Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[SMiLE Brian]

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

[Jason]

Lots of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson responses. Freedom is POPULAR!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No, I'm talking about this particular situation where a 17 year old kid was minding his own business and walking to his dad's house and was confronted by an armed 27 year old who couldn't figure out a way to defend himself without shooting the 17 year old kid in the chest. It's what you would call a polarizing issue. Gun fanatics assume he had to defend himself with deadly force: the rest of us are simply not sure.... I'm not even trying to say that this guy shouldn't have had a gun. And if you'll recall, I was agreeing with you that responsible gun owners are not the problem, or even A problem. Do I think that self-appointed neighborhood protectors should not be allowed to wander the streets with guns and shooting unarmed people? If they come upon someone actually doing something wrong and who poses a genuine threat to the neighborhood? No, I do not. But such an individual should be able to use proper judgement to identify a threat. If he just goes up to an unarmed kid and accuses him of this or that and a scuffle ensues, I'd think it possible that another outcome rather than him shooting the kid to death should be arrived at. That's all.

I agree quite strongly.

Lots of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson responses. Freedom is POPULAR!

Too bad it isn't going to translate into enough votes to win the election. Sucks, because I've never favored a candidate as strongly as I do Johnson.

[Jason]

No, I'm talking about this particular situation where a 17 year old kid was minding his own business and walking to his dad's house and was confronted by an armed 27 year old who couldn't figure out a way to defend himself without shooting the 17 year old kid in the chest. It's what you would call a polarizing issue. Gun fanatics assume he had to defend himself with deadly force: the rest of us are simply not sure.... I'm not even trying to say that this guy shouldn't have had a gun. And if you'll recall, I was agreeing with you that responsible gun owners are not the problem, or even A problem. Do I think that self-appointed neighborhood protectors should not be allowed to wander the streets with guns and shooting unarmed people? If they come upon someone actually doing something wrong and who poses a genuine threat to the neighborhood? No, I do not. But such an individual should be able to use proper judgement to identify a threat. If he just goes up to an unarmed kid and accuses him of this or that and a scuffle ensues, I'd think it possible that another outcome rather than him shooting the kid to death should be arrived at. That's all.

I agree quite strongly.

Lots of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul/Gary Johnson responses. Freedom is POPULAR!

Too bad it isn't going to translate into enough votes to win the election. Sucks, because I've never favored a candidate as strongly as I do Johnson.

I remember this little pearl of wisdom that Gary Johnson let out at one of the GOP debates...he was the only other reason (besides Dr. Paul) to watch them.

My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this current administration.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yeah, that is up on his Wikipedia page. Saw it and 'd

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Just quick, cause I'm on vacation:

It is obscene that of the candidates running, not one of them is a labor party candidate. It is this anti-populist sentiment at the political level that makes the United States distinct amongst developed nations.

[Jason]

Just quick, cause I'm on vacation:

It is obscene that of the candidates running, not one of them is a labor party candidate. It is this anti-populist sentiment at the political level that makes the United States distinct amongst developed nations.

I guess the organizer-in-chief isn't as populist as his lemming supporters would have us all believe. That's not a shot at you, by the way. I think most Americans are generally stupid and willing to believe that their party of choice has their best interests at heart. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I'd rather see political parties ended. George Washington warned against them and remained steadfast until his death.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Just quick, cause I'm on vacation:

It is obscene that of the candidates running, not one of them is a labor party candidate. It is this anti-populist sentiment at the political level that makes the United States distinct amongst developed nations.

I guess the organizer-in-chief isn't as populist as his lemming supporters would have us all believe. That's not a shot at you, by the way.

Why would it be? I never supported Obama and never thought that he was a populist. I would say though that all the parties have their indoctrinated followers not just the Democrats. The Libertarians are certainly no stranger to this.

I think most Americans are generally stupid and willing to believe that their party of choice has their best interests at heart. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't know about that. A poll from a few years ago found that something like 80% of the population believed that the parties represented special interests rather than the interests of the populations. I think Americans are smarter than they are given credit, and I think they realize that their options are limited. I think, for example, that the sudden surge in the Ron Paul style libertarianism that is around these days is an outgrowth of real genuine concerns that are important. People are feeling excluded, they are feeling marginalized, and they feel that they don't have any real, meaningful control over their lives. This is what is at heart, for example, in the popular segment of the Tea Party movement. And, I think, these are absolutely reasonable concerns. Maybe the most reasonable. But because concentrated wealth and power have a certain kind of control over information and the way society works in general, these people don't get the right options available to them. No political group, as far as I'm concerned, is explaining how people can gain some kind of meaningful control, and so they grasp onto whatever options are made available to them. That's not a consequence of there being a problem with the American people - that's a consequence of their being a dramatic functional problem with the system that is denying these people genuine, meaningful options. And I don't mean options in terms of parties, I mean options in terms of ways to understand one's own place in the world.

