From notes@igc.apc.org Fri Aug 26 21:55:11 1994
Received: from mail.igc.apc.org by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id OAA12120; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:54:40 -0700
Received: by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.43 )
	id NAA01126; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 13:37:35 -0700
Path: cdp!igc.org!igc.apc.org!NFMail!elaine33.s!leland.Stanford.EDU!miballar
Reply-To: Conference "iww.news" <iww.news@conf.igc.apc.org>
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Newsgroups: iww.news
Date: 26 Aug 94 10:28 PDT
Subject: Warning, long message!
To: Recipients of conference "iww.news" <iww.news@conf.igc.apc.org>
Message-ID: <199408261726.KAA16814@elaine33.s>
Sender: Conference to Mail Gateway <conf2mail@igc.apc.org>
Errors-To: support@igc.apc.org
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 1520
Status: OR

From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Mike Ballard writes:

From CN.CPM@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Fri Aug 26 10:23:36 1994
Message-Id: <199408261723.KAA14304@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date:     Fri, 26 Aug 94 10:23:07 PDT
From: "Mike Ballard"    <CN.CPM@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Status: OR

Hi Fellow Workers,
Below are some of the dialogues,I have participated in over
just the last couple of weeks on the internet newsgroups--
mostly alt.society.anarchy.  I urge all of you online Wobs
to consider intervention in these forums as a way of publicizing
the IWW and organizing others who have started to become aware.
Most of the people I'm "fighting" with here are pro-capitalist.
I'm not trying to convince them of anything.  The reality is that
others from all round the planet are tuning in to these newsgroups
and many of them are quite pleased to see a Wobbly point of view.
Of those, some have joined us.
Organizing towards a critical mass,
Mike Ballard
X334260



09:16 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:16:24 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16346 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:48 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16346@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3922

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Thu Jul 28 15:39:08 1994
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 15:39:05 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199407282239.PAA19059@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
~ : miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy,alt.gobment.lones
In-Reply-To: <31966o$nig@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30mbfo$sj2@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <mwilson.775228267@ncratl> <316bg6$9mk@nntp2.stanford.edu> <dasherCtn2B6.Hu4@netcom.com>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <31966o$nig@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <dasherCtn2B6.Hu4@netcom.com>,
>Anton Sherwood <dasher@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>> Ok then, so if someone says, "My baby's right to food is more important
>>> than your right to own the means of producing food and the food as
>>> commodity, by extension."  How do you respond?  "Property rights are
>>> more important than the right to life."  Then someone responds, "Look
>>> Jack, 1% of you (expletive deleted) own more wealth than vast majority
>>> of us in this society, (90%).  We're taking over."
>>
>>There is no right to life
>
>According to Anton Sherwood, Libertarian Candidate for office in the
>State.
> -- just ask all the people whom nature kills.
>
>"Heh, dead guy!  Got a right to life?"
>No answer.  Guess it was a rhetorical question.
>But seriously folks, I think I even prefer the Big Bourgeois Parties
>to the Petit Bourgeois Libertarians, if what they say to the
>starving Rwandans is, "Sorry pals, there is no right to life."
>I mean even Marie Antoinette was more generous--granted it was with
>other peoples' cake. B)
>
>>We have, against each other, a right to _attempt_ to live.  From this
>>right follows a right to the products of one's life, including productive
>>capital if I choose to exchange my labor for it.
>
>"We have fed you all for a thousand years" goes one of the songs in
>the "Little Red Songbook", we Wobs carry around.  It's all about the
>fact that the workers, slaves and peasants have fed the ruling classes
>of the world, built the means of production (the productive capital).
>We don't need to exchange any more labor for it.  It is the product
>of our lives.
>
>>If your baby is starving you may _ask_ me for food.  If I'm having a hard
>>day, or just don't like your baby's looks, I may say no.  You may then
>>call me a scumbag and try the next person.
>
>I may.  I may also organize with my fellow workers with the goal of
>taking, holding, and operating the productive apparatus and food
>stores for ourselves.  What gives us that right?
>We give ourselves that right; just as you give yourself the right to
>your private property.  When rights or conceptions of rights clash,
>there you have class confict.  Over what?  The product of labor.
>
>>(Would you *give up* your baby to keep it fed?)
>
>Yes.  Reluctantly; but yes, because the baby's life takes precedence
>over parental rights.
>
>>But if you try to take from me by force what I have made *with my own
>>life*, you forfeit the politeness that keeps me from using deadly force.
>
>Same to you, bub.
>
>>What guarantee do the smaller capitalists have that you'll stop when
>>you've killed and expropriated the 1% most successful?
>
>You have a right to life too.  If you try to kill me, I'll defend myself.
>I'm not out to kill anyone.  Expropriation is another question entirely.
>The 1% most successful have been most successful at expropriating the
>product of my class' labor.  If we, in turn take back what we've produced,
>we are just "doing unto others what they've already done to us."
>
>Mike B)
>
>Macht kaput was euch kaput macht.
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:16 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:16:13 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16340 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:38 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16340@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3346

