WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
Bruce Roberts
Socialists are Utopians. In their little school microcosm, organization (which
to Friedrich Hayek was a prerequisite to all socialist societies) is
omnipresent. Conformity is demanded by both administrators and teachers
in the classroom. Some schools are very highly regimented with the so-called
"lockstep" system, but recently most have become overly permissive.
Nevertheless, even in these permissive schools, subtle coercion and persuasion
are always there. Persuasion, rather than violence, is now used by the school
staffs to "control" the students whose personal freedom and individuality
are always under pressure. The name of the game for the administrators and
teachers is always control, which implies power. Is it any wonder so many kids
detest school?
George Orwell once wrote in reference to great pacifist leaders
like Christ and Gandhi, that
"persuasion is violence against the soul". Orwell pointed out that persuasion
and psychological pressure of one kind or another is also far more effective
(and less messy) than violence. This helps explain the popularity of propaganda
with many political leaders.
Well, most of us accept that institutions of learning have to limit the freedom of
pupils, otherwise our schools would not work. And teachers have to be committed to
persuading or coercing recalcitrant youngsters to do what they often do not want to do,
i.e. work and behave in a civil manner.
However, when such an ordered, conformist and coercive system is extended to
the outside adult world (or macrocosm, if you like)
by the government, it is socialism and it is repressive.
Unfortunately too many teachers feel that
their ordered little socialist world of the school environment can be superimposed
on society as a whole. To many teachers, therefore, the confusion, chaos and
Darwinism of a free-market, free-enterprise capitalistic democracy like the U.S. is
anathema.
It is interesting to note that the socialist Lenin was
originally a schoolteacher. Karl Marx,
although not a teacher, was a lifelong academic and a thus
product of this unreal, utopian-like environment.
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic".
Joseph Stalin (socialist)
Gary
In article <32FE29...@sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
I guess 'cause they're nicer then you and if you represent the conservative
point of view, they'd rather not be one.
jeffpoole
Some of us disagree with the notion that "nice" people go around filling
our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
union dispute.
Jeff
Steve Ranta
In article <32FE76...@recorder.ca>, jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
. . .
> Some of us disagree with the notion that "nice" people go around filling
> our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
> union dispute.
>
I suppose you would rather under-fund public schools so that they have to
rely on corporate donations in return for allowing corporate propaganda
and advertising into the schools.
--
Steve Ranta
David Reilley
Ross-John Lambourn wrote:
>
> Socialists are Utopians.
Not nearly so much as neoconservative ideologues.
Fredrick Garth Harris
Yea, socialists believe in a rational organization of our lives;
neoconservatives believe in the irrational organization of capitalist
society.
Fred
Fredrick Garth Harris
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Bruce Roberts wrote:
> Socialists are Utopians. In their little school microcosm, organization (which
> to Friedrich Hayek was a prerequisite to all socialist societies) is
> omnipresent.
Quite interesting right-wing rhetoric. If organization is the
prerequisite of
all socialist societies, then is capitalism itself socialist? Surely,
capitalism is a social organization?
>Conformity is demanded by both administrators and teachers
> in the classroom. Some schools are very highly regimented with the so-called
> "lockstep" system, but recently most have become overly permissive.
Here is a juxtaposition of two different trends; dictatorship versus
permissiveness. Actually, conformity and regimentation correspond very
much to capitalist social relations at work (See Paul Willis' book.
The exact title escapes me; it is something like "Learning to Labour". In
that work, Willis draws a parallel between conformity at school and
conformity at work for an employer.)
> Nevertheless, even in these permissive schools, subtle coercion and persuasion
> are always there. Persuasion, rather than violence, is now used by the school
> staffs to "control" the students whose personal freedom and individuality
> are always under pressure. The name of the game for the administrators and
> teachers is always control, which implies power. Is it any wonder so many kids
> detest school?
Indeed, by reducing finances to education, coercion is indeed indirectly
increased. However, this coercion is quite in agreement with right-wing
politics. Why did the Manitoba government recently institute
standardized testing? Is business against or for such standardization?
The extreme right likes to present dicatorial forms as leftist when in
fact they are expressions of right-wing movements.
> George Orwell once wrote in reference to great pacifist leaders
> like Christ and Gandhi, that
> "persuasion is violence against the soul". Orwell pointed out that persuasion
> and psychological pressure of one kind or another is also far more effective
> (and less messy) than violence. This helps explain the popularity of propaganda
> with many political leaders.
I have not read much of Orwell (apart from Animal Farm). However, Orwell
was criticizing right-wing forms of pressure.
> Well, most of us accept that institutions of learning have to limit the freedom of
> pupils, otherwise our schools would not work. And teachers have to be committed to
> persuading or coercing recalcitrant youngsters to do what they often do not want to do,
> i.e. work and behave in a civil manner.
Actually, if teachers do not tow the line to a certain extent, principals
can probably cause them grief--in subtle ways. Or school trustees can.
> However, when such an ordered, conformist and coercive system is extended to
> the outside adult world (or macrocosm, if you like)
> by the government, it is socialism and it is repressive.
Actually, this right-winger has it the other way around. Much of what
occurs at work makes its way, in distorted form perhaps, into schools.
Schools are much less powerful than employer-employee relations.
> Unfortunately too many teachers feel that
> their ordered little socialist world of the school environment can be superimposed
> on society as a whole.
What confusion. This right-winger portrays teachers as dicators.
Teachers are, among other things, employees. They may do things they do
not like because they require money in order to live.
> To many teachers, therefore, the confusion, chaos and
> Darwinism of a free-market, free-enterprise capitalistic democracy like the U.S. is
> anathema.
What inverted logic. Capitalism is anything but democratic when it comes
to worker democracy.
> It is interesting to note that the socialist Lenin was
> originally a schoolteacher.
Source? Actually, I do believe that Lenin obtained a degree in law
(although he did not practice it very much). I may be mistaken. I did
read Isaac Deutcher's biography of Trotsky; I think my source is his trilogy.
>Karl Marx,
> although not a teacher, was a lifelong academic and a thus
> product of this unreal, utopian-like environment.
Actually, Karl Marx was not an academic at all. He obtained a doctorate
in philosophy, but when his mentor, Bruno Bauer, lost his position at a
university (I believe it was Bonn University), Marx began to write for
the Rheinische Zeitung as a journalist. In that newspaper, he criticized
the position of the Prussian government concerning the freedom of press
as well as the rights of peasants to gather wood on common land.
Marx also particpated in the revolution of 1848-49 (editor of the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung). He also particpated in the International Working
Men's Association, established in 1864 by workers from England and Europe.
The right-wing should know better than pass off falsehoods as facts.
>
>
> "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic".
>
> Joseph Stalin (socialist)
Stalin claimed to be one; just as Jack Plant claims to be a defender of
freedom.
Stalin was a dictator; Jack Plant is close to being a fascist.
Fred
Bruce Roberts
>Why not? It is less harmful and insidious than the leftist propaganda they are being fed now by many teachers and academics.
jeffpoole
Steve Ranta wrote:
> I suppose you would rather under-fund public schools so that they have to rely on corporate donations in return for allowing corporate
propaganda and advertising into the schools.
> No, it isn't black and white. This isn't about under-funding, it's about
reducing the ammount of over-funding. In the last 10 years, funding for
education has gone up 80%, while enrolment has gone down by 3%. Even
accounting for inflation, there is much room for further efficiency.
Also, remember that many cuts to education do not really effect the
classroom. When Klein began to cut school boards in Alberta, he found
that there were boards which continued to function normally even when
they administered no schools. Ontario had a similar, albeit less
agrivated situation.
At my school, we already have corporate funding, a company named
Brock-Tel (part of Northern-Telecom) buys Computers for us and helps give
us hands on training ect. In return, we help their company by allowing
them to use our classrooms for training (of their employees) and we also
send our Band to their fuctions.
Can you see anything wrong with this kind of partnership?
Jeff
Lloyd Lawrence
In response to Bruce Roberts (below):
I've known literally hundreds of teachers (some only very briefly and
superficially) and probably less than a hundred academics (perhaps a
little less superficially). I'd be really reluctant to make any general
statement about either group's politics (Note: they are definitely NOT of
the same inclinations as groups, since they have differing, and often
conflicting, interests). But my impressions have been, on the whole, that
teachers pursue their lives and occupations less like socialists than
capitalists. In addition to the militaristic nature of school systems
("permissiveness" is a euphemism for revolutionary models of pedagogy
which contradict the status quo, but the term's always a good emotive
hellraiser in a conservative society), it's a middle-class sense of
morality that occupies the curriculum. Some teachers are true believers in
the New Age Utopian ideals. But there aren't many who would accept William
Morris's Utopia. Trying to correlate teachers and socialists would be a
nervewracking task and in the end the teachers would tell you, "We're not
a union, we're a professional association", which would end the debate.
-lloyd
(BTW, Stalin's socialism wasn't representative of socialist analysis, so
if you're looking to use the label this loosely you'll want to look at the
Freedom Party's webpage, where you'll find Mike Harris labelled as a
socialist too).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Bruce Roberts wrote:
> Socialists are Utopians. In their little school microcosm, organization (which
> to Friedrich Hayek was a prerequisite to all socialist societies) is
> omnipresent. Conformity is demanded by both administrators and teachers
> in the classroom. Some schools are very highly regimented with the so-called
> "lockstep" system, but recently most have become overly permissive.
> Nevertheless, even in these permissive schools, subtle coercion and persuasion
> are always there. Persuasion, rather than violence, is now used by the school
> staffs to "control" the students whose personal freedom and individuality
> are always under pressure. The name of the game for the administrators and
> teachers is always control, which implies power. Is it any wonder so many kids
> detest school?
>
> George Orwell once wrote in reference to great pacifist leaders
> like Christ and Gandhi, that
> "persuasion is violence against the soul". Orwell pointed out that persuasion
> and psychological pressure of one kind or another is also far more effective
> (and less messy) than violence. This helps explain the popularity of propaganda
> with many political leaders.
>
> Well, most of us accept that institutions of learning have to limit the freedom of
> pupils, otherwise our schools would not work. And teachers have to be committed to
> persuading or coercing recalcitrant youngsters to do what they often do not want to do,
> i.e. work and behave in a civil manner.
>
> However, when such an ordered, conformist and coercive system is extended to
> the outside adult world (or macrocosm, if you like)
> by the government, it is socialism and it is repressive.
> Unfortunately too many teachers feel that
> their ordered little socialist world of the school environment can be superimposed
> on society as a whole. To many teachers, therefore, the confusion, chaos and
> Darwinism of a free-market, free-enterprise capitalistic democracy like the U.S. is
> anathema.
>
> It is interesting to note that the socialist Lenin was
> originally a schoolteacher. Karl Marx,
> although not a teacher, was a lifelong academic and a thus
> product of this unreal, utopian-like environment.
>
>
>
Steve Ranta
> Ross-John Lambourn wrote:
> >
> > Socialists are Utopians.
>
> Not nearly so much as neoconservative ideologues.
I'm not sure I agree.
It seems to me that neo-conservatives could be called 'utopian' in the
negative sense that their ideas are unworkable.
On the other hand, most 'utopians' have ideas about making society better
for all of its citizens.
Neo-conservatives seem more concerned about getting a bigger slice of the
pie for themselves at the expense of everybody else, even if the pie as a
whole is made smaller or not as good.
--
Steve Ranta
Steve Ranta
In article <01bc1703$0583dd80$8ee1f3c7@default>, "ren" <ren@nas|.net> wrote:
> jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote in article
> <32FE76...@recorder.ca>...
> > Gary wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <32FE29...@sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts
> <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > > I guess 'cause they're nicer then you and if you represent the
> > conservative point of view, they'd rather not be one.
> >
> > Some of us disagree with the notion that "nice" people go around filling
> > our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
>
> > union dispute.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
>
>
> PROOF BOY! PROOF! Put up or shut up!
If you want Poole to shut up, ask him to show how the Tory campaign
platform would help create jobs.
--
Steve Ranta
ren
Jack Plant
Fredrick Garth Harris <umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA> wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, David Reilley wrote:
>> Ross-John Lambourn wrote:
>> >
>> > Socialists are Utopians.
>>
>> Not nearly so much as neoconservative ideologues.
>>
>>
>Yea, socialists believe in a rational organization of our lives;
>neoconservatives believe in the irrational organization of capitalist
>society.
It is extremely difficult to take socialists seriously when THEY that
irrationality is rational.
They think that government, centralized organization is rational.
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jpl...@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
Neil Fowler
jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
> Gary wrote: > > In article <32FE29...@sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts
> <rob...@sympatico.ca>a writes: > I guess 'cause they're nicer then you
> and if you represent the conservative point of view, they'd rather not be
> one.
>
> Some of us disagree with the notion that "nice" people go around filling
> our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
> union dispute.
>
This is the typical conservative response. Don't tell people
what wil happen to them when we do this. Students have every right to
know what the Harrass reforms will mean to them in the classroom. What
Harris and his supporters are afraid of is that many of these informed
students will be eligible to vote in the next election and if they know
what Harrass is really doing, they will not vote for Harrass. Ever
wonder why Harrass won't release any of the studies that he basis his
reforms on to the public?
> Jeff
--
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
Dave Diduck
On 10 Feb 1997 17:15:28 -0500, ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
(Neil Fowler) wrote:
Would you be in favour of the PCs going into every classroom and
giving only their side of the picture?
Cheers
--
Dave Diduck
1123 Fort St
Regina Sk S4T 5R9
http://www.sasknet.com/~didue/
The majority are not silent - politicians have selective hearing!
Stig O'Tracy
Steve Ranta wrote:
>
> In article <32FE76...@recorder.ca>, jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
> . . .
> > our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
> > union dispute.
> >
>
> rely on corporate donations in return for allowing corporate propaganda
> and advertising into the schools.
>
That's kinda mising the point, but anyways it's not an either-or proposition. Parents
could certainly afford to kick in the costs a bit more in most cases. And certainly
some degree of corporate sponsorship is not to be feared...universities get many such
donations and yet are hardly bastions of corporate propagandising...quite the contrary.
If, say, a library gets named aftr a donor, what's the harm?
Steve Ranta
In article <32FF85...@lis.ab.ca>, smat...@lis.ab.ca wrote:
. . . Parents
> could certainly afford to kick in the costs a bit more in most cases. . . .
What about in the other cases?
--
Steve Ranta
Robin R. Krasichynski
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:39:56 GMT Dave Diduck said ...
>
>>
>Would you be in favour of the PCs going into every classroom and
>giving only their side of the picture?
No, I would not be in favour of that. But I would be in favour of
equal time in the classroom if the government wants to put
forward its case for cutting education funding, abrogating teachers'
contracts, etc.
D. Rodney Smelser
Dear Bruce, George, et al,
I thought you would like to know that Capilano Reform MP Herbert Grubel
used to be a teacher, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser
University.
In my experience, talking to his former students, Herbert appears
to have spared no efforts in terms of indoctrinating his students in the
cause of righteous neo-conservatism. Of course, it didn't always work.