 

I'd rather see political parties ended.

That would be all well and good for the enfranchised, but for no one else. Yes, in some ideal society where something resembling populist and collective action was possible, and people had the opportunity to freely associate with social-cultural groups, then I would be on your side. And that is possible. But until that day comes , there needs to be more options not less.

George Washington warned against them and remained steadfast until his death.

Well, George Washington was a tyrant himself, so I wouldn't take him too seriously in terms of how a political system should be organized.

[Jason]

I would say though that all the parties have their indoctrinated followers not just the Democrats. The Libertarians are certainly no stranger to this.

Absolutely. I disagree with the Libertarian Party on MANY issues. They've been hijacked by progressives and socialists. I may be a Ron Paul guy but I HATE the Tea Party, which is nothing more than a neoconservative/radical religious right movement now...

I don't know about that. A poll from a few years ago found that something like 80% of the population believed that the parties represented special interests rather than the interests of the populations. I think Americans are smarter than they are given credit, and I think they realize that their options are limited. I think, for example, that the sudden surge in the Ron Paul style libertarianism that is around these days is an outgrowth of real genuine concerns that are important. People are feeling excluded, they are feeling marginalized, and they feel that they don't have any real, meaningful control over their lives. This is what is at heart, for example, in the popular segment of the Tea Party movement. And, I think, these are absolutely reasonable concerns. Maybe the most reasonable. But because concentrated wealth and power have a certain kind of control over information and the way society works in general, these people don't get the right options available to them. No political group, as far as I'm concerned, is explaining how people can gain some kind of meaningful control, and so they grasp onto whatever options are made available to them. That's not a consequence of there being a problem with the American people - that's a consequence of their being a dramatic functional problem with the system that is denying these people genuine, meaningful options. And I don't mean options in terms of parties, I mean options in terms of ways to understand one's own place in the world.

Well, those of us who advocate a free market system do not and would never support corporatism. As corporations control the media, it's not much of a wonder why information is so limited outside of the internet. As I've said before, a free market would never have such a concentrated divide between the poor and the wealthy. I believe people should have every option at their disposal.

Yes, in some ideal society where something resembling populist and collective action was possible, and people had the opportunity to freely associate with social-cultural groups, then I would be on your side. And that is possible. But until that day comes , there needs to be more options not less.

I agree with you, but it would never pass societal norms. I do believe that people have an absolute right to freedom of association and should not have to explain why they do or don't wish to associate with people. To use the politically-incorrect example, I'll defend the right of racist individuals to assemble as long as said assembly is voluntary and not designed in such a way as to potentially infringe upon the rights of others.

Well, George Washington was a tyrant himself, so I wouldn't take him too seriously in terms of how a political system should be organized.

You won't hear any dissent from me on that. I was merely using his remark about political parties to illustrate my point.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

This is all so easy to fix! All we have to do is stop going to work and stop buying things.... Well, things. other than Capitol Beach Boys products.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Absolutely. I disagree with the Libertarian Party on MANY issues. They've been hijacked by progressives and socialists.

Oh, of course, I am certainly not lumping you in with the dutiful and often blind followers of a political party. One thing that I should add though is that libertarianism, quite apart from the US Libertarian party, is very much a socialist political philosophy. That is, I think, in order to accept the conventional libertarianism, you must first accept that workers should be in control of their own resources. If you're not going to accept that, then I don't think it's fair to use the term libertarian.

Well, those of us who advocate a free market system do not and would never support corporatism. As corporations control the media, it's not much of a wonder why information is so limited outside of the internet. As I've said before, a free market would never have such a concentrated divide between the poor and the wealthy. I believe people should have every option at their disposal.

