Turning each and every word of mine against myself, pushing relativism and hairsplitting to extreme, is of no use (AGAIN):
Indeed I first said "sheer communism", and that can be called broad brush. But barely twenty seconds later, I explained clearly what I meant by that expression:
quote: "And communist or nazist states controlled the press far stronger than our billionnaires - and I mean, far far stronger." unquote.
I could argue about communism as ideology too, because IMO it leads to suppression of freedoms and rights, no matter how "well" would be implemented. But that's something else. In our case, the meaning was precise. You're a vicious debater, Jake. Really. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
This is not hairsplitting, it's a straightforward matter of pointing out that you're either using a definition of communism that differs notably from the one used by the rest of the world, or you're attempting to tar the perfectly democratic and civilised variants of communism with the atrocities committed by Iosef Stalin and company.
And as an aside, your original claim that subsidising the press is sheer communism is ridiculous hyperbole as well. But that's another story that's dealt with elsewhere in the thread.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
On other occasions (not on this blog though) I did argue that too, about the general viciousness of those dictatorships, on which I maintain communist ones can be seen as at least as evil as nazist ones.
Ideology is still one more step further. I tend to maintain the original comparison, broad brush as it was. But that was not the point here and now. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
You wrote
So we need to subsidize the whole press as well. You do realize that what you describe is sheer communism
You do realize that what you describe is sheer communism
in response to
Of course, it doesn't solve the underlying problem that wealth can buy elections, because wealth can still buy the press and can still bankroll belief tanks and pay for lawyers.
Unless my English skills have taken a turn for the worse of late, this reads like a discussion of the problems of having a corporate press in a democratic country.
You can go upthread and read the exchange from the beginning. You were the one who started with the allusions to communist dictatorships - and with a highly spurious claim to boot.
When I speak of my english, I mean that I am not a native speaker, and fluent as I may seem, I do make mistakes actually, easy to misinterpret in the charged context that you provoked. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
There is a certain internal coherence to your claim. But it flies in the face of historical and contemporary facts.
I also don't understand the claim that sponsoring all of the press must necessarily follow from sponsoring part of it. It is perfectly possible for part of the press to be sponsored by political parties, part of it to be sponsored by labour unions, part of it to be sponsored by Big Money and part of it to be sponsored by the state.
That's actually how it used to work in Scandinavia, until right-wing ideologues set out to undermine our independent public radio. I don't usually hear claims that Scandinavia is a communist dictatorship - well, I sometimes do, but only when I'm stupid enough to follow a link over to FreeRepublic...
(And as an aside, the Danish press is all subsidised to some extent through various regulations that benefit organised publishers over - say - boy scout pamphlets.)
Sponsoring part of the press amounts to creating an official organ of press. Been there, done that.
Sponsoring part of it also won't stop capitalist rats from making even more capitalist papers, better quality, larger audience, slogans well instilled inside. So in order to be faithful to the purpose, you need to owe all the press; then you get to forbidding any other press but the official one.
I was speaking about sponsoring/subsidizing by the state though. Granted, what you say about Scandinavia sounds quite differently and I find fewer reasons of mistrust. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I don't see why public press should necessarily be lower quality than the commercial press. In fact, it is often the other way around - the public press does not have to worry about the bottom line, so they can let their reporters actually do some expensive investigative reporting, instead of copying what they're fed by spin-doctors.
But of course, that requires that the state-owned press is insulated from political pressures. Much the same way universities have to be, and for much the same reasons.
You should come live in Scandinavia for a while. See socialism with a human face :-P
Heck, apart from the fact that it's cold and dark half of the year, you might even like it here...
State universities are not always quite so insulated from either state bureaucracy or political influence. There is a point to those americans saying that whatever the state touches, becomes inefficient, a perk and a political territory. The bad side of democracy. Their extremist solution is no better though.
My opening diary was about my latest two week trip to Scandinavia actually. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
State universities are not always quite so insulated from either state bureaucracy or political influence.