Some former students tend to grumble about Herbert, muttering darkly
about his constant philosophizing. But those who bought the story came
away happily refering to guys like Ken Galbraith as outright socialists.
So, if he didn't always bat 1000, he sure hit them when he hit them!
Rod
Lars Ormberg
For essentials, after need is determined then the gov't can chip in
after the parents pay all they can.
For non-essentials such as sports teams and such if he parents cannot
afford the service then those children will not receive it, obviously.
> Steve Ranta
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
__
The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
an experience only categorizable as Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country. (Oh, and some Star Wars
thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
John Corman
On 11 Feb 1997 13:40:34 GMT, rob...@accessweb.com (Robin R.
Krasichynski) wrote:
>No, I would not be in favour of that. But I would be in favour of
>equal time in the classroom if the government wants to put
>forward its case for cutting education funding, abrogating teachers'
>contracts, etc.
"Abrogating teachers' contracts" Please explain what you're talking
about.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Robin R. Krasichynski
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:48:30 GMT John Corman said ...
>"Abrogating teachers' contracts" Please explain what you're talking
>about.
>
Trying to crack open signed collective agreements to force
employees to take cutbacks. They sure aren't trying to
open the contracts to give the teachers a raise.
Robin R. Krasichynski
On 11 Feb 1997 16:46:30 GMT John Angus said ...
>How about instead we tell the kids that they could have a far better
>education were it not for the greed of the teacher's unions ripping
>off their educational money?
LOL... like that isn't happening now daily through the media, and
government policies - and ..... SURPRISE - postings on the
net.
>
>Fact is teachers care nothing about educating the young. They care about
>filling their bank accounts. If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
>and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
>quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
>
Oh.... in the wide world of the free market, you now expect that teachers
are going to act from altruism - the same altruism that you despise when
it is focussed on the poor, the ill-educated, the sick, the unemployed, etc.
I guess teachers aren't allowed to be concerned about feeding and clothing
their own kids, putting food on their own tables.
If you think there is going to be support for having teachers with less
education, off you go and try to sell it to the public.
"We can save millions if we just hire people who are less qualified."
Where have we heard this before?
Patrick Coghlan
In article <5dsiiv$63q$5...@f02s02.tac.net>, rob...@accessweb.com (Robin R.
Krasichynski) wrote:
> Oh.... in the wide world of the free market, you now expect that teachers
> are going to act from altruism - the same altruism that you despise when
> it is focussed on the poor, the ill-educated, the sick, the unemployed, etc.
>
> I guess teachers aren't allowed to be concerned about feeding and clothing
> their own kids, putting food on their own tables.
Sure, everyone is concerned about that. But teachers don't stop there.
They rally against anything that would take away any of the benefits they
enjoy even if the changes would improve the educational system for its
CUSTOMERS. Have you ever seen a teacher's union come out in favour of
voucher systems, standardized tests, the elimination of grade 13 or
the introduction of charter schools?
A few weeks ago one of my co-workers left for the sunny climes of
Richardson Texas. I asked her if she was concerned about the quality of
the public schools down there. Her response was that she had compared
the test scores of the students from the local school against those of
many of the surrounding schools and found the local school to be the
top one. Imagine that, schools being required to report test scores so
that parents can decide if they want their children to attend. What a
concept! I'm sure we'll have a similar system in Ontario eventually, but
teachers' unions will fight it every step of the way.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Werner Knoll
Most teachers are using their nudel.
W.K.
an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
>Neil Fowler (ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) writes:
>> jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>>> Some of us disagree with the notion that "nice" people go around filling
>>> our kids heads with biased information in order to use them as pawns in a
>>> union dispute.
>>
>> This is the typical conservative response. Don't tell people
>> what wil happen to them when we do this. Students have every right to
>> know what the Harrass reforms will mean to them in the classroom. What
>
>How about instead we tell the kids that they could have a far better
>education were it not for the greed of the teacher's unions ripping
>off their educational money?
>
>Fact is teachers care nothing about educating the young. They care about
>filling their bank accounts. If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
>and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
>quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
>
>JA
>
>
>--
>"Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness" es...@cleveland.freenet.edu
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>"Peace, Order, & Good Government" an...@freenet.carleton.ca
Lars Ormberg
Patrick Coghlan wrote:
[about altruism versus capitalism in teachers motivations]
> Sure, everyone is concerned about that. But teachers don't stop there.
> They rally against anything that would take away any of the benefits they
> enjoy even if the changes would improve the educational system for its
> CUSTOMERS. Have you ever seen a teacher's union come out in favour of
> voucher systems, standardized tests, the elimination of grade 13 or
> the introduction of charter schools?
>
> A few weeks ago one of my co-workers left for the sunny climes of
> Richardson Texas. I asked her if she was concerned about the quality of
> the public schools down there. Her response was that she had compared
> the test scores of the students from the local school against those of
> many of the surrounding schools and found the local school to be the
> top one. Imagine that, schools being required to report test scores so
> that parents can decide if they want their children to attend. What a
> concept! I'm sure we'll have a similar system in Ontario eventually, but
> teachers' unions will fight it every step of the way.
As right they should. How dare the parents try to give their children a
proper, well rounded, effective education?
Unions will fight anything that involves improving schools without
giving teachers 100% of the credit. If standardized testings come
along, they will show that some teachers are just no good. They may
even encourage schools to replace bad teachers...which in the mind of
the ATA and other teacher's unions is akin to devil worship.
> --
> -Pat
> bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
Lars Ormberg
D. Rodney Smelser wrote:
> Dear Bruce, George, et al,
>
> I thought you would like to know that Capilano Reform MP Herbert Grubel
> used to be a teacher, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser
> University.
Hence the word "most" in the thread title. I'd say at least 80% of the
teachers I know are socialist, and 90% of the university profs.
> Rod
D. Rodney Smelser
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>D. Rodney Smelser wrote:
>> Dear Bruce, George, et al,
>>
>> I thought you would like to know that Capilano Reform MP Herbert Grubel
>> used to be a teacher, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser
>> University.
>
>Hence the word "most" in the thread title. I'd say at least 80% of the
>teachers I know are socialist, and 90% of the university profs.
From your website I understand that you are a science student at the
University of Alberta. Are you seriously suggesting that 90% of the
natural science professors and lecturers at the UofA are socialists?
Perhaps you, like Grubel, would include JKGalbraith under the heading
socialist. Is that how you are able to come up with such a stupefying
figure?
Even if you did have such a rightward shift in your terminology, in which
everyone who is not a neo-conservative of the Mike Klein/Ralph Harris
variety is classified as a socialist, it would still be extremely
difficult to come up with a 90% score among science professors. Many
science professors tend to identify their interests with with the major
corporations who offer potentially lucrative research grants, and to be
appropriately conservative in their politics.
>Lars Ormberg
>(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
>la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>__
>The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
>ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
>an experience only categorizable as Lars On-Line!
>
>* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
>Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
>still showing in theatres across the country. (Oh, and some Star Wars
>thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
I viewed the website. I hate Star Trek. But I do like Red Green.
Rod
David Reilley
sa...@execulink.com wrote:
>
> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
> > If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
> >and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
> >quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
>
> my OAC physics class or quantum theory to my OAC chemistry class.
Hey - why stop at half-price Arts grads: why not just offer the right
wing pundits on this newsgroups beer money in exchange for full time
teaching. They have all the answers, can make a complex world seem
quite simple and furthermore will invest their pay in collaborating
every evening with other know-it-alls preparing for the next day's class
at the beer parlour.
Makes a LOT more sense than hiring people who know all about biology and
music and chemistry and have studied all those wussie things like
teaching learning disabled kids to read and recognizing the hidden signs
that a kid can't study because of abuse at home.
In fact - let's just eliminate the schools entirely, and instead
distribute free Rock'Em Sock'Em videos through 7-11 stores. Heh! Heh!
Heh!
David Reilley
an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
> If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
> and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
> quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
Now I can't be sure, but this may be a copyright infringement
from an episode of Beavis 'n Buttthead.
David Reilley
ala...@agt.net wrote:
>
> Fuck you don't know what you are talking about do you.
>
> Have you talked to all 30 000 teachers to find their views?
>
> You condem schools for being to controlling in one breath and in the
> next you say its necessary. Make up your mind.
>
> You say that teachers want to impose their control onto the rest
> of society? Give me a break. Every teacher wants to teach their
> students to be independent thinkers not conformists.
>
> You haven't been into a school for quite a while have you?
>
> Why don't you spend some time volunteering at a school instead of
> spouting your garbage. Learn about teaching and students first then
> maybe you might have something worthwhile to say.
Your error (you must be a newbie) is in taking Mr. Lambourn seriously.
Please don't do this too often, or he my begin imitating you and have
similar thoughts about himself, and then we are in REAL trouble. If you
pass a lunatic on the corner, standing on a soapbox and SCREAMING thqt
all teachers were part of a communist plot, you would dismiss the
speaker as a misguided nutcase. You would not treat his comments the
same way you would the same words appearing in the lead editorial of the
Globe and Mail.
My point is that even though the words here appear printed on an
electronic page, this is NOT the Globe & Mail, it is the street corner
-- and the streets of cyberspace are indeed full of lunatics. (It is
much worse than they let on in newspaper articles. A virtual Bedlam.)
I often respond to Mr. Lambourn's poorly researched, poorly thought-out
contradictory nonesense by pointing out that THE WHOLE WORLD'S LAUGHING
at him. Please -- allow yourself to join the laughter, and don't allow
the net-kooks to get your shorts in a knot.
P.S. - "Bruce Roberts" is the latest in a series of 13
fake names used by Mr Lambourn during the past
18 months.
>
> Ross John Lambourn, using the fake name Bruce Roberts, <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Socialists are Utopians. In their little school microcosm, organization (which
> >to Friedrich Hayek was a prerequisite to all socialist societies) is
<snip about 75 lines of stuff we've all read before>
John Corman
On 12 Feb 1997 13:59:35 GMT, rob...@accessweb.com (Robin R.
Krasichynski) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:48:30 GMT John Corman said ...
>>"Abrogating teachers' contracts" Please explain what you're talking
>>about.
>Trying to crack open signed collective agreements to force
>employees to take cutbacks. They sure aren't trying to
>open the contracts to give the teachers a raise.
But "abrogating". That's something a King does to his subjects.
Let's get real here. If the union wants to open an agreement there is
a nice flowery expression for it. If the employer does it its the end
of the world as we know it.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Robin R. Krasichynski
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:15:12 -0400 Patrick Coghlan said ...
/>
/>In article <5dsiiv$63q$5...@f02s02.tac.net>, rob...@accessweb.com (Robin R.
/>Krasichynski) wrote:
/>
/>> Oh.... in the wide world of the free market, you now expect that teachers
/>> are going to act from altruism - the same altruism that you despise when
/>> it is focussed on the poor, the ill-educated, the sick, the unemployed, etc.
/>>
/>> I guess teachers aren't allowed to be concerned about feeding and clothing
/>> their own kids, putting food on their own tables.
/>
/>Sure, everyone is concerned about that. But teachers don't stop there.
/>They rally against anything that would take away any of the benefits they
/>enjoy even if the changes would improve the educational system for its
/>CUSTOMERS. Have you ever seen a teacher's union come out in favour of
/>voucher systems, standardized tests, the elimination of grade 13 or
/>the introduction of charter schools?
And exactly why is it that you can justify teachers losing benefits so that
someone else can have them? You don't like that when it is your pocket that
is being asked to extend itself on behalf of someone else, but you think it is
okay to do it to teachers. Hypocrite. And when was the last time someone
suggested a change to the school system that wasn't centered around
either cutting back the wages of teachers, or increasing their workload?
Just in case you forgot, when you move from a classroom of 25 to a classroom
of 30, it is more work for the teacher - but offer them a cutback at the same
time and you wonder why they are up in arms?
Secondly, I have not seen that ATA come out against standardized tests.
We don't have Grade 13 in Alberta, so that is hardly an issue in the ab.politics
newsgroup. Finally, the marks are in on charter schools, and they don't make
a damn pinch of difference in test scores. If you want you child to have a particular
kind of education, then fine. Employ qualified teachers at the going rate, instead
of trying to get away with cheap labour costs for one of the toughest, most
responsible jobs in our society.
/>
/>A few weeks ago one of my co-workers left for the sunny climes of
/>Richardson Texas. I asked her if she was concerned about the quality of
/>the public schools down there. Her response was that she had compared
/>the test scores of the students from the local school against those of
/>many of the surrounding schools and found the local school to be the
/>top one. Imagine that, schools being required to report test scores so
/>that parents can decide if they want their children to attend. What a
/>concept! I'm sure we'll have a similar system in Ontario eventually, but
/>teachers' unions will fight it every step of the way.
Oddly enough, here in Alberta, less than a month ago, when I enrolled my
son in a new school, the principal was very quick to show me how the
students had scored on standardized, province-wide tests. Want to try again?
Bill MacArthur
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>D. Rodney Smelser wrote:
>> Dear Bruce, George, et al,
>>
>> I thought you would like to know that Capilano Reform MP Herbert Grubel
>> used to be a teacher, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser
>> University.
>
>Hence the word "most" in the thread title. I'd say at least 80% of the
>teachers I know are socialist, and 90% of the university profs.
>
sa...@execulink.com
an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
>Neil Fowler (ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) writes:
>> jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>How about instead we tell the kids that they could have a far better
>education were it not for the greed of the teacher's unions ripping
>off their educational money?
As a teacher I have to admit that you have a point here, but I
have to correct you on one point. It is the OSSTF, not the teachers
themselves that are the centre of greed.
> If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
>and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
>quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
ala...@agt.net
Fuck you don't know what you are talking about do you.
Have you talked to all 30 000 teachers to find their views?
You condem schools for being to controlling in one breath and in the
next you say its necessary. Make up your mind.
You say that teachers want to impose their control onto the rest
of society? Give me a break. Every teacher wants to teach their
students to be independent thinkers not conformists.
You haven't been into a school for quite a while have you?
Why don't you spend some time volunteering at a school instead of
spouting your garbage. Learn about teaching and students first then
maybe you might have something worthwhile to say.
Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Socialists are Utopians. In their little school microcosm, organization (which
>to Friedrich Hayek was a prerequisite to all socialist societies) is
Bill MacArthur
sa...@execulink.com wrote:
>an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
>>
>>Neil Fowler (ab...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca) writes:
>>> jeffpoole <jeff...@recorder.ca> wrote:
>
>>How about instead we tell the kids that they could have a far better
>>education were it not for the greed of the teacher's unions ripping
>>off their educational money?
>
> As a teacher I have to admit that you have a point here, but I
>have to correct you on one point. It is the OSSTF, not the teachers
>themselves that are the centre of greed.
>
is the workers and the workers are the union. As with other unions, the
OSSTF may set policies which contradict the views of most of its members.
OTOH, the challenge for the teachers is to vote these people out. I for
one would be much more sympathetic to teachers in general were it not for
the OSSTF holding on to some obscenely generous benefits that private
sector employees rarely see.
