The View Left from the Comedic Right:
A bunch of bong-smoking, America-bashing, flag-burning, yoga-posing, incense-burning, dolphin-saving, salmon-eating hypocrites; these are the sensitive, liberal people who are always yelling about people's freedom of speech and expression, unless you happen to say something that pisses them off.(Richard Jeni)
The View of the unFunny Left:
A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. (Leo Rosten)
A View of the Comedic Left:
It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy, it's that I believe he was a child of Satan sent here to destroy the planet Earth.(Bill Hicks)
An observer of political and economic affairs once noted:
The political bourgeoisie failed to understand--or, rather, they did not wish to understand--the importance of the trades union movement. The Social Democrats accordingly seized the advantage offered them by this mistaken policy and took the labour movement under their exclusive protection, without any protest from the other side. In this way they established for themselves a solid bulwark behind which they could safely retire whenever the struggle assumed a critical aspect. Thus the genuine purpose of the movement gradually fell into oblivion, and was replaced by new objectives. For the Social Democrats never troubled themselves to respect and uphold the original purpose for which the trade unionist movement was founded. They simply took over the Movement, lock, stock and barrel, to serve their own political ends. Within a few decades the Trades Union Movement was transformed, by the expert hand of Social Democracy, from an instrument which had been originally fashioned for the defence of human rights into an instrument for the destruction of the national economic structure. The interests of the working class were not allowed for a moment to cross the path of this purpose; for in politics the application of economic pressure is always possible if the one side be sufficiently unscrupulous and the other sufficiently inert and docile. In this case both conditions were fulfilled.
How about it? Strongly Agree? Agree? Disagree? Strongly Disagree?
Why don't we ask a different question... "True or False"? Regarding the context of the time this was written,* and down until today, it is fundamentally true, but not to the same degree in all places or contexts.
If those with power and a liberal dose of narcissistic whim view their workers as utilitarian objects useful to the extent that they fulfill the owners personal, (and dare I say 'class' though I hate the word) and social network's dreams and ambitions, then they will care little when one of those 'objects' is hurt, harmed or howling for some perceived injustice.
At this point the situation is more than ripe for some outsider to offer a 'solution' to this problem with the added incentive of guaranteed increases in wages, and dramatic improvements in conditions. Such a person will be able to demonstrate success in x, y, z industries, and therefore have credibility.
The naive 'worker', who knows little more than how far his paycheck will go in paying his bills, and providing for his family, might be strongly attracted to such voices. What that naive worker doesn't realize however, is that the motivation of those 'voices' is absolutely NOT the welfare of the worker in itself or for it's own sake. (see quote above).
If we think carefully about the sequence of events laid out in the quote above, we can see that the starting point is 'employer greed and callousness'....this leads to worker dissatisfaction, anger and action. That action is what the Social Democrats (Political Left/Progressives) seek to harness and then direct for their own political purposes.
This is a no brainer...no further argument is needed to validate this simple observation. So we now need to look at a few more things.
i) What does history teach us about how "Progressive" political networks will use workers for their own nefarious purposes? The classic example and from the same context that the quote above is taken from, ocurred in Germany in 1919. A man names Kurt Eisner orchestrated two major disruptions to Germany with the first being a massive strike at a munitions factory in 1918. He was incarcerated for treason at the end of the war, but later freed by an amnesty. He used that freedom in 1919 to re activate his "Industrial Relations" skills and once again orchestrated a huge strike, but this time went much further than a simple strike.
He was clearly under the instructions of a foreign power, i.e...the Soviet Union, and he managed to persuade a large crowd of workers that it was in their interests to usurp the Government of Bavaria....He dragged these workers to the Bavarian royal palace, ordered the kind to abdicate and 'get out'....then proclaimed himself the president of the "Bavarian Soviet Socialist Republic". In other words it was a Russian Communist invasion in everything but name and a Russian Army to achieve it. The reader is advised to read the links to further understand what happened surrounding these events. I strongly recommend a close study of Eisners personal background including his 'race'...which might shed much light on subsequent events which dramatically effected his people.
The single most important question about this event is...'Qui Bono'...who benefits? That will unpack who was pulling Eisners strings, and for what reasons. (it certainly was not for the benefit of the workers)
ii) Using the criteria 'Qui Bono'....who benefits, we can now better understand the forces at work in our own Western industrial relations cesspool. If you were a nation which needed particular kinds of economic advancement, and there were other nations currently leading you in those segments....how might you overcome them in the interests of your own economy?
a) INVADE. You could invade them and simply take over. This won't work because the world is far too well connected for such people to get away with that.
b) SABOTAGE. You could use sabotage and similar means to destroy the factories of your competitors. (possible but too easy to be uncovered by forensic methods.)
c) GRADUALIST EROSION You could take a long term view, and contrive a method that makes everyone in the target nation think that what you are doing is totally their own matter, with no outside vested interest. This is the approach I believe is being taken by China and perhaps some other countries.
In order to achieve "c" above, you need to do some specific things:
i) Formulate a PLAN... to destroy the economic advantage or equality with your nation, by ramping up pay and conditions to the point where it is non economically viable for them to continue.
ii) Put together a movement that looks home grown, that continually fights for what they call 'better pay and conditions' while never ever mentioning how this might impact global competitiveness. When it get's tough, they must demand 'Government support for local industry'...which has the effect not only of maintaining the lack of wage competitiveness, but it also bleeds the National Treasury dry in the process.
iii) Ensure that the leaders of such a network/movement are well looked after, well paid and immune to reaction from workers who have been cast aside in the implementation of the plan.