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Mon Aug 15 17:04:39 1994
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:38:56 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408152338.QAA26492@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <325squ$rd5@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30mm33$1se@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <31789q$ici@tequesta.gate.net> <31os8d$507@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <Lizard-0408941930550001@cybertron.vnet.net>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <325squ$rd5@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <Lizard-0408941930550001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>In article <31os8d$507@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>(Michael Ballard) wrote:
>>
>>> No, it doesn't.  It means that democracy is a better principle for
>>> organizing society than dictatorship is.  In class based societies
>>> the principle of democracy is tilted in favor of those who hold
>>> economic power--those who can afford the most 30 second sound bites
>>> on TV.
>>
>>Perhaps the answer is limiting the power of the state,
>
>How about, abolishing the State?
>The State is the governing instrument in class ruled societies; so, we
>may as well get rid of classes while we're at it.
>
>Stuff about limiting the State deleted.N
>
>
>>  But it is still better than organizing the society around the
>>> dictatorial principle of blood relations and divine right.
>>
>>Which of the great 20th century dictators claimed either of those as the
>>basis for their power?
>
>None of the "great" ones--Hitler, Stalin etc.  The King of Saudia Arabia,
>the former Shah of Iran by blood.  The theocracies claim divine right.
>As you imply, dictatorial principle can also be associated with
>rule of a political party.
>
> Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if any
>>did. (The heir to Kim Il Sung certainly looks to be re-establishing a
>>dyansty -- but your allies over at NY Transfer News have already approved
>>of this.)
>
>Perhaps, your allies over at Pat Robertson's have approved Ollie's
>dictatorial tendencies.  B)
>
>>> At least,
>>> the people have a chance to influence the political process in a
>>> class society based on democratic principles.  Of course, for
>>> democracy to flourish, it would be necessary to rid society of class
>>> division and classes themselves.
>>
>>How will you prevent such divisions from reappearing without limiting
>>human action unjustly?
>
>By organizing a classless society on the principle of democracy.
>
> If people are free to produce, and to keep what
>>they produce, some will produce more than others. This is inevitable,
>>natural, and good.
>
>Let them take from the social store of goods and services what they put
>in.  A society based on the production of goods and services for use
>and need would allow for that.  It is the society of production of
>commodities based on hierarchies of cash, which do not allow the
>product to belong to the producer; but rather the owner of the means
>of production.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:16 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:16:04 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16334 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:29 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16334@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4734

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Mon Aug 15 17:04:40 1994
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:43:09 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408152343.QAA26555@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <3263ea$svh@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30mbfo$sj2@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <Lizard-2907942133320001@cybertron.vnet.net> <31pe2h$97i@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <Lizard-0408942016420001@cybertron.vnet.net>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <3263ea$svh@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <Lizard-0408942016420001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>In article <31pe2h$97i@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>(Michael Ballard) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Lizard-2907942133320001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>>> Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >I see. So might makes right, and the largest mob has the moral authority
>>> >to seize whatever it wishes.
>>>
>>> No.  The might of the State enforces private property rights, especially
>>> where they concern the productive apparatus.  The right of a child to live
>>> is greater than the private propety rights of someone with a militant
>>> store keeper's mentality and most people agree with that sentiment.
>>>
>>
>>The right of a child to live cannot be morally met by the coerced labor of
>>another -- or are you a pro-lifer? Would you demand a woman bear a child
>>to term if she felt that being pregnant was too much of an inconvenience
>>for her?
>
>No.  What I'm saying is that the right of a living child( one that has
>been born, even one who has grown up and become an adult)
>takes precedence over anyone's claim to the "right of private
>property in the means of production."  I favor a woman's right to choose
>whether to have a child or not.  I think that people who are alive have
>a social responsiblity to their fellow humans via a vis the right to life.
>
>>Since I support the right of a woman to refuse to support her child when
>>it is in her womb, I ask she respect my right to refuse to support it when
>>it is OUT of her womb. Fair is fair.
>>
>>> >This can, indeed, work in the short term. Mobs can seize. What they cannot
>>> >do is *produce*.
>>>
>>> You assume that the "mob" cannot produce anything and yet it is this
>>> very same "mob" which produces all social wealth.
>>
>>That is like saying it is the performing chimps, and not the animal
>>trainer, who deserves the applause. (I think that will win me "Elitist
>>Scum of the Year" and the special "First Against the Wall When the
>>Revolution Comes!" award.
>
>No.  I think that your hero Henry Ford had very little to do with
>buiding automobiles.  I do think that the wage-slaves who built the
>Model A's of the past and the Fords of the present have a great deal
>to do with making these cars and that the stock holders of Ford have
>very little to do with it.  In your "trainer" analogy, you confuse
>people who educate chimps with people who own them.  A person can own
>a dog, without knowing how to train the dog how to become an aid to
>those without vision.  While the dog can help the person without vision
>to cross the street, the owner of the dog doesn't.
>
>
>>The Wright Brothers, for example, had almost no 'capital' -- they were
>>workers, just like tens of thousands of people all around them. Why were
>>they building planes, and no one else? Why didn't all the workers, in
>>groups of two or three, just spontaneously start inventing airplanes?
>
>Inventors aren't the same as stockholders.  This must be obvious to
>anyone with a sixth grade education.  An inventor can become an owner/
>employer.  Many do; many more don't.  Just look at the people in the
>R&D facilities.  They aren't the owners.  They're employed.  They
>are wage-slaves.  The owners just employ them in "their" facilities.
>
>>like the Wright Brothers, or Ford, or even Bill Gates. Their work is worth
>>far more than that of the meny they employed, for they made the work of
>>those men *possible*.
>>Anyone could have done it? They why didn't they? Don't give me any crap
>>about being 'denied access to the means of production' -- they had the
>>same 'access' the three men I mentioned had. What they lacked was
>>*initiative* and *ability*...and no change in the nature of society will
>>mystically grant these things.
>
>
>Horatio Alger stories deleted for brevity.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants! (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:55 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16328 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:20 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16328@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants! (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1557