The OSSTF has been able to obtain these benefits through endangering and
sacrificing the education of our children to achieve them. They also
have had far more power than the individual boards which have negotiated
with them.
So we have good and bad teachers who have benefited from an unfair labour
balance but these teachers are not the OSSTF and the OSSTF are not the
teachers.
>
>> If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
>>and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
>>quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
>
>
> I should like to see a general arts grad teach relativity to
>my OAC physics class or quantum theory to my OAC chemistry class.
An excellent point! The previous poster expresses some legitimate
frustration but firing people just because they now make high wages is
not fair. Furthermore, we need skilled knowledgeable teachers not
generalists. One problem with education is that teachers are sometimes
allowed to teacher outside of areas in which they have any real
background.
In the 70s the government added the requirement that teachers had to have
degrees to teach. Many teachers went back to university and got degrees
in the easiest courses which were available. These typically were not
the hard sciences or even the hard humanities for that matter. The
degrees didn't necessarily make them better teachers, just higher paid.
In your case, I believe that you should have at least an Honours B.Sc.
with a major in physics and minor in chemistry or vice-versa. I would
hate to see someone teaching your courses with a B.Sc in Biology and
first year Physics and Chemistry behind them. They just wouldn't have
the background. Also, teachers have to remain current.
As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay for it but I damn well better get the
results, results which are not apparent now. Again that probably has
more to do with the Ministry of Education and the OSSTF than individual
teachers.
Robin R. Krasichynski
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:46:50 GMT John Corman said ...
First of all Mr. Corman, you should look up abrogating. Secondly,
unions can't open up agreements before they have finished running
their term. No one can force open an agreement, unless, guess
what, you are the government. The courts will uphold a collective
agreement, right up and to the point where the government
LEGISLATES a rollback.
So let's get real here Mr. Corman. You need to brush up on
your knowledge of the process of collective bargaining, and then
you need to brush up on the legal status of collective agreements,
and when you are done with that, you need to look at a little of
what has been going on for the last five years. The Government of
Canada broke its collected agreement with PSAC. The Province
of Manitoba has made an attempt several times to break open
collective agreements recently resulting in several strikes.
Either, you expect the government to abide by the law, or you don't.
The law is not there solely to serve your interests - it is there to
provide impartiality - ESPECIALLY as regards contracts.
How can you possibly expect anyone to have any sympathy for
your tax burden, when you are self-serving enough to support
the opening of legally negotiated and binding contracts.
Patrick Coghlan
In article <5dtt73$pbs$2...@f02s02.tac.net>, rob...@accessweb.com (Robin R.
Krasichynski) wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:15:12 -0400 Patrick Coghlan said ...
> />
> />Sure, everyone is concerned about that. But teachers don't stop there.
> />They rally against anything that would take away any of the benefits they
> />enjoy even if the changes would improve the educational system for its
> />CUSTOMERS. Have you ever seen a teacher's union come out in favour of
> />voucher systems, standardized tests, the elimination of grade 13 or
> />the introduction of charter schools?
>
> And exactly why is it that you can justify teachers losing benefits so that
> someone else can have them? You don't like that when it is your pocket that
I'm just saying their benefits are out-of-line with the private sector.
Here in Ottawa, the median salary for a high school teacher is about $60K,
or about $35/hour when one factors in 12 weeks holidays and classroom
preparation/out-of-classroom work.
> is being asked to extend itself on behalf of someone else, but you think it is
> okay to do it to teachers. Hypocrite. And when was the last time someone
> suggested a change to the school system that wasn't centered around
> either cutting back the wages of teachers, or increasing their workload?
Changes are suggested all the time. Here in Ontario we've had the
introduction of
destreaming in grade 9 as a recent (dumb) change brought in a couple of
years ago.
By the way, the amount that teachers are paid has nothing to do with the quality
of individual teachers thanks to the union. The good ones AND bad ones get the
same high salaries.
> Just in case you forgot, when you move from a classroom of 25 to a classroom
> of 30, it is more work for the teacher - but offer them a cutback at the same
> time and you wonder why they are up in arms?
Funny, I taught a first-year university course shortly after I graduated.
There
were over 120 students. I probably made about $25/hour (averaged over teaching
and marking time), and I was never up in arms.
> Secondly, I have not seen that ATA come out against standardized tests.
> We don't have Grade 13 in Alberta, so that is hardly an issue in the
ab.politics
> newsgroup. Finally, the marks are in on charter schools, and they don't make
> a damn pinch of difference in test scores. If you want you child to
have a particular
> kind of education, then fine. Employ qualified teachers at the going
rate, instead
> of trying to get away with cheap labour costs for one of the toughest, most
> responsible jobs in our society.
I believe the good ones should make near the top salary that can be supported by
the ratepayers, and the poor to mediocre ones considerably less. I don't think
that they all should make the same based on years of experience.
> />A few weeks ago one of my co-workers left for the sunny climes of
> />Richardson Texas. I asked her if she was concerned about the quality of
> />the public schools down there. Her response was that she had compared
> />the test scores of the students from the local school against those of
> />many of the surrounding schools and found the local school to be the
> />top one. Imagine that, schools being required to report test scores so
> />that parents can decide if they want their children to attend. What a
> />concept! I'm sure we'll have a similar system in Ontario eventually, but
> />teachers' unions will fight it every step of the way.
>
> Oddly enough, here in Alberta, less than a month ago, when I enrolled my
> son in a new school, the principal was very quick to show me how the
> students had scored on standardized, province-wide tests. Want to try again?
Perhaps Alberta is more "advanced" than Ontario, but we're getting there.
--
-Pat
bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
David Reilley
Or with his definition of socialism: Remember Lambourn's definition of
"socialist" includes Peter Lougheed, and Jackboot Plant thinks that, in
certain respects, Mike Harris is a "socialist" as well.
If you decide to plant yourself to the right of 90 per cent of other
Canadians, then it should come as no great suprise that most people are
to the left of you. The delusion most of these zealots suffer is the
belief they are "mainstream," when the reality is they live on a
political fringe.
Sheldon Scott
Robin R. Krasichynski (rob...@accessweb.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:48:30 GMT John Corman said ...
: >"Abrogating teachers' contracts" Please explain what you're talking
: >about.
: Trying to crack open signed collective agreements to force
: open the contracts to give the teachers a raise.
Studied rhetoric, to be sure. Violent terms - "abrogate"; "crack open";
"force". This type of spin doctoring, delivered in the midst of a thread
about why teachers tend to be socialist, is typical of union leaders, who
put forth this type of cynical, deceitful rephrasing. They are simply
trying to characterize the efforts of the workers trying to run the
company (in this case, school administrators) as somehow "evil".
Ironically, as the level of education among the general population
increases, fewer and fewer people are buying into such rhetoric.
--
(-: ...e-mail will be posted as I see fit... :-)
(-: Off the monitor, through the modem... nothing but net. :-)
Sheldon Scott
Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
: But my impressions have been, on the whole, that
: teachers pursue their lives and occupations less like socialists than
: capitalists.
Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do. Sure they are
capitalist in their own occupation, that is, they belong to unions. That
is how they feel they will get the most money. This is a basic conflict
in the socialist ideology, the fact that many socialists don't adhere to
socialist principles when it comes time to discuss _their_ money.
: In addition to the militaristic nature of school systems <snip>
: it's a middle-class sense of morality that occupies the curriculum.
Whoa, there; you are attempting to link capitalism to militarism.
Militarism is certainly not an exclusive characteristic of capitalism.
: Trying to correlate teachers and socialists would be a
: nervewracking task and in the end the teachers would tell you, "We're not
: a union, we're a professional association", which would end the debate.
Oh, so? There are important differences between a "union" and a
"professional association", not the least of which being that the latter
organization does not take strike votes. In any event, as the bard said,
"what's in a name?".
Hell, if a bald statement could end a debate, there would be precious few
debates in the world.
Phil J.Stracke
On 12 Feb 1997 21:59:14 GMT, Werner Knoll <Werner...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>How about instead we tell the kids that they could have a far better
>>education were it not for the greed of the teacher's unions ripping
>>off their educational money?
>>
In a scathing and well researched speech given to the provinces brief, token
public hearings committee set up to create the appearance that their
contemptible Mega-city legislation was conscientiously debated, a former mayor
of Toronto has laid bare the nefarious intent and inevitable result of this
bill.
It clearly points out the undemocratic, corrupt and dictatorial threats such
lawlessness will impose on hapless Ontario residents.
This is of URGENT importance to Toronto and Ontario voters.
Presentation to Committee on General Governance
Subject: Bill 103, the Megacity Bill
From: John Sewell
Date: February 13, 1997.
I have lived my whole life in Toronto, and am proud to have played
a part in its political life.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and other members of the
government have said Bill 103 is about amalgamation, and their
remarks have addressed issues around that subject. I believe the
arguments made by the government are shallow, not supported by
experience in other urban areas, and that amalgamation will do
substantial damage to an urban area which, while not without
problems, works reasonably well.
But the few minutes allowed me for my presentation do not permit me
the luxury of discussing the amalgamation issue. I want to talk
about sections of the bill that are part of another agenda about
which apparently the government dares not speak publicly, an agenda
which you, as members of the government party, are expected to
support.
Take Sections 12, 13, and 18, for instance. These sections states
that organizations appointed under this legislation - organizations
which have power comparable to or in excess of existing municipal
councils - are exempt the rule of law. I am referring to the board
of trustees, and the transition team, the decisions of both being
final, and `shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court.'
Suppose the board of trustees or the transition team decide, as
they are clearly permitted to do in the sweeping powers given them
in this bill, to cancel a contract which someone has with a
municipality. These sections mean that the aggrieved party has no
remedy in the courts.
Suppose the transition team decides to fire a staff person who
objects to the havoc being wreaked by the team. These sections mean
the aggrieved party has no remedy in the courts. Suppose the
trustees decide to help themselves to municipal funds. These
sections mean they can get away with any nefarious behaviour they
want - since their decisions are final and may not be reviewed or
questioned by a court.
I want to ask each of you a question. When you ran for office did
you ever imagine you would be asked to establish an appointed body
that was beyond the reach of the courts and our legal system? I'll
bet most of you only thought that kind of thing happened in
communist countries, where the leaders said it was in everyone's
interests to establish strong governing bodies that would not be
distracted by individuals who tried to press for their personal
rights.
And what you have found - probably as much to your surprise as to
the rest of us - is that the leaders of the party to which you
belong now demand - here in Ontario, in Canada, of all places -
that either you support this totalitarian action, or you be
dismissed from the government. Something has gone dreadfully wrong
for your leaders to ask you to be so unreasonable, so dictatorial,
so revolutionary. Would your children or grandchildren think you
wise to support such action? Or the members of your church? Of
course not.
I will put this as kindly as I can. These sections have nothing to
do with amalgamation - they are about tyranny, and they demand your
immediate repudiation. Do not follow the unreasonable demands of
your leaders. Reject them. Do not begin to go down this course that
forsakes the rule of law.
Let me turn to Sections 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17. These sections take
decision-making away from locally elected councils and put it in
the control of a provincially appointed board of trustees and a
provincially appointed transition team. The effect of these
sections was summed up by the person who supposedly knows best what
this legislation is trying to do, Minister of Municipal Affairs Al
Leach, in his December 17, 1996 letter to all councillors in Metro
Toronto. He wrote: `During 1997 you are still a member of a duly
elected council with all the rights and duties that such a position
entails except as concerns the financial management of the
municipality.'
Mr. Leach did not say `You will be penalized or prosecuted if you
waste or fritter away the municipality's resources in the road to
amalgamation.' Instead, he removed all aspects of financial
management from elected councillors and put it in the hands of
people who he personally appoints and who report privately to him.
These are very powerful sections. They dispense with elected
councils because the government leaders have a better idea: they
will appoint their own people to make the important decisions. Your
leaders think that people who are elected to govern cities can't be
trusted to do their bidding. Better to push them out of the way.
Perhaps some of your colleagues in the government will say this is
an example of `direct democracy' that the Parliamentary Assistant
to the Premier, has recently written about. Others would see this
as part of the policy of drastically cutting down the number of
politicians. But members of the public would not agree. I think
they would call this the replacement of local democracy with
dictatorship. And they would be right. Those who will make the
decision are not responsible to the city's citizens, they certainly
aren't elected by them, and they have no intention of listening to
them. And unlike municipal councils, which can be taken to court,
they are above the law. These characteristics have the smell of
dictatorship and arbitrary decision-making.
Who would ever have suspected this kind of legislation would be
proposed by government leaders in Ontario?
How can you as individuals be part of this destruction of
democracy? Not one of you ran for office on the platform that you
would dispense with elected officials at another level of
government because you thought dictatorship was better. Of course
you didn't.
Each of you has a strong personal value system, one that is rooted
in the idea of democracy. We want to hear from each of you
personally reaffirming that value, and denouncing these pernicious
sections. Tell your leaders that they are wrong, and that as
individuals you will not countenance legislation which puts our
cities in the control of those who have all the characteristics of
dictators in communist countries.
Sections 14 and 20 state that the provincially appointed trustees
are paid for by Metro property tax payers - even though the
province appoints them and they report to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs. These sections offend against a very old principle - no
taxation without representation.
How can you forge ahead with these sections which offend such a
venerable democratic principle? Why would your leaders ever ask you
to support something so offensive. I suspect you won't find very
many members of the public willing to supporting these sections.
The last time a government tried to impose taxation without
representation in North America was in the 1830s, and that led to
rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada.
Section 24 gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs, without notice
or consultation, the power to make virtually any order he deems
necessary or appropriate. This section is unusually blunt,
indicating the minister may `impose conditions on the exercise of
the powers of an old council.' This is straight-forward autocracy,
something that could be expected a few centuries ago. Now, as the
twentieth century draws to a close, you are being asked to again
support this kind of nefarious behaviour.
You know as well as I do the saying of Lord Acton: `Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.' The
Minister - the person you are supporting - is bound to misuse such
far-reaching powers. Indeed, he already has. The minister has
ordered that the board of trustees are not permitted to speak to
the press. In doing so, he has re-inforced the dictatorial nature
of the board of trustees and his control over it. Do not support
him. No one elected you to countenance this kind of autocracy.
Reject these sections and their approach.
Time prevents me from making a full analysis of the Bill - were the
government not so intent in hurrying this bill through the process,
I would have had the opportunity to make the full presentation this
bill deserves. Indeed, were your leaders not in such a rush to
enact this folly, all those who asked to speak would have the
opportunity to do so.
But in the few minutes remaining I wish to touch on one more
matter: reserve funds. The bill makes but one mention of reserve
funds, Section 11, which restricts expenditures from reserves.
Nothing in the bill protects reserve funds, which amount to over $1
billion in the Metro Toronto area.
Why are reserve funds not protected? Amalgamation proposals are
always very specific about what happens to reserve funds. The
minister's order for the Kingston amalgamation says reserve funds
will be kept to be used only for the benefit of the taxpayers of
the former cities in which the revenues were generated. Bill 103
gives no such assurances.