Depends what you mean by "such" a concentrated divide. Surely, there would be a divide if you're talking about a free market system based on a capitalist model. And, in fact, it seems to me that under this model there may be a far worse divide. You might not see the kind of extreme wealth that you do today in the US (that's debatable) but you could very well see a far more extreme poverty precisely because you've taken away government intervention but left a system that functions to favor the powerful and wealthy ownership class. And, ultimately, it seems to me the question should not be whether or not we're in favor of free markets, but whether or not we're in favor of free people. And I think that if one is in favor of freedom and fairness, then the focus needs to be about people not about markets. To me, it's been a basic understanding of traditional thinking, that people cannot really be free if they are ultimately wage slaves with the inability to control the work they do, unable entirely to profit off the fruits of their labor, unable to have the same leisure in the economy as the gentry class. All of this is a consequence of any capitalist system, which seems to be the reason that anything resembling a genuine free market capitalist economy has been fairly disastrous. This, to me, is the very opposite of a free society and I am unwilling to accept that, based on what is I think a fairly groundless assumption of the inherent "rightness" of free markets. It ultimately seems to me that the best way and probably the only way to eliminate the "divide between the poor and the wealthy" is to entirely eliminate the distinction between the two and you simply cannot do that in a capitalist system.

I agree with you, but it would never pass societal norms.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I do believe that people have an absolute right to freedom of association and should not have to explain why they do or don't wish to associate with people. To use the politically-incorrect example, I'll defend the right of racist individuals to assemble as long as said assembly is voluntary and not designed in such a way as to potentially infringe upon the rights of others.

I think that's fair enough and I don't disagree but again, this speaks to what I was talking about above. I agree that the right for people to assemble and say what they want should be a goal and one that applies to everyone. However, it's certainly not an end-goal if what we are left with is the statement that "even racists should be allowed to assemble and say what they want." I mean, yes, of course they should. But isn't it a better end goal to create a society where not only everybody can say what they want, but where there is very little racism too - where the question of whether we allow racists to assemble or not shouldn't even be a significant issue. It seems to me that the modern American libertarian is really limited in this respect and this example in many ways shows that their worldview is a bit off-kilter - as if racists having the right to speak and assemble is itself some sort of shining example of a society that's really free. To me it might show that a society is freer than others (or it could just show that it is institutionally racist) but it doesn't tell me in any way that this society is free. I mean, racism just like sexism and classism is ultimately a consequence of power hierarchies and class/social stratification. It seems to me that if you eliminate that, the question over whether racists have a right to speak and assemble because something of a non-issue. And, to me, if one is serious about real political change and creating a world that favorable, then that's the best possible outcome.

[GreatUrduPoet]

No one finds your belief in gun rights offensive. There is a difference in believing in run rights and being a gun fanatic who will take the side of the gun no matter what. Not that this describes you..... Hey, I wonder if Bruce Johnston is stocked up on guns for the coming Socialist revolution....

GreatUrduPoet, don't be so sure about 'ole Bob!

The Ballad Of Travon Martin! .... I can just hear it!

Boots Of Travon Martin

When Travon Paints His Masterpiece

And you are also damn correct that neither party was clear of blame in this incident. I spent a good time researching it last night. You are right.


And Real Historical Pistol-Whippin' Beach Boy, I happen to work for NBC and you'd be happy to know there are many many raging right wingers employed in this building. There are liberals too, as well as moderates, some Socialist leaning folk and some outright commies..... Just like real life.... One producer actually keeps a pair of antique pistols on the wall in his editing bay to remind everyone that they are on the clock

You are aware that "Bob Dylan" is the stage name for Robert Zimmerman, right?

[GreatUrduPoet]

Just quick, cause I'm on vacation:

It is obscene that of the candidates running, not one of them is a labor party candidate. It is this anti-populist sentiment at the political level that makes the United States distinct amongst developed nations.

It's a mathematical fact that Barack Hussien Obama's 2008 candidacy was largely bought and paid for by "big labor" (as well as by Wall Street). How has that panned out for America's younger workers? Personally, I'm as tired of union influence in U.S. elections as I am of corporate influence in U.S. elections. Have you ever considered moving to a smaller, more 'progressive' country like Britain or Sweden where the fruits of your socialist dreams will actually impact your civil liberties and quality of life? Just don't get sick, or have need to call the police.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's a mathematical fact that Barack Hussien Obama's 2008 candidacy was largely bought and paid for by "big labor" (as well as by Wall Street). How has that panned out for America's younger workers? Personally, I'm as tired of union influence in U.S. elections as I am of corporate influence in U.S. elections.

