XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.socialism, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
   On 23 Jun 2006 05:46:25 -0700, "Propaganews"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >Even as I didn't yet finish all the comments I hoped to make to your   
   >previous post, I'll begin by replying to this one. However redundant   
   >the result may seem, that is the reason for it.   
   >   
   >I am old enough to recall the beginning of the widespread outsourcing   
   >of jobs, which seemed to have taken place around the late 1970's and   
   >early 1980's and began with the garment industry. This industy itself   
   >is rife with ethical shortfalls, as it happened I saw it from the   
   >inside. It is also an industry in which the influx of the socialist   
   >movement had its focus,   
      
     Obviously they were internationalist socialists.   
      
   >when one particular person known to me was a   
   >manager of one of the sweatshop-like sewing factories located in New   
   >York City's Chinatown. What separated this person from others who did   
   >the same was that he was connected to elements we might usually not   
   >prefer to discuss, and from that base he went on to direct others.  His   
   >would possibly have been the "genius" concept of bringing the goods   
   >from lower labor sourced countries, and he had the means to influence   
   >the various companies. Other than that, there would have had to have   
   >been many simultaneous dreams of the same nature by numerous little   
   >company owners in that very diverse industry. They took their american   
   >labor and let it go, in favor of the labor elsewhere, because they were   
   >shown that they could make more money that way.   
   >   
   >   
   >This was so terrible a circumstance by the time that 1981 came by an   
   >entire regulation was passed by the United States legislative body   
   >which gave special Unemployment Benefits sponsored on the federal   
   >level,   
      
    Unemployment Benefits are bad. Jobs are good.   
      
   > to those members of the garment trade who had lost their jobs   
   >specifically due to these imports.  Checks were higher, and the benefit   
   >period was an entire year. Other sweet things were thrown in, so that   
   >there would not be a cry across the nation.  It was hush money. Those   
   >who put their hand into passing that and not putting the greater onus   
   >on the companies themselves, saw beyond the interests of this country   
   >and looked at something else instead. It wasn't a natural obsolescence   
   >of american labor, but it was treated that way. That was the first road   
   >to pave towards this nightmare we have now.   
   >   
   >Another is the "openning of China" and any woman who tries to buy a   
   >handbag or personal accessory in a department store in the country, in   
   >all fifty states, all departmemt stores large and small, find little   
   >tags inside, "made in China" even if the label is a designer, american   
   >or otherwise. It is not as though americans cannot produce these items.   
   > The stores are not buying american made items, and they are   
   >encouraging this.  The call for american made consumer goods is an   
   >appropriate one, but it has been sent down the hall of rhetoric,   
   >because nobody is really doing the right things, taking the right   
   >steps, and making the influencers accountable for their decisions.   
   >   
   >These decisions are made by people who are not dumb enough not to know   
   >that by taking jobs away from americans they are choking the american   
   >economy.  So why do they do it?  In order to choke the american   
   >economy.  But this is not capitalism, it is not a natural by-product of   
   >a set of principles outside of those of imperialism.   
   >   
   >It is imperialism we are fighting, not capitalism.   
      
       Capitalism means not having any laws that would help people.   
   Without any laws to stop them, the corporations would certainly lay   
   off Americans and find cheaper workers in Mexico and China.   
      
   >   
   >The Industrial Revolution took place because someone found a way to   
   >make machines, as you are aware.   
      
     That part is great. But the machines only benefited the business   
   owners and not all of the population.   
      
   > The value of a person, is extremely   
   >low in a system which sees the human as a unit, and that did not take   
   >place in the Industrial Revolution.  It took place in the Russian   
   >Revolution. However, in the Industrial Revolution, a body of grievances   
   >were made by men with some ability to write and speak, and these went   
   >running amuck (the words, not the men) to those who formed the   
   >foundation of the Russian Revolution.   
      
     They did not run amuck. It was deliberately planned. Here is a quote   
   from Mein Kampf:   
      
          "the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the   
   situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he   
   organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate   
   degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy   
   and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle   
   against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of   
   speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the   
   guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the   
   impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a   
   moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most   
   infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually   
   was."   
      
   > So, we have the words of Marx   
   >and Engels, but not in the context that they intended. All that Marx   
   >and Engels wanted was to place focus on the value of the workers while   
   >the machines were being hailed as the miracles of the day, and that   
   >being as the owners of the machines were seemingly doing so well, that   
   >sharing that prosperity with workers would seem appropriate.  So, the   
   >concept of the workers having pay commensurate with the value of the   
   >product is tantamount to the modern concept of a commission, which   
   >people who do selling enjoy, on a routine basis. But, Marx and Engels   
   >accomplished the attention to the human needs of the workers, and   
   >attention they did get.  Pay scales and unions are the most obvious   
   >result. The needs not to ignore the worker, became standard. In terms   
   >of the content of the Communist Manifesto, the goals were achieved, and   
   >the word "communist" went running amuck with the document.   
   >   
   >Nothing, can ever benefit "all the people", but something, can benefit   
   >the greater majority and attempt to benefit as many as possible,   
   >without overlooking the most needy. That is not, treating people like   
   >units. It is, treating people like people. The document that was   
   >written in Philadelphia, the Declaration Of Independence, in 1776,   
   >openly recognizes people as people, and people as equal in rights with   
   >one another, holding "these truths as self-evident". But, some people   
   >decided to consider otherwise. Those people are the imperialists.   
   >Needless to say, much in the way of growth took place after 1776 to   
   >include other "races" to that equality of rights,   
      
      
       The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black   
   nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)