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Tue Aug 23 12:26:02 1994
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 12:25:59 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408231925.MAA01898@elaine42.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <32rbeh$ase@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <32563d$oe5@panix.com> <3277e4$150@search01.news.aol.com>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <32rbeh$ase@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <3277e4$150@search01.news.aol.com>, Clerid <clerid@aol.com> wrote:
>>Actually, Chumpsky is a bit of a total nutcase in the "moral equivalence"
>>dept. He wrote, for example, a rather warm introduction for a notorious
>>French holocaust "revisionist" who is apparently his buddy.
>
>This episode was dealt with quite frankly in the movie, now video,
>"Manufacturing Consent".  It is periodically trotted out as a way of
>discrediting Noam.  What it boils down to is that Chomsky wrote an
>introduction to a piece this French guy was writing about the how the
>holocaust was lie.  He did it because he opposes censorship and the guy's
>piece was being banned in France.  He did not do it because he agreed
>with the guy that the holocaust was a lie.  The intro was written as a
>piece denying the right of the State to censor anybody's speech, including
>those you disagree with.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Exploitation of the working class (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:46 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16320 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:10 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16320@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Exploitation of the working class (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2086

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Tue Aug 23 16:43:46 1994
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 16:43:45 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408232343.QAA18505@elaine46.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Exploitation of the working class
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.society.revolution
In-Reply-To: <32u06o$oke@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <32u06o$oke@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>
>Productivity per worker in selected States annually:
>
>State                Average amount of
>                     goods and services
>                     produced per worker
>                     in dollars
>
>United States        $49,000
>
>France                47,000
>
>Germany               44,000
>
>Japan                 38,200
>
>U.K.                  37,100
>
>source: "New York Times"  October 13, 1992 p. D19.
>
>
>
>
>Labor cost per wehicle in the United States, 1992
>
>Corporate Capitalist           Average payment to the      Workers needed
>                                 workers                   to build 1 car
>                               per vehicle produced        per day
>
>General Motors                 $2,388                      4.55
>
>Chrysler                        1,872                      3.76
>
>Ford                            1,629                      3.01
>
>Honda                             920                      2.0-2.5
>
>
>Source:  U.S. News & World Report, November 9, 1992, pp. 78-79
>
>
>Average cost of a new car is over $10,000.
>
>Median household income in the USA in 1990 was, $29,943
>Compensation, including cash pay, stock options, benefits, and perquisites
>in 1992 was $717,237 for a CEO in the USA.  It was $390,933 for German
>CEO's and $390,723 for Japanese CEO's.
>source: "Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1992 p.B1
>
>"Don't mourn, organize."
>         Joe Hill
>
>"Ditto"
>         Mike B)
>
>
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:36 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16313 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:01 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261616.JAA16313@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3555

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Tue Aug 23 16:47:22 1994
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 16:47:20 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408232347.QAA18531@elaine46.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Chomsky is no friend of evil tyrrants
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy,alt.fan.noam-chomsky
In-Reply-To: <32ubpo$rj6@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <3219uk$3pb@kelly.teleport.com> <3290b5INNs02@umbc9.umbc.edu> <329fa4INN3vv@twain.ucs.umass.edu> <32a7eq$1as@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <32ubpo$rj6@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32a7eq$1as@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu>,
>Kenneth Spice <spice@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>>You know, I have been reading this thread with Chomsky
>>attackers and Chomsky friends for over a week (?) now,
>>and I just can't bring myself to give a &^$ about the
>>arguments the right wingers have tried to bring up...
>>
>>I have read quite a bit of Chomsky, and am impressed with
>>much of his analysis. Before last week I had never heard of
>>this Pol Pot pseudo-controversy. Both sides on this offer up
>>evidence as supposed proof, but I just don't care enough to look
>>it up. I bet many others feel the same way. Maybe this means
>>it is a non-issue, and a waste of energy.
>>
>>Even if the righties were correct, which by all evidence I've
>>seen on this board, they are certainly not, it still would
>>not make me ignore Chomsky.
>>
>>Much like the fact that the righties haven't yet been able to
>>give up their apologies to capitalism. That does not negate
>>the fact that their indictment of the state is coherent and
>>correct.
>>
>>But like I said, they have offered no evidence that convinces
>>me and many others that Chomsky in any way condoned either
>>Pol Pot or the revisionist.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>My 2 cents.  I went to look up the "Nation" article James A. Donald
>cited earlier.  I haven't been able to keep up with the anarchy
>list, so this may have already been pointed out; but after the
>complete contexts quote given by James, Chomsky and his co-author,
>Edward S. Herman go on to write,
>"We do not pretent to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply
>conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial
>points.  What filters through to the American public is a seriously
>distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged
>Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S.
>role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.
>Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and
>Porter volume, (note this piece was written as a book review and
>the volume referred to here is one written by purported leftists
>for Monthly Review Press MB) is ignored, not on the basis of truthful-
>ness or shcolarship but because the message is unpalatable."
>"Nation" June 25, 1977 p.793
>I bring this up because the so-called full context quote Mr. Donald
>has transcribed for the net, left out the important information that
>this piece was a review of three books and the resultant attention
>the major--dare I say--bourgeois media gave to some of them and the
>relative inattention given to the other because of the almost
>inherent censorship involved in the editorial choices of big business
>and State media.
>Chomsky--I like the guy.
>Mike B)
>
>
>
>
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:26 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16307 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:51 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261615.JAA16307@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2071

