RE: socialism, what is it?

RE: socialism, what is it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 2:02:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As usual Heretic your analysis is complete and utter rubbish. Everything that European socialists wanted in 1900, they have now got and the world hasn't collapsed and people are still free. Most European democracies have a hybrid system which is called social democracy. Germany, the last time I looked, exports more manufactured goods than the USA, so much for lazy socialists. They also have a better education and health system than the USA. Yes, Americans can choose the education and health care they want with one proviso, they have to be rich enough which is a big proviso but them Europeans can do the same. Oh no you don't, MC. Nice to see you back in real-time posting and all, but don't even think I'm going to play apples and oranges with you. Persuade me of the wonders and amazing quality life on the eastern side of the two Germanies, or forget it. We both know you aren't fluffy about your economic views. I was talking about western Germany where trade union and management partnerships created the post WWII economic miracle, where world class national healthcare, education and state benefits where part of the national fabric, far better than their American equivalents.

kidwithknife -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 5:13:18 AM)
quote: Yea... and Bill Ayers was a "community activist". Robin Hood was a thief You're arguing the gains of feudalism were legitimate? It's all relative. Robin Hood was a thief to the Normans. In the same way George Washington was a traitor to the British. Both are actually entirely accurate descriptions. But both ignore the context. quote: and if he was playing his games today he would be getting at least 10-20 years with no parole. Hmm. And what gives the state the right to have the exclusive right to decide what is and isn't a crime? Force, when it comes down to it. How very 'anti-government' of you. That's the ideological contradication of modern conservatism. Despite it's pretensions to being libertarian, it's actually entirely reliant on the government's 'monopoly of violence' to implement its program.

