|
The reason Unions have been kind of short sighted and selfish is a direct result of them being legalized. In this great win for labour, sympathy strikes were disallowed, and elections were made more complicated. With the even earlier and continuous arrest and blacklisting of anarchy-sydicalists and communists, or even fellow travellers, how can you expect them to be the same as they were. Once they had legal status, they had something to lose. That said, the postal workers union's supposed to be pretty good and militant, and the longshoremen on the West Coast of the States is still doing good work, like blockading equipment for the Iraq War and joining the general strike in Oakland. The Wobblies are still around, and since they don't sign collective agreements, they can strike whenever the hell they feel like. But of course it makes them much more precarious.
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
My understanding is that rule is about avoiding people dealing. Once you start discussing prices, it gets easier to talk about meet ups, that kind of thing. Could start getting the subforum into legal trouble. I dunno if it's kosher here. As for the news, I think it's terrible. Making it illegal to grow for individuals is a terrible policy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
The real problem I have with conservatives is the fact that their whole ideology makes no sense. Let's go back to the glorious past, when the vast majority of people were living hand to mouth and a small minority could commit murder and have the right of prima nocta and bang our wives! Or do you mean the small government? Ignoring the fact that the Conservatives in this country seem to have plenty of advertising money, or money for fake lakes, and are just as corrupt as the Liberals; the real problem is that a small government that doesn't regulate means that the super rich can control everything. I mean, that's good if you're super rich, but most people aren't. You can look at history for plenty of examples of terrible conservative governments, and you can also see that their economic policies tend to make a lot of people poorer and a bit of people much richer. The whole reason we're a country is so that we can support each other, so getting rid of all that stuff doesn't make sense. Oh I hate paying taxes! Well, I like living in a first world country, and guess what, that's what makes us one. Rich people in third world countries have helicopters and mansions, and don't pay much in tax. Look how that works for the rest of them. A lot of conservatives aspire to the glorious 50s and 60s, when economic competition was a lot less since, oh, half of the world was bombed all to hell. Even still, corporate taxes were way higher than now. The entire conservative argument makes absolutely no sense, and has never worked to benefit the majority of a population. I'm a utilitarian, so I have a problem with that. I would really like to understand a conservative viewpoint, so if PT6A or whoever else can explain their viewpoint being anything less than naked greed, I'd appreciate it. If naked greed is the only thing that explains their position, why can't they be honest about it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I don't really get that argument that leftists should be more conciliatory towards our political opponents. I mean, we tend to get derided as Stalinists and elitists, and guess what, the people who say that are getting elected. Politics is a grudge-match, and if it isn't, then it's not really being effective. Leftists want totally different things than rightists, and if being diplomatic about it means denying some of our viewpoints and going along with terrible ones for the point of political expediency, than I don't see the point. We think we're right, they think they're right, we both can't be right. Don't you dare say the truth is in the middle. While I do hate capitalism and the effects it is having on the world, it's still preferable to feudalism. However, that doesn't mean that we still need it to dominate our lives. Socialism at least has a scientific basis, whereas conservatism only attempts to create one to justify it's positions. That's a huge difference, and frankly, I'm sick of conservatives backing up their position with the fact that communism lost the Cold War. The French reactionaries, with the help of their allies governing other countries, re-established the French crown. It doesn't matter in the long run, because people saw a temporary attempt towards greater freedom. With all the crimes committed against the people by the Soviet Union and Communist China, which I do not deny, there was at least a dream of a world where the vast majority of the population is not forced to work for the minorities' profits. I'm of the mind most of the excesses occurred because, oh, I don't know, the rest of the world tried to strangle them in the crib, making the remaining revolutionaries untrusting and paranoid. Another thing I absolutely despise is how people use the mass movements that led to the fall of the Soviet Union as proof that Communism was doomed to fail. There's been mass movements in many countries to get rid of capitalism, but capitalists fight tooth and nail to keep their power, and will go to any lengths to do so. Point out a capitalist country, that went communist due to mass movements, that didn't resort to violence, and we'd be able to talk about the efficiency of non-violent protest. I know this is a big, somewhat rambling post, but I had to get this stuff off my chest. We can only try to change people's minds through persuasion for so long. The fact is, some people are committed to their ideas, and no amount of truth can make them change their minds. Being weak in your denuciations of incorrect viewpoints only makes you look weak.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
I do admit that Stalin was an especially paranoid person, and most of the worst excesses of the Soviet Union can be placed at his feet, but he probably wouldn't have been able to come to power without the influence of the Russian Civil War, the mass repression of less extreme socialist parties in Tsarist Russia, and the fact that every other successful revolution (and in 1917, 1918 and 1919 there were quite a few including a nascent social movement that was violently crushed in our country) were violently crushed with the approval and support of reactionaries both within the country and without. It's my analysis of history that leads to my beliefs, and my increasing support for anarchist communism. Sapere aude, after all!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Well now I have to vote for Gates. I was disappointed that I can now no longer can vote for the Communist Party like when I lived in Toronto, but if he's just as radical....radical!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