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Tue Aug 23 17:33:42 1994
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:33:41 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408240033.RAA18810@elaine46.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <330c4i$6ob@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <31p32k$6m3@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <32290t$a9s@goshen.connected.com> <32bt3p$2pu@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <32c5cj$mo7@ncar.ucar.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <330c4i$6ob@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32c5cj$mo7@ncar.ucar.edu>,
>Gary Strand <gary@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> wrote:
>>mb> Michael Ballard
>>
>>mb> You have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, a home, and
>>    as much from the social store of wealth which has been created as you put
>>    in, in labor time, for the accomplishment of socially necessary tasks.
>>
>>  I asked these questions once before, and I never saw a response.
>>
>>  What's a "home"? A bunk in a dormitory or a mansion?
>
>Didn't you know?  It's where your heart is.
>
>>  What's "the social store of wealth"?
>
>The wealth created through the social application of skills to goods and
>services.
>
>>  What's "labor time"?
>
>The time spent doing work.
>
>>  What's a "socially necessary" task, and who defines it?
>
>A socially necessary task is something that consumers need having done and
>producers can and will do.  Depending on the social impact of the task,
>the decision is made by both consumers and producers, using the principle
>of direct democracy.
>
>>  Do *I* get a say in what's done with me? Apparently not. So bugger off.
>
>You get as much say as anyone.  If you don't like the decisions being made,
>you can bugger off and become a hermit or live with the rest of your ilk,
>outside society.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Going Nowhere (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:16 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16301 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:40 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261615.JAA16301@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Going Nowhere (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1469

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Wed Aug 24 11:41:30 1994
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 11:41:28 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408241841.LAA07056@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Going Nowhere
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.society.revolution
In-Reply-To: <332tp8$mrn@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <332tp8$mrn@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>
>
>   Weekly Earnings in Selected Industries, 1970-1991
>            in the U.S.A.
>        Measured in constant 1982 dollars
>                                          1970  1980  1990  1991
>Manufacturing                            $ 298   275   260   256
>Mining                                     332   337   332   338
>Construction                               486   430   395   385
>Transportation, public utilities           388   410   379   368
>Wholesale trade                            341   312   309   307
>Retail trade                               205   172   146   144
>Finance, insurance, real estate            281   245   268   269
>Services                                   240   223   241   240
>
>source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1992
>        p.410
>
>
>Fellow workers, be aware; organize!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:15 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:15:01 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16295 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:25 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261615.JAA16295@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 9112