I hope your leaders will say this is an oversight to be quickly
remedied by an amendment. But I fear for the worst. I believe your
leaders have their eye on this pile of money, either to use it to
fund severance pay of the 4500 staff they must dispense with if
they wish to realize the savings they have touted, or to simply
transfer it to provincial coffers to deal with your financial
problems.
As a property taxpayer, I am not willing to let you squander this
money - although the legislation takes away my recourse through the
courts. This bill prevents any legal action against the board of
trustees or the transition team, the bodies which will take control
of the reserve funds the very second this Bill is given royal
assent.
Don't be a party to this theft. Do not support your leaders as they
pull you down such a dishonourable path.
Your leaders ask too much of you in Bill 103. They promise
amalgamation but they deliver autocracy and dictatorship. Do not
support their wicked schemes. They have no place in Ontario. Stand
up for your own values, the values of democracy and the rule of law
which so many other Ontario residents share.
>end of quoted text.
Those who are righteously upset by this new lawlessness should prepare to
demonstrate their opposition by attending the Rebellion of '97
Rebellion of '97 In the Spirit of William Lyon Mackenzie
DEMOCRACY PARADE
Saturday February 15th, 1997
Join the Parade at any of these Assembly Points
12:00 noon: Yonge & Montgomery (3 blocks N. of Eglinton)
12:30 Yonge & Heath (Yorkminster Park Church 1 block North of St Clair)
1:00 Yonge & Ramsden Park (Opposite Rosedale Subway)
1:15 Yonge & Bloor (Metro Library 1 block North of Bloor)
1:30 College between Yonge & Bay
2:00 Triumph of Democracy begins at Queen's Park!
Support Local Democracy
Save Our Cities and Local School Boards
Protect Our Social Programs Stop the
Downloading on to Property Taxes
CITIZENS FOR LOCAL DEMOCRACY - For Information Call 977-8736
JOIN RIVERDALE'S "fighting mad" citizens for the
REBELLION OF '97 MARCH
*A NO-MEGACITY MARCH*
WHERE: Beginning at Broadview and Danforth, meet at the parkette,
just north of the Broadview Subway Station
WHEN: Saturday, February 15, Leaving at 12:00 noon SHARP
USE YOUR IMAGINATION! Bring your banners, buttons, yellow ribbons,
placards, signs, costumes, noise makers, megaphones......
The Riverdale contingent will join forces with the ÒRebellion of
'97 march at Yonge and Bloor to converge on Queen's Park.
Be there at this historic event to protest the Harris government
plan to destroy our city.
For more information regarding the Riverdale referendum campaign phone
the Riverdale Referendum Committee Hotline 392-7024
_________________________________________________/
Phil J. Stracke jp...@titan.tcn.net
__________________________________________________/
Lloyd Lawrence
On 14 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> : But my impressions have been, on the whole, that
> : teachers pursue their lives and occupations less like socialists than
> : capitalists.
>
> Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
I'd have to disagree there, both times. But I suppose we'd have to at
least agree on what we mean by "preaching socialism". In my book, what
teachers do with Dewey's "collateral learning" (or Jackson's "hidden
curriculum") is more of a socialisation than socialism. I'd go further and
agree with Prentice, Giroux and others that the essential effect of
schooling is social control for the benefit of (original) middle class and
corporate interests.
> Sure they are
> capitalist in their own occupation, that is, they belong to unions. That
> is how they feel they will get the most money.
Teachers belong to "the union" because they have no choice if they want to
teach. They don't generally consider it a "union" in the sense of workers'
unions, which is why they prefer to call it an "association". That's why
they attract those who'd have second thoughts about teaching if they
thought of themselves as union members. Teaching can be fairly lucrative,
if you can get a job these days (i.e. permanent, fulltime). But the
income factor is no different for a teacher than for anyone else working
in a unionised environment. And most teachers would still be teachers if
they didn't have a union, so the money's not the main issue. Actually,
the old saw is "those who can, do; those who can't, teach" as if it's a
sign of failure. That's not how teachers feel.
> This is a basic conflict
> in the socialist ideology, the fact that many socialists don't adhere to
> socialist principles when it comes time to discuss _their_ money.
Since we don't agree that teachers are socialists, we can't agree on your
generalisation. Apart from that, it's not true in general. A
misapprehension of the principles of socialism can allow you to read
conflict and contradiction into an individual's philosophy-in-action. For
example, being a socialist doesn't mean that you give away everything you
have or that you don't secure your needs and those of your family.
> : In addition to the militaristic nature of school systems <snip>
> : it's a middle-class sense of morality that occupies the curriculum.
>
> Whoa, there; you are attempting to link capitalism to militarism.
> Militarism is certainly not an exclusive characteristic of capitalism.
It definitely isn't "an exclusive characteristic of capitalism" but it's
linked very strongly. There are examples every day, but one of the most
egregious is the defense budget and its relationship to corporate profits
through arms production and development. School systems, militarism, and
capitalism have been a common theme forever and everywhere.
> : Trying to correlate teachers and socialists would be a
> : nervewracking task and in the end the teachers would tell you, "We're not
> : a union, we're a professional association", which would end the debate.
>
> Oh, so? There are important differences between a "union" and a
> "professional association", not the least of which being that the latter
> organization does not take strike votes. In any event, as the bard said,
> "what's in a name?".
> Hell, if a bald statement could end a debate, there would be precious few
> debates in the world.
It just happens that the issue of teachers' striking is a hot one at the
moment and in Manitoba the PC govt would rather like teachers to be able
to take a strike vote. If they do, they'll still be called a
"professional association" because that's what they want to be called.
And Shakespeare also said "A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.." (Romeo & Juliet, Act.I).
The point was that teachers themselves are generally bourgeois and don't
like to think of themselves as ordinary workers, much less socialist.
-lloyd
David Reilley
Sheldon Scott wrote:
>
> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> : But my impressions have been, on the whole, that
> : teachers pursue their lives and occupations less like socialists than
> : capitalists.
>
> Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
And your source for this -- other than conventional wisdom in the beer
parlour or "...everybody knows this."
Also - what do you mean bu "socialism." Various people in this group
use the word to describe a) anyone who disagrees with them on any topic
or annoys them b) Peter Lougheed or c) Mike Harris.
Robin R. Krasichynski
On 14 Feb 1997 17:53:12 GMT Sheldon Scott said ...
>
>Robin R. Krasichynski (rob...@accessweb.com) wrote:
>: On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:48:30 GMT John Corman said ...
>: >"Abrogating teachers' contracts" Please explain what you're talking
>: >about.
>:
>: Trying to crack open signed collective agreements to force
>: employees to take cutbacks. They sure aren't trying to
>: open the contracts to give the teachers a raise.
>
>Studied rhetoric, to be sure. Violent terms - "abrogate"; "crack open";
>"force". This type of spin doctoring, delivered in the midst of a thread
>about why teachers tend to be socialist, is typical of union leaders, who
>put forth this type of cynical, deceitful rephrasing. They are simply
>trying to characterize the efforts of the workers trying to run the
>company (in this case, school administrators) as somehow "evil".
>Ironically, as the level of education among the general population
>increases, fewer and fewer people are buying into such rhetoric.
Since when did "abrogate" become a violent word?
According to the OED -
1. to repeal, to annul, to abolish authoritatively or formally, to cancel.
2. to do away wiht, put an end ot
That is its dictionary meaning, it has a legal meaning as well, but I just
don't happen to have a law dictionary handy.
Abrogate has specific meaning in contract law. It is a shame that you
don't have the background, education or research skills to realize this.
I am sorry I was speaking over your head.
And since you don't seem to know the meaning of "abrogate", I used other
terms in more common usage - force open, crack open - it isn't a case
of simply repealing the contract, it is one party determining that it will no
longer abide by the contract.
It is not a case of rhetoric. It is a case of using the correct legal term for
the process. I can recommend a couple of excellent books to improve
your vocabulary so that the big complicated words used in the newsgroup don't
confuse you, if you like.
It is not cynical rephrasing, it is the correct legal term for the action - but how
could I expect you to be conversant (to understand and use with ease) terms
which are clearly above your educational background.
If you are a sample of the education of the general populace increasing then we
are all doomed. I know children who ask when they don't understand a word, and
that is how they learn, instead of launching into an ill-informed rant about union
leaders, who evidentally know more big words than you do.
Further, I didn't characterize anyone as evil. Those are your words, so keep them
in your mouth. I said that abrogating contracts was not acceptable. It doesn't
matter whether it is the government, the landlord, a tennant, or even the guy you
do business with. A legal contract is binding - and just because the government
chooses to attempt to abrogate a contract, doesn't make it legal or just.
So get a grip. Get a good dictionary, and get your reading level above that of
an 11 year old. And when you don't understand a word, go look it up instead
of assuming you understand its meaning.
maoliosa smyth
lkjIn article <3302A6...@pinc.com>, David Reilley
<drei...@pinc.com> writes
>sa...@execulink.com wrote:
>>
>> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>>
>> > If we fired all the teachers in Ontario
>> >and replaced them with general arts grads at half the salary the
>> >quality of education in this province would rise substantially.
>>
>> I should like to see a general arts grad teach relativity to
>> my OAC physics class or quantum theory to my OAC chemistry class.
>
>
>wing pundits on this newsgroups beer money in exchange for full time
>teaching. They have all the answers, can make a complex world seem
>quite simple and furthermore will invest their pay in collaborating
>every evening with other know-it-alls preparing for the next day's class
>at the beer parlour.
>
>Makes a LOT more sense than hiring people who know all about biology and
>music and chemistry and have studied all those wussie things like
>teaching learning disabled kids to read and recognizing the hidden signs
>that a kid can't study because of abuse at home.
>
>In fact - let's just eliminate the schools entirely, and instead
>distribute free Rock'Em Sock'Em videos through 7-11 stores. Heh! Heh!
>Heh!
--
maoliosa smyth
sa...@execulink.com
Bill MacArthur <bil...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>sa...@execulink.com wrote:
>>an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay for it but I damn well better get the
>results, results which are not apparent now. Again that probably has
>more to do with the Ministry of Education and the OSSTF than individual
>teachers.
>
I am in agreement with all the points that you made. Your
last point is a key one. The ministry of education has been run by
left wingers (We like to call them hippies who got hair cuts and put
on suits). The general trend has been to produce students with high
self esteem. This is a very worthwhile and noble goal. However, the
ministry,(with help from certain elements of OSSTF and certain
education 'experts'), has been accomplishing this by introducing lower
standards (especially in the primary and junior divisions). This has
given a generation of low skill students.
The current ministry initiative is to raise these standards
back to a level where being educated means that a person has aquired
some real skills, as opposed to having just put in the required amount
of time. OSSTF is against these changes. I'm against OSSTF
alex taller
ala...@agt.net wrote:
>
> Fuck you don't know what you are talking about do you.
>
> Have you talked to all 30 000 teachers to find their views?
>
> You condem schools for being to controlling in one breath and in the
> next you say its necessary. Make up your mind.
>
> You say that teachers want to impose their control onto the rest
> of society? Give me a break. Every teacher wants to teach their
> students to be independent thinkers not conformists.
>
> You haven't been into a school for quite a while have you?
>
> Why don't you spend some time volunteering at a school instead of
> spouting your garbage. Learn about teaching and students first then
> maybe you might have something worthwhile to say.
>
Look at your spelling. I hope you are not a teacher.
Lloyd Lawrence
None of the above is in any way accurate or a reflection of the state of
Canadian school education. There are no verifiable studies or reports
that can confirm the barrage of quasi-statistics that the New Right has
thrust into the media and down the throats of the Canadian population in
its efforts to justify equating the corporate agenda with some fictitious
need for reform in education.
For some literature on this, check out the following:
Barlow, M. & Robertson, H. (1994): CLASS WARFARE - THE ASSAULT ON CANADA'S
SCHOOLS, ON: Key Porter Books
Bracey, G. (1994): The fourth Bracey report on the condition of public
education. PHI DELTA KAPPAN, 76(2), 115-127
Dare, P. (1995): We're smarter than we think - Snapshot of education in
Canada belies gloomy reports. EDMONTON JOURNAL, November 25, p.A4
Fraser, J. (1995): Economics focus of Canada's elite. EDMONTON JOURNAL,
July 23, p.A9
Levin, B. (1995): Canadian schools: The real story. CANADIAN SCHOOL
EXECUTIVE, 15(6), 17-18
Milne, B. (1995): Public education - Good and getting better. CANADIAN
SCHOOL EXECUTIVE, 15(6), 20-21
Stallings, J.A. (1995): Ensuring teaching and learning in the 21st
century. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, 24(6), 4-8
------------------
-lloyd
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
The spelling undoubtedly could be improved. However, why not comment on
the content? Attacks on form only do not constitute an argument.
In relation to volunteering, I oppose being a volunteer in the context of
an employer-employee relation. In 1992, the School Act in B.C. permitted
school divisions to use volunteers; school divisions could use volunteers
instead of hiring employees. For the unemployed, that is not good news.
Fred
Gary
>>As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay for it but I damn well better get the
>>results, results which are not apparent now. Again that probably has
>>more to do with the Ministry of Education and the OSSTF than individual
>>teachers.
>>
> I am in agreement with all the points that you made. Your
>last point is a key one. The ministry of education has been run by
>left wingers (We like to call them hippies who got hair cuts and put
>on suits). The general trend has been to produce students with high
>self esteem. This is a very worthwhile and noble goal. However, the
>ministry,(with help from certain elements of OSSTF and certain
>education 'experts'), has been accomplishing this by introducing lower
>standards (especially in the primary and junior divisions). This has
>given a generation of low skill students.
> The current ministry initiative is to raise these standards
>back to a level where being educated means that a person has aquired
>some real skills, as opposed to having just put in the required amount
>of time. OSSTF is against these changes. I'm against OSSTF
OSSTF has little to nothing to do with curriculum as constructed by the
ministry of education.
OSSTF is not against anything except ignorance.
You obviously have no knowledge of what the OSSTF is about.
PARENTS demanded the no-fail, feel-good approach that many elementary
schools were involved in. You get the kid of system you demand, you
[ the collective ] asked for it and you got it.
Don't like it ? Talk to your elected trustees or the minister.
Lars Ormberg
Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
> None of the above is in any way accurate or a reflection of the state of
> Canadian school education. There are no verifiable studies or reports
> that can confirm the barrage of quasi-statistics that the New Right has
> thrust into the media and down the throats of the Canadian population in
> its efforts to justify equating the corporate agenda with some fictitious
> need for reform in education.
Are the Grade 9 and 12 Math and Science scores amoung the highest in the
world? If not, then the education system could use repair.
> ------------------
> -lloyd
--
sa...@execulink.com
gum...@hookup.net (Gary) wrote:
>
> OSSTF has little to nothing to do with curriculum as constructed by the
>ministry of education.
Have you read the guide on the side that OSSTF published in
response to the ministry's reform initiative? It spells out several
changes that OSSTF wants to see made.