philosophy -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 10:19:59 AM)
..ok, good nights sleep and most of a pot of coffee later.......... quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think you get tagged with the 'socialist' label because of the way you express your views on the subject, and the glimpses we get of the fundamental worldview you have. In the past, you've spoken of allowing competition and limiting socialism, as if socialism is the normal, natural order of things. We could come to a place of complete agreement on how freedom and order should be balanced, and I would be viewing it as how we limit competition, and allow socialism. "Socialist' and 'Capitalist' have come to be cheap, easy, hypersimplified labels for the conflicting paradigms. ...i honesty hadn't noticed that semantic drift in my language. Not saying it wasn't there, but it was unconscious. i went to sleep last night thinking about how that would have come about. i was raised in the UK, which has a number of what may be termed 'socialist' institutions. i was a young adult when Thatcher came to power and dismantled a number of those institutions.......and i remember well the incredible suffering that caused. So, in my experience, socialist institutions tended to increase human happiness and when they were dismantled human happiness was decreased. Simplistic stuff, but it probably explains my semantic bias. Not excusing it, you understand, but just trying to figure out (as much for myself as anything) why it was there. Your point about socialism and capitalism being simplified labels is very well made. i agree totally. quote: Am I a capitalist? Not really. Am I stuck with the label? Yep. When we see a problem, we default differently on how best to address it. ....yup, i can see how this comes about. Something i've often railed about in the way humans tend to analyse things is that we have a tendency to see the world as a two value system. Good/bad. Left/right. Up/down. Now we all know intellectually that there are many shades of grey, something can be less good/less bad, yet our visceral selves try to shoe-horn those tricky areas back into the two value logic. So when you and i are defined, despite the fact that we agree on many things we end up being characterised as being on either side of an artifical divide. quote: You said something above I'd like to look at a bit more closely. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. Almost all of this list, I consider to be the perfectly legitimate functions of government. (I imagine we'd find more to disagree about if we plunged into the etc.). They are the very reasons our species started civilization in the first place. ......how very true. Anyone who's ever played civilisation would recognise that. Heh. Also anyone who's ever studied the art of 5th century Athens would see it too. The Athenians were right at the beginning of the move to civilisation in that part of the world. Every single one of the tragic plays that survive from that time ultimately deal with the conflict between oikos and polis. The law of the family versus the law of the city. What exactly is the right and proper duty of governence? What exactly is the right and proper duty of the family, and by extension the individual? 2500 years later we are still, more or less, having the same debate. quote: Let's talk about water, where I am all in favor of allowing a very heavy socialist tilt in the balance. I get the water to my house from a community services district. An elected board runs it. They own the wells, and are legally entitled to share in the water that flows down the CA aqueduct. I like them, and if I don't pay my bill, I get cut off the next month. Socialism at its finest. Small, local, accountable. They serve about 10,000 people. Nobody is making a profit off it. There are some issues right now, though. New standards have come down from the feds, about how high the traces of arsenic can be in drinking water, and we are over the line. If they have to deliver a seperate supply of drinking water, socialism stops being the preferred method to pour water into my coffee maker. You spoke of doing it as efficiently as possible. Efficiently for whom? Being home for delivery or risk having it stolen? A single point of distribution is great for the people hauling it in, and a tremendous pain in the ass for everyone who has to go stand in line to get it. Far easier for me to simply hit Costco on my lunch hour a time or two per week. For others there would be no impact at all. They don't like the way the tapwater tastes, and already have the Sparkletts (or whichever) delivered. For some, there would need to be 'community well' of some sort, but the fewer people it has to serve, the better it can serve them. Not competition, but a diversity of options, according to individual need. The most INefficient method possible for a single provider. ...interesting example. i've italicised the second last sentence because i think this is a really tricky area to understand. Back to my two value logic thing. If people can only see things in black and white, then the rememdy you suggest doesn't easily fall into either of the two labels we tend to use to describe how we organise society. As you appear to agree, competition is not applicable to every function of society, but neither is a monolithic organisation. We have to find a third way.......and that's the problem. We run the risk of coming under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. We essentially reject the two value logic, and that's the problem. To many it feels un-natural......obviously wrong even though they may not be able to tell us exactly why. The only way out of this that i can see is education. i remember an SF book i read some years back (sorry can't remember the title) where a particular society taught its kids mathematics in multiple bases from the get go. The logic of this was that it helped prevent young minds being fossilised into just one easy way of percieving the universe. Somehow we have to educate ourselves as a species that the way we now look at the world is not always accurate. Not always helpful. This is a generational problem, with no easy remedy. quote: When it comes to solving problems, I prefer to look first at what individuals and private enterprise can come up with, and government to pick up the slack, not the other way around ...fair enough. Actually i tend to agree.......though arguably i give up looking for private enterprise solutions quicker than you. Thanks for your interesting post........i take from it that we are much closer in outlook than many here realise. We both seem to identify much the same problems, and due to the accidents of birth have only mildly differing views of how to solve those problems. However, those mild differences are amplified by a crude model of society into a chasm. All we can do is try to keep dialogue open and hope that if enough of us do the same we will stop using those hypersimplified labels as sticks to beat those up who only slightly disagree with us.