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Thu Aug 25 10:33:28 1994
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:33:26 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408251733.KAA02090@elaine35.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33au7h$8mb@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30oupt$bmr@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <3298lo$hrs@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <Lizard-1308940902040001@cybertron.vnet.net> <32nbb9INNhlc@umbc9.umbc.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33au7h$8mb@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32nbb9INNhlc@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>Ray Cromwell <rcromw1@umbc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <Lizard-1308940902040001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>>>In article <3298lo$hrs@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>>(Michael Ballard) wrote:
>>>> Because productivity is based on hours--the average amount of labor time
>>>> it takes to produce something--you know, like "output per hour".
>
>>   His mistake is more fundamental than that. He claims that one's
>>share of "socially produced wealth" should be based on hours, not
>>productivity because productivity is based on hours. This is like
>>saying that the value of a race car is in how many miles, not miles
>>per hour, that the car is rated for. It is not hours, nor output,
>>which is important, but output per hours. His mistake is one of
>>elementary school dimensional analysis.
>
>Can Ray read?  Has he been to elementary school?  I'm talking about
>how productivity is measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
>Ray says, "It is not hours, nor output, which is importatnt, but output
>per hours."  Now, again, read what I said above.  BTW, the price of
>some race cars may be greater than others because of how fast they
>go.  Sometimes that is not the "value" being purchased though.
>Nevermind though.  What I'm talking about is the "average" output
>per hour as measured by such intsitutions as give figures.  What
>Ray wants to rake me across the coals for is allowing the average to
>set the standard for compensation, as some race cars go faster than
>others, one assumes that the Lib Caps will run all over everyone else
>with their superior productiveness; but will only get as much as the
>average person.  Tres triste.
>
>
>>   It is productivity growth, not working more hours, which has lead
>>to the astonishing increase in standard of living over the last
>>century. It is productivity increases which allow more leisure
>>time or more wealth. If I used to produce 1 widget per hour, and now
>>produce two. I can now work half the time, or keep two widgets, or
>>trade one of the extra widgets.
>
>I agree with the analysis here so far.  The productivity increase is
>BTW created by the application of science and technology to the
>production process.  The application is done by labor.
>
> (that the capitalist takes a
>>percentage of this is irrelevent)  Socialists who argue to keep
>>what they produce and produce only what they need, will land
>>society in a pathetic quagmire of no productivity growth because
>>people will have no incentive to increase productivity.
>
>This is such a strawman argument.  It's been shown to be so a million
>times on this list, yet it keeps cropping up--probably due to the
>dogmatic quality of the thinking which issues from capitalist apologists.
>Nobody I know of is arguing for a society where nothing is put back in
>to the productive apparatus.  Increasing productivity can lead to greater
>leisure time or greater material wealth.  Wobblies are not opposed to
>either.  Only so-called "radicals" who wish to "go back" to the stone
>age might argue this case, I guess.  As for incentive to increase
>productivity, what could be better than more free-time i.e. more freedom?
>
> No
>>productivity growth means NO increase in the standard of living
>>and will in fact, lead to a decrease.
>
>God, that's profound.
>
>>   Furthermore, as you have said, value is determined by what others
>>are willing to pay.
>
>The word "price" should be substituted in the above declaration.
>Of course, supply and demand also play a vital role here.  I hope that
>is not too much a social consideration for the Lib Caps.  But then again,
>maybe he's talking about this other society, which Lizard alludes to,
>the true capitalism TM, which does not now exist.
>
> Productivity growth can influence market value,
>>but only because a company with higher productivity has a productive
>>advantage. It can lower prices, invest more, and increase volume.
>>This changes the industry supply curve. Value is determined where
>>supply meets demand. It should be worth noting that it is growth
>>in productivity which leads to increases in real wages.
>
>Here again, value is confused with price.  If value is determined
>where supply meets demand and they are equal, value=0.
>Value is created by applying skill to natural wealth and to items
>already created by labor.
>
>>>> See the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the "Wall Street Journal".
>>>> We wage-slaves now put in about 40hours a week and get back less wealth
>>>> as a whole (our combined assest value) than the top 1% of the population,
>>>> essentially the capitalist class, owns.  So, if we only worked for
>>>> ourselves and kept the product of our labor, we could reap the rewards
>>>> of both, more wealth and more free-time.
>>>
>>>But you miss the point, again -- the 'product of the labor' of most
>>>workers is of no possible use to them. It's only useful if it can be
>>>traded for something else.
>>
>>   He again makes a dimensional mistake. What kind of nonsense is it to
>>compare INCOME to WEALTH/HOLDINGS? 99% of the 125 million people in the
>>workforce x (let's be real generous here) $15,000/yr income(*), yields
>>1.86 x 10^12 USD combined income. Now, let's take the 1.4 million
>>people earning income over $150k/year (1990 census bureau). Let's
>>be real generous and say that they all have $1million/year income.
>>This yields 1.4 x 10^12 USD. Not so big a difference is it?
>>If you want to compare wealth, consider this: 45 million people own
>>their own homes. If we assume (real generous), that these houses
>>cost only $25,000 a piece, the combined assets of these people
>>are 1.1 x 10^12 USD. Now add in the *trillions* of dollars locked up
>>in pension funds, banks, and bonds, and it's not all so clear. Who
>>do you thing the US debt is owed to? The working class.
>
>Ray can multiply.  I've shown in some other posts of late just how
>much the "average" worker is producing in wealth.  In fact it does
>vary from industry to industry--it average over $200,000 per worker in
>the computer industry--see "San Francisco Chronicle" Business section
>on August 22, 1994, story starts on page one.  The average is something
>like $49,000 per year.  The median income of a U.S. family is $29,000.
>1% of the families in the U.S. own more wealth than 90% of the bottom lot
>combined.  That stat is from the Federal Reserve Bank.  This wealth
>disparity is part and parcel of the actually existing system of
>corporate/state capitalism in the U.S.
>
>>   I'm not even going to comment on the idea of "working for yourself
>>and keeping the product" leading to more free time and more wealth.
>>It shows that Mr. Wobbly has a fundamental ignorance of opportunity
>>cost and comparitive advantage.
>
>Gee, Mr. Block, I feel so ignorant of opportunity cost and comparative
>advantage.  Please enlighten us.
>
>>>And you still haven't told me how large-scale projects such as dams,
>>>roads, airports, or new factories are funded in Wobblyworld. If every
>>>workers owns 100% of their output, then there are no stockpiles of surplus
>>>production to fuel new endeavours... and society enters a slow, but
>>>accelerating, spiral of decay.
>
>More strawman twaddle.  The lib caps just can't understand how wealth
>can be socially owned and democratically managed.
>
>>   Without the capitalist, these workers would be nowhere.
>
>The workers don't need the capitalist; the capitalist needs the workers.
>Without workers, the capitalist would be nowhere.  Owners don't produce;
>workers do.  BTW, that has something to do with the creation of value.
>
> They would
>>consume everything and leave no capital for investment. They wouldn't
>>complete large projects because as soon as they got tired/bored of the current
>>multiyear project, they'd leave. They would be stuck at whatever
>>standard of living the dead capitalists left them at because they
>>wouldn't invest in labor productivity.
>
>Translation:
>The workers are stupid.  They need the smart capitalists to lead them to
>libcapitopia
>
>>   Socialism is the economic equivalent of death.
>>
>Your conception of socialism is the economic equivalent of death.
>I sure wouldn't want to live Ray's world--capitalist or "socialist".
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:14 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:14:26 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16289 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:51 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261614.JAA16289@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 9112