"As well as by Wall Street" is hardly a side note since they contributed just as much as Big Labor, and consequently, it shouldn't be surprising how it turned out. Obama, of course, never ran as a labor candidate, he ran as a right-wing Democrat with a vague message of "hope" and his platform was unsurprisingly pro-business, which is why he received more corporate donations than McCain. It was no shock then that Obama's policies should be fairly anti-union, passing the FAA Re-authorization Act, making it harder for workers to form a union. If this tells us anything it's that there really is no union influence in policy whether they support politicians or not.

Have you ever considered moving to a smaller, more 'progressive' country like Britain or Sweden where the fruits of your socialist dreams will actually impact your civil liberties and quality of life?

Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.

Just don't get sick, or have need to call the police.  

Considering that the United States has the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the industrialized world, I would be far happier to "get sick" anywhere other than the US. The police is a different issue - they mostly exist to protect private property and so their function in general is questionable at best.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Rockandroll, you are awesome!

[GreatUrduPoet]

It's a mathematical fact that Barack Hussien Obama's 2008 candidacy was largely bought and paid for by "big labor" (as well as by Wall Street). How has that panned out for America's younger workers? Personally, I'm as tired of union influence in U.S. elections as I am of corporate influence in U.S. elections.

"As well as by Wall Street" is hardly a side note since they contributed just as much as Big Labor, and consequently, it shouldn't be surprising how it turned out. Obama, of course, never ran as a labor candidate, he ran as a right-wing Democrat with a vague message of "hope" and his platform was unsurprisingly pro-business, which is why he received more corporate donations than McCain. It was no shock then that Obama's policies should be fairly anti-union, passing the FAA Re-authorization Act, making it harder for workers to form a union. If this tells us anything it's that there really is no union influence in policy whether they support politicians or not.

Have you ever considered moving to a smaller, more 'progressive' country like Britain or Sweden where the fruits of your socialist dreams will actually impact your civil liberties and quality of life?

Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.

Just don't get sick, or have need to call the police.  

Considering that the United States has the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the industrialized world, I would be far happier to "get sick" anywhere other than the US. The police is a different issue - they mostly exist to protect private property and so their function in general is questionable at best.

My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in? Have you ever been sick in a foreign country? Called the police to report a rape? Held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time? Spoken to an actual "worker" (not an academic or Party member) who has had the misfortune to have lived under a Marxist government? I'll wager not. But then again you probably think that Adolph Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush are all "right wingers" too. Old Joe Stalin's surely laughing in his grave over that. His work is complete.
 

[GreatUrduPoet]

Rockandroll, you are awesome!

Gee whiz.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.

With all due respect, this kind of statement bothers me and may be indicative of a larger issue of perception versus everyday reality. It assumes way too much about "Americans" in general, and puts into place a generalization that either everyone works a standard 8-hour shift with lunch and breaks, punches a time card, and basically exists on someone else signing and giving them a paycheck.

It completely disregards those who either run a small business, those who work for themselves or are getting a business off the ground or trying to maintain one which is already running, or any form of self-employment in general.

The 8-hour work day with mandatory overtime compensation if that 8 hours is exceeded may exist in certain government offices or at General Motors, but there are so many Americans who work beyond 40 hours a week to make such a blanket statement about American workers irrelevant if not laughable.

Find anyone successful in the restaurant business who has to make a payroll and ask them about an 8-hour day. In many industries or in the often-overlooked areas of self-employment in general, whether it be a general contractor, a musician, a chef, a barber, or any field where someone is pursuing a trade or offering skilled labor under their own name, the 8 hour work day doesn't exist.

It's just a reality check. I run into it all the time when someone asks if I'm taking a vacation. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in? My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in?

Since you refused to respond the last time I dealt with your erroneous interrogation of my use of the term “socialist-libertarian,” I will simply re-paste my last response here:

I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

But then again you probably think that Adolph Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush are all "right wingers" too. Old Joe Stalin's surely laughing in his grave over that. His work is complete.

I’m quite sure you don’t even know what “work” you’re referring to, given your penchant for knowingly applying quotations to Russian leaders that they never spoke. Is all this smoke that you’re blowing a consequence of me calling Obama right-wing? Well, he is. It may be useful to look at this political compass to see where candidates stood in the last election and consider the methodology used to place them where they did on the political spectrum:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

The Westboro Baptist Church, as heinous as they are, are not a political organization and as far as I’m aware, don’t really take serious stances on serious political issues. So I couldn’t even wager a guess as to where they stood politically. Hitler and George W. Bush are uncontroversially on the right, but knowing that means knowing what it means to be on the right.