TheHeretic -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 6:35:33 PM)
Now that was a reply worth waiting for, Phil. Besides, I don't know of anything in the TOS that dictates every thread must move like a 'last one to post' game. I would like to correct one seeming mis-perception though. My embrace of a more capitalistic/individualistic approach isn't the result of growing up in the 'burbs of the American Dream. Quite the opposite in fact. My early years were spent in the heart of the social upheaval of the late 60's-early 70's. Mommy was a Commie, and the man who became my stepfather was rejected by the draft because of his political activities (we even had our very own FBI agents for a couple years). I've lived in communes and collectives. My rejection of socialist methodology was very conscious. I remember standing on a busy street-corner in San Francisco when I was maybe 5, hungry, getting cold, and asking my mother when we could go home. She told me we had to sell the rest of the newspapers first. I got my first experience in the art of sales (maybe the root of all capitalism) getting little old ladies to give the cute kid a quarter for a copy of The Militant. When she told me I couldn't keep any of the money, the seeds of my disillusionment were planted. Ok. I think I see a way around the problem you described... quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy If people can only see things in black and white, then the rememdy you suggest doesn't easily fall into either of the two labels we tend to use to describe how we organise society. As you appear to agree, competition is not applicable to every function of society, but neither is a monolithic organisation. We have to find a third way.......and that's the problem. We run the risk of coming under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. We essentially reject the two value logic, and that's the problem. To many it feels un-natural......obviously wrong even though they may not be able to tell us exactly why. Getting humans beyond a binary outlook isn't the answer. It isn't going to happen. You are absolutely right that we would get shredded from both ends. What if, instead, we reframe what the two points are? Instead of left/right, we create a shift to seeing middle/extreme? Examples taken from the posts in this thread would place you and I on one side, and stick MeatCleaver and Kidwithknife together on the other (that would be fun to watch, too). Perhaps, instead of trying to salvage the images and ideals of socialism or capitalism, we need to toss both on the compost heap, and develop a completely new synthesis of what works.

Vendaval -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 9:04:54 PM)
I have to commend both of you gentlemen for a very interesting and enlightening debate. The differences of experiences and opinions on these Forums is very fascinating to read, observe and process. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You said something above I'd like to look at a bit more closely. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. Almost all of this list, I consider to be the perfectly legitimate functions of government. (I imagine we'd find more to disagree about if we plunged into the etc.). They are the very reasons our species started civilization in the first place. ......how very true. Anyone who's ever played civilisation would recognise that. Heh. Also anyone who's ever studied the art of 5th century Athens would see it too. The Athenians were right at the beginning of the move to civilisation in that part of the world. Every single one of the tragic plays that survive from that time ultimately deal with the conflict between oikos and polis. The law of the family versus the law of the city. What exactly is the right and proper duty of governence? What exactly is the right and proper duty of the family, and by extension the individual? 2500 years later we are still, more or less, having the same debate. (edited for spelling and the quote boxes)

slvemike4u -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 10:21:04 PM)
Let me echo what Vendaval said,this was a thread worth reading and the 2 of you made it so.

bestbabync -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 10:39:29 PM)
[:D]wow...it made me all warm inside

philosophy -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 11:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Now that was a reply worth waiting for, Phil. Besides, I don't know of anything in the TOS that dictates every thread must move like a 'last one to post' game. ....speed political debate.......now that's a dating game worth watching...... quote: I would like to correct one seeming mis-perception though. My embrace of a more capitalistic/individualistic approach isn't the result of growing up in the 'burbs of the American Dream. Quite the opposite in fact. My early years were spent in the heart of the social upheaval of the late 60's-early 70's. Mommy was a Commie, and the man who became my stepfather was rejected by the draft because of his political activities (we even had our very own FBI agents for a couple years). I've lived in communes and collectives. My rejection of socialist methodology was very conscious. I remember standing on a busy street-corner in San Francisco when I was maybe 5, hungry, getting cold, and asking my mother when we could go home. She told me we had to sell the rest of the newspapers first. I got my first experience in the art of sales (maybe the root of all capitalism) getting little old ladies to give the cute kid a quarter for a copy of The Militant. When she told me I couldn't keep any of the money, the seeds of my disillusionment were planted. ...wow, your very own FBI agents. i think i'm vaguely jealous. i absolutely recognise the sort of situation you describe, only in the UK Militant was called Socialist Worker. Knew a guy, clever man, worked in IT. He continuously turned down promotions to managerial grade because it conflicted with his Marxist ideals. i often think of him, as he was actually a lovely guy......but i wonder where he is now. quote: Ok. I think I see a way around the problem you described... quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy If people can only see things in black and white, then the rememdy you suggest doesn't easily fall into either of the two labels we tend to use to describe how we organise society. As you appear to agree, competition is not applicable to every function of society, but neither is a monolithic organisation. We have to find a third way.......and that's the problem. We run the risk of coming under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. We essentially reject the two value logic, and that's the problem. To many it feels un-natural......obviously wrong even though they may not be able to tell us exactly why. Getting humans beyond a binary outlook isn't the answer. It isn't going to happen. You are absolutely right that we would get shredded from both ends. What if, instead, we reframe what the two points are? Instead of left/right, we create a shift to seeing middle/extreme? Examples taken from the posts in this thread would place you and I on one side, and stick MeatCleaver and Kidwithknife together on the other (that would be fun to watch, too). Perhaps, instead of trying to salvage the images and ideals of socialism or capitalism, we need to toss both on the compost heap, and develop a completely new synthesis of what works. .......fascinating. i wish i could post pictures here to illustrate what i'm thinking. If socialism/capitalism is a linear dynamic, somehow we need to add a dimension. A circle say..... in the centre is, obviously, the middle.......the circumference is all the different shades of extremism that can exist. It's late and i've already had to edit this twice to sort out the quotes, so i'm going to leave it here for now......look forward to continuing this tomorrow........i'm wondering if there are any models that already exist that describe the sort of thing we've been discussing........