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Thu Aug 25 10:33:28 1994
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:33:26 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408251733.KAA02090@elaine35.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33au7h$8mb@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30oupt$bmr@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <3298lo$hrs@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <Lizard-1308940902040001@cybertron.vnet.net> <32nbb9INNhlc@umbc9.umbc.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33au7h$8mb@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32nbb9INNhlc@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
>Ray Cromwell <rcromw1@umbc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <Lizard-1308940902040001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>>>In article <3298lo$hrs@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
>>>(Michael Ballard) wrote:
>>>> Because productivity is based on hours--the average amount of labor time
>>>> it takes to produce something--you know, like "output per hour".
>
>>   His mistake is more fundamental than that. He claims that one's
>>share of "socially produced wealth" should be based on hours, not
>>productivity because productivity is based on hours. This is like
>>saying that the value of a race car is in how many miles, not miles
>>per hour, that the car is rated for. It is not hours, nor output,
>>which is important, but output per hours. His mistake is one of
>>elementary school dimensional analysis.
>
>Can Ray read?  Has he been to elementary school?  I'm talking about
>how productivity is measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
>Ray says, "It is not hours, nor output, which is importatnt, but output
>per hours."  Now, again, read what I said above.  BTW, the price of
>some race cars may be greater than others because of how fast they
>go.  Sometimes that is not the "value" being purchased though.
>Nevermind though.  What I'm talking about is the "average" output
>per hour as measured by such intsitutions as give figures.  What
>Ray wants to rake me across the coals for is allowing the average to
>set the standard for compensation, as some race cars go faster than
>others, one assumes that the Lib Caps will run all over everyone else
>with their superior productiveness; but will only get as much as the
>average person.  Tres triste.
>
>
>>   It is productivity growth, not working more hours, which has lead
>>to the astonishing increase in standard of living over the last
>>century. It is productivity increases which allow more leisure
>>time or more wealth. If I used to produce 1 widget per hour, and now
>>produce two. I can now work half the time, or keep two widgets, or
>>trade one of the extra widgets.
>
>I agree with the analysis here so far.  The productivity increase is
>BTW created by the application of science and technology to the
>production process.  The application is done by labor.
>
> (that the capitalist takes a
>>percentage of this is irrelevent)  Socialists who argue to keep
>>what they produce and produce only what they need, will land
>>society in a pathetic quagmire of no productivity growth because
>>people will have no incentive to increase productivity.
>
>This is such a strawman argument.  It's been shown to be so a million
>times on this list, yet it keeps cropping up--probably due to the
>dogmatic quality of the thinking which issues from capitalist apologists.
>Nobody I know of is arguing for a society where nothing is put back in
>to the productive apparatus.  Increasing productivity can lead to greater
>leisure time or greater material wealth.  Wobblies are not opposed to
>either.  Only so-called "radicals" who wish to "go back" to the stone
>age might argue this case, I guess.  As for incentive to increase
>productivity, what could be better than more free-time i.e. more freedom?
>
> No
>>productivity growth means NO increase in the standard of living
>>and will in fact, lead to a decrease.
>
>God, that's profound.
>
>>   Furthermore, as you have said, value is determined by what others
>>are willing to pay.
>
>The word "price" should be substituted in the above declaration.
>Of course, supply and demand also play a vital role here.  I hope that
>is not too much a social consideration for the Lib Caps.  But then again,
>maybe he's talking about this other society, which Lizard alludes to,
>the true capitalism TM, which does not now exist.
>
> Productivity growth can influence market value,
>>but only because a company with higher productivity has a productive
>>advantage. It can lower prices, invest more, and increase volume.
>>This changes the industry supply curve. Value is determined where
>>supply meets demand. It should be worth noting that it is growth
>>in productivity which leads to increases in real wages.
>
>Here again, value is confused with price.  If value is determined
>where supply meets demand and they are equal, value=0.
>Value is created by applying skill to natural wealth and to items
>already created by labor.
>
>>>> See the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the "Wall Street Journal".
>>>> We wage-slaves now put in about 40hours a week and get back less wealth
>>>> as a whole (our combined assest value) than the top 1% of the population,
>>>> essentially the capitalist class, owns.  So, if we only worked for
>>>> ourselves and kept the product of our labor, we could reap the rewards
>>>> of both, more wealth and more free-time.
>>>
>>>But you miss the point, again -- the 'product of the labor' of most
>>>workers is of no possible use to them. It's only useful if it can be
>>>traded for something else.
>>
>>   He again makes a dimensional mistake. What kind of nonsense is it to
>>compare INCOME to WEALTH/HOLDINGS? 99% of the 125 million people in the
>>workforce x (let's be real generous here) $15,000/yr income(*), yields
>>1.86 x 10^12 USD combined income. Now, let's take the 1.4 million
>>people earning income over $150k/year (1990 census bureau). Let's
>>be real generous and say that they all have $1million/year income.
>>This yields 1.4 x 10^12 USD. Not so big a difference is it?
>>If you want to compare wealth, consider this: 45 million people own
>>their own homes. If we assume (real generous), that these houses
>>cost only $25,000 a piece, the combined assets of these people
>>are 1.1 x 10^12 USD. Now add in the *trillions* of dollars locked up
>>in pension funds, banks, and bonds, and it's not all so clear. Who
>>do you thing the US debt is owed to? The working class.
>
>Ray can multiply.  I've shown in some other posts of late just how
>much the "average" worker is producing in wealth.  In fact it does
>vary from industry to industry--it average over $200,000 per worker in
>the computer industry--see "San Francisco Chronicle" Business section
>on August 22, 1994, story starts on page one.  The average is something
>like $49,000 per year.  The median income of a U.S. family is $29,000.
>1% of the families in the U.S. own more wealth than 90% of the bottom lot
>combined.  That stat is from the Federal Reserve Bank.  This wealth
>disparity is part and parcel of the actually existing system of
>corporate/state capitalism in the U.S.
>
>>   I'm not even going to comment on the idea of "working for yourself
>>and keeping the product" leading to more free time and more wealth.
>>It shows that Mr. Wobbly has a fundamental ignorance of opportunity
>>cost and comparitive advantage.
>
>Gee, Mr. Block, I feel so ignorant of opportunity cost and comparative
>advantage.  Please enlighten us.
>
>>>And you still haven't told me how large-scale projects such as dams,
>>>roads, airports, or new factories are funded in Wobblyworld. If every
>>>workers owns 100% of their output, then there are no stockpiles of surplus
>>>production to fuel new endeavours... and society enters a slow, but
>>>accelerating, spiral of decay.
>
>More strawman twaddle.  The lib caps just can't understand how wealth
>can be socially owned and democratically managed.
>
>>   Without the capitalist, these workers would be nowhere.
>
>The workers don't need the capitalist; the capitalist needs the workers.
>Without workers, the capitalist would be nowhere.  Owners don't produce;
>workers do.  BTW, that has something to do with the creation of value.
>
> They would
>>consume everything and leave no capital for investment. They wouldn't
>>complete large projects because as soon as they got tired/bored of the current
>>multiyear project, they'd leave. They would be stuck at whatever
>>standard of living the dead capitalists left them at because they
>>wouldn't invest in labor productivity.
>
>Translation:
>The workers are stupid.  They need the smart capitalists to lead them to
>libcapitopia
>
>>   Socialism is the economic equivalent of death.
>>
>Your conception of socialism is the economic equivalent of death.
>I sure wouldn't want to live Ray's world--capitalist or "socialist".
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:14 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:14:15 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16283 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:40 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261614.JAA16283@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2155