There are some pretty good arguments that we had it pretty good as hunter gatherers. Worked only 5 or so hours a week, had plenty of leisure time, not many illnesses, healthy diet. Course that was before we were civilized.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
The one thing I like is that the truly widely admired Canadians are all socialists or communists. I mean, Tommy Douglas won the award for best Canadian!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Everyone realizes that unions started to kind of suck when they made them legal right? Yeah, it allowed them to be legal, but it also filled it up with legal jargon that favours lawyerism and ossified union structures. Denied them the ability to sympathy strike, hell even strike outside the bargaining process. When they were illegal they ran it like the IWW, voting more important, and anytime the company fucks with the employees enough, they could strike.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
I'm just happy I'm moving to Montreal so I can at least vote for QS in the provincial election.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I do think that university students should take a variety of classes. I took business management (don't do this unless your dad owns a company) but with a decent selection of electives, I was able to take politics, history, labour history, etc. It helped that they were my passions, but I really feel they were the more valuable ones for day to day. Critical thinking isn't especially valued in business, and it should be, as it's valued in life. I remember the professor in my business class asking a question, and I suggested as a solution nationalising the company. The professor laughed, and said this isn't communism. I mean, that's not really conducive to learning critical thinking skills. A professor in a humanities class would have answered why it wasn't a solution, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Now in my socialist mind, I can kind of see a reason for it. Especially the lower level of business education, they don't want people to ask questions, they want people who do things the way that they want them to. I imagine at the higher levels critical thinking may come into the fore, as somebody's got to be having new ideas. Lastly, certainly some essays I had to pad out for length, but certainly if it was something interesting, or controversial, I would actually have to take parts out to make sure it wasn't too long. This by the way, is a way better way to write well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Tiny Tim donuts? Yeah, they're the best. I still like getting a bagel at timmies, price is pretty good and they butter and toast it for you! Haha...but if you want to treat yourself you pay a little more for bacon. I realize it'd probably be cheaper if I bought the ingredients in bulk and made it at home but...meh. Where's the workers' canteens dammit!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
You could join the IWW. They're pretty militant, and they let you be in their union and another union!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
You could argue that's the whole point of the system. I mean, I'm just hating how politics now isn't about what our government can accomplish, but how it'll please the wealthy so we can have more jobs. I mean, that's saying that the elected body we all chose is less powerful than wealthy people. Rule by the People my rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Sorry for disappearing before the huge discussion my post started. I do think the NDP need to move further left, but (and I may be wrong on this) basically anytime a socialist party or group has any success is if there is a further left party that is growing in popularity. Communists in Russia had the Anarchists, Labour in Germany had the Spartacists, etc. I mean we talk about the Overton window, it makes sense for a party to be pushing the limits on the left. The Communist party did get banned in Canada when it was getting a little popular, I don't think anyone could argue that, although that one guy didn't seem to know that. Basically my understanding of history and politics is the people with the power only are willing to give up some of their power if they are at risk of losing all of it. Every political development which has seen an increase in political power amongst the least in society has come from that. The Magna Carta got signed because otherwise the King would have been overthrown, India got independence so that the British businesses didn't have to worry about nationalisation in a bloody independence war. There are plenty more examples. Really I feel it's self evident, if you have power, what would make you give it up? They are willing to make concessions so long as they still have the lion's share of power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Like I said, there is some truth to this idea, but it's also worth noting that sometimes the opposite happens. The left was strong and growing stronger in Germany and that lead to the rise of Nazism. The left was perceived to be getting stronger in North America and Europe during the 1970s and that helped lead to neoliberalism. History rarely moves in straight lines and you can't just reduce the direction of politics to a simple formula where 'radical left agitation leads to moderate left reform'. To bring this back to Canadian discussion, what's people's opinion on the RCMP planting bombs and blaming it on their opponents? They did it recently against an anti-fracking advocate, and one of the few bombs that killed somebody during the FLQ crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
I actually took business...which is kind of how I got this title. I was lucky (lazy) enough to sign up last minute for my classes, so a couple of my economics classes were taught by a guy who didn't particularly put much faith in economics, instead of the regular undergraduate kool-aid drinking prof. He called it a voodoo science, which really stuck with me. To paraphase "none of the models can do an accurate job of predicting economic changes, and often can't even explain past events". Combine that with my bunch of business classes (where the most useful life skill I've learned is there's a whole ton of people who don't want you doing things the right way, they want you to do it their way, so figure out what that is and do it), and taking history, politics and labour history classes as my electives (instead of my ideal major) and it's pretty hard not to be at least socialist. The grand divide between labour history and what my business classes were teaching about similar topics, like NAFTA for example, and the side of history or at least where my feelings lie on those topics means I don't really have much of a choice at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 20:54
|
|