If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sarkozy's Boldness
Sarkozy's Boldness
11/10/2010 06:54 PM ET Excerpt: "Leadership: France's President Nicolas Sarkozy signed off on pension reform Wednesday, winning big and saving his nation's system. But the obstacles he stared down went beyond anything average politicians will tolerate. Ever since he was elected in 2007, the conservative French president has vowed to "modernize" France's stagnant, noncompetitive, socialist economy. So in just three years, Sarkozy extended the work week, changed laws to permit overtime, scrapped retail price controls, simplified business formation, tamed unions and yanked benefits from work- shirkers...." Article in its entirety: http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths314f10 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sarkozy's Boldness
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:15:22 -0800 (PST), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote: .... Ever since he was elected in 2007, the conservative French president has vowed to "modernize" France's stagnant, noncompetitive, socialist economy. So in just three years, Sarkozy extended the work week, changed laws to permit overtime, scrapped retail price controls, simplified business formation, tamed unions and yanked benefits from work- shirkers...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_...r_shall_he_eat Start extract He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a Biblical aphorism derived from II Thessalonians 3:10, which became a slogan for new colonies and socialist societies. The slogan was used by Captain John Smith in setting up his colony in Jamestown, Virginia (1607-1609). According to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, it is the first principle of socialism. The phrase is mentioned in his 1917 work, State and Revolution (chapter 5, section 3). Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals would be allowed access to the articles of consumption. This is not really directed at lazy or unproductive workers [1][2], but rather the bourgeoisie. Marxist theory holds that the bourgeoisie buy the commodity labor-power of workers and enlists them in the process of production. Profits are then made by the expropriation of surplus value. Accordingly, in a communist society, with the abolition of property and the law of value, there would be no class of individuals that lives off the labor of others. [3] The principle would not apply to those who could not work, such as the elderly or the lame. These groups would have a right to society's products because they were not at fault for their condition. The elderly, furthermore had worked during their youth, and so could not be denied life’s basic necessities.[4][5] End extract |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sarkozy's Boldness
Surfer wrote:
Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals would be allowed access to the articles of consumption. Consider the degree of personal control that this would require. It means that government would need to have the articles of consumption under its control. It would mean that government would decide not just whether someone was productive, but in what ways they were productive. What is being described isn't just Soviet Russia, or even Cuba, it's North Korea. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sarkozy's Boldness
Bill wrote on Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:24:48 +0000:
Surfer wrote: Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals would be allowed access to the articles of consumption. Begin quote Consider the degree of personal control that this would require. It means that government would need to have the articles of consumption under its control. It would mean that government would decide not just whether someone was productive, but in what ways they were productive. What is being described isn't just Soviet Russia, or even Cuba, it's North Korea. Endquote I don't know if much thought has been given to whether an elderly "employed" person is producing anything useful. I can just see lots of people sitting around at 68 or so, really retired but not informing their employers of the fact. It's a possible buck pass but it is it really worthwhile to society as a whole? -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sarkozy's Boldness
"Surfer" wrote in message
... On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:15:22 -0800 (PST), "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote: .... Ever since he was elected in 2007, the conservative French president has vowed to "modernize" France's stagnant, noncompetitive, socialist economy. So in just three years, Sarkozy extended the work week, changed laws to permit overtime, scrapped retail price controls, simplified business formation, tamed unions and yanked benefits from work- shirkers...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_...r_shall_he_eat Start extract He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a Biblical aphorism derived from II Thessalonians 3:10, which became a slogan for new colonies and socialist societies. The slogan was used by Captain John Smith in setting up his colony in Jamestown, Virginia (1607-1609). According to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, it is the first principle of socialism. The phrase is mentioned in his 1917 work, State and Revolution (chapter 5, section 3). Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals would be allowed access to the articles of consumption. This is not really directed at lazy or unproductive workers [1][2], but rather the bourgeoisie. Marxist theory holds that the bourgeoisie buy the commodity labor-power of workers and enlists them in the process of production. Profits are then made by the expropriation of surplus value. Accordingly, in a communist society, with the abolition of property and the law of value, there would be no class of individuals that lives off the labor of others. [3] The principle would not apply to those who could not work, such as the elderly or the lame. These groups would have a right to society's products because they were not at fault for their condition. The elderly, furthermore had worked during their youth, and so could not be denied life's basic necessities.[4][5] End extract # Yes, "work" is drudgery, to be avoided at all costs. This harks back to the Garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve were expelled for eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - to toil all the days of their lives.. Original Sin lingers on, even in an Age where computerised equipment has taken much of the drudgery out of "work". There have always been the Plutocratic Elite who live by exploiting the work of others - the Proletariat and Peasants - but who tend to get up to all kinds of mischief, like engaging in foreign wars, for any reason at all. Nowadays, in the Corporate world of Big Business, the Boss may work, and his Creative Brain is throbbing on behalf of us all, irrespective of the Long Lunch, and endless conferences. Wage Slaves need only do what they are told. But still, even if the Wage Slave's work was not a drudgery essential to retaining a Job, what would any of us do with our lives if not "work" - become couch potatoes, and watch TV all day long? Soon get tired of that. It is about time the idea of "work" as something to be shunned, if possible, was disabused. The average tradesman gets "job satisfaction" from successful completion, and even the Boss may gain a glow from efficient "downsizing". Monotony and drudgery may be unavoidable, in, eg. a factory, but, even here, rotation of tasks can give relief and interest. The trouble with the Modern World is that Action Man is everywhere, and plundering the planet, a consequence. It is not getting people to work, but slowing down rapacity, which is the main problem. But, back to Sarkozy and other Conservatives, in France, Britain, USA, etc., their main concern is slash-and-burn, to preserve the comparative advantage of the Elite over All Others in society. Most of what they do is Negative, in the name of Progress (of course). They have no real solutions; the next step would be Fascism. Not that the Welfare State, based on Capitalism, is ideal - it does tend to stagnation. Better, Industrial Democracy, so Wage Slavery is abolished. This would Emancipate the Proles and Peasants, and it would be Plutocracy which disappears. Meanwhile, Clueless Conservatism reigns. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
French President Sarkozy's approval rating at 65% | Earl Evleth[_2_] | Europe | 2 | May 28th, 2007 12:37 AM |
Sarkozy's secret police at work | Earl Evleth | Europe | 1 | January 31st, 2007 08:59 PM |