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Thu Aug 25 10:35:32 1994
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:35:29 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408251735.KAA02114@elaine35.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Petit Bourgeois Priorities
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33b045$98e@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <316bg6$9mk@nntp2.stanford.edu> <Lizard-1208942048260001@cybertron.vnet.net> <dasherCuI81L.JMv@netcom.com> <Lizard-1408942004060001@cybertron.vnet.net>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33b045$98e@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <Lizard-1408942004060001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>In article <dasherCuI81L.JMv@netcom.com>, dasher@netcom.com (Anton
>>Sherwood) wrote:
>>
>>> Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>> : Tell me about my life in your socialist workers paradise. What do
>>> : I do when I go to work, if I go to work at all? How do I shop? What
>>> : NON-mass produced goods are there? How many TV channels? Who cleans
>>> : the streets? Who works at the gas stations?
>>>
>>> Comrade Ballard can't answer those questions, because he wouldn't presume
>>> to predict how a producers' democracy will choose to answer them.
>
>Comrade Philbrick is correct.  I don't know the answer to these questions
>anymore than Comrade Philizard knows the answer to the same questions
>about True Capitalism TM.
>
>>Yet he predicts a producers democracy will be non-racist, non-sexist,
>>egalitarian, environmentally conscious, and probably vegetarian.
>>Considering the "the masses" in general have never shown much leaning
>>towards any of these things, I'm curious as to how he knows.
>
>He doesn't know.  That's one thing I don't predict anymore--the future.
>He does know that he and whole lot of other people aren't going to
>be satisfied until all of the above criteria are part of the social
>relations of daily life, with the possible exception of vegetarian.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:14 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:14:04 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16277 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:28 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261614.JAA16277@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2348

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Thu Aug 25 10:47:53 1994
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:47:50 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408251747.KAA02143@elaine35.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33bhi8$dme@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <314t08$4g0@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> <3224ed$9ik@goshen.connected.com> <32bsfc$2lh@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <32oljb$f0o@tequesta.gate.net>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33bhi8$dme@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32oljb$f0o@tequesta.gate.net>, Caliban <caliban@gate.net> wrote:
>>Michael Ballard (miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: I love it when conservatives actually acknowledge that human skills are
>>: commodities in this politcal-economy.
>>: Isn't it great, fellow workers, to freely sell your time and abilities
>>: to the highest bidder on the free market?  What an egalitarian society?
>>: Your life is a commodity just like a cow's life is.  Pork bellies are
>>: up and down the Chicago Board of Trade and you are up and down on the
>>: labor market, the price of a major portion of your existence, fluctuating
>>: like so many blips of the programmed trade.  We, the commodified, are
>>: all equal, yet different, each with out own price, proudly displayed
>>: as a barcode on a plastic wrapper.  We're so free.  Really, we are.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand your point.  Are you saying
>>that workers shouldn't be paid for their time?  Or am
>>I misunderstanding you?
>
>Workers shouldn't be treated as objects.  Humans shouldn't be bought
>and sold for times of their lives.  Goods and services should be
>produced for use according to human needs and desires.  Humanity
>will have to drag itself out of the muck of classifying "value" and/
>or a person's "worth" by the amount of cash a person can store away
>in banks, stocks, bonds, and property.
>Workers as producers should draw from society's store of goods and services,
>what they have contributed in terms of effort.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:12 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Lorenzo's oil  (was: Where profits come from) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:12:27 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16251 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:51 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261612.JAA16251@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lorenzo's oil  (was: Where profits come from) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1743

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Aug 26 08:50:07 1994
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:50:04 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261550.IAA23413@adelbert9.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Lorenzo's oil  (was: Where profits come from)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33dht2$mhq@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <31sr40$j1u@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> <Lizard-0708941940500001@cybertron.vnet.net> <32gcop$nq7@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <32on4u$rvo@ncar.ucar.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33dht2$mhq@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32on4u$rvo@ncar.ucar.edu>,
>Gary Strand <gary@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> wrote:
>>mb> Michael Ballard
>>
>>mb> Joe Worker makes $50 for producing $100 [for Fred Boss].
>>
>>  Where does this $100 come from?
>
>The $100 comes from the sale of the commodities which Joe produced.
>Joe Worker produces enough commodities in 4 hours to cover his wages.
>The other 4 hours is spent making stuff for Fred Boss to appropriate.
>Of course, Fred Boss did take a risk in hiring Joe Worker to produce
>his commodities--he mightn't have been able to sell it.  But then, what
>the heck, Joe Worker took a risk by selling his time to Fred.  Why?
>Ever hear of a worker getting paid before s/he actually started to
>apply his/her skills to the task at hand?
>Funny, isn't it?  For all the other commodities, you must pay first before
>you use them.  For employers though, the transaction is reversed.  I
>guess that's why they teach us wage-slaves delayed gratification.
>
>Mike  B)
>
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:12 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Crime (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:12:17 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16245 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:41 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261612.JAA16245@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Crime (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2477

