I believe that America has been in a class war since the day it was founded.  We just don't
speak of it.  I think the ones in denial are the working class who for some reason hold
that money makes someone right, and if you don't have it is it because you have done
something wrong.  I say someone who has lots, take Gates, Rockefeller, bush got it by cheating
someone, and not paying the "help".  The worst part is the way unions are looked down on.
What is this attitude that people who work for a living should be happy being paid what ever
the owners decides to pay, and must be ungrateful if they ask for more?  This is not in regards
to small business owners, who are generally much more liberal in the treatment of their
workers, let's keep this to the large companies(the "well I worked for this one guy" thing is a
distraction).  I mentioned in another post that  Lee Iaccoca is looked on as some kind of hero
for "saving" Chrysler.  It wasn't the unions, or workers, who mismanaged Chrysler, It was the
owners.  Iaccoca came in laid of thousands of workers revamped, and in a public relations
ploy said he would work the first year without a salary.  A 5 million dollar bonus is not considered
salary, nor is fully paid health care, living expenses, and stock options.  Real prince of a guy.  How
many of those laid off workers could have worked another year or two, or maybe some extended
benefits to the laid off families.  Lee Iaccoca is still considered a great American, the laid off
workers....when is the last time you think he even gave them a second thought?
During the seventies I worked in an office of bond traders.  Whenever a major plant closed the
band traders(all from privileged "daddy got me the job, mummy gives me an allowance")back
grounds, would stand up and cheer.  Plant closings meant those expenses would show up in
there dividend checks.  I took it until it happened a week before Christmas, then I had to speak
up.  Peoples lives were being decimated, and they were cheering over there own monthly
dividends.  I left soon after. There is a class war going on, and the people who are hurt most are complacent, if not complicit.  That is the scariest part.

OH, I have a lot to say about this, but I haven't time right now.  I'll get back to it!

I have lots more stored up to, I feel your pain. ;)

I agree.  The class struggle has been going on since day one with varying intensity.  In the 1930s it was close to breaking out full scale, but FDR saved the system by providing relief and changing things just enough to quell the labor movement (the National Labor Relations Act) and by getting us into WWII.  The problem with class war, though, is, as Antonio Gramsci said, you never know which way a working class movement is going to turn.  The wway things are in this country now, it could very well be toward fascism.

Viva La Revolution!

Tanya

Viva La Revolution!

Tanya


When do we start?

When do we start?


Now! We must show the younger generation what is truly at stake and who will truly be left out in the cold!

Tanya

The problem with revolutions is that once they are complete the new ruling classes quickly adjust to their new situation and start dumping on the rest ....

The problem with revolutions is that once they are complete the new ruling classes quickly adjust to their new situation and start dumping on the rest ....

IMO, that was what made Nelson Mandela so unique, (except Gandhi, possibly), in that once he got into power, he actually tried to do what was right, rather than what was best for him/his party/family etc.

I agree with you about Mandela... he was  a very exceptional characterr..btw  what does IMO mean??

In My Opinion (often used as "IMHO" in my humble/honest opinion (which is usually anything but humble))

- useful acronym site: http://www.acronymfinder.com/ (I played with my Opera.ini file to have it as a right-click "find acronym" option, which is kind of useful - any Opera users who want that kind of functionality, drop me a line)

I have great respect for both Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.  We need their likes here, in the good old USA, or the spirit of our own radicals, like Mother Jones, Bib Bill Hayward, Joe Hill, etc.  Just befor being executed Joe said "don't mourn, ORGANIZE", and that's what we need to do.

ORGANIZE", and that's what we need to do.


We do indeed. We will too this time around if necessary. I certainly will. That's a promise! :)

I'm all for revolution. But, unfortunately, for the most part (with some extraordinary exceptions found here on site), the younger generation isn't equipped enough. They are growing up in a quick-fix society right now? How do we handle them?

Tanya

I'm all for revolution. But, unfortunately, for the most part (with some extraordinary exceptions found here on site), the younger generation isn't equipped enough. They are growing up in a quick-fix society right now? How do we handle them?

Tanya


Tanya, there are no easy answers, and I don't have the hard ones.  Teach, speak out, I just don't know.  Looks more and more like G. Orwell's 1984.  I think I'll buy an Uzie.

Tanya, there are no easy answers, and I don't have the hard ones.  Teach, speak out, I just don't know.  Looks more and more like G. Orwell's 1984.  I think I'll buy an Uzie.