Vendaval -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/18/2008 11:35:59 PM)
I am not trying for a silly pun here but take a look at a Venn Diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

meatcleaver -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 1:02:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Now that was a reply worth waiting for, Phil. Besides, I don't know of anything in the TOS that dictates every thread must move like a 'last one to post' game. I would like to correct one seeming mis-perception though. My embrace of a more capitalistic/individualistic approach isn't the result of growing up in the 'burbs of the American Dream. Quite the opposite in fact. My early years were spent in the heart of the social upheaval of the late 60's-early 70's. Mommy was a Commie, and the man who became my stepfather was rejected by the draft because of his political activities (we even had our very own FBI agents for a couple years). I've lived in communes and collectives. My rejection of socialist methodology was very conscious. I remember standing on a busy street-corner in San Francisco when I was maybe 5, hungry, getting cold, and asking my mother when we could go home. She told me we had to sell the rest of the newspapers first. I got my first experience in the art of sales (maybe the root of all capitalism) getting little old ladies to give the cute kid a quarter for a copy of The Militant. When she told me I couldn't keep any of the money, the seeds of my disillusionment were planted. Ok. I think I see a way around the problem you described... You seem to me to be describing Hippydom here, not socialism. Middleclass people who dropped out and shunned the fruits of material society and were disinclined to work even for themselves. Socialism was championed by workingclass people who never dropped in in the first place, who were denied access to the fruits of society but were expected to work their asses off for the benefit of the rich. If you read the about the history of socialism, very few socialists were extremists and differentiated themselves from ideological communists. Ideological (of whatever sort) people tend to come from the affluent educated classes with a nihilistic point of view of the society they inhabit. Socialism has always been about changing society, not destroying it like ideological communism would have it. Socialism has always been about building a better society, where everyone has the access to the fruits of society, where no one is discriminated against and where privilege has to be earned through ones own efforts, not exploited through someone elses efforts. In capitalism, one is allowed to exploit, steal and cheat ones way through society, just look at the present financial crisis to see that, a crisis which is threatening to destroy the wealth many ordinary people have worked hard to accummulate for themselves, to cushion themselves from poverty and to enjoy an old age. I think old socialists can look at the social democracies of western Europe with a smug satisfaction. Their fight has forged societies where social mobility is not only normal but higher than capitalist societies, where everyone shares the fruits of good healthcare and education and have a realistic chance of chasing their ambitions. Where poverty and social problems still exist but are much lower than all other types of society. People work hard, that is why they are affluent but they see the benefit of a coherent social policy, the need to help people who have problems rather than condemning them out of hand. OK, its not the wild west and lacks adventure but people had that under laisez faire capitalism and rejected it.

meatcleaver -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 1:12:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...wow, your very own FBI agents. i think i'm vaguely jealous. i absolutely recognise the sort of situation you describe, only in the UK Militant was called Socialist Worker. Knew a guy, clever man, worked in IT. He continuously turned down promotions to managerial grade because it conflicted with his Marxist ideals. i often think of him, as he was actually a lovely guy......but i wonder where he is now. My father had his own Special Branch officer. Well not exactly but we got to know a couple in the 1973 miners strike. As my father used to say, they are showing us what a nice democratic country we live in. Could have been something to do with my father being a strong union man and a good organizer but how the fuck did they know that? One gets little glimpses of the police state that exists under the veneer of democracy. There were plenty of glimpses in the 1985 strike too.

TheHeretic -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 1:36:24 AM)
Damn necessities of sleep and work... I will get back to this thread.

MrRodgers -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 7:31:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub Socialism is a wonderful "Alice in Wonderland" economic theory that eliminates any consideration of the "human" element in it's management. Socialism in microcosm is the fat bureaucracy of our government..pushing papers from one desk to another....socialism is the fat bureaucracy in our cities who wastefully live off the hind teat of taxpayers, socialism is the capitulation of people to the leadership of Big Brother Government in the belief that politicians can do anything, no everything, and will take care of all of us "children" of the government. If the USA had a socialist system over the past 200 years instead of the dynamic capitalist free enterprise system that we enjoy we might not be the great country we have become.Government has done nothing to grow the country...government only taxes and spends...the people are the most important natural resource in America.. So we don't have big bloated govt. as big brother now ? We don't have all levels of govt. waisting our money now ? Have not every so-called repub conservative expanded govt. added several 100,000 to govt, payroll ? Aren't these all living off the taxpayer. Govt. has thrown $BILLIONS in reseach and development, subsidies (socialism without ownership or return) ) at PRIVATE industry who have PRIVATELY profited and didn't need to 'grow the country' it grew profits and that is the rationale. The government has done all it can to 'grow' profits and corporate welfare and is busy doing just that right now as I watch the treasury secretary tell us (C-Span) this socialism of wall street and bailing out the BILLIONAIRES will cost you and me only about $1 TRILLION. No problem...I'll take care of that, I have it on me. What...doesn't everybody have a trillion dollars just laying around ? Oh and BTW, I am a free enterprise capitalist and love the 'free' enterprise of govt. bailing me out AFTER I've banked my $12 billion (2007 alone) in bonuses for running my store into the ground. What a deal, 40 years of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

meatcleaver -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 8:33:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What a deal, 40 years of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. That would be Alice In Wonderland if it wasn't for being the truth.

philosophy -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 11:38:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I am not trying for a silly pun here but take a look at a Venn Diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram ..... i knew you were bright, but i didn't realise you were a topological mathematician [:D] .........but seriously folks, this is the sort of visual model that we need here. For too long the model has looked like a see-saw, capitalism at one end, socialism at the other and the whole thing just sort of bounces from one state to another. We need more complex models of society, because society is way more complex than a simple line. We would also need to figure out how to disseminate such an idea. My first thought is that this is the job of artists.....i've often thought that the arts are the bleeding edge of societal change.....the stormtroppers of paradigm shift. Except that this kind of idea has been put forward before. Back to 5th century Athens i'm afraid (what can i say? i wrote my thesis on it).........another way of looking at those amazing tragedies by people like Euripides and Sophocles is that they wrote about situations where right and wrong were difficult values to assign. The protagonists were usually forced to choose between less wrong and less right....usually making mistakes while doing so. Seems to me, as society became bigger, more complex that (in a somewhat perverse way) our models for describing it became simpler, less complex. How can we shift that paradigm? How can we help people to see that the world is not something that can be described easily in black and white terms? (edited for pisspoor spelling)

TheHeretic -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 6:02:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy society is way more complex than a simple line. Yet we have to make the new visualization almost as simple as the old. Suppose we take that straight line, where we are somewhere in the middle, with extremists moving further in each direction, and we bend it? Pull the ends down all the way until we have a (barely) incomplete circle? We stop being left/right, and become top/bottom. It's easier than it sounds. Get the extremists of both sides together, and they are remarkably similiar in every way, except the specific dogma. Zealots. Even the dogma isn't all that great a gap. Saul becomes Paul. Yippie becomes Yuppie. SDS militant becomes Fundy Christian. Start there. Then we invent some brand new terminology.

philosophy -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 6:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy society is way more complex than a simple line. Yet we have to make the new visualization almost as simple as the old. ...i wonder about that.......isn't part of the problem the simplistic model? i think at one point we just have to accept that some complexities can't be simplified past a certain point, that way lies dogma. It's a bit of a hippy term, but i'm more inclined to the idea of raising consciousness rather than dumbing down the picture. Takes a lot longer....almost certainly a generational thing, but with less chance of the idea being distorted in the future. quote: Suppose we take that straight line, where we are somewhere in the middle, with extremists moving further in each direction, and we bend it? Pull the ends down all the way until we have a (barely) incomplete circle? We stop being left/right, and become top/bottom. ......omega :) quote: It's easier than it sounds. Get the extremists of both sides together, and they are remarkably similiar in every way, except the specific dogma. Zealots. Even the dogma isn't all that great a gap. Saul becomes Paul. Yippie becomes Yuppie. SDS militant becomes Fundy Christian. Start there. Then we invent some brand new terminology. ...absolutely true. Fundamentalist Christians have an awful lot in common with Fundamentalist Muslims. The details may differ, but the basic paradigm is the same.....God wants us to live in a particular way, it's the right way, so you should live that way too. Clearly there are differences, but to ignore the similarities is to do that oversimplification thing again. Maybe you should write a book and i'll turn it into a play........we could get Vendeval to put it on in California........who knows, we could start a revolution [;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 6:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Fundamentalist Christians have an awful lot in common with Fundamentalist Muslims. The details may differ, but the basic paradigm is the same.....God wants us to live in a particular way, it's the right way, so you should live that way too. Don't stop with the deists, Phil. How about the folks who wish to impose any particular set of values on the rest. Is there much difference between blowing up an abortion clinic to save the babies, and blowing up a Hummer dealership to save the planet? How is a Muslim banning pork any different from PETA doing it?

Vendaval -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 7:02:55 PM)
Let me know if this project is a go and I will make some calls. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Maybe you should write a book and i'll turn it into a play........we could get Vendeval to put it on in California........who knows, we could start a revolution [;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: socialism, what is it? (9/19/2008 11:19:45 PM)
Before you two get too excited, let me throw out another example of changing how we play with socialist models to create a better world. You may not be so eager. Somewhere between utterly rejecting anything I said, and insinuating I don't know the difference between a Trotskyite and a pot-tite, MC decided to bring up unions. Let's talk about one, and how one of the legitimate functions of government can be met a lot more efficiently. Prison guards. The union here in CA just made the news again, talking about a recall campaign against Governor(ator) Schwarzenegger. Most government employees (there are going to be weird exceptions) don't get to have unions under my plan. Certainly not prison guards. Not the pothole crews either. Those jobs are going to be filled as a three year option under the mandatory national service laws. The management, the cadre, will be permanent hires with a whole different package, but the grunts will come and go. Honestly, I find the whole idea of a 'public employees union' a bit problematic. Public service shouldn't mean having it better than the public. It should never mean, as it seems to with teachers unions, putting the worker above responsibility for the product they produce. Most gov't jobs are pretty crappy anyway. Why on earth would anyone want to spend 25 years scraping gum off the sidewalks downtown? In a cubicle, trying to seperate the genuine crisis and need from the scams and entitlement mentality? Mindlessly moving paper that never stops coming? Whole family medical, paid/overtime holidays, vacation, and a pension might have something to do with that. We should stop doing that. Hire good, smart people to run things, teach and lead. Treat those people as valuable. Draft the clerks and guttersweeps.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02