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Aug 26 08:52:31 1994
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:52:29 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261552.IAA23440@adelbert9.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Crime
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33din1$m65@galaxy.ucr.edu>
References: <33das7$knj@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33din1$m65@galaxy.ucr.edu> you write:
>In article <33das7$knj@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|> A U.S. Justice Department spokesperson confirmed in the August 23,
>|> 1994 edition of the "San Francisco Chronicle" p.E3 what many of us
>|> had suspected all along--crime sells.  Ask any main stream politician
>|> in the U.S.A. today, what the burning issue is amongst his/her
>|> targeted group.  Crime is likely to be the answer, most of the time.
>|> The general perception, formed by massive doses of the legal, electronic
>|> drug--TV, is that violent crime is going up, up, up.  The actual fact is:
>|> "In 1973, the number of victims of violent crime in the United States was
>|> 32.6 for every 1,000 persons.  In 1993, the rate was 32.1." "SF Chron"
>|>
>|> Get wise, organize!
>|>
>|> This message is brought to you in the public interest by the
>|> Industrial Workers of the World--iww@igc.apc.org
>|>
>|> --
>|> Join the Wobblies!
>|> e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>|> You'll be glad you did.
>|>
>Crime is on the rise in the US.  Violent crime by the police/BATF/marshalls
>National Guard and all the rest increases every year.
>I've never been assulted by a private citizen, but I have been beaten
>up by the police 3 times.  But I can't shoot back at them, then I'm
>an outlaw.  Heck, here in california, I can't even legally carry a
>gun, and even better, a cheap less violent form of protection, pepper
>spray is even more difficult to get then a gun.
>I remember reading in some gun action group newsletter some interesting
>statistics:
>
>Of the people shot by the police nationwide,
>11% are innocent of any crime.  (This # suprised me I think it gives the
>cops to much credit)
>
>However, only 2% of those shot by private citizens, are innocent!
>
>Just one more reason to get rid of the state.  I would much rather
>worry about protecting my property from John and Jane, then the whole
>weight of uncle SAM.
>peace,
>mmason



09:12 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Surplus Value (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:12:07 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16238 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:32 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261612.JAA16238@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Surplus Value (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1661

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Aug 26 08:53:59 1994
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:53:58 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261553.IAA23477@adelbert9.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Surplus Value
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.economics
In-Reply-To: <33djlo$n0g@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <32pbk4$bov@news.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33djlo$n0g@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <32pbk4$bov@news.u.washington.edu>,
>Chris Mealy <mookie@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Why is 'value' so hotly contested?  What is at stake here?
>>
>Creation.
>Is creation an act of production or a result of consumption?
>Is it possible that employees create all social wealth?
>If that was so, why would the employees need the employers?
>Why don't they just set up a self-managed, directly democratic society,
>producing for their own needs and desires?
>
>On the other hand:
>
>If employees are just a herd to be bought and sold on the labor market
>in order to make things that the brilliant owners wish to risk their
>capital on to make piles of cash, then why would democracy be a
>positive way to govern society?  Why not just let evolution take its
>course by letting those with the most cash rule those with the least?
>After all, they don't produce anything of value and they are just an
>uruly mob, in need of enlightened direction.
>All hail the company!
>
>Ah, hell.
>
>Mike B)
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>



09:11 Fri 08/26/94 From Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.) (fwd)
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 26 Aug 94 09:11:51 PDT
Received: (from miballar@localhost) by elaine33.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) id
 JAA16225 for cn.cpm@forsythetn; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:16 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261612.JAA16225@elaine33.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris
 Commune.) (fwd)
To: cn.cpm@elf1.Stanford.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2560

Michael Ballard writes:
>From miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Fri Aug 26 09:01:07 1994
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:01:06 -0700
From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <199408261601.JAA23509@adelbert9.Stanford.EDU>
To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Gordon Fitch and "power" (was:Re: The bully factor and the Paris Commune.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy
In-Reply-To: <33e5je$s7c@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>
References: <314t08$4g0@flotsam.ee.pdx.edu> <32bsfc$2lh@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> <32oljb$f0o@tequesta.gate.net> <Lizard-1608941901350001@cybertron.vnet.net>
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Cc:

In article <33e5je$s7c@nntp2.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>In article <Lizard-1608941901350001@cybertron.vnet.net>,
>Lizard <Lizard@char.vnet.net> wrote:
>>In article <32oljb$f0o@tequesta.gate.net>, caliban@gate.net (Caliban) wrote:
>>
>>> If we accept Mark Twain's definition of work as "that
>>> which somebody is obliged to do" -- or, perhaps, as
>>> "that which people don't like to do" -- then why else
>>> would anyone be willing to work?  I can think of only
>>> two reasons that people would be willing to do something
>>> without an intrinsic reward.  The first is persuasion, in
>>> which they are offered an extrinsic reward (like being
>>> paid); the other is force, in which they are threatened
>>> or harmed if they do not cooperate.  Can you think of any
>>> other methods?  If not, which do you prefer?
>>
>>I suspect Mike will tell you he believes all work should be intrinsically
>>rewarