Harry,
Why should workers not have their own associations
and fight for their own short term gain just like the landowners?
If you are going to have trade organizations and
organized lobbying by the wealthy capitalists then why is it wrong for Unions to
do the same in favor of the millions of workers that pay their
dues. The only reason the Union doesn't
exercise all the control, given their potential, is because of the elite's
control of the Educational products and the Media.
This just irritates the hell out of me as I see the
average worker being demonized and screwed out of his share of the American
pie. This is the old Aristo- form of government with a
small elite group of wealthy folks doing the things they always did.
Before the American workers it was my people which they committed a cancerous
genocide upon with the same old Media stories as are now being used against
the Unions. You should hear the young smart aleck
teenagers mouthing the words of Limbaugh and others about
the "Dirty Liberals." As if the conservatives they
venerate gave a dungheap for what their interests were.
Today they have taken control of the
countries environmental laws out of the hands of voters and put then in
the hands of Bankers and Internationalist groups that have only their
own welfare in mind. But the media propaganda just
"quiets" and mis-informs everyone.
Yesterday I did a lecture to a group of Indian
people which started with the words of the Objectivist Ayn Rand follower
Michael Berliner giving the old "nasty, brutish and short" story about how much
they didn't take from us 1491. The Indian people
were brainwashed about Ayn Rand (she was a good guy) and shocked at her
protégé's lies. I gave a short history of the last five
hundred years of lies and cutthroats that continue to this day. It
was very short (one hour). And yet these people were amazed,
not at the story they knew already, but at the people who came out and
outright lied about what happened and continues to happen since they hide the
process in their media.
Here is Berliner's comments. If
such lies can be told with impunity about what has done by the popular
press then what else can they lie about? This is a quote
from the columnist Liz Smith published in Newsday in 2001 but is still available
on the Berliner sites on the Internet.
I quote Smith:
As historian Michael S. Beliner writes:
"Preserving one's heritage is a sham. Individualism is the only
alternative to the racism of political correctness...... we should celebrate
Columbus because for thousands of years there was no change and no growth in
America. Life was nasty, brutish and short; there was no
wheel, no written language, no division of labor, little agriculture and scant
permanent settlement. The Western culture brought by Columbus
also brought enormous, undreamed-of benefits, "without which most of today's
native Americans would be infinitely poorer or not even alive. The
opening of America brought the ideas and achievements of Aristotle, Galileo,
Newton and the thousands of thinkers, writer and inventors who followed."
The one good lesson that was learned yesterday was
that the Ayn Rand propaganda about "individualism" was nutty and had nothing to
do with our traditional love of freedom and self development. I
predict that America will go further into the black hole of these lies about
history and the myths of elitism until another truly democratic institution
arises somewhere in the world and uses all of its citizen's talents and
potentials to create far beyond anything that this society has even
imagined. (And probably with less.) When that
happens that will be the end of all of these 19th century myths and wars that we
still fight and inflict upon one another.
I'm sick of talking about this but I won't stop
until the lies are dead. Until science is ridded
of the pollution of its hierarchical stories about
"Hunter/Gatherers" in the same way that the myths about blacks are now
falling away. Union members are besieged
with all of the ignorant, prejudicial stories that were reserved for the
(N) word in the past and that *Hunter/Gatherer has taken its place
today.
*Hunter/Gatherer was coined by the racist
Secretary of War (Lewis Cass) for the President Andrew Jackson
who used the term to define Indian People who had land and
improvements they wanted. Hunter/Gatherer was Cass's
terms for the Indian People alive during his time. These
people's had developed the following foods in their agricultural technology:
o
Tomatoes
o
potatoes
o
peanuts
o agave
o
achira,
o ahipa
o
avocado
o
allspice
o
amaranth
o
arracacha
o beans:
§ common bean§ lima bean, sieva bean§ kidney bean§ string bean§ snap bean§ butter bean§ frijole,§ pole bean§ scarlet runner bean§ tepary bean
o Bell pepper
o Blackberry
o Black raspberry
o Black Walnut
o Blueberry
o Brazil nut
o cacao (chocolate,)
o cainito, star apple
Cape gooseberry
o capuli
cherry
o cashew
o cassava
(tapioca)
o
chayote
o
cherimoya
o chia
o chico
o chili
pepper
o
chokecherry
o corn
o
cranberry
o
currants
o custard
apple
o epazote, mexican
tea
o
gooseberry
o granadilla,
passion fruit
o grapes
o guava
o
hawthorn
o hickory nut
o hog
plum
o ginger
o
ginseng
o husk
tomato
o ice-cream
bean
o jack
bean
o Jerusalem
artichoke
o jojoba
o Mexican
oregano
o palm
heart
o papaya
o peach palm
o peanut
o paprika
o pecan
o
persimmon
o
pineapple
o pinon pine nut
o potato (over
three thousand varieties)
o prickly
pear
o pumpkin
o quinoa
o raspberry
o sapote
o squash
§ crookneck§ cushaw§ winter squashes§ zucchini
o strawberry
o sugar
maple
o
sunflower
o surinam
cherry
o sweet
potato
o tamarillo, tree
tomato
o
turmeric
o
vanilla
o
walnuts
o wild
rice
Their forestry techniques were described as
follows:
"When the white folks came to the county in 1835-1836, the virgin forest was almost unbroken,... The custom of the Indians was to annually burn the leaves, which kept down the young growth, the bushes being kept down, grass grew luxuriantly, and the entire country had more the appearance of a well-kept park than a forest. Along its beautiful valleys a deer might have been seen a mile or distant, and a person could ride or drive in all directions. No wonder the Indians objected to the treaty which gave all those beautiful lands to the white race, and compelled them to seek a new home in the far-off West." Colonel R.M. Edwards.
Well look at the small Cherokee nation
remnant after terrible plagues of smallpox spread out across three states
and bordering a forth. 1,200 Peach
Orchards, Barns, Fields and Mansions.
Constitution. Printing Press and the Cherokee Phoenix Newspaper
printing in the Cherokee Syllabury rising from the ashes of the old wars
and epidemics.
Battles with states like Georgia end up in the
Supreme Court and the Cherokee Nation won by virtue of their legal
expertise.
But they lost. Three years after
creating their Constitution song, the US Congress passed the Indian Removal Act
in 1830 pushed through by the "research on Hunter/Gatherers" of that old Cretan
Lewis Cass. The government's first offer for all this
Cherokee affluence was that every Cherokee would receive a gun, a plug of
tobacco and a tin pot for his journey to the West in exchange for their farms
and mansions.
It is blamed on the government but it was
the elite classes while people like David Crockett fought in vain against
their values. What these Robber Barons now do to the
Unions is a continual reassertion of that old societal model drawn from
somewhere in Europe that gave them the right to stride the earth like a colossus
and claim the children's souls of their conquered for their Savior and Messiah
from whom they draw their righteousness and practice with
impunity. Except finally, once more they are feeding on their
own feet.
One other point about Cass. He not only
thought that Indian forestry methods were a waste of wood and that they were
condemned to wander, hunt and gather but he also declared our languages to
be incapable of scientific thought expressing that only the Indo-European
languages were capable of expressing Mr. Newton's wondrous Physics.
Of course he was right about that one. For as we have said here, it
is the new Quantum processes that the Indians were speaking in their languages
all along and quantum thought doesn't make much sense to the old common sense
Apple on the head stuff.
But let's bring this into yesterday's space
disaster. It was an interesting statement about the recent
Columbia disaster. What the government scientists said was
that they couldn't "imagine" such a massive failure happening in spite of the
crash of insulation against the fragile tiles on that left
wing. They also stated in their report to Congress (again)
that they couldn't "imagine" the new economic rules having anything to do with a
program built by the lowest bidder and that has had one colossal accident
already as well as launched a mirror into orbit that had a flaw that
they knew about already. That is the pollution of
science with non-scientific values that creates death and
destruction. The Challenger disaster happened with Reagan and
now this one happened under Reagan's protégé's.
I would call that "denial" and consider it to be
"borderline."
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Weick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:36
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of
work
>
> Union labor in the US is a very small part of the total - I think it is
> about 15% - but perhaps someone on FW has an accurate percentage.
>
> We should look at Labor unions as they are rather than as they are supposed
> to be.
>
> Their job is not to raise wages but to raise their own wages - which they
> have every right to do. However, this is often done indirectly at the
> expense of labor generally.
>
> Simplest example is the obvious privilege (private law) - an import
> restriction. A corporation - say GM -lobbies for a law that keeps out
> foreign SUVs - say $1,000 on each imported car. Without the cheaper import
> competition, GM can raise its prices by $1,000 - which has to be paid by
> all Americans.
>
> Well, obviously, this burden on close to 300 million Americans should be
> ended. But, that's not what the auto union is about. Their job is to get a
> slice of the action. To avoid "labor unrest" GM will make an accommodation
> with the Union and give them some of the action - perhaps a large piece of
> the action.
>
> So, the union will oppose any removal of the tariff and will campaign, I
> suppose mostly among Democrats, for the continuation of the tariff.
>
> "Fair Trade" is the name given to this mulcting of the people. It survives
> because the people who get the swag are few compared to the victims -
> victims who are, in most cases, utterly unaware of the robbery taking place
> (and may even support it).
>
> The success of the major unions leads to demands for complete unionization.
> If some can do well - all will do better. However, this will become no more
> than everyone taking in everyone's washing. The unions who get the most
> loot will continue to lap up the gravy. Less powerful unions will continue
> to scratch for the crumbs.
>
> Inflation (expansion of the money supply) is the way modern governments
> handle unrestrainable demand. The unions get higher wages, but price soar.
> A high cost of living can always be blamed on the exorbitant profits of
> corporations and politicians are off the hook.
>
> Britain found herself in this position in the pre-Thatcher days. The
> country was the victim of secondary and tertiary strikes. Completely
> unconnected unions would "come out in sympathy" - supporting a striking
> union. It made proper production a farce.
>
> (For an hilarious illustration of corporate venality and union stupidity in
> the UK, see Peter Sellers in "I'm all right, Jack".)
>
> This situation became known as the "British disease" as worthwhile
> production became a rarity. I can't remember how many unionists were
> members of the Trades Union Congress, but the organization probably covered
> every worker in the country.
>
> Thatcher apparently early intended to break the two major powers in the
> country. The "old boy network" - the lesser nobles, the country squires,
> and the others who owned Britain, and the unions who subverted British
> production. Both picked the pockets of the British, but only the unions
> fell to the Thatcher attack.
>
> The ownership of Britain is still in the hands of a few. One remembers the
> surprise of Keith when Kevin Cahill published his book that revealed that
> about 6,000 landholders own two thirds of the country - and further have
> held tight to their land throughout the 20th century. Thatcher inevitably
> failed.
>
> Perhaps the most poignant part of the union battles occurred when Thatcher
> was closing down uneconomic collieries. The coal miners always at the front
> of militant British unionism fought it to no avail.
>
> Said one spokesman: "There will be no jobs for our kids if the mines are
> closed."
>
> Ed, Brad - he was unhappy because his kids would not be able to go a mile
> under the earth and work in the confined space at the coal face - not
> altogether the safest place to be.
>
> That is, perhaps, the saddest part of work in Britain. What alternative is
> there for those miners' sons if the pits are closed?
>
> Yet, in the US and the UK no-one is asking, never mind answering, the
> question that Henry George posed more than a century ago.
>
> "Why are people looking for jobs? Why aren't jobs looking for people?"
>
> Harry
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Brad wrote:
>
> >Ed Weick wrote:
> >>It's not often that someone responds to his own posting, but after having
> >>sent it off the following paragraph struck me as being a little dumb
> >>because changing jobs in today's labour market is not that easy and the
> >>job you change to may be no better than the one you left.
> >
> >Isn't it more accurate to say that the job you change to
> >*may very well be worse than the one you left* -- and, again
> >fine tuning: not the job you left, but the job that ceased to
> >exist and which therefore contributes nothing to *anybody* any more?
> >
> >> "Many people put in more that 37.5 hours and much of the work they
> >> do is tedious and demeaning. However, unlike the serf or slave,
> >> they can change jobs and, if they are unionized, can negotiate the
> >> conditions under which they work. That was less possible in earlier
> >> times."
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Aren't fewer and fewer workers unionized these days, at least in the USA?
> >
> >\brad mccormick
>
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga CA 91042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002
>
