geographically based and federated syndicates rather than industrial unions.
That's the original version. Maybe this is what you were thinking of:
Quote:
Representative industrial democracy in modern capitalist economies
Modern industrial economies have adopted several aspects of industrial democracy to improve productivity and as reformist measures against industrial disputes. Often referred to as "teamworking", this form of industrial democracy has been practiced in Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands and the UK, as well as in several Japanese companies including Toyota, as an effective alternative to Taylorism.
Glad i could clear that up for ya - now when you say "industrial democracy", i'll no longer think of you as an idiot, just someone using a different definition.
Can comment on articles and discussions