Have you read OSSTF's material on education reform? The OSSTF
wants to enforce political correctness in our schools and they're not
shy about stepping on their opposition.
I note that you have offerred no agrument to refute my
original assertation that lower ministry standards over the last 15
years have caused the current sad state of our students.
> OSSTF is not against anything except ignorance.
OSSTF is a political entity that is concerned only with its
own survival and has little or no regard for the wishes of its actual
members.
> You obviously have no knowledge of what the OSSTF is about.
They collect dues off my pay and send me propaganda. I think
I have a pretty good view from the inside and I know what they're all
about.
Werner Knoll
What Teaching?
People in Surrey British Columbia Canada will now get a new kind of
teaching in the Surrey public schools, thanks to the hallelujah gang, a
group of religious fanatics elected to the Surrey school board.
Robert Pickering an expert on condoms, Heather Stilwell studying
witchcraft books and Ken Hoffman to prove that the earth is flat.
You may be asking how on earth could this a happen in 1997? Easy, first
you use the local churches as a place to cast your ballot on the local
election’s to make sure the right kind of people cast their vote.
Next you make sure that only things in favor of your group gets into the
local letter to the editor column. When the local Surrey Now newspaper
prints a letter to the editor by a person critical to this group or
religion in the Surrey Now, than you send in your watch dog.
Example on January 29 1997 Mrs. Ken Marsh send a letter to the Surrey Now
paper pointing out what Christian fanatics have done to our society. Bang
you send your watch dog to straighten this out, by telling the Surrey Now
that this is a no go. That what Frank Hoeft did the week after and it
worked. Isolate those lefties, communist’s and anarchists that is the
way to go.
Mister Robert Pickering, arrested one time at a abortion clinic is the
driving force of this group. He made sure that condom machines were
removed from the high school’s washrooms. On the suggestion that this
machines could save lives, his reply was condoms will not protect from the
PAPALOLA virus. Well now, I am not an expert on the papalola virus but I
believe a condom can not hold 20 gallons of water.
Mrs. Stilwell, her husband active in the Christian Heritage party? at one
time was trying to get a book on Wicca witchcraft banned. The book written
by Barthe DeClements No Place for Me was a harmless novel. When this book
was not banned, her statement was, "I think we can now expect books that
proselytize religion.
Well was it not her aim to sneak in here books in the first place?
Mister Ken Hoffman the echo stuck on repeat for this group likes to ban
profanity in the school and gave on C.B.C. a couple of samples of this
profanity to let people know what it is. His next move is to get the
school kids into school uniforms and sing Oh Canada.
Why not adapt a team song "Praise the Lord and Screw the People" at the
school-board meetings, using Robert Pickering as the lead singer.
Werner Knoll.
Sheldon Scott
David Reilley (drei...@pinc.com) wrote:
: Sheldon Scott wrote:
: > Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
: And your source for this -- other than conventional wisdom in the beer
: parlour or "...everybody knows this."
Here is an example:
>From: Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
>The Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation is urging it's members
>to launch an anti-government propaganda campaign in the classrooms of
>Ontario schools. The union has produced and distributed to its members a
>calendar for job action and curriculum packages
>The union claims that the package consist of "pedagogically sound
>activities", but some of the questions seem to have been created by
>out-of-work marxists. One math question asks: "If a reactionary landlord
>extorts three marks per day from a worker...."
Sheldon Scott
David Reilley (drei...@pinc.com) wrote:
: Sheldon Scott wrote:
: > Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
:
: And your source for this -- other than conventional wisdom in the beer
: parlour or "...everybody knows this."
The words I hear from people who are teachers, at election time.
: Also - what do you mean bu "socialism." Various people in this group
: use the word to describe a) anyone who disagrees with them on any topic
: or annoys them b) Peter Lougheed or c) Mike Harris.
Let's don't get into any definitions of socialism beyond "take somebody
else's money, give some to me, and do what I want done with the rest".
Werner Knoll
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 19 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> David Reilley (drei...@pinc.com) wrote:
> : Sheldon Scott wrote:
> : > Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
> :
> : And your source for this -- other than conventional wisdom in the beer
> : parlour or "...everybody knows this."
>
> Here is an example:
> >From: Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
> >The Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation is urging it's members
> >to launch an anti-government propaganda campaign in the classrooms of
> >Ontario schools. The union has produced and distributed to its members a
> >calendar for job action and curriculum packages
> >The union claims that the package consist of "pedagogically sound
> >activities", but some of the questions seem to have been created by
> >out-of-work marxists. One math question asks: "If a reactionary landlord
> >extorts three marks per day from a worker...."
But since Sheldon provides no arguments to refute the Marxian theory (he
in fact reposted a series of unstantiated assertions on Marxian
economics), he hardly can criticize the content of the math question.
What happens if "a reactionary landlord (Sheldon?) extorts three marks
per day from a worker?" A good question. It brings the real world into
the classroom.
BTW, why does Sheldon not object to CORPORATE messages being sold in
classrooms?
Fred
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 19 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> David Reilley (drei...@pinc.com) wrote:
> : Sheldon Scott wrote:
> : > Teachers tend to preach socialism. Some don't, most do.
> :
> : And your source for this -- other than conventional wisdom in the beer
> : parlour or "...everybody knows this."
>
> The words I hear from people who are teachers, at election time.
But then, since Sheldon does not understand what socialism is--he already
tried to criticize a Marxian definition by mere assertion--his
understanding of what teachers say is bound to be warped.
> : Also - what do you mean bu "socialism." Various people in this group
> : use the word to describe a) anyone who disagrees with them on any topic
> : or annoys them b) Peter Lougheed or c) Mike Harris.
>
> Let's don't get into any definitions of socialism beyond "take somebody
> else's money, give some to me, and do what I want done with the rest".
Sheldon's definition of socialism is then: CAPTIALISM! Capitalism is
socialism; socialism is capitalism. Since capitalists take the products
produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
with the rest."
Sheldon must be for socialism (re: capitalism).
Fred
Lars Ormberg
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> But since Sheldon provides no arguments to refute the Marxian theory (he
> in fact reposted a series of unstantiated assertions on Marxian
> economics), he hardly can criticize the content of the math question.
> What happens if "a reactionary landlord (Sheldon?) extorts three marks
> per day from a worker?" A good question. It brings the real world into
> the classroom.
For a practicum, I was helping a mathophobic friend write questions.
While I kept wanting questions for physics like:
An F-18 fighter jet travelling at 130 m/s towards a small village at an
angle of 3 degrees down from the horizon, at an altitude of 1500 metres,
launches a drop bomb of mass 2000 kilograms. At what distance from the
village must the fighter drop the bomb as to insure destruction?
He had to rewrite them to involve a transport plane travelling towards a
bridge, to avoid trouble.
The real world is in the real world. If we bring it into classrooms
than no longer is there reason to hit the real world. Note that my
physics question had no subtle political message, while the "reactionary
landlord" question did. With words like "reactionary" and "extort" a
political view is being made. If my question was a CF-18 dropping a
nuclear-equipped drop bomb in downtown Quebec City, it would be much
different. If the secondary question read:
50 degrees of temperature are generated for every 10 kilogram
metres/second of momentum. Because of the expanding temperature, for
every 1 degree increase, 200 people die in excess of the 3000 killed
instantly. How many evil Quebec seperatists will die if seperatists
make up 70% of the Frog population?
Would you want this in schools?
> Fred
>
>
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
____
It's been done! The awesome website of The Commodore has been given
an upgrade! More animations! More Java! More Klingons! Take another
look at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and then you will finally have
an experience that can truly be declared Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres across the country, resistance is still not
futile! Paramount Pictures brings the treachery of a Queen, the
courage of a captain, and the destiny of a planet. (Oh, and some Star
Wars special edition thing is supposedly on as well. I hear it doesn't
entirely suck).
Gary
>>
>> OSSTF has little to nothing to do with curriculum as constructed by the
>>ministry of education.
> Have you read the guide on the side that OSSTF published in
>response to the ministry's reform initiative? It spells out several
>changes that OSSTF wants to see made.
The operative word of corse is "wants" the ministry has no
obligation to do anything that OSSTF wants and often they
don't follow good advice because of ignorant people.
> Have you read OSSTF's material on education reform? The OSSTF
>wants to enforce political correctness in our schools and they're not
>shy about stepping on their opposition.
Duh... just who wants political correctness ? How about Harris
who seems to think that teachers should not talk about politics
in schools, while at the same time using students as 'mules' to carry
home his own propoganda pamphlets.
> I note that you have offerred no agrument to refute my
>original assertation that lower ministry standards over the last 15
>years have caused the current sad state of our students.
No argument, except that those lower standards were demanded by
highly paid consultants and PARENTS who could not stand to see
their lazy, undisciplined children fail, teachers did not lower standards,
you [ society ] did.
>> OSSTF is not against anything except ignorance.
> OSSTF is a political entity that is concerned only with its
>own survival and has little or no regard for the wishes of its actual
>members.
And so are you, so is harris and every other person on this earth, so
what's your point ?
The only difference ? The OSSTF has a DEMOCRATICALLY elected president,
if teachers are not happy with their representation they can change it.
Did you vote for premier ? Only those few people in his riding did.
>> You obviously have no knowledge of what the OSSTF is about.
> They collect dues off my pay and send me propaganda. I think
>I have a pretty good view from the inside and I know what they're all
>about.
>
Well, being on the 'inside' myself I'd guess that you never have involved
youself in the federation or you would have a better perspective.
Sheldon Scott
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
: Since capitalists take the products
: the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
: with the rest."
Your "example" makes no sense at all.
You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
Werner Knoll
Lars Ormberg <la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Werner Knoll wrote:
>> Robert Pickering an expert on condoms, Heather Stilwell studying
>> witchcraft books and Ken Hoffman to prove that the earth is flat.
>
>
>> That what Frank Hoeft did the week after and it
>> worked. Isolate those lefties, communist’s and anarchists that is the
>> way to go.
>
>
>> Mister Robert Pickering, arrested one time at a abortion clinic is the
>> driving force of this group. He made sure that condom machines were
>> removed from the high school’s washrooms. On the suggestion that this
>> machines could save lives, his reply was condoms will not protect from the
>> PAPALOLA virus. Well now, I am not an expert on the papalola virus but I
>> believe a condom can not hold 20 gallons of water.
>
>typically has, then you aren't playing good chemistry.
>
>> Mister Ken Hoffman the echo stuck on repeat for this group likes to ban
>> profanity in the school and gave on C.B.C. a couple of samples of this
>> profanity to let people know what it is. His next move is to get the
>> school kids into school uniforms and sing Oh Canada.
>
>the words, don't you? Why should kids be swearing in school? It's one
>of those things parents want stopped. Don't criticize the school for
>listening more to its parents (aka customers) than you.
>
>> Werner Knoll.
>The Commodore's webpage is bigger, badder, and more Java-packed than
>ever before! Take a tour at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and have
>
>* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
>Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
>thing is supposedly on as well. Like anybody cares).
What is wrong with wearing school uniforms? Nothing
What is wrong with singing O Canada? Nothing.
But what is wrong from were this order is coming from.
Mister Ken Hoffman and his friends the Surrey hallelujah gang with Robert
Pickering the Condom man as the man behind this group to choreograph this
show.
You see people like this group were on the planet before.
Example, the National Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei "Nazi" At the
beginning in the twenties, their battle cry was Law and Order, Dignity,
proud to be a German, waving the flag and singing. The leader Adolf Hitler
a deeply religious man believing strongly in God. (See Pierre Berton ISBN
0-7710-1270-5) You know the rest.
Martin Niemöller a Lutheran minister ending up in a concentration camp
had his to say.
First they came after the Jew, but I was not a Jew so I did not care.
Than the came after the Communists, Socialists, Intellectuals, but I did
not care.
Than they came after me, but than it was too late.
Werner Knoll.
Lloyd Lawrence
On 20 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> : Since capitalists take the products
> : produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
> : the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
> : with the rest."
>
> Your "example" makes no sense at all.
> You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
> The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts make so
little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read that to which you
reply. You respond to something you didn't grasp well enough to form a
coherent thought. Really, it's time you read something that would give
you some knowledge before you came to argue inanely on the NGs. Start by
looking up some theory on the web, if you can. Or, better yet, take a
trip by the library and pick up a book or two, a general text on the
history of govt and taxation and commerce and labour. It won't do you any
harm.
-lloyd
Lazarus Long
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA yammered in a message to All:
> Here is an example:
> >From: Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long)
> >The Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation is urging it's members
> >to launch an anti-government propaganda campaign in the classrooms of
> >Ontario schools. The union has produced and distributed to its members a
> >calendar for job action and curriculum packages
> >The union claims that the package consist of "pedagogically sound
> >activities", but some of the questions seem to have been created by
> >out-of-work marxists. One math question asks: "If a reactionary landlord
> >extorts three marks per day from a worker...."
uC> But since Sheldon provides no arguments to refute the Marxian theory
uC> (he in fact reposted a series of unstantiated assertions on Marxian
uC> economics), he hardly can criticize the content of the math
uC> question. What happens if "a reactionary landlord (Sheldon?)
uC> extorts three marks per day from a worker?" A good question. It
uC> brings the real world into the classroom.
uC> BTW, why does Sheldon not object to CORPORATE messages being sold in
uC> classrooms?
The problem with the question is the erroneous assumption that
rent is extortion. Tell me, do unions not extort(rent) their
union halls to private parties?
Hmmmm....if a union extorts 5 marks per paycheque for buying
political influence...
Would you be happy with this question?
The Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
A Principled Approach to Liberty
... Socialist Nonsense detected...<ABORT> <RETRY> or <ROTFL>
-=-
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 1:247/130.10
|Internet: Lazaru...@1-247-130-10.rational.vaxxine.com
While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the
means which people may use in the persuit(sic) of their aims, under the Rule of Law
the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc
action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to persue(sic)
his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not
be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.
-- Friedrich Hayek, The Road To Serfdom
>>>[Gated by the ClasLibNet Gateway, The Network of Liberty]<<<
umla...@cc.umanitoba.ca
From: Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
Organization: The University of Manitoba
-lloyd
-=-
|CLasLibNet: umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA 350:2/100.5
|Internet: umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA
Werner Knoll
ssc...@vcn.bc.ca
From: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott)
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
: Since capitalists take the products
: produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
: the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
: with the rest."
Your "example" makes no sense at all.
You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
--
(-: ...e-mail will be posted as I see fit... :-)
(-: Off the monitor, through the modem... nothing but net. :-)
-=-
|CLasLibNet: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca 350:2/100.5
|Internet: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca
Lloyd Lawrence
On 21 Feb 1997, Lazarus Long wrote:
> uC> From: Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
> uC> On 20 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> > umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> > : Since capitalists take the products
> > : produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
> > : the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
> > : with the rest."
> >
> > Your "example" makes no sense at all.
> > You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
> > The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
>
> uC> You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts make
> uC> so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read that to
> uC> which you reply. You respond to something you didn't grasp well
> uC> enough to form a coherent thought. Really, it's time you read
> uC> something that would give you some knowledge before you came to
> uC> argue inanely on the NGs. Start by looking up some theory on the
> uC> web, if you can. Or, better yet, take a trip by the library and
> uC> pick up a book or two, a general text on the history of govt and
> uC> taxation and commerce and labour. It won't do you any harm.
>
> All that drivel and not once did the College boy attempt to deal with
>the issue > raised. Do you understand what you are talking about or do you
>merely repeat > from the tract literature?
>
> The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid
>for their > labour, and produce products from material paid for by the
>employer on > equipment paid for by the employer. I would suggest that you
>take a look at the > real world.
Doesn't look like you went back to the beginning of this thread and read
what was originally said about this issue. In fact, it's been said many
times all over the NG in different threads. What you consider merely
repeating from tract literature is the result of an analysis of the
capitalist equation of labour with cash, which is what you're doing too.
Where did the employer get the cash to pay for the equipment and material
which the worker made into products which the employer sold? Unlike the
chicken-egg situation, there's a beginning to this and it's clear that
without the worker the employer wouldn't exist in a capitalist scenario.
And the capitalist wouldn't profit if not for exploitation of the
worker's productive role, by taking the products away and paying an
"market" value of the labour, which doesn't reflect the exchange value
of the product. That's the real world.
-lloyd
umla...@cc.umanitoba.ca
From: Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
-lloyd
-=-
|CLasLibNet: umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA 350:2/100.5
|Internet: umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA
While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the
Lazarus Long
umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA yammered in a message to All:
uC> From: Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
uC> Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
uC> Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
uC> Organization: The University of Manitoba
The Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
A Principled Approach to Liberty
... Everyone has a right to be stupid... do you have to exercise it here?
-=-
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
|Internet: Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com
Sheldon Scott
Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts
> that to which you reply. You respond to something you didn't
> grasp well enough to form a coherent thought.
Given the following two pieces of information:
1) marxist theories have continually failed to work in practice;
2) most people who study marx also think he is full of shit,
how can one conclude that someone who dimisses marxism is confused?
It seems to me that those myopic bookworms who lap up the pablum
fed by marx are the confused ones.
> Really, it's time you read something that would give you some
> knowledge before you came to argue inanely on the NGs.
<snip>
On the contrary, it is those folks in this "low-knowledge" category
you refer to who might be more inclined to see things your way. In
order to disagree with you, I need only be able to recognize idiocy.
You have put forth no arguments to show that marx had it right.
All you have done is quote his shenanigans, and when the obvious,
up-front fallacy of his work is pointed out, you attempt
ad hominem. Like, you're so two hours ago.
Steven Lawrence
gum...@hookup.net (Gary) wrote:
>In article <32FE29...@sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>
> I guess 'cause they're nicer then you and if you represent the conservative
> point of view, they'd rather not be one.
>
>
Admittedly, my school days were some years back. However, at that time, virtually
all my teachers had a political philosophy which has much in common with "Bruce
Roberts", Jack Plant, Dave Diduck and Derek Nalecki.
Could it be that they changed their tune when faced with the consequences of this
warped philosophy?
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Lars Ormberg wrote:
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> > But since Sheldon provides no arguments to refute the Marxian theory (he
> > in fact reposted a series of unstantiated assertions on Marxian
> > economics), he hardly can criticize the content of the math question.
> > What happens if "a reactionary landlord (Sheldon?) extorts three marks
> > per day from a worker?" A good question. It brings the real world into
> > the classroom.
>
> For a practicum, I was helping a mathophobic friend write questions.
> While I kept wanting questions for physics like:
>
> An F-18 fighter jet travelling at 130 m/s towards a small village at an
> angle of 3 degrees down from the horizon, at an altitude of 1500 metres,
> launches a drop bomb of mass 2000 kilograms. At what distance from the
> village must the fighter drop the bomb as to insure destruction?
>
> He had to rewrite them to involve a transport plane travelling towards a
> bridge, to avoid trouble.
>
> The real world is in the real world. If we bring it into classrooms
> than no longer is there reason to hit the real world. Note that my
> physics question had no subtle political message, while the "reactionary
> landlord" question did.
Quite absurd. Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
If you have a problem with the theory, then criticize the theory.
BTW, there are MANY subtle messages in textbooks used by school
divisions. Take a look at any history textbook during the 1950's;
McCarthyism reigns supreme.
>With words like "reactionary" and "extort" a
> political view is being made. If my question was a CF-18 dropping a
> nuclear-equipped drop bomb in downtown Quebec City, it would be much
> different. If the secondary question read:
>
> 50 degrees of temperature are generated for every 10 kilogram
> metres/second of momentum. Because of the expanding temperature, for
> every 1 degree increase, 200 people die in excess of the 3000 killed
> instantly. How many evil Quebec seperatists will die if seperatists
> make up 70% of the Frog population?
>
> Would you want this in schools?
Of course not, but then political questions ARE in the school. Failure
to admit that is simple blindness. What of standing for attention during
the national anthem? Is that not a "subtle" political message drilled
into students' heads every day?
What of the textbooks used in Canada during the 1920's concerning
conformity to British imperialism? What of the values taught concerning
the virtues of American imperialism (such words as "free" countries are
politically loaded but are found throughout textbooks.)
Fred
Lazarus Long
umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA yammered in a message to All:
> uC> You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts make
> uC> so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read that to
> uC> which you reply. You respond to something you didn't grasp well
> uC> enough to form a coherent thought. Really, it's time you read
> uC> something that would give you some knowledge before you came to
> uC> argue inanely on the NGs. Start by looking up some theory on the
> uC> web, if you can. Or, better yet, take a trip by the library and
> uC> pick up a book or two, a general text on the history of govt and
> uC> taxation and commerce and labour. It won't do you any harm.
>
> All that drivel and not once did the College boy attempt to deal with
>the issue > raised. Do you understand what you are talking about or do you
>merely repeat > from the tract literature?
>
> The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid
>for their > labour, and produce products from material paid for by the
>employer on > equipment paid for by the employer. I would suggest that you
>take a look at the > real world.
uC> Doesn't look like you went back to the beginning of this thread and
uC> read what was originally said about this issue. In fact, it's been
uC> said many times all over the NG in different threads. What you
Since you didn't bother responding to what the other person
stated...it would appear that you had nothing to say...
judging by the response to this...my suspicions are confirmed.
uC> consider merely repeating from tract literature is the result of an
uC> analysis of the capitalist equation of labour with cash, which is
Shoddy analysis ....
uC> what you're doing too. Where did the employer get the cash to pay
uC> for the equipment and material which the worker made into products
From risk-takers..known as investors.
uC> which the employer sold? Unlike the chicken-egg situation, there's a
uC> beginning to this and it's clear that without the worker the
uC> employer wouldn't exist in a capitalist scenario. And the
Yep...and without the innovator and the risk-taker, your
worker would be still in an agrarian economic system.
A question I always ask the tract-reading socialist...
If a socialist economy is so effective, why is it that no
collectivist based society has ever progressed beyond a
low-level technology or industrial capacity? The only
societies that have made the leap into advanced technologies
and large-scale industrialisation have been those societies
that have rewarded economic risk-taking.
No one has said that the worker is not important in the
equation. Judging from that strawman, I wonder if you are
taking agronomy at U. of Man. It certainly doesn't look like
any informed analysis from an economics perspective.
uC> capitalist wouldn't profit if not for exploitation of the worker's
uC> productive role, by taking the products away and paying an "market"
uC> value of the labour, which doesn't reflect the exchange value of
uC> the product. That's the real world.
The market value of the product is determined by demand and
supply. The value of the worker's labour is determined by the
same laws. The selling price of the product is determined by
cost plus return.
uC> -lloyd
Hmmmm...the rest of this arcticle is the most informed part of your post... 30
blank lines.
Here is something to ponder... The workers are the employers in the real world.
Date: 12/27/96
Investor's Business Daily
As reflected in literature from Charles Dickens to
Studs Terkel, people have always viewed
themselves as workers. As workers, they think
of themselves in direct competition with owners
and managers for a share of the wealth created
by business enterprise. They see the return for
their efforts in the form of a weekly or
semimonthly paycheck, and often conclude their
pay would be greater if only the owners took
less.
People naturally think in terms of net, ''take
home'' pay, money which is then spent on the
day-to-day necessities and luxuries of life. Yet
''take home'' pay is only a part of the benefits
received for work. Other items, whether
deducted from gross pay, such as taxes, or those
not appearing on the pay stub at all, such as
medical insurance or pension benefits, are much
less tangible, and are often taken for granted or
ignored by the worker.
Yet, the least tangible part of the paycheck, the
pension benefit, has resulted in American
workers owning a major portion of the business
assets of the U.S. The growth in pension and
retirement assets has been so great that Peter
Drucker calls wage earners ''the only true
capitalists in developed countries today.''
According to Pension & Investments Age, at
year-end 1995, the 100 largest U.S. pension
funds had assets exceeding $2 trillion. Of these
100 funds, only 41 were corporate-related. The
aggregate market value of the 41 sponsoring
companies was $1.2 trillion.
Thus, the 100 largest pension funds could easily
own all of the shares of the 41 companies.
Individually, the employee pension funds of 14 of
these corporations exceeded the total market
value of their respective stocks. Thus, the
employees of General Motors, through their
pension plan, could buy all of the stock of their
company. So could the employees of Boeing,
Ford, USX, Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse,
Delta Air Lines, and others.
Of the 100 largest pension plans not company
related, most are plans for public employees.
The California Public Employees Retirement
Plan exceeded $92 billion, an amount sufficient
to buy all the stock of General Motors, Chrysler,
and Ford. Similarly, the Pennsylvania School
Employees Retirement Plan, at over $30 billion,
could have bought out USX, Alcoa, USAir, and
Westinghouse. The list goes on and on.
Though the workers seem unaware of their
ownership status, management is waking up.
Directors and managers see huge blocks of
''their'' stock in the hands of (potentially
non-friendly) pension funds and mutual funds, so
they try to maintain their positions of power and
influence with various ''poison pills'' and
so-called shareholder-rights plans. Managers
sometimes literally buy off unfriendly holders
through greenmail payments or share repurchase.
Much has been made of the push in recent years
for a greater focus on shareholder values,
frequently resulting in corporate cutbacks,
including large layoffs. But the public is unaware
that these major pension plans have been the
aggressive drivers of this trend.
Take CalPERS, the California public worker's
fund. In each of the past several years, it has
targeted a number of major companies, pushing
for greater efficiencies and greater profitability.
Targets have included General Motors, Eastman
Kodak, Westinghouse and others. The pressure
has resulted in the firings of chief executives and
whole tiers of corporate managers. This was
done in the name, and for the benefit, of
workers' pensions.
In the U.S., in 1996, we have attained worker
capitalism. Workers can paraphrase Pogo in
saying, ''We have met the owners, and they are
us.''
Ronald H. Muhlenkamp is portfolio manager of
the Muhlenkamp Fund.
The Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
A Principled Approach to Liberty
... Communism: the opiate of the intellectuals.
Dave Diduck
Keep up the bullshit laddie, pretty soon you'll be in the same class
as Steve Lawrence, John Carrick, Lloyd Lawrence and Fred (the red)
Garth Harris. Elite company indeed!
--
Dave Diduck
1123 Fort St
Regina Sk S4T 5R9
http://www.sasknet.com/~didue/
The majority are not silent - politicians have selective hearing!
Sheldon Scott
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
: Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
Marx was not an economist, and this statement proves it.
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 22 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> > You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts
> > make so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read
> > that to which you reply. You respond to something you didn't
> > grasp well enough to form a coherent thought.
>
> Given the following two pieces of information:
> 1) marxist theories have continually failed to work in practice;
Since Sheldon failed to respond in any coherent manner to my posting on
Marx's money circuit of capital, his judgement on the failure of Marxist
theories in practice is bound to be distorted. Which theories? The
critique of capital? Let the right wing explicitly state what is wrong
with Marxian economics.
> 2) most people who study marx also think he is full of shit,
Care to back that up with statistics or at least a reference or two? Or
is this right winger, like so many of them, merely masturbating mentally
and creating fantasies?
> how can one conclude that someone who dimisses marxism is confused?
Quite easily. The Sheldon's of the world cannot argue what is in front
of them. When I posted Marx's circuit of money capital, Sheldon had
nothing to argue except: it is wrong because I say so.
> It seems to me that those myopic bookworms who lap up the pablum
> fed by marx are the confused ones.
Actually, a myopic manager at a Calgary brewery once called me a Marxist
son of a bitch because I refused to wear a precious UNIFORM (shades of
militarism!) and because, after I had refused, I said that I had nothing
but contempt for capitalists and their represenatives.
> > Really, it's time you read something that would give you some
> > knowledge before you came to argue inanely on the NGs.
> <snip>
> On the contrary, it is those folks in this "low-knowledge" category
> you refer to who might be more inclined to see things your way.
What "qualifications" does Sheldon have? Did he graduate from Mickey
Mouse high school (meant as an insult)?
>In
> order to disagree with you, I need only be able to recognize idiocy.
Did you ever look at yourself in the mirror?
> You have put forth no arguments to show that marx had it right.
I did not "quote." I paraphrased. Why do the Sheldons of the world not
then respond?
The money circuit of capital is: Let M be the money invested, a bar
represent the exchange process, L
the labour power sold by the worker and bought by the capitalist, MP the
means of production bought by the capitalist, C the commodity input,
three dots an interruption in the circulation (exchange) process, P the
capitalist production process, C' the commodity capital produced, with C'
being greater in value than C, and M' the return in investment, with M'
being equal in value to C' but greater in value than M. Thus:
M-C(=L+MP)...P...C'-M'.
> All you have done is quote his shenanigans, and when the obvious,
> up-front fallacy of his work is pointed out, you attempt
> ad hominem. Like, you're so two hours ago.
The Sheldon's of the world forever promise so much analysis but in reality
provide so little.
Fred
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 21 Feb 1997, Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA yammered in a message to All:
>
> uC> From: Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
> uC> Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
> uC> Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
> uC> Organization: The University of Manitoba
>
> uC> On 20 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> > umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> > : Since capitalists take the products
> > : produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
> > : the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
> > : with the rest."
> >
> > Your "example" makes no sense at all.
> > You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
> > The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
>
> uC> You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts make
> uC> so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read that to
> uC> which you reply. You respond to something you didn't grasp well
> uC> enough to form a coherent thought. Really, it's time you read
> uC> something that would give you some knowledge before you came to
> uC> argue inanely on the NGs. Start by looking up some theory on the
> uC> web, if you can. Or, better yet, take a trip by the library and
> uC> pick up a book or two, a general text on the history of govt and
> uC> taxation and commerce and labour. It won't do you any harm.
>
> All that drivel and not once did the College boy attempt to deal with the issue
> raised. Do you understand what you are talking about or do you merely repeat
> from the tract literature?
>
> The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid for their
> labour,
So, according to the right winger, labour is exchangeable. How is that?
Is it not the worker who actually consumes the means of production?
