Skip to main content

Food for Thought 3

- Are workers better off than ever today? A moot point. It’s a fact that much of our wealth is derived from credit. Canada’s credit cards doubledto 68 million, 1998 to 2008, with 682 000 considered delinquent. Eventhough the present crisis is attributed to bad credit, the card offers arrive every week. The credit card is the golden goose that fueled massiveconsumer spending regardless of the consequences.
- We have no money for hospitals that are cramped by artificial budgets that constantly mean lay-offs, even for nurses. We have no money for education – can’t keep the swimming pools open that have been built into practically every Toronto school. We have no money to eradicate poverty,homelessness etc., but at the G20 meeting in London, one trillion dollars was found to fund IMF loans to countries in trouble, which means they will be in even greater trouble should they accept the loans. Generally, forevery dollar that is loaned to developing countries, $7 comes back, whichis why they will always be ‘developing’.
- Auto workers continue to take criticism, even from other workers, as the cause of their own demise, even though they, like all workers, have absolutely no say in what is produced, or how much. Their hourly wages are continually quoted by the capitalist press including their benefit package, although this is never done in any other case. The facts, of course, that they earn an average of $34/hour, are ignored. Consider this,in 1992, GM produced 4.4 million cars with a workforce of just under 300000. In 2007, GM produced 4.5 million vehicles with approximately one third of that work force. That kind of productivity must have brought massive profits from the workers’ efforts that should have resulted in a very financially strong company.
What happened?
John Ayers


Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…