GLOBAL WORKING GROUPS, I
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE ! In their class struggle for survival, the workers not only have to fight against the class enemy per se. At least as dangerous as the capital power itself are its agents within the working class: The leaderships of the trade unions. In particular in the North almost all trade union leaders at top level are, at least mentally, corrupt. In particular they systematically use their influence for sabotaging the only efficient weapon of the workers: the strike. All progressive workers therefore should unite to form a global movement with a structure that discourages power-hungry careerists from seeking power here. Some of the main tasks could be: 1. Together with the other movements / committees (e.g. consumers, farmers, fisherfolk, outcasts, environmentalists, human rights, culture, women, youth, indigneous peoples, alternative economists) to set up a strategy for the internationalization of the corporations 2. Globally organizing and coordinating solidarity actions in the daily class struggles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is hereby opened as provisional contact point. The organizers, the formative world parliament of the united peoples http://www.unitedpeoples.net
Re: Soapbox
-- >From: Robert Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: FW: Soapbox >Date: Thu, Jul 8, 1999, 1:41 AM > > In one of Thomas Lunde's postings of July the seventh, he commented on a > passage from an article by Ulrich Beck. In part, he said: > > "This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before > the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true democratic > society would consider of value to discuss. **How do we bring the > right problems before the populace?** How do we contribute to those who > are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true, > that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view, > but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic > populace should evaluate and decide." > > This is, of course, one of the primary questions that must be answered - > before it is too late. It is obvious that, with each passing year, the > division between those who lead and those who follow - whether they like > it or not - grows wider. With each passing year the grip of television > and other entertainment media grows stronger and as it does, the > availability and use of alternate sources of news and analysis dwindles. > Without an informed electorate, at some time in the reasonably > near-future, change, except by violence, will become impossible. An > informed electorate would be a literate one that understands the > necessity of considering "these kinds of questions" and understands the > necessity of discussing them. > > This is a very practical question and one that many may not feel > comfortable with, but one that any person sincerely interested in these > problems must face. Is there any way that a bunch of academics can > commandeer a mass media and deliver it to those who are our concern? Or > is that an impossibility and the only way is a one-on-one campaign? Can > the Internet be utilized? Soapbox? > > Robert Thomas: Thank you for your thoughts and questions. I am reminded of a story about an old Cree Indian who had never been off the trapline, had never been to reservation school who was flown down to Quebec City from Northern Ontario as a witness in the controversy and legal actions between Billy Diamond and the Cree Nation and Hydro Quebec and the dams in James Bay which infringed on traditional First Nations Lands. Entering the courtroom, this old indian was led to the witness chair and a Bible was produced and the Oath was read, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?" A long silence ensued after the translation into Cree and then he answered "No". The judge asked him to explain his answer and he said, "I do not know the whole truth, I only know what I saw and heard." There is an honesty here, I only know my truth and you yours and others theirs. Your questions catch me as my mind has been re-remembering a lot of what I learned from Marshal McLuhan, not that I ever knew him personally, but I did know someone who had lunch with him several times and was a good friend of his brother. Now Marshal said that contrary to common sense, TV was an auditory medium and he made these remarks and qualified them by observing the state a medium introduced in the subject. He noticed that TV was a medium that demanded total involvement and he used the slang terms hot and cool to label different media. TV, as I remember was a hot medium because the effect it had was one more similar to those in an oral culture than those in a visual culture. Now, in an oral culture, and I will use as an example the First Nations Cultures of the Plains Indians, decisions were reached in a Council. Now there were rituals and some rules as to who could attend a Council, but for the sake of my metaphor, let us say that anyone could sit in the Council, except women, and therefore as any could speak, one could say this was democratic. Now before the talk was begun, a Pipe was passed around and everyone took a puff - no they were not pot headheads or drug addicts. It was in a sense, their Oath, as they chose to believe that the smoke represented the Great Spirit and that by smoking they took on the highest qualities of the Great Spirit including the understanding that each would speak with total honesty. There was also the understanding that one could speak as long as they chose or not speak. Now the idea was not to arrive at a majority on any issue before the Council, just the opposite in my opinion, the idea was to reach consensus. And if that was not reached, those who chose to not agree were not discrimated against by a majority but were allowed to continue to hold their own viewpoint and act from it without losing any face or rights within the tribe. Everyman was free at all times to join the dominant view or not. Now in many cases, consensus was not reached by all. But those who accepted a certain point of view could, as a group act out that limit
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>
> Once again, you have cut through the BS of my thinking. On the one hand, I
> can find rational answers such as the Basic Income which I am sure will
> provide a corrective for the capitalistic system. I can also agree with
> others answers, such as WesBurt's proposals or some of the thoughts of Tom
> Walker.
>
> Then I enlarge the problem by thinking/reading of population, energy,
> resource depletion, or the book I picked up at the library today called Dark
> Grey which deals with the demographics of an aging population and how
> economics has no answer in providing a system in which we can save enough or
> tax enough for a pension system for the elderly. This morning, I read how a
> research team in California are onto what they call the immortality cell in
> which they have been able to extend the life of a fruit fly up to three
> times it's normal lifespan. A couple of days ago, I read an online book
> called Can America Survive in which the author makes a very convincing case
> that the Earth could support a sustainable population of only 5 million
> hunter/gathers and 5 million living in an industrial/technological society.
> Though we might quibble with the numbers, it seems rational to believe that
> we can't keep 6 billion mouths and assholes functioning on this small planet
> indefintely.
>
> And yes, every state is debt and almost every person on the planet is in
> debt to someone, somewhere. So what happens when a chain of non-payment
> begins? It boggles my mind. Unlike you, though, I do have some small
> comfort - death happens to us all and I chose to believe in an afterlife -
> in fact many afterlives. I guess we'll have to each die before we find out
> who is right on that belief.
>
I have the comfort of knowing that I belong to this
peculiar species called homo sapiens, and we have the
ability to become aware of our problems -
besides having a bloody good time, in the
process, in lucky circumstances - and
ingenius enough to plan for the future - in which I
have vested - normal biological as well as emotional
interest - through my children.
This is plenty enough for me to go on with -
I need no comfort, I feel lucky and special without
god - the number of coincidences to continuously
produce this individual - special to me and a few
others,- and the ability to reflect on this
amazing morsel of the universe of ours for a short while -
or even manipulate it collectively - is good enough for me,
thank you very much!
Eva
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
>
>
> --
> >From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
> >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM
> >
>
> > This is a utopia if based on capitalist
> > economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
> > Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
> > collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
> > even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
> > on welfare.
> >
> > Eva
> >
> >> Thomas:
> >>
> >> One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
> >> poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
> >> lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
> >> to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
> >> the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
> >>
> >> You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
> >> ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
> >> those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
> >> picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
> >> income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
> >> the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
> >> modestly.
> >>
> >> Respectfully,
> >>
> >> Thomas Lunde
> >>
> >> --
> >> >From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
> >> >Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
> >> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
> >> > Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
> >> > receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
> >> > reprinted from The Guardian." )
> >> >
> >> > Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
> >> > and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
> >> > large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
> >> > in the U.S.
> >> > The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
> >> > be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
> >> > afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said,