Might as well since the ban is off assault weapons now!

Tanya

I miss Mushroom.  I was his straight man. 

Anyway, in my pinko opinions I often refer to the "military-industrial complex."  President Eisenhower popularized the term in that famous speech.  We think of it as a collusion between defense contractors, extraction industries, and the military concerns of the U.S. government.  However, we don't often get a clear picture of how it actually operates. 

Chomsky is fond of this one.

Take the war in Iraq.  Weapons manufacturers such as Bradley, Raytheon, and Lockheed-Martin, and GE make huge profits contracting with the government to build the instruments of war.  Where does the money come from?  The American taxpayer.  Engineering and construction corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel contract with the government to "rebuild Iraq."  Where does the money come from?  The American taxpayer.
The American taxpayer pays for the U.S. government to go in and destroy Iraq AND pays for the U.S. government to rebuild Iraq after they destroy it.  Who gets the money?  The stockholders and executives of Bradley, Raytheon, Lockheed, Halliburton, and Bechtel.
Thus the money is transferred from the U.S. treasury where it belongs to the American public to the stock portfolios of a private few.
In a nutshell, that's how the military-industrial complex operates, and that is pure class warfare. 

The petroleum industry end of the military-industrial complex can then monopolize the oil fields after the American taxpayer has paved the way.  Now it is safe for them to extract the extract th oil and sell it on markets around the world in the forms of gasoline and plastics.

Now, our conservative brethren will say, "Whoah!  We NEED that oil for everything from our automobiles to our medicines, so the war benefits all of us."  True and at the same time false.

If the petroleum industries had to rely on true free enterprise unencumbered by the folly of big government, they would have to raise their own mercenary forces to fly to Iraq and wrest it from Saddam on their own dime.  Suddenly, things just got a thousand times more complicated and expensive for Exxon, didn't they?  Of course that's completely absurd.  No one expects the Exxon Legion to fight wars!  Yet, the oil executives of the Republican party STILL want to call themselves champions of the free market even though John and Jane Doe-American make all their ventures possible via big government taxes.  Bush and Cheney will still stand up on national television and lecture us about how big government is no good compared to individual initiative.

The American public doesn't get the other half of the story.  Without big goverrnment, there is no big business.  Let the politicians argue for or against the war in Iraq, but let's put the "big government" rhetoric to bed.

If the government did not subsidize gasoline, Americans would pay per gallon what they do in other countries $4.00 or $6.00, perhaps.  The military-industrial complex understands that far fewer people could afford to drive without the gas subsidy which cuts the price per gallon by half or two-thirds.  Where does the "subsidy" come from?  In essence, the gasoline subsidy is a massive form of wealth redistribution.  No one questions it.  It's always a good thing.  Yet, when wealth redistribution is suggested as a way to make housing, education, food, and healthcare more affordable, the right-wing goes nuts!

Why?

This is the propagandist side of class warfare.  Corporations receiving subisidies to further their private profit ventures are called praised, even when what they do is detrimental to the public--creating artificial markets via advertising for superfluous junk, polluting the environment, closing down factories while the the company's profits are soaring, exploiting workers in foreign countries (all att taxpayer expense again BTW).  Citizens receiving subisident to protect the public good, such as nutrition, housing, education, medicine, unemployment benefits, are looked at askance at best, and more often called layabouts, cheats, and parasites.  When you analyse it, the propaganda is vulgar and weak even as propaganda goes, but it has worked for more than half a century, so why not press on with it?

Well, I could go on about this all night, so I'll put it on hold for now!

Max, that post felt so good I think I need a cigarette :)

Max, that post felt so good I think I need a cigarette :)

Tee-hee-hee...
8)

"Praise boss when morning workbells chime,
Praise him for bits of overtime,
Praise him who's wars we love to fight,
Praise him fat leach and parasite,
Aman".

Song to the tune of the doxology.

The Wobblies loved to use hymn tunes, but change the words so they made more sense.

Same old same old.

"Praise boss when morning workbells chime,
Praise him for bits of overtime,
Praise him who's wars we love to fight,
Praise him fat leach and parasite,
Aman".

Song to the tune of the doxology.

The Wobblies loved to use hymn tunes, but change the words so they made more sense.

Same old same old.

Overtime?  They're trying to get rid of those overtime rates.  Wal-Mart has been known to make employees work overtime for no pay at all.

And now comes the court mandated pay cut of 21% to US Airways unionized workers, with a
reduction in their benefits package.  The government is also tapping the civil service retirement
account to pay off bills, because of the deficit.  In the mean time half of the billions spent in Iraq
is unaccounted for. The paper trails for the money has become "lost".  We know in went into
someones pockets, but not whose(well, we can speculate).  All of these actions have serious
repercussions.  For a court to mandate the loss of wages by unionized employees because of
mismanagement, we have not been told what price management is to pay, is chilling, it is also
routed in the Reagan labor practice, we are still paying for allowing him to fire the air traffic
controllers, and abetted by the Scalia headed Labor Department.  How much worse will it get
before people wake up?

Wal-Mart has been known to make employees work overtime for no pay at all.


I'll defend Wal-Mart because I have exclusive knowledge. That claim is too general and vague to be considered true. This would be good fodder for snopes. There are in fact too many people on watch to allow this type of thing. To pull something like that off, it would have to be a well-coordinated effort by a great number of people from many different positions. It's almost an impossible proposition. Someone's always watching. The employees have control and say in whatever decisions come to pass. In situations of non-frivolous and surely questionable practices, which I'm sure some occur with any big retail corporation, employees have exercised their rights and successfully sued.

I'll defend Wal-Mart because I have exclusive knowledge. That claim is too general and vague to be considered true. This would be good fodder for snopes. There are in fact too many people on watch to allow this type of thing. To pull something like that off, it would have to be a well-coordinated effort by a great number of people from many different positions. It's almost an impossible proposition. Someone's always watching. The employees have control and say in whatever decisions come to pass. In situations of non-frivolous and surely questionable practices, which I'm sure some occur with any big retail corporation, employees have exercised their rights and successfully sued.


The reports I have read assert that store managers, under pressure from their superiors, for "associates" to punch out and continue to work, or that they themselves cook the books.  The fact that, as you assert, there have been successful suits  suggests that this happens at least sometimes.  Wal-Mart also has been accused of violating works' right to form unions.  One man asserted that, while on break and waiting in line to pay for a candy bar, he started to eat it and was fired for stealing it.  He was organizing a union.

Thinking of Danoot's question, I see 2 possibilities.  First, things could keep getting worse until all hell breaks loose.  The problem with that is, given polls I just saw yesterday and today, the military would remain loyal.  How many masses does it take to stop a tank?  Second, a new FDR will emerge during a crisis, reject the far right, as FDR did, and restore some (limited) seblance of balance to save the system from itself.  There may be other scenarios, of course. 

I'll defend Wal-Mart because I have exclusive knowledge. That claim is too general and vague to be considered true. This would be good fodder for snopes.

   Vague?  Wal-Mart has lost a class-action lawsuit involving the overtime shennanigans in at least two states and with settlements totaling nearly $600,000...


There are in fact too many people on watch to allow this type of thing. To pull something like that off, it would have to be a well-coordinated effort by a great number of people from many different positions.

   Seems some employees themselves were made to subtract any hours worked in excess of 40 on the computer.  Heck, this practice was even institutionalized in the form of an Over-40 Club.   

It's almost an impossible proposition. Someone's always watching. The employees have control and say in whatever decisions come to pass. In situations of non-frivolous and surely questionable practices, which I'm sure some occur with any big retail corporation, employees have exercised their rights and successfully sued.


   Never would've happened if they'd organized.  Nevertheless, shame on you, you bad ol' Wal Mart!

   

   

The reports I have read assert that store managers, under pressure from their superiors, for "associates" to punch out and continue to work, or that they themselves cook the books. 

I have read reports to the contrary. I'll agree to disagree.

The fact that, as you assert, there have been successful suits  suggests that this happens at least sometimes.

My quote:

In situations of non-frivolous and surely questionable practices, which I'm sure some occur with any big retail corporation, employees have exercised their rights and successfully sued.

'Nuff said.

I have read reports to the contrary. I'll agree to disagree.



My quote:

In situations of non-frivolous and surely questionable practices, which I'm sure some occur with any big retail corporation, employees have exercised their rights and successfully sued.

'Nuff said.


"Agree to disagree" - fine with me.

My quote:

...at least sometimes

Where there's smoke...

Nevertheless, shame on you, you bad ol' Wal Mart!

I respect differing opinions. It is a shame to see people, however, propagating negative commentary about a very good institution (for the most part, admittingly) because of a few "bad apples"; which as I stated before, most retail corporations have to deal with.

Wal-Mart has been a community savior, especially in these very difficult last 4 years of horrendous economy, where a normal working person can hardly afford to put clothes on their back, shoes on their feet and food on their table. Not only have they made it much easier price-wise to purchase basic necessities for communities, they've helped support many programs, given work to the employable from all walks of life, including but not limited to the disabled; but also gives them all an equal opportunity to rise through their corporate ladder.

In all fairness, many of us poor people in the U.S would be lost without Wal-Mart. Yes, I consider myself poor. I am poor. Like many others in this nation, I too felt the ground shift underneath me in the last 4 years financially. I am currently, officially, below poverty level.

Where there's smoke...


You're making false assumptions. With all due respect, I think your reply was empty, with no purpose.

Where there's smoke...

This is one of my least favourite aphorisms, which lends credence to rumour.  Besides, how many smoke machines have you seen alight?

Wal-Mart is shameless, and does do illegal practices if they think they can get away with them.

www.tn-elderlaw.com/prior/020429.html

Texas Woman Sues Wal-Mart Over Life Policy on Late Husband
A Texas woman, whose deceased husband was an insured under a life insurance policy taken out on his life by his employer, Wal-Mart, has sued Wal-Mart because the company collected $64,000 on the policy and she received nothing.

When Jane Sims' husband Douglas died suddenly in 1998 of a heart attack, his employer Wal-Mart collected on the policy. She did not know until recently that Wal-Mart had even taken out coverage on her husband.

"Dead Peasants"
The policies are called "corporate-owned life insurance" (COLI) policies. They are better known by other names, such as "dead janitor" or "dead peasant" policies.

Seldom will the insureds even know that the policies are in existence. Although purchasing life insurance on the lives of key employees is common, the death of a mid-level employee such as Mr. Sims does not have an impact on the financial health of the company.

In Texas, where Mr. Sims resided, dead peasant policies are against the law. The reasoning of the Texas legislature is, apparently, to remove any incentive for murder or wagering on a human life.

So why would a company purchase COLI policies on employees whose deaths would not impact the bottom line, or even continue to maintain policies on individuals long after they have left the company?

As usual, the answer is "money." Companies put millions of dollars into COLI policies, which grow in cash value, just like any whole life insurance policy would. The value increases free of federal income tax, however, unlike a savings account or other investment vehicle.

At some point, the company may borrow against the policies to raise money. Until 1996, the company was allowed to deduct the interest it paid on the loans it borrowed against the policies. The Internal Revenue Service ruled that the policies served no legitimate business purposes, however, and denied deductions - even though, according to the Wall Street Journal, many companies appear still be borrowing from the policies and deducting the interest payments.

Don't assume that Wal-Mart is illegally deducting interest payments it makes on policy loans. The reason that Wal-Mart may have purchased a policy on Mr. Sims' life might simply have been to reap a cash benefit upon the death of an employee.

By some measures, Wal-Mart is the world's largest company. It has tens of thousands of employees. Needless to say, many of them die every year. If Wal-Mart has taken out COLI policies on other employees, the company could use the death benefit any way it likes. That, of course, has grieving widows like Jane Sims upset. The company benefits from the death of their loved ones. They don't.

That could change, however, if a law introduced last week by Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, is passed by Congress. The bill would force companies to tell employees, former employees, and their families if the companies have taken out insurance policies on their lives, and also to disclose the amount of each policy and the name of the insurer. The bill would be retroactive to January 1, 1985, and would require employers that take out new policies to notify employees within 30 days.

No one knows for sure how many dead peasant policies are out there. According to the Houston Chronicle, an attorney for Hartford Life Insurance Company estimates as many as 5 to 6 million of the policies exist on employees of Fortune 500 companies.

"The whole point of the bill is to bring some daylight on this issue," Rep. Green told the Wall Street Journal.

You're making false assumptions. With all due respect, I think your reply was empty, with no purpose.


I'm no Wal-Mart insider, and my response might have been a bit flippant - I apologize.  So let me spell out what I see as the pluses and minuses of Wal-Mart at greater length.

It does provide employment for large numbers of people, mostly at minimum wage, and that is part of the reasaon it can offer low prices.  The other is that with its huge sales, it can leverage cheap prices from its suppliers, which lowers their bottom line, forcing them to cut costs - and which costs are easiest to cut?  Not raw material, not power, certainly not executive salaries, not rent, or capital investments.  So what is left?  Labor costs.  

WalMart does make charitable contributions.  I don't know the record on this, but don't dispute that they might even be very generous.  Thats good, but their employment practices, especially their anti-union  activity (which at least verges on the illegal), and the fairly substantial judgements against them suggest that we are dealing with more than a few bad apples (which I agree can pop up in any organization).  

If I may suggest, you also need to consider the impact of WalMart on the rest of a local economy (and not just WalMart but all of the "big box" outlets).  One of the few things both Bush and Kerry agree on is that small business creates most jobs in this country, but these outlets have a damaging effect on small business.

WAlMart was allowed to come to Rutland VT a few years ago, but to do so they had to occupy an empty retail space in the down town, not build their own big box, and so serve as a draw to support at least some small businesses, like restaurants and specialty shops, if not other family firms in direct competition with their products.  In part, it was a win - win proposition, but there have been loosers.

So on balance, I conclude (and I respect your right to disagree) that in the main, WalMart is a negative.  I understand that their cheap prices are attractive to people who are being pressed by the deterioration of what was a middle class economy, and I truely regret that you find yourself in that boat, but that is a much broader problem.  I certainly don't hold WalMart at fault for the mess the Repubs have made of out over all economy.  Mr Bush needs to be taken to task for that failure.

Hubby's aunt works for Target and they pull the same stuff :(

The answer boils down to five words:
"Workers of the world unite."

Regarding Wal-Mart, I recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed.  It's a slim volume, readable in an evening, but very telling about low-wage work in the U.S.

Actually, the WalMart's around here pay fairly well.  I believe the starting pay is around $9/hour for a cashier position.  Certainly not a windfall, but much more than minimum wage.


If you a correct, glad to hear it, but what about the other issues I raised?  Let me generalize my concerns.  WalMart represents a huge chunck of power, as  I suggested.  I think, anarcist that I tend to be, that concentrations of power are always dangerous.  The only real balance to corpporate power is a strong labor movement.  That's why WalMart and other firms are so anti-union.  Back in the old days Henry Ford instituted the $5 day to forstall a union drive, and employers today continue to fight against unionization not necessarilly because of higher wages but over issues of control. 

If you a correct, glad to hear it, but what about the other issues I raised?  Let me generalize my concerns.  WalMart represents a huge chunck of power, as  I suggested.  I think, anarcist that I tend to be, that concentrations of power are always dangerous.  The only real balance to corpporate power is a strong labor movement.  That's why WalMart and other firms are so anti-union.  Back in the old days Henry Ford instituted the $5 day to forstall a union drive, and employers today continue to fight against unionization not necessarilly because of higher wages but over issues of control. 

I'm no fan of Henry Ford's politics, nasty little anti-semite that he was.  However, he was an effective businessman.  If you want to forestall unions and promote corporate power, you give the workers an incentive to go along with you.  High wages are a good incentive.
What I don't get about the Bush Administration is they're getting away with murder without giving Joe Average any real incentives.  A few hundred bucks in tax rebates and some sanctimonious propaganda about patriotism is pretty darn cheap.

The answer boils down to five words:
"Workers of the world unite."




Or to reword this "Bad spellers of the world, untie"  :D (I'm sure Carlos would love that. lol)


Sorry, couldn't resist.



Cat

Or to reword this "Bad spellers of the world, untie"  :D (I'm sure Carlos would love that. lol)


Sorry, couldn't resist.



Cat

I heard it as "Dyslexics of the world untie!"

Or to reword this "Bad spellers of the world, untie"  :D (I'm sure Carlos would love that. lol)


Sorry, couldn't resist.



Cat


Sorry Cat, I'll stick to the workers.  After all, GWB is a bad speller too, and I have no desire to unite with his views.  Now if he comes to recognize his real interests and move a step or two to the left...

I certainly hope you're not holding your breath on that one ;D ;D ;D


Not a chance.

I must admit that on first reading, I missed Cat's joke.  tahts becuase, as my dauhgetr ponited out, we can raed wrods and udresatnd them as long as the first and last letters are in the right place.  Isn't that interesting, so I read her "untie" as "unite", the word I expected.

If (when) Bush & Co. steal the election, I propose that we ALL organize a general strike whereever we live, regardless of party affiliation.  Our democracy is at stake.