"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109771963.e8f6cbc4cac64c5dfbb50a14b323ae 92@teranews...


"Freewheeling" wrote:


"Jon Meinecke" wrote


Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).



You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out
what
it means.

What?-- your comment calling Tom "some piece of work" or my
observation concerning the broader context about the following
exchange:

"Tom Sherman" wrote
Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow?

"Freewheeling" responded:
Oh BS. [Tom] actually brought up ecology



Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with
"this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants,
until you joined.

And generally genial, thank you. Interesting tango.

We've spent two years with much less artistic, measured,
respectful, and thoughtful exchanges coming to dominate
the newsgroup. The comparison to Markos seems to
cross the line into ad hominem. One presumes you think
your arguments logically stronger than to need to resort
to fallacious rhetoric. It's a slippery slope.


I find this comment somewhat amusing in context. Zuniga is hardly a
pariah with the anti-Bush crowd. He's fairly mainstream, though a good
deal more raw than, say, Josh Marshall. Mainstream Democrats publish
ads on his blog, for instance. Strictly speaking I have no idea whether
Tom follows Zuniga, but I sure wouldn't be shocked to find that he does.
You may be surprised at the contention that Tom feels some of us our
duped, or remain willfully ignorant, of how "bad things really are," but
this is actually doctrinaire Marxism. It's called "alienation leading
to false consciousness." I don't know where he picked it up, and for
all I know he doesn't know it's Marxism, but there it is.

I came up with it based on my own observations, thank you. I have no need
to behave like an academic and throw out all sorts of names.

It is just like all the academics that try to quantify quality of life,
but have no idea how much of a hell hole [1] many of the workplaces in
the US are, how middle class suburban society isolates people from proper
human relationships, and how the lack of a social safety net causes many
to feel that they are in an enforced economic servitude, with their
existence at the whim of the privileged.


So, we should just forget about trying to actually understand any of
these things from an empirical perspective, and just let our prejudices
and impressions rule? Gosh, it'd be great if work were like a party for
everyone, but not only is that rather unrealistic... it's probably the
case that human happiness isn't as simple as the *Theory of Alienation*
makes it out to be.

I don't see anything being proved, just some people trying to show how
clever they are, or to promote an agenda.

The bottom line, however, is that freedom from labor is achieved only
through ownership of capital... which replaces labor. And the left
always seems to stand on both sides of that issue, insisting that we
somehow make labor less objectionable while simultaneously creating more
of it for the sake of full employment. If you look at this carefully (as
did F.A. Hayek) it's the road to serfdom, for who would want to
perpetuate such a system if they knew its implications, other than a
group who had decided to become the "new elite?"

How can ownership of capital replace labor (unless we invent robots to do
all the work)? Make some sense.

I don't know what could possibly make more sense than the proposition that
capital is a replacement for labor, but in the sense of performing functions
formerly performed exclusively or prediminantly by labor, and in the sense
of replacing labor-related income for those who possess capital. Not only
is it obvious to me, it was also obvious to Karl Marx.


Of course, apologizing for the excesses of the elite can be quite
rewarding financially.

Get out of the damn ivory tower and experience the real world!

[1] I have worked in several of these, and have the long-term repetitive
motion injuries to show for it.


Like you're the only one, huh? I've also done farm work, having grown up
on a farm and cattle ranch, and it ain't no picnic either.

Unless your parents (or other relatives that owned the farm) acted in a
manner that would be considered abusive on a consistent basis, there is no
comparison at all.

Try working as a light industrial contract (officially known as
"temporary") worker or in a high-speed, repetitive job such as cleaning
the intestines from chickens.

Oh yes, the poultry factory. I've tried it. Have also worked in a cannery,
and a factory that makes ice cream cones. You know, there are people who
actually like such work don't you? I have a friend, currently an elementary
school teacher, who recalls her days on the automotive factory floor very
fondly.


I have never seen any farm work that required performing the same motion
20,000 times per day.

This is getting silly. If there's a job that's this repetitive there's no
reason a machine couldn't do it. The only reason it is not done by a
machine is that workers can be found who will work for at least the same
cost as a machine, or less. And if a machine were installed to replace
them, they'd be out of work.

Which is, of course, happening all the time as sophisticated machines become
less expensive to produce. All I'm saying is that if this is the trend
(which it is) we probably ought to give a little consideration to who owns
the machines, and if possible expand such ownership to include those who may
be put out of work.

Otherwise, we're going to have quite a fine mess!

I recommend to you the book *Union Democracy*. It's about the International
Typographical Union, which was at one time the only democratic union. (Why
are most unions oligarchies or autocracies, I wonder?) It is now mostly
defunct, the industry that it once served having been replaced by... the
machine you're currently using to communicate with me.