Have you ever been sick in a foreign country? Called the police to report a rape? Held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time? Spoken to an actual "worker" (not an academic or Party member) who has had the misfortune to have lived under a Marxist government? I'll wager not.

I have two responses to this:

1.   All you’re doing here is simply privileging a particular kind of experience over another in order justify your ideologically-driven beliefs. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

2.   This is my last response to you. I find your sad desire to question my position in the “real world” to be disgusting, quite frankly. The reason is because I have had experiences so “real” that they are most likely unimaginable to most people and I should not be placed in a position where I have to explain those experiences to justify my political beliefs to someone like you. Now the fact is that you couldn’t have possibly known that I had these experiences because of the simple fact that you don’t know me at all. Yet, that didn’t stop you from arrogantly making claims about my life. But the fact that you made these claims with the experiences I have had not only makes you ignorant, it also is insulting. I’m not interested in telling you what my experiences are because, for one, I don’t like you and this is privileged information and I certainly wouldn’t share it with you. More importantly, unlike you, I would not stoop so low as to use my life experiences to question YOUR relationship to the real world, though I probably could. 

Now the fact that you should be so insulting probably means little to you, since the underlying principle in most of your posts directed towards me has been to try to insult me for my lack of intelligence, my lack of wordliness, etc. In that sense, I’m sure you’ll take the fact that this particular insult was effective as some sort of victory, since insults have been your chief weapon from the moment you entered the discussion with me. Consequently, I find that there cannot be anything productive that could possibly come out of having a discussion with you. Early on in our debate you asked me whether I was “a Canadian citizen, a public-employee union member or a currently enrolled student at a University?” As it turns out, you were asking me those questions in some sort of desperate attempt to find something about me personally to target since you couldn’t actually engage with the substance of my posts. This has become perfectly clear given that since you subsequently learned that I worked in academia, you’ve used that as I way to try and discredit my points. Now this pathetic tactic is not nearly as disgraceful as the one I discussed above but it is enough to suggest that you are not worth the time it takes to correct the mistakes you keep making, as they are draped in the most pathetically insulting rhetoric. You can respond to this as you wish, but you should know that I’m not like you who announced on page 15 that you “stopped responding to R&R” because “it’s an exhausting waste of time to argue with doctrinaire Marxists.” I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing you could say from this point on that I would feel worthy of a response.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.

With all due respect, this kind of statement bothers me and may be indicative of a larger issue of perception versus everyday reality. It assumes way too much about "Americans" in general, and puts into place a generalization that either everyone works a standard 8-hour shift with lunch and breaks, punches a time card, and basically exists on someone else signing and giving them a paycheck.

It completely disregards those who either run a small business, those who work for themselves or are getting a business off the ground or trying to maintain one which is already running, or any form of self-employment in general.

The 8-hour work day with mandatory overtime compensation if that 8 hours is exceeded may exist in certain government offices or at General Motors, but there are so many Americans who work beyond 40 hours a week to make such a blanket statement about American workers irrelevant if not laughable.

Find anyone successful in the restaurant business who has to make a payroll and ask them about an 8-hour day. In many industries or in the often-overlooked areas of self-employment in general, whether it be a general contractor, a musician, a chef, a barber, or any field where someone is pursuing a trade or offering skilled labor under their own name, the 8 hour work day doesn't exist.

It's just a reality check. I run into it all the time when someone asks if I'm taking a vacation.  

I'm completely aware that there are MANY people who work more than 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. I'm one of those people. But that's not the point. I wasn't making "a blanket statement about American workers" as you have taken it. I really don't think I'm leaving myself so open so that I deserve this kind of response. If I did, then you would have a field day with your own statement that having an 8-hour work day was true only for certain government employees and people who work at General Motors - something I don't even believe that you yourself believe. All I would need to do is show you any worker who was not government employed or working at General Motors, yet worked 8-hour a day shifts and your point would collapse. But of course, you didn't really mean that, and critiquing your overall point because of that statement would be silly.

The achievement of the 8-hour work day was not that imposed a schedule on every American but it worked to reduce the ability for owners and bosses to exploit their labor, or at least place confines around how much they could exploit their labor. And, yes, this does apply to every American. Whether a person is self-employed or running their own business or not, there is a rule that protects them from being exploited in the way described above, which is why if they are working more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week, they are doing so because they CHOOSE to do so, not because they are forced to do so, and in many ways that was the whole point of the activist movement to get an 8 hour workday.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, in reality, socialist-libertarian influence is very much responsible for some of the most important achievements in the United States. Anarcho-socialists are the reason Americans have an eight hour work day, for one. That's a major achievement.

With all due respect, this kind of statement bothers me and may be indicative of a larger issue of perception versus everyday reality. It assumes way too much about "Americans" in general, and puts into place a generalization that either everyone works a standard 8-hour shift with lunch and breaks, punches a time card, and basically exists on someone else signing and giving them a paycheck.

It completely disregards those who either run a small business, those who work for themselves or are getting a business off the ground or trying to maintain one which is already running, or any form of self-employment in general.

The 8-hour work day with mandatory overtime compensation if that 8 hours is exceeded may exist in certain government offices or at General Motors, but there are so many Americans who work beyond 40 hours a week to make such a blanket statement about American workers irrelevant if not laughable.

Find anyone successful in the restaurant business who has to make a payroll and ask them about an 8-hour day. In many industries or in the often-overlooked areas of self-employment in general, whether it be a general contractor, a musician, a chef, a barber, or any field where someone is pursuing a trade or offering skilled labor under their own name, the 8 hour work day doesn't exist.

It's just a reality check. I run into it all the time when someone asks if I'm taking a vacation.  

I'm completely aware that there are MANY people who work more than 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. I'm one of those people. But that's not the point. I wasn't making "a blanket statement about American workers" as you have taken it. I really don't think I'm leaving myself so open so that I deserve this kind of response. If I did, then you would have a field day with your own statement that having an 8-hour work day was true only for certain government employees and people who work at General Motors - something I don't even believe that you yourself believe. All I would need to do is show you any worker who was not government employed or working at General Motors, yet worked 8-hour a day shifts and your point would collapse. But of course, you didn't really mean that, and critiquing your overall point because of that statement would be silly.

The achievement of the 8-hour work day was not that imposed a schedule on every American but it worked to reduce the ability for owners and bosses to exploit their labor, or at least place confines around how much they could exploit their labor. And, yes, this does apply to every American. Whether a person is self-employed or running their own business or not, there is a rule that protects them from being exploited in the way described above, which is why if they are working more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week, they are doing so because they CHOOSE to do so, not because they are forced to do so, and in many ways that was the whole point of the activist movement to get an 8 hour workday.

My points stand and I stand by them - referencing the 8 hour work day is referencing something from a bygone era, let's say a mid-20th century mentality that assumed things about the American worker based on what you saw around you in your community and in your immediate circle of family and friends. It's as irrelevant as saying a majority of workers at any given factory or plant lived within 5-10 miles of that plant, if not in the same town, and most of the wages earned in those towns went directly back into stores and merchants from that town when goods or services were bought. That was explicitly true in the 50's...it's laughable now in 2012.

The notion of exploitation of labor is a common thread in a lot of these talks. No one denies the horrors of child labor and the mining industries and unsafe factory conditions and "company stores" and all of that...and I will definitely, 100% give credit where credit is due and say those who fought to reform and change that should be credited and thanked.

That, however, is a far cry from what happened to one very particular industry which was one of the major economic players in my state for several generations, and which ultimately shut down.

The steel industry.

At one point the organized labor workers in the steel plants included in their demands a 13 week paid vacation as part of the contract. Ultimately there were other factors in the demise and the exodus of plants like Phoenix Steel, Bethlehem Steel, any number of plants around Pittsburgh, those closer to my hometown, etc., but a major factor was that the cost of maintaining a labor force after pension and benefits and followed by ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation created a no-win situation where the costs outweighed the profit made from selling the goods, and it destroyed the steel business in Pennsylvania.

As far as a reference point, I'm using my father's own firsthand experiences of his generation of friends and the people around him who worked for places like Bethlehem Steel and saw this play out...a 13 week paid vacation even in 2012 seems like a joke, like a put-on, or like a totally manufactured number posted to sway a debate one way or another. But that is the fact, and it crippled that company.

So the full-circle point of this is: Would anyone consider the fight for safe work conditions, reasonable work schedules, and a liveable wage anywhere near the same universe as demanding 13 weeks of paid vacation from any employer?

13 weeks!

And again, the notion of an 8 hour work day with paid vacation and paid benefits and pension plans and all of that is no longer reality for an ever-growing number of workers, and while most of what we do in life is ultimately a choice, as in the choice to work for yourself or work for someone else or even to join organized labor wherever you do work, there cannot be a generalization about the American worker in 2012 which is relevant to the times. The game *has* changed drastically, and what was relevant for a manufacturing-based workforce decades ago is irrelevant in the era of telecommuting, internet start-ups, and non-traditional, developing fields of work which require working days beyond the former standard of 8 hour shifts with breaks and paid vacations.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

My points stand and I stand by them - referencing the 8 hour work day is referencing something from a bygone era, let's say a mid-20th century mentality that assumed things about the American worker based on what you saw around you in your community and in your immediate circle of family and friends. It's as irrelevant as saying a majority of workers at any given factory or plant lived within 5-10 miles of that plant, if not in the same town, and most of the wages earned in those towns went directly back into stores and merchants from that town when goods or services were bought. That was explicitly true in the 50's...it's laughable now in 2012.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Should we get rid of the 8 hour work week?

The notion of exploitation of labor is a common thread in a lot of these talks. No one denies the horrors of child labor and the mining industries and unsafe factory conditions and "company stores" and all of that...and I will definitely, 100% give credit where credit is due and say those who fought to reform and change that should be credited and thanked.

That's not quite what I'm talking about. I mean, yes, the things you talk about are horrific and that's what happens in capitalist systems where the ownership class is unaccountable (the system the US Libertarian movement seems to want put in place) but all labor where the laborer receives a wage is exploitative. But, of course, there are forms of exploitation that are worse than others.

That, however, is a far cry from what happened to one very particular industry which was one of the major economic players in my state for several generations, and which ultimately shut down.

The steel industry.

At one point the organized labor workers in the steel plants included in their demands a 13 week paid vacation as part of the contract. Ultimately there were other factors in the demise and the exodus of plants like Phoenix Steel, Bethlehem Steel, any number of plants around Pittsburgh, those closer to my hometown, etc., but a major factor was that the cost of maintaining a labor force after pension and benefits and followed by ridiculous calls for three months of paid vacation created a no-win situation where the costs outweighed the profit made from selling the goods, and it destroyed the steel business in Pennsylvania.

As far as a reference point, I'm using my father's own firsthand experiences of his generation of friends and the people around him who worked for places like Bethlehem Steel and saw this play out...a 13 week paid vacation even in 2012 seems like a joke, like a put-on, or like a totally manufactured number posted to sway a debate one way or another. But that is the fact, and it crippled that company.

So the full-circle point of this is: Would anyone consider the fight for safe work conditions, reasonable work schedules, and a liveable wage anywhere near the same universe as demanding 13 weeks of paid vacation from any employer?

13 weeks!

I don't know the specifics about Bethelehem steel but I do know that in the early 2000s, steel companies like Bethelehem were using bankruptcy courts as a way to break contractual obligations and cut pensions, benefits, and wages. Ultimately what happened to Bethelehem is that they were bought out by International Steel Group, making them the continent's largest steel company until they themselves were bought out by MittalSteel, which merged with Arcelor and become the biggest steel mill in the world. Consolidations liked these allowed for US steel corporations to compete with the European and Japanese steel industry at lower cost. If you think this bankruptcy was about vacations, and the greediness of organized labor, then you really need to investigate further.

This bit about vacation time does not come up so much in discussions of Bethelehem’s bankruptcy (the bit about the pensions does), from a cursory glance at online discussions on the matter. This may be more of a personal issue then, which isn’t all that surprising since many workers tacitly accept the parent-child model as a way of understanding the owner-laborer relationship rather than understand it for what it is – an inherently antagonistic relationship between power and labor, wherein labor power is at the disposal of ownership and ownership will buy as much labor power from workers at the lowest price possible. But it is crucial that people don’t see it that way – therefore this concept of parent-child gets put in place where people are reduced to showing off how good they are being and how good they are doing. This is why it is so enraging when people who actually understand how labor works, don’t follow this model and actually get something out of it because of their deviation.

And again, the notion of an 8 hour work day with paid vacation and paid benefits and pension plans and all of that is no longer reality for an ever-growing number of workers, and while most of what we do in life is ultimately a choice, as in the choice to work for yourself or work for someone else or even to join organized labor wherever you do work, there cannot be a generalization about the American worker in 2012 which is relevant to the times.

This, in fact, is not true. What we do in life is not really "ultimately a choice." People have more flexibility and are able to make more choices, the higher up they go in the economic hierarchy. Comparatively speaking, the United States is particularly bad for people having the ability to be upwardly mobile relative to where they start out, which indicates there is not much in terms of choice for a large portion of the population and this indicates to me that this means that the 8 hour work day is as important than ever. It seems that this idea that people have lots of choices is an idea that is held mostly by people who have the luxury to make these choices but this simply does not reflect reality in any serious way.

[Jason]

I mean, yes, the things you talk about are horrific and that's what happens in capitalist systems where the ownership class is unaccountable (the system the US Libertarian movement seems to want put in place) but all labor where the laborer receives a wage is exploitative.

I don't know how many times I've repeated it in this thread but American libertarians ARE NOT corporatists.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I mean, yes, the things you talk about are horrific and that's what happens in capitalist systems where the ownership class is unaccountable (the system the US Libertarian movement seems to want put in place) but all labor where the laborer receives a wage is exploitative.

I don't know how many times I've repeated it in this thread but American libertarians ARE NOT corporatists.

This has nothing to do with corporations - it has to do with the owner-labor model in any capitalist system whether it has corporations or not.

[GreatUrduPoet]

My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in? My goodness..."Socialist-Libertarian"?!? Why not "Black-Klansman" or "Muslim-Christian"? Word salad is such tasteless dish. What kind of academic bubble do you exist in?

Since you refused to respond the last time I dealt with your erroneous interrogation of my use of the term “socialist-libertarian,” I will simply re-paste my last response here:

I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

But then again you probably think that Adolph Hitler, the Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush are all "right wingers" too. Old Joe Stalin's surely laughing in his grave over that. His work is complete.

I’m quite sure you don’t even know what “work” you’re referring to, given your penchant for knowingly applying quotations to Russian leaders that they never spoke. Is all this smoke that you’re blowing a consequence of me calling Obama right-wing? Well, he is. It may be useful to look at this political compass to see where candidates stood in the last election and consider the methodology used to place them where they did on the political spectrum:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

The Westboro Baptist Church, as heinous as they are, are not a political organization and as far as I’m aware, don’t really take serious stances on serious political issues. So I couldn’t even wager a guess as to where they stood politically. Hitler and George W. Bush are uncontroversially on the right, but knowing that means knowing what it means to be on the right.

Have you ever been sick in a foreign country? Called the police to report a rape? Held a responsible job in the non-academic (i.e: real) world? Lived away from your parents for longer than a semester at a time? Spoken to an actual "worker" (not an academic or Party member) who has had the misfortune to have lived under a Marxist government? I'll wager not.

I have two responses to this:

1.   All you’re doing here is simply privileging a particular kind of experience over another in order justify your ideologically-driven beliefs. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

2.   This is my last response to you. I find your sad desire to question my position in the “real world” to be disgusting, quite frankly. The reason is because I have had experiences so “real” that they are most likely unimaginable to most people and I should not be placed in a position where I have to explain those experiences to justify my political beliefs to someone like you. Now the fact is that you couldn’t have possibly known that I had these experiences because of the simple fact that you don’t know me at all. Yet, that didn’t stop you from arrogantly making claims about my life. But the fact that you made these claims with the experiences I have had not only makes you ignorant, it also is insulting. I’m not interested in telling you what my experiences are because, for one, I don’t like you and this is privileged information and I certainly wouldn’t share it with you. More importantly, unlike you, I would not stoop so low as to use my life experiences to question YOUR relationship to the real world, though I probably could. 

Now the fact that you should be so insulting probably means little to you, since the underlying principle in most of your posts directed towards me has been to try to insult me for my lack of intelligence, my lack of wordliness, etc. In that sense, I’m sure you’ll take the fact that this particular insult was effective as some sort of victory, since insults have been your chief weapon from the moment you entered the discussion with me. Consequently, I find that there cannot be anything productive that could possibly come out of having a discussion with you. Early on in our debate you asked me whether I was “a Canadian citizen, a public-employee union member or a currently enrolled student at a University?” As it turns out, you were asking me those questions in some sort of desperate attempt to find something about me personally to target since you couldn’t actually engage with the substance of my posts. This has become perfectly clear given that since you subsequently learned that I worked in academia, you’ve used that as I way to try and discredit my points. Now this pathetic tactic is not nearly as disgraceful as the one I discussed above but it is enough to suggest that you are not worth the time it takes to correct the mistakes you keep making, as they are draped in the most pathetically insulting rhetoric. You can respond to this as you wish, but you should know that I’m not like you who announced on page 15 that you “stopped responding to R&R” because “it’s an exhausting waste of time to argue with doctrinaire Marxists.” I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing you could say from this point on that I would feel worthy of a response.

Thank you for the great post. Very entertaining and revealing. Adieu.