Tell me about it... our universities have been brought to the ragged edge of dysfunction by a right-wing imbecile of a minister who insists on micro-managing everything.
There is a point to those americans saying that whatever the state touches, becomes inefficient, a perk and a political territory.
And this isn't true for the things corporations do?
It is of course true inasmuch as "inefficient" is taken to mean "catering to other purposes than blindly maximising profit." Which is the usual wingnut definition. As to whether public institutions are in general less efficient at fulfilling their roles in society... well, no, as public railways and utilities can attest.
Corporations do other kind of bad things, they don't do bureaucracy. Their goal is always the market and the profit, which is normal, their reason of existence, and which must be well regulated to avoid abuse (like insurance corporations refusing to reimburse people on pretexts).
OTOH state's role is to serve the society, and bureaucracy or political perks are NOT normal. Not the same thing.
As it happens, the private railways example is IMO an example of bad regulation, even though I tend to consider this a domain of public service and a strategic domain, and so I even wonder whether it should not be, as such, state property. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Corporations don't do bureaucracy? ROFLMAO! Oh, they certainly also do those other Bad Things you mention. But they sure do bureaucracy too... Yeah, it makes them less effective and hurts their bottom line, but that doesn't prevent them from doing it.
I agree with you that railways are a bad example, though, because you're right, they shouldn't be private. They were just the most obvious example I could think of off the top of my head of excessively bureaucratic private organisations vs. much more efficient public sector ones providing essentially the same services.
As about press subsidizing, it was no hyperbole at all. When you start subsidizing press, you must subsidize it all
No, there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all. Swedish press subsidys has been targeted at minor publications in accordance to sales figures. That is if you have a big enough newspaper, you do not get subsidized.
And thus your ideological story of the evilness of press subsidizing and the slippery slope it leads to, does not hold up. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
To return to the interesting part.
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests, which was the point in Jake and my discussing press subsidy. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Argh, drawing conclusions about my supposed ideology. It would be nice if you could limit yourself to countering my arguments. "Outing" me as the Enemy disguised in sheep skin is a bit silly.
No, you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying you are an enemy because you have an ideology, I am helping you see your ideology by pointing it out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Arguments and ideas is what I'm interested in. I see you don't actually answer to my latest reply on the matter. Maybe you were convinced after all. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
If there is no rule saying you must subsidize it all and then own the press, billionnaires will still be able to come up with more journals, better quality, wider audience. So you didn't solve the problem of the press falling prey to corporate interests,
But - as I have already noted elsewhere - there is no law of nature saying that the private press will always be better, more interesting or have a wider audience.
In point of fact, the state-sponsored press quite often has both higher quality content and greater viewership/readership than the private press in those countries where it's being done properly. Of course, nobody wants to read a Pravda, but that's not what anybody here is proposing anyway, so I fail to see the relevance of that fact...
You're a vicious debater, Jake. Really.
I'll take that as a compliment :-P
Seriously, though I'm sorry if you feel that my style is too adversarial. But I believe that pushing ideas to their breaking point is a good and perfectly reasonable way of testing them. And I believe in trying to achieve consistency in one's principles. And in being able to spell out what one is saying, without relying on connotations to bridge semantic gaps. Which is one reason that I keep heckling you to provide explicit definitions and spell out all the unvoiced connotations.
All of these endeavours are aided by acknowledging specific ideological frameworks - not necessarily agreeing with them, but acknowledging them. Which is why I think ideology is a useful construct.
Which is to mean there is a time, a place and a manner to act provocatively, confrontationally & co.
Or claiming that workers are stolen benefits is such an exaggerated, ideological, broad brush statement that I can hardly see any use or added value for it, especially that I did not speak against workers per se, but against certain politicized French unions.
You actually push me on the ideological field, while I am on the academic debate one, pondering on the death of ideology (currently witnessed) and its consequences. You may go on certain TimesOnline blogs and test ideas with people of your kind - of inversed polarisation. A sight to see, definitely. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I did far less than this - barely mentioned the work conditions of train workers today, and was libeled a thatcherian propagandist.
I didn't see that exchange, but that's not quite the way I heard the story...
But these particular "activist French unions" represent precisely the workers whose benefits were stolen - and stolen is precisely the right word: If a private company suddenly decided to stop paying benefits that it had promised its workers, it'd get sued down to its skivvies. Now, there are some things that governments are allowed to do that private companies aren't (using monopoly power to set standards, for example). But reneging on benefits isn't one of them.
Those promised benefits as I know were bought back. No actual breach of contract was inflicted. Although the state can change a contract that is obviously ideological. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Those promised benefits as I know were bought back.
Now you're moving the goalposts. The removal of those rights were being tabled, and there was a strike in response. What concessions were granted after the strike was launched can have no bearing on the justification for the strike. Unless you live in some alternate universe where future events can negatively impact the legitimacy of current decisions...
Although the state can change a contract that is obviously ideological.
The courts can dissolve a contract that is obviously unfair to the weaker party, or into which the weaker party has been tricked. But the presumption is always that if it is the weaker party that benefits unfairly, not the stronger party, the contract stands, because it is presumed that the weaker negotiating position cannot enforce an unfavourable contract on the stronger negotiating position unless the stronger party has failed to do his homework properly.
And the state is, by definition, always counted as the massively stronger party.
These are two very basic principles of public administration. Principles that underlie essentially all jurisprudence on expropriation and resolution of conflicts between states and private parties.
If the state fucks up and gives you a million € for a job that's only worth half a million, it cannot five years later say "hey, waitaminnit..." (unless you got the contract through illegal means, such as bribing a politician).
This is, again, a principle no serious legal scholar, no political faction and no bureaucrat - left, right or centre - disagrees with. Claiming that it's invalid in the case of train drivers' pensions is pure special pleading and nothing else.
From what I know, concessions were granted and the strikes stopped. Most people (about 70% French were against, I think) saw those strikes less as worrying for existing employees and more as setting things straight for the future, and I suspect this is how unions saw it too. In the end, no "stealing benefits" happened, and the matter of interest in that issue was bringing things on par with the other categories of employees.
And one can argue even for existing transport employees, given that the issue was about privileges granted without any counterparty. It was not so absurd that they be given up purely and simply.
I like the way you argue about contracts and courts (the establishment), although it fits little with your previous fiery talk :) Anyway French unions were often in the stronger negotiating positions, as unplausible as you might think it.
The state cannot come five years later and ask for the money back, of course, when it's about salary; when it's about pensions 20-30 years from now, the state can make adjustments so that you have to work 40 years for them, like everybody else, since you don't provide any counterpary in return to justify such positive discrimination. Nuancing. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
From what I know, concessions were granted and the strikes stopped.
So an illegitimate policy was being proposed, workers went on strike against it, the worst aspects were withdrawn and the strike stopped. How is this in any way an illegitimate use of the strike weapon?
The state cannot come five years later and ask for the money back, of course, when it's about salary; when it's about pensions 20-30 years from now,
Those pensions were part of the salary. That's the way a pay-as-you-go system works, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. The Danish system is different - here, pension contributions are paid immediately to private accounts. Under the Danish system, pension contributions could have been lowered as part of the ordinary labour market negotiations without compensating workers under existing benefit plans, because the money had already been set aside for them. But under the French system, the pension benefits that would have been paid out thirty years from now were part of their salary today. That they were not actually set aside as such is merely a technicality of differing accounting practises, and in no way does this justify stealing them.
If I hire you for € 10000 a month and pay € 1000 a month to a private pension plan, I cannot simply retract 20 % of your private pension savings because I decide that I don't want to pay you that much in pension benefits anymore. OTOH, if I hire you under a pay-as-you-go pension scheme, I pay you € 10000 a month and promise in your contract that I'll support a pension scheme with a net present value of € 1000 pr. month. According to you I can then at a later date decide that I only want to actually pay out 80 % of that - and since the money didn't change hands in the first place, this is perfectly fine?
The only difference between these two cases is that in the pay-as-you-go system, the employer keeps the € 1000 - or, more correctly, borrows the € 1000 until the pension is actually paid out. So according to you, employees should be punished for trusting their employer with their pension savings?
(And as an aside, even if it had only been a benefit cut for future employees, striking against it would still have been a perfectly normal part of labour market negotiations. Non-tenured employees are allowed to go on strike, and if their strikes disrupt service, then it's the employer's fault for not hiring tenured employees. That's a basic, basic principle of all reasonably civilised versions of capitalism.)
the state can make adjustments so that you have to work 40 years for them, like everybody else, since you don't provide any counterpary in return to justify such positive discrimination. Nuancing.
Not when you have already worked for five or ten years under the current contract, they can't. They could have done it if they had a) compensated the workers up-front for the net present value of their future benefit loss or b) stipulated that it only applied to all new hires.
I like the way you argue about contracts and courts (the establishment), although it fits little with your previous fiery talk :)
There is no contradiction here: Courts and contracts have their place in a democratic system. Labour unions, strikes and blockades (even sabotage) have their place in a democratic system. Politicians, parliaments and laws have their place in a democratic system.
I just objected to the way you were trying to sweep much of civil society under the rug and deny it its institutional legitimacy - I never meant to imply that courts, contracts and parliaments have no institutional legitimacy, only that they don't hold a monopoly on it...
Anyway French unions were often in the stronger negotiating positions, as unplausible as you might think it.
Of course they are, unions are supposed to be in the stronger negotiating position. That does not, however, change the fact that under almost all democratic jurisprudence, the state is presumed the stronger party. Just as the fact that most trans-nats are in reality much stronger than the states they demand concessions from does not change their rights to compensation when those concessions are revoked (unless it can be proven - which it of course often can in the case of trans-nats, but less often in the case of labour unions - that they used illegal means to acquire those concessions in the first place).
I just told you why that wasn't such illegitimate policy.
I just told you the reason to go on strike was the fact of doing away with a privilege, as a principle. When it became clear that the new principle is equality, and no privilege without counterparty, the talk actually started on the pragmatic issues.
Often, less often, illegal means, stealing... Oh well. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I wonder if you even read the explanation of the way a pay-as-you-go system compares to a privatised accounts system? Because you don't seem to have given any reason for why the employer can take the employee's money when he has borrowed it, but not when he has deposited it with a third party.
Does depositing money with a third party automatically launder the money and make it safe from the employer taking it? Does the employer have the right to refuse to repay money that he has borrowed just because he borrowed it from his employees?
When it became clear that the new principle is equality, and no privilege without counterparty, the talk actually started on the pragmatic issues.
There are two distinct issues at play here. The first issue is whether or not it is legitimate to strike on account of announced benefit cuts. And if you don't have tenure, it clearly is. If you don't have tenure, you can strike for whatever damn reason you want, and it's the employer's problem if he doesn't have enough tenured employees to cover his ass when that happens.
The other issue is whether an employer can renege on benefit payments from a pay-as-you-go benefit scheme. I can see no reason - even in principle - that he should be allowed to do that. In a pay-as-you-go scheme, the employer has been borrowing his employees' pension funds - funds that he would otherwise have had to pay out to third parties, who would then hold them in trust for his employees. As long as the employer doesn't default on the pension, that's a great idea, because it dispenses with a middleman who would otherwise have to be given a cut. But why does it allow the employer to suddenly renege on his debt?
You never answered that. You never even attempted to answer that. And the fact that other parts of the French labour force was robbed of their pensions is a complete red herring - that my neighbour robs a bank does not automatically permit me to rob a bank as well.
