Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
> (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended
> his thoughts thusly...)
>
> (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state
> by which we could gauge the Communist existense.
Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you? If you agree (and I
don't speak for you) that there is no perfect version of capitalism, but the
USA is the closest, then would not pre-fall Russia be a perfect example of
Communism/
> (2) I have a *big* problem with Americans not caring what conditions are
> like in the rest of the world: it allows us to continue to both tolerate
> and perpetrate such crimes as we have been committing in Iraq over the
> last 10 years or so. And then of course there are the shenanigans in
> Honduras, Columbia, and let's not forget our dear "friends" the
> Sandinistas... American apathy for all things not *directly* (we don't,
> as a people, seem to understand the concept of indirect events) affecting
> America^h^h^h^h^h^H The "United" States is our greatest (IMNSHO) fault.
Ok, well, just go and ask the Average Russian(tm) if he gives a rat's ass about
some Average American(tm) bitching about how his beer and his pack of
cigarettes are too expensive these days, or about any other topic. I'd guess
(remember, I don't speak for the Average Russian either) that he'd say "Fuck
you" in so many words.
> (3) As for the statement (which I choose to take as a "stand alone", e.g.,
> not requiring the support of McG's other positions) that most Americans
> are oblivious to the conditions they themselves live in: I believe it is
> true only in the sense that we as a people very much *choose* to *fein*
> this lack of insight.
Bottom line - it's human nature to not be interested in what doesn't affect you
directly.
I honestly couldn't give a rats ass at what went on in Bosnia. If you asked me
what I thought of millions of people getting killed, I'd tell you it's a sad
thing, and I do feel it's sad. But it doesn't affect me. It's not "real" to
me the same way that living my own life is. Knowledge as an outsider and first
hander are different.
> Interesting side story here(to prove my assertion that these high-wage,
> low physical effort jobs are in fact *forced* on much of the population
> as a sort of opiate): Recently (last 6 weeks or so) I have been making
> the job rounds (boredom has *definitely * set in). Just for the *fun* of
> it, I applied to about a dozen "shitbox" jobs: Jack-in-the-box, MickyD,
> etc. One of them went so far as to "permit" me to take their applicant
> "test" (How many burritos do you need for an order with 2 burritos? <g>).
> Not a single one of them called me back. I was *serious* about taking
> these jobs: the money was unimportant, but not a single one of these
> places could be convinced of that. On the other hand, when I finally gave
> up and went back to applying for jobs more "in my field <g>", I managed 4
> immediate offers (of which only 2 look interesting).
Interesting experiment... :)
> No matter how you slice it, we are forced into the peter principle in this
> country. Is this a bad thing? I'm not really sure, although I *am* a
> little bit bitter that I won't get to wear a red baseball cap with pins
> all over it and ask if you would like that Super-Sized ;-)
Doubtful. As long as you can make money, what's the difference? If you really
truly give a shit, nothing (but money) stops you from opening your own
franchise, and rather than managing, you could take orders. :)
> Oh yeah, I realize I'm in for a *torching* on this...
Nah, I don't think you're pointing out anything that's untrue here.
> Sometimes the money doesn't matter though. Then what? What about art for
> art's sake (assuming no complaining about $$)?
Yup, but in the end, you need money to live. Without it, you can't build the
art. So, if you're a starving artist, you're still starving. If you die early
on before your art work is appreciated, you can't make more of it. You might
be very famous, and billions might like your work, but what the fuck, once
you're dead, you're dead. :)
> :> since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to
> :> keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency.
>
> That's the JOB of a corporate entity: it *exists* to make money. The
> union is no better. Sam is the same... You need to rely *on yourself*.
> If a company isn't offering what you need, *DON'T SETTLE*, look elsewhere.
> If everyone did that, the "shitbox job[s]" would come up to the minimum
> standard which the worker required.
Yup - but 39 hours my ass. I work closer to 60 hours a week. :) But I don't
mind it much, it's not lacking in things to do. It's better than being at home
with nothing to do but watching anti-drug TV propaganda.
> :> Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford
> :> to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs
> :> to help the honest, working poor.
>
> Read any Ayn Rand lately? A little bit of enlighted self-interest would
> go a LONG way towards equalizzing the playing fields... WITHOUT theft
> (whether by Sam or Mega-Conglomerate Inc.).
Yup, totally agree with you there.
> :And communism can give the working poor a decent wage?
>
> I've never been convinced of this, even assuming a "utopian" Communist
> system such as existed at Oneida. Remember, under "the real thing", a
> wage should be equal to it's value, not to the existence of the person
> "working" for it. Restated, even Communism acknowledges that a wage
> should not accrete to a worker who does not provide value.
If a wage is equal to it's value, then we're back to capitalism. A thing is
worth what people are willing to pay for it. So how else would you evaluate a
wage? At that point, how can it be communism, but rather a worker-owned
company where each worker owns shares of the company? What's this if not an
even more pure grade of capitalism?
> I'm not sure that's the actual reason for the low wage, although it may be
> the reason for the lack of action(s) to otherwise raise the standard of
> living "enjoyed" by these peoples.
It might not even be the "standard of living" making for the disparity, but
rather the value of the dollar versus the value of the local currency. Sure,
these guys make $20 a month, but that $20 a month would buy them as much as our
$2000 would (sans some things that they don't have in their economy, but I'm
talking about staple necessities such as food, clothing, housing.)
> :Juvenal is saying "who watches the elites?". In any communist system "those
> :who know best" must be watched. Of course as soon as you watch them you
> :start your vacation in beautiful sunny Siberia. And that is a one-way
> :ticket.
>
> We have that here as well you know. We just aren't quite as open about
> it.
Except here, it's a car accident, a .45 in the head, or missile attacking your
plane. (Vinny Foster, Ronny Brown, etc.) :)
--
---------------------------- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos --------------------
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
<--*--> -------------------- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ.
---------------------------- http://www.sunder.net -----------------------
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