Labour is an act performed by human beings who are working. Unless the
capitalist has found a REAL means by which to transsubstantiate the
labour of workers, he must use a superstructure in order to treat labour
as if it were exchangeable.
The statement that workers are paid for their labour is false because
labour is not exchangeable. What workers do is exchange their power to
control their lives during a set period.
>and produce products from material paid for by the employer on
> equipment paid for by the employer.
The right winger unconsciously admits that it is the workers who produce
the products. If it is they who produce the products, and yet it is the
employer who owns the results; the property relation is such that workers
are excluded from ownership over what they produce. That is "taking the
products away from them." In feudal times, by contrast, when artisans
produced output, they also owned it.
>I would suggest that you take a look at the
> real world.
>
The right winger should follow his own suggestion.
Fred
Tom Asquith
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:09:10 -0600, Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA>
wrote:
>I've known literally hundreds of teachers (some only very briefly and
>superficially) and probably less than a hundred academics (perhaps a
>little less superficially). I'd be really reluctant to make any general
>statement about either group's politics (Note: they are definitely NOT of
>the same inclinations as groups, since they have differing, and often
>conflicting, interests). But my impressions have been, on the whole, that
>teachers pursue their lives and occupations less like socialists than
>capitalists. In addition to the militaristic nature of school systems
>("permissiveness" is a euphemism for revolutionary models of pedagogy
>which contradict the status quo, but the term's always a good emotive
>hellraiser in a conservative society), it's a middle-class sense of
>morality that occupies the curriculum. Some teachers are true believers in
>the New Age Utopian ideals. But there aren't many who would accept William
>Morris's Utopia. Trying to correlate teachers and socialists would be a
>nervewracking task and in the end the teachers would tell you, "We're not
>a union, we're a professional association", which would end the debate.
I suspect it is less a case of Utopianism as it is a case concerning the
condition of teaching as a profession. One has noted in the past that
a number of established professions from engineering and teaching to
the newer professions such as nursing and social work have tended to
be more pro-Union until their particular profession
is recognized as such. If the group is treated as part of the
establishment, it will react as such; ditto if it is treated as a
non-profession.
Merely casting a collective group of professionals as being Utopian is just an
example of narrow and limited thinking. I would be interested though if he
would classify those people who belong to medical associations and bar
associations as being Utopians. Did the original poster come to this
drastic conclusion because the majority of those people who have B.Eds
are public servants? Or is it just because he had a hard time making it past
Grade 3?
T.Asquith
University of Alberta
Faculty of Law (1L)
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 20 Feb 1997 ssc...@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
> From: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott)
> Newsgroups: bc.politics,can.politics,ont.general,ab.politics
> Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
> Organization: Vancouver CommunityNet
>
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> : Since capitalists take the products
> : produced by workers and convert them into money, the capitalists "take
> : the workers' money, give some to the government, and do what they want
> : with the rest."
>
> Your "example" makes no sense at all.
> You forget that the workers get paid for their efforts by agreement.
Sheldon should show the agreement where workers "freely" gave up the
right to own the means of production--that is why they are employees and
that is why there are a group of people called employers and their
representatives.
Workers did not "freely" give up the natural necessity of uniting their
labour with the means of production. Capitalist private property emerged
from a struggle. See for example E.P. Thompson's The Making of The
English Working Class. Or Bryan Palmer's Skilled Workers for the
Canadian case (or some such title).
BTW, capitalist private property is irrational: in ALL human societies,
those who consume the means of production MUST be united in some fashion
with the means of production. In a capitalist society, the fiction
exists that workers are "free" to not unite with the means of
production. If that were indeed the case, how could society reproduce
itself? Workers must ALWAYS be united with the means of production in
one way or another.
> The employer does not take any of the worker's money - the gov't does.
What the employer does is force the workers, through economic means, to
subjugate their will to his. They also own the results of what workers
produce because they own the means of production. They then sell what
the workers produce, and then use the money to purchase workers' capacity
to labour once again--with the results of the workers' own former
labour. But then, Sheldon cannot understand Marx's theory of the money
circuit of capital.
Fred
Gary
In article <5eq88j$n...@milo.vcn.bc.ca> ssc...@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott) writes:
>From: ssc...@vcn.bc.ca (Sheldon Scott)
>Subject: Re: WHY MOST TEACHERS AND ACADEMICS TEND TO BE SOCIALISTS
>umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>: Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
>Marx was not an economist, and this statement proves it.
Remember... economics is something that poor mathematicians do
you make 5 billion assumptions than a few calculations, of
course if one of those assumptions is off a bit the who shebang
falls to bits.
Therefore anybody can be an economist.
Gary
>>In article <32FE29...@sympatico.ca> Bruce Roberts <rob...@sympatico.ca>
>writes:
>>
>>
>> I guess 'cause they're nicer then you and if you represent the conservative
>> point of view, they'd rather not be one.
>>
>>
>Admittedly, my school days were some years back. However, at that time,
>virtually
>all my teachers had a political philosophy which has much in common with "Bruce
>Roberts", Jack Plant, Dave Diduck and Derek Nalecki.
>Could it be that they changed their tune when faced with the consequences of
>this
>warped philosophy?
Nope, you just picked the wrong courses, should have taken more maths and
sciences, we've always been conservative [ as a way of life, not always
politically ] as compared to those radicals in history and english [ and those
far out phys-ed types. ]
Werner Knoll
What Teaching?
People in Surrey British Columbia Canada will now get a new kind of
teaching in the Surrey public schools, thanks to the hallelujah gang, a
group of religious fanatics elected to the Surrey school board.
Robert Pickering an expert on condoms, Heather Stilwell studying
witchcraft books and Ken Hoffman to prove that the earth is flat.
You may be asking how on earth could this a happen in 1997? Easy, first
you use the local churches as a place to cast your ballot on the local
election’s to make sure the right kind of people cast their vote.
Next you make sure that only things in favor of your group gets into the
local letter to the editor column. When the local Surrey Now newspaper
prints a letter to the editor by a person critical to this group or
religion in the Surrey Now, than you send in your watch dog.
Example on January 29 1997 Mrs. Ken Marsh send a letter to the Surrey Now
paper pointing out what Christian fanatics have done to our society. Bang
you send your watch dog to straighten this out, by telling the Surrey Now
that this is a no go. That what Frank Hoeft did the week after and it
worked. Isolate those lefties, communist’s and anarchists that is the
way to go.
Mister Robert Pickering, arrested one time at a abortion clinic is the
driving force of this group. He made sure that condom machines were
removed from the high school’s washrooms. On the suggestion that this
machines could save lives, his reply was condoms will not protect from the
PAPALOLA virus. Well now, I am not an expert on the PAPALOLA virus but I
believe a condom can not hold 20 gallons of water.
Mrs. Stilwell and her husband active in the Christian Heritage party? at
one time was trying to get a book on Wicca witchcraft banned. The book
written by Barthe DeClements No Place for Me was a harmless novel. When
this book was not banned, her statement was, "I think we can now expect
books that proselytize religion.
Well was it not her aim to sneak in here books in the first place?
Mister Ken Hoffman the echo stuck on repeat for this group likes to ban
profanity in the school and gave on C.B.C. a couple of samples of this
profanity to let people know what it is. His next move is to get the
school kids into school uniforms and sing Oh Canada. By itself there is
nothing wrong about singing and uniforms, but this is only the beginning
of more sneaky things to come.
It is not good enough for this people to practice their religion but this
people are more than willing to force others to live by their rule. Sure
there is some sanctimonious effort at times to show that this people are
concerned about the well being of others not so fortunate.
When confronted about making changes for the better of all people, I am
given a quote from the Bible, "Render unto Caesar things that are
Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s," says the Bible’s Mark
12:17 because of this you have dictatorships around the world.
When it comes down to the real God this people like, Than the dollar is
number 1.
Werner Knoll.
Lars Ormberg
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> Quite absurd. Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
> If you have a problem with the theory, then criticize the theory.
But the world doesn't all work according to the grand Marxian economic
theory. Though Marx felt landlords were exploiters, does that mean that
a landlord exploits?
Landlords are the people who own buildings that rent them to tenants.
That is the modern useage. Implying that the modern day landlord
commits the same sins as his historical counterpart alters a person's
perception of reality to somethign surreal.
> BTW, there are MANY subtle messages in textbooks used by school
> divisions. Take a look at any history textbook during the 1950's;
> McCarthyism reigns supreme.
And you likely would oppose them being used today. Why replace
McCarthy's subtle messages with subtle message you find more
appropriate?
> Fred
--
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
- I'm a genuine, certified, dixie fried, full of pride, 'til I die
pure bred redneck!
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
____
It's been done! The awesome website of The Commodore has been given
an upgrade! More animations! More Java! More Klingons! Take another
look at http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and then you will finally have
an experience that can truly be declared Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
Lazarus Long
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA demonstrates that intelligence is not a
prerequisite for post-secondary education in a message to All:
> The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid for
uC> their
> labour,
uC> So, according to the right winger, labour is exchangeable. How is
uC> that? Is it not the worker who actually consumes the means of
uC> production? Labour is an act performed by human beings who are
Actually workers consume food. I have yet to find a worker who
consumes tools. They use them.
uC> The statement that workers are paid for their labour is false
uC> because labour is not exchangeable. What workers do is exchange
Assertion? Have to do better than that.
uC> their power to control their lives during a set period.
[yawn...] more phoney classwar drivel?
>and produce products from material paid for by the employer on
> equipment paid for by the employer.
uC> The right winger unconsciously admits that it is the workers who
uC> produce the products. If it is they who produce the products, and
The deluded marxist snips the portion of the post that
explains that the workers produce from material and capital
supplied by the owner. How drearily typical of the dishonesty
of the tract reading marxist..
Here is what the marxist theologian snipped...
"The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid for
their labour, and produce products from material paid for by the employer on
equipment paid for by the employer. I would suggest that you take a look at the
real world."
BTW, dear child, I notice that you ducked completely the question posed....as
do most of the intellectually bereft marxists.. Care to try, or will you admit
socialism is dependent on creation of technology and property by capitalists.
A question I always ask the tract-reading socialist...
If a socialist economy is so effective, why is it that no
collectivist based society has ever progressed beyond a
low-level technology or industrial capacity? The only
societies that have made the leap into advanced technologies
and large-scale industrialisation have been those societies
that have rewarded economic risk-taking.
Without the innovator and the risk-taker, your
worker would be still in an agrarian economic system.
BTW, in the real world....workers do own the means of
production...despite your adherence to an outdated theology.
See below..
The U.S. Triumph Of Workers' Capitalism
UHLENKAMP Capitalism has done what Karl Marx
expected communism to do: In the U.S. today, workers
are the owners. They just don't know it yet.
uC> ___
uC> - Origin: ClasLibNet < - > Internet Gateway (350:2/100.5)
The Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
A Principled Approach to Liberty
... Socialist.. a person with a low opinion of the working class
Lloyd Lawrence
On 22 Feb 1997, Sheldon Scott wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> > You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts
> > make so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read
> > that to which you reply. You respond to something you didn't
> > grasp well enough to form a coherent thought.
>
> Given the following two pieces of information:
> 1) marxist theories have continually failed to work in practice;
> 2) most people who study marx also think he is full of shit,
> how can one conclude that someone who dimisses marxism is confused?
> It seems to me that those myopic bookworms who lap up the pablum
> fed by marx are the confused ones.
There are quite a lot of good reasons why you're confused. Here's a few:
1) you rely on anit-marxist literature for your opinion
2) you use "most people" and other hyperbole randomly
3) you fail to discriminate between marxism and every other form of
anti-capitalist doctrine
4) you consider reading to be a marxist habit which you clearly boycott
5) your own astigmatism forces you to dismiss anything you don't recognise
6) you refute conclusions by co-opting 2 opinions as "information"
> > Really, it's time you read something that would give you some
> > knowledge before you came to argue inanely on the NGs.
> <snip>
> On the contrary, it is those folks in this "low-knowledge" category
> you refer to who might be more inclined to see things your way. In
> order to disagree with you, I need only be able to recognize idiocy.
> You have put forth no arguments to show that marx had it right.
> All you have done is quote his shenanigans, and when the obvious,
> up-front fallacy of his work is pointed out, you attempt
> ad hominem. Like, you're so two hours ago.
It's this last California-shallow jab that I like the most. It says more
than I could about your feeblemindedness. Must be your youth. It also
tells me that I'd be wasting my time trying to explain anything more
complex than the underlying theme of Power Rangers, or the Cosby Show.
Maybe you could turn to the History channel, or a docu-drama, instead of
the usual junk-viewing you're soaking up.
But if you conquer your attention-deficit problems and you actually read
what's been written up in these posts (and there are others who explain
Marx much better than I ever could), then you'll be able to stop making an
idiot of yourself. F'rinstance, you could go back and re-read the stuff
that Fred originally said about the relationship between worker and
employer, perhaps trying to understand it and formulate an intelligent
critique of your own. You'll note that I'm giving you the benefit of the
doubt here... the presumption of intelligence until proven lacking. Which
brings us back to my description of you as "confused" and your insistence
on being able to recognise "idiocy". That kind of discriminatory
intellect is a little less facile than you'd like to think. I'm not
saying you should be agreeing with marxist analysis, but you might as
well have good reason for what you think, eh?
-lloyd
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Lars Ormberg wrote:
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>
> > Quite absurd. Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
> > If you have a problem with the theory, then criticize the theory.
>
> But the world doesn't all work according to the grand Marxian economic
> theory. Though Marx felt landlords were exploiters, does that mean that
> a landlord exploits?
>
> Landlords are the people who own buildings that rent them to tenants.
> That is the modern useage. Implying that the modern day landlord
> commits the same sins as his historical counterpart alters a person's
> perception of reality to somethign surreal.
Do not modern-day landlords invest in buildings? What is the purpose of
the investment? To obtain a maximum return on the building? Or to
provide a service to the tenant?
> > BTW, there are MANY subtle messages in textbooks used by school
> > divisions. Take a look at any history textbook during the 1950's;
> > McCarthyism reigns supreme.
>
> And you likely would oppose them being used today. Why replace
> McCarthy's subtle messages with subtle message you find more
> appropriate?
You have not provided an argument concerning "subtle messages." There is
a difference between McCarthyism and Marxian economics. McCarthyism
paints the world in ideological terms; Marxian economics attempts to
describe, in a critical fashion, the way the world works.
If you cannot see the difference, then take a look at Capital, take a
look at some books on Marxian economics by McCarthyists.
Or would you prefer that NOTHING be taught at school? What are the
criteria for determining the content of what is taught (the curricula)?
Who determines the criteria? On what ground?
Fred
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On 24 Feb 1997, Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA demonstrates that intelligence is not a
> prerequisite for post-secondary education in a message to All:
>
> > The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid for
> uC> their
> > labour,
>
> uC> So, according to the right winger, labour is exchangeable. How is
> uC> that? Is it not the worker who actually consumes the means of
> uC> production? Labour is an act performed by human beings who are
>
> Actually workers consume food. I have yet to find a worker who
> consumes tools. They use them.
Actually, workers consume tools and machines productively. This is
called productive consumption. The consumption of food is consumptive
production.
BTW, how can any worker produce food without consuming (using up) the
machines and tools?
There is a difference, of course, between productive consumption and
consumptive production. The former does not result in the "final"
consumption of the output.
In any case, the question is whether those who CONSUME (use up) the means
of production are the actual workers or whether labour can be transferred
to the employer in reality in its natural form.
The writer does not contradict the statement; presumably, he agrees that
labour cannot be exchanged.
>
> uC> The statement that workers are paid for their labour is false
> uC> because labour is not exchangeable. What workers do is exchange
>
> Assertion? Have to do better than that.
>
> uC> their power to control their lives during a set period.
>
> [yawn...] more phoney classwar drivel?
Actually, since the writer himself that workers use (consume) the means
of production, he implicitly denies that workers sell their labour.
Unless of course he is now contending that workers do not use (consume)
the means of production?
If workers do use (consume) the means of production, then they cannot
sell their labour because to sell one's labour would entail the actual
transfer of labour to the employer.
If workers do not sell their labour, and yet an exchange occurs, then
they sell some commodity other than labour. What they sell is their
legal right to use their labour power; their capacity to labour. They
transfer the right of use of that capacity to the employer. The latter
then has the right to direct that capacity in the production process.
Assertion? Not at all. Labour law differentiates employees from
independent contractors by the level of control exercised over the
employee.
> >and produce products from material paid for by the employer on
> > equipment paid for by the employer.
>
> uC> The right winger unconsciously admits that it is the workers who
> uC> produce the products. If it is they who produce the products, and
>
> The deluded marxist snips the portion of the post that
> explains that the workers produce from material and capital
> supplied by the owner.
As far as I can remember, I did not snip the post.
Since the material and machines provided the owner are produced by OTHER
workers which are then the property of a capitalist in the industry
which produces the means of production (materials and machines), and then
this employer sells those materials to the said owner, the workers who
consume the materials and machines are consuming the output of OTHER
workers. The employer uses the output of other workers in order to
control their labour and to convert the lives of those human beings into
labour.
>How drearily typical of the dishonesty
> of the tract reading marxist..
The right-winger must resort to emotionalism in order to try to sell his
point.
> Here is what the marxist theologian snipped...
>
> "The workers do not have their products taken from them. They are paid for
> their labour, and produce products from material paid for by the employer on
> equipment paid for by the employer.
Is this not the same thing as above? I have now addressed that issue.
1. Are workers paid for their labour? Is labour exchangeable?
2. The machines which workers used are themselves produced by other
workers under the control of the employers in the industry which produces
the means of production.
What is the argument that this right-winger is trying to provide? That
the material and machines which employers own are theirs? A tautology?
That since they own it therefore they have the right to control the
labour of others?
Let the right-winger be explicit in his argument. What is the
relationship between owning the output produced by other workers and
control over the workers who use (consume) the means of production?
>I would suggest that you take a look at the
> real world."
The right-winger should follow his own advice.
>
> BTW, dear child, I notice that you ducked completely the question posed....as
> do most of the intellectually bereft marxists.. Care to try, or will you admit
> socialism is dependent on creation of technology and property by capitalists.
Is this your question? Actually, there were many questions in the
posting. Try to answer some of them yourself.
As for socialism being dependent on "creation of technology and property
of capitalists" that is both true and false. In the first place,
capitalism has developed technology, and this development forms the
initial material base for socialist society. However, the purpose of the
technology would no longer be the capturing of human labour in order to
obtain a maximum surplus (profit); rather, the purpose would be to reduce
the amount of human labour required in order to make the time set free
through technology the basis for personal development.
Secondly, no, capitalist PROPERTY is no longer necessary. In fact, since
capitalist property is measured in terms of human labour (money is
ultimately based on human labour), it increasingly contradicts the
material basis of society, which depends less and less on human labour in
order to produce output.
> A question I always ask the tract-reading socialist...
>
> If a socialist economy is so effective, why is it that no
> collectivist based society has ever progressed beyond a
> low-level technology or industrial capacity?
Actually, capitalist society is itself a "collectivist based society."
Materially (in the material reproduction of capitalist society), the
economy becomes more and more the result of many people throughout the
world producing. The production of the means of production and the means
of consumption become increasingly integrated.
The effectiveness of a socialist economy is based on the incapacity of
the capitalist economy to deal with its own changed material basis. When
capitalism first developed, human labour was much more the basis for
production. Now it is not. Socialism is the solution to the
contradiction (among others) between human labour playing less and less
a material part in the material reproduction of captalist society (this
reduced part itself a result of capitalist development) and human labour
forming the basis for capitalist profit. Employers simultaneously
develop the conditions for their own negation and try to limit that
negation.
Question: If a social structure (say, capitalist society) contains
contradictions which it cannot solve, is it not necessary that another
social structure replace it, a social structure that does solve those
contradictions?
Question: Does capitalist society contain contradictions which cannot be
solved in its own terms?
Question: Which takes ultimate precedence, the social structure or the
material reproduction of society? If one contradicts the other, which
must give way?
>The only societies that have made the leap into advanced technologies
> and large-scale industrialisation have been those societies
> that have rewarded economic risk-taking.
>
>
> Without the innovator and the risk-taker, your
> worker would be still in an agrarian economic system.
And with the innovator and risk-taker (of other people's lives), the
worker can now enjoy unemployment, the destruction of the environment,
control over his or her activities at work, economic crises, etc.
>
>
> BTW, in the real world....workers do own the means of
> production...despite your adherence to an outdated theology.
Do they CONTROL society? That is a different question.
What is the basis of pensions? Money perhaps? What is the basis of
money? Human labour.
It is a question of controlling our lives, not playing games with
numbers.
BTW, the point about socialism is to get away from the treatment of human
beings as mere WORKERS. Human beings have many attributes; in a
capitalist society, they have only one: human labour. That is all that
is important.
Fred
Lloyd Lawrence
Lazarus Long <Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com> wrote:
> umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA yammered in a message to All:
>
> > uC> You understand so little. You're confused so often. Your posts make
> > uC> so little sense that they qualify as spam. You don't read that to
> > uC> which you reply. You respond to something you didn't grasp well
> > uC> enough to form a coherent thought. Really, it's time you read
> > uC> something that would give you some knowledge before you came to
> > uC> argue inanely on the NGs. Start by looking up some theory on the
> > uC> web, if you can. Or, better yet, take a trip by the library and
> > uC> pick up a book or two, a general text on the history of govt and
> > uC> taxation and commerce and labour. It won't do you any harm.
> >
> > All that drivel and not once did the College boy attempt to deal with
> >the issue > raised. Do you understand what you are talking about or do you
> >merely repeat > from the tract literature?
> >
> >for their > labour, and produce products from material paid for by the
> >take a look at the > real world.
>
> uC> read what was originally said about this issue. In fact, it's been
> uC> said many times all over the NG in different threads. What you
>
> Since you didn't bother responding to what the other person
> stated...it would appear that you had nothing to say...
> judging by the response to this...my suspicions are confirmed.
Apparently you can't recognise a response unless it announces that it's
one. In this case the subject's already been explored and explained and
clarified and debated many times in the past 3 or 4 months and in
particular in this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating it because you
have short-term memory loss, or because you have selective reasoning.
> uC> consider merely repeating from tract literature is the result of an
> uC> analysis of the capitalist equation of labour with cash, which is
>
> Shoddy analysis ....
I see that you don't apply your own standards to yourself; explain why
the analysis is shoddy, or are you just another White Noise Jack Plant
clone..
> uC> what you're doing too. Where did the employer get the cash to pay
> uC> for the equipment and material which the worker made into products
>
> From risk-takers..known as investors.
And where did they get their surplus cash to invest (eventually you get back
to an exploited worker)...?
> uC> which the employer sold? Unlike the chicken-egg situation, there's a
> uC> beginning to this and it's clear that without the worker the
> uC> employer wouldn't exist in a capitalist scenario. And the
>
> Yep...and without the innovator and the risk-taker, your
> worker would be still in an agrarian economic system.
Not at all true. Individuals were inventing labour-saving devices for
personal use long before capitalists began to see how it could benefit
their bottom line.
> A question I always ask the tract-reading socialist...
>
> If a socialist economy is so effective, why is it that no
> collectivist based society has ever progressed beyond a
> low-level technology or industrial capacity? The only
> societies that have made the leap into advanced technologies
> and large-scale industrialisation have been those societies
> that have rewarded economic risk-taking.
>
> No one has said that the worker is not important in the
> equation. Judging from that strawman, I wonder if you are
> taking agronomy at U. of Man. It certainly doesn't look like
> any informed analysis from an economics perspective.
Quite a few assumptions. You must be hoping to grow up into management
someday. First, there's no reason to believe that "progress" must be
measured in terms of machines. That has always been a controversial issue
and there has been no conclusion to the argument. Since I don't measure
"progress" that way, your question makes no sense to me. Second, your
statement about leaping into advanced technologies, etc, is a derivational
tautology: you clearly translate "progress" by equating
"advanced/large-scale" with "economic risk taking"
> uC> capitalist wouldn't profit if not for exploitation of the worker's
> uC> productive role, by taking the products away and paying an "market"
> uC> value of the labour, which doesn't reflect the exchange value of
> uC> the product. That's the real world.
>
> The market value of the product is determined by demand and
> supply. The value of the worker's labour is determined by the
> same laws. The selling price of the product is determined by
> cost plus return.
You're stuck in an economic-accounting rut here. This is much the same
kind of "tract literature" quoting that you're accusing socialists of
doing. Simply stating the equations doesn't address the issue. Fact is,
the worker doesn't get paid what the market price of the product
indicates is the value of the labour. That's how surplus value gets born
and goes straight to the capitalist's sweaty little wallet.
> Hmmmm...the rest of this arcticle is the most informed part of your post... 30
> blank lines.
My reader doesn't let me reply unless there's more new lines than was
included in the original post.
> Here is something to ponder... The workers are the employers in the real
world. > > > Date: 12/27/96 > Investor's Business Daily >
Very interesting. I'll read it at my leisure, but at a quick skim I'd
agree that it's something to ponder. And something else to ponder is
whether such an apparent loophole will continue (if it even still
exists), once those who have control of the means of production (the
stock market) have found ways to hobble the workers' accessibility. But
of course, it would take a revolutionary act to organise all the workers
to take advantage of the situation and that doesn't look likely soon...
-lloyd
Lars Ormberg
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Lars Ormberg wrote:
>
> > umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> >
> > > Quite absurd. Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
> > > If you have a problem with the theory, then criticize the theory.
> >
> > But the world doesn't all work according to the grand Marxian economic
> > theory. Though Marx felt landlords were exploiters, does that mean that
> > a landlord exploits?
> >
> > Landlords are the people who own buildings that rent them to tenants.
> > That is the modern useage. Implying that the modern day landlord
> > commits the same sins as his historical counterpart alters a person's
> > perception of reality to somethign surreal.
>
> Do not modern-day landlords invest in buildings? What is the purpose of
> the investment? To obtain a maximum return on the building? Or to
> provide a service to the tenant?
Modern day landlords, unlike their historical counterpart, _only_ invest
in buildings and land. In the past, landlords were just that, the
"commander" of all who resided on his property.
I am not saying landlords don't want to make money. I am saying that a
term used in Marx's time does not refer to people the same way the term
does today.
> > > BTW, there are MANY subtle messages in textbooks used by school
> > > divisions. Take a look at any history textbook during the 1950's;
> > > McCarthyism reigns supreme.
> >
> > And you likely would oppose them being used today. Why replace
> > McCarthy's subtle messages with subtle message you find more
> > appropriate?
>
> You have not provided an argument concerning "subtle messages." There is
> a difference between McCarthyism and Marxian economics. McCarthyism
> paints the world in ideological terms; Marxian economics attempts to
> describe, in a critical fashion, the way the world works.
The subtle messages were in regard to the wording of textbooks. The
words were arranged with a anti-capitalist tone.
This technique was defended by noting an anti-communist tone during the
1950s. Essentially, saying "they did it then so we get to do it now,"
trying to justify injustice by noting its polar opposition to previous
injustice.
(Whoa, that was confusing to write)
>
> Fred
Lars Ormberg
(I don't know where Mr. T lives. Stop phoning my home)
- I'm a genuine, certified, dixie fried, full of pride, 'til I die
pure bred redneck!
la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
____
The awesome website of The Commodore has been given a huge upgrade!
More animations! More Java! More Klingons! Now with a dedicated
and expanded links page, tons and tons more pics, an Alberta election
page, and Lars Ormberg's unique world commentary. Take another look at
http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/ and then you will finally have an
experience that only can be declared as Lars On-Line!
* The Borg--our most lethal enemy--have begun an invasion of the
Federation. The assimilation continues...STAR TREK:FIRST CONTACT is
still showing in theatres, resistance is still not futile! Paramount
Pictures brings the treachery of a Queen, the courage of a captain,
and the destiny of a planet. (Oh, and some Star Wars special edition
thing is supposedly still playing as well. I hear it doesn't entirely
suck).
Steve Ranta
In article <3330B4...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>, la...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca wrote:
. . .
> Modern day landlords, unlike their historical counterpart, _only_ invest
> in buildings and land. In the past, landlords were just that, the
> "commander" of all who resided on his property.
>
> I am not saying landlords don't want to make money. I am saying that a
> term used in Marx's time does not refer to people the same way the term
> does today. . .
Yet much of Marx's economic thought was based on Ricardo and other
economists, who identified 'ground rent' as basically unearned income to
the owner.
--
Steve Ranta
Lars Ormberg
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Lars Ormberg wrote:
>
> > umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
> >
> > > Quite absurd. Landlords are exploiters according to Marxian economics.
> > > If you have a problem with the theory, then criticize the theory.
> >
> > But the world doesn't all work according to the grand Marxian economic
> > theory. Though Marx felt landlords were exploiters, does that mean that
> > a landlord exploits?
> >
> > Landlords are the people who own buildings that rent them to tenants.
> > That is the modern useage. Implying that the modern day landlord
> > commits the same sins as his historical counterpart alters a person's
> > perception of reality to somethign surreal.
>
> Do not modern-day landlords invest in buildings? What is the purpose of
> the investment? To obtain a maximum return on the building? Or to
> provide a service to the tenant?
Modern day landlords, unlike their historical counterpart, _only_ invest
in buildings and land. In the past, landlords were just that, the
"commander" of all who resided on his property.
I am not saying landlords don't want to make money. I am saying that a
term used in Marx's time does not refer to people the same way the term
does today.
> > > BTW, there are MANY subtle messages in textbooks used by school
Steve Ranta
. . .
> Modern day landlords, unlike their historical counterpart, _only_ invest
> in buildings and land. In the past, landlords were just that, the
> "commander" of all who resided on his property.
>
> I am not saying landlords don't want to make money. I am saying that a
> term used in Marx's time does not refer to people the same way the term