If you examine the 'outcome' of so called 'industrial action' over the past 3 decades in Australia, it is clear that according to the numbers and types of factories which have closed down, or moved their operations to China, it is the 'Workers' in Australia who now languish in dole ques, glazed eyed pondering their hopeless future at 50 yrs of age without a job, having worked for say Holden or Toyota or Ford for the past 25yrs... wondering who will employ a person who has skills which are no longer relevant to the types of remaining industry in Australia,...clearly.....the 'workers' have not benefited, a fact that will become increasingly heavy on them as their next mortgage payment comes due.
But who has benefited ? China!
THE NEXT STEP. Having destroyed most heavy industry in Australia, and virtually all consumer product manufacturing, these useful, but covert 'employees' of the Peoples Republic of China, (The Union leaders) are now moving from the destroying of general manufacturing industries to the debilitating of the public service, and focusing on only the largest most essential industries to further feather their already well endowed nests.
As Roosevelt once said.. "Only an foolish optimist would deny the dark realities of the moment".
SOLUTION. Ultimately, there is only one solution and it is a final one. Organized Labor (employees of the Peoples Republic of China) will be swept away with one very blunt swing of the bat of State. (Executives, Organizers, Shop Stewards). In their place will be an enhanced ombudsman dept which will oversee issues of industrial fairness across the board. While this will involve a 'large beaurocracy' on balance it will prevent so much in the way of losses due to stop work meetings, and strikes that it will be well worth it. It will operate on the simple principle of objective assessment in the National Interest.
TARGETED INDUSTRIES. Australia must make some decisions about what industries we will make 'work' for our national economy. Let me use a Chinese example. Virtually every TV or electrical appliance today uses some kind of switch mode power source. These power sources must use a transformer of some description and that in turn uses a material called Ferrite. The first thing China did was to cap wages so low that no one else could compete. But at first they had to import Ferrite materials in the various shapes and sizes needed for the Plug Pack etc The obvious thing for the Chinese government to do next is bring into being a Ferrite Manufacturing industry. So they then control the raw materials, the labor and the final product.
It goes something like this:
Materials. (Ferrite, Plastic, Copper wire, Mylar Tape) + Labor (Wind, solder, Assemble, Test) = "Transformer"
This leads to the next level:
Materials (Transformer (from above), Resistor, Capacitor, Case) + Labor= Finished Plug Pack
Using this as a personal experience....I have outside my factory, a fully automatic coil winding machine that costs around $200,000 new. It can replace all the labor in winding a coil except 'placing a bobbin on a mandril and button press to start the machine. So, the labor involved in placing the bobbin is around 5 seconds, and pressing the button is 2 seconds....7 seconds. (even at 1 cent per second this equates to $0.60c per minute= $36/hr) You would think that with so little labor needed, I could compete with China on making a Transformer? No... the reason is, I have to import the Ferrite and the plastic Bobbin from.....China.
That fully automatic, $200,000 machine was given to me free by the last company that used it to make their own transformers which they now import from China.
CAN WE PROVE IT? I think the closest we could get to a definitive proof of China's collusion with Trade Union leaders would be an inductive conclusion. (the best fit of the facts) But the point is.... we don't need to prove it, we need to 'realize' it and take appropriate action.
Toward Principles of National Renewal for Australia
* Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler Chapter II "My years of study and suffering in Vienna"
Having now seen the source of the quote, I wonder, I truly wonder, if you are still emotionally capable of weighing up the truth or falsehood of the assertions? If I'd provided the source with the quote, is it not a fact that you would have switched off immediately? (with some strong rolling of the eyes and some exasperative expletives) But Truth is truth irrespective of who states it. Karl Marx spoke some truth, Adam Smith spoke a lot of truth. Gengis Khan spoke much truth... even Mao Tse Tung (murdered 30 million) and Joseph Stalin (murdered 21 million) spoke some truth... our task is to separate truth from falsehood. As Mill once said:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. (On Liberty)
In regard to your reaction (should it be emotional and strongly negative to the 'source' of the quote) let me ask 'why'? If you were living in 1932, just before he took power, and if you have listened to say a speech by Walter Reuther (UAW founder) which reflected on the period from 1936 to 1965 and saw how Reuthers ambitions grew directly out of the kind of Industrial conditions of 1932, you would quickly realize if nothing else, the strong position of this essay! Reuther is an enigmatic personality, who seems to have had some kind of faith in God, which is unusual for a Socialist type, but that's another story.
I've just been enduring the cognitive pain of a lecture by Noam Chomsky on the issue of 'Propaganda'... This Link seems to cover his thinking, but if have time to listen to the full lecture here it is. He refers to the patron saint of public relations Eddy Bernays (Nephew of Sigmund Freud) who paved the way for complete control of public thinking by subliminal suggestion. To see just how powerful this is, and to understand why even 'you' reacted to the source of the quote above as you did (assuming you foamed at the mouth, ears and nostrils in antagonistic wrath) because you have been subjected to the same processes of mind shaping that Bernays developed and Chomsky refers to.
The problem with Chomsky is his own biases (strong left 'anarcho-syndicalist') but again...that's another story.
The psychological processes that brought you to that 'wrathful' posture mentioned above as the same processes used by that man (Hitler) and Bernays to do the same thing but for different reasons. I am hoping that 'you' can elevate yourself a little higher than the level of 'victim' of all this by realizing where it comes from and how it's done.
|Opening chapter of Bernays "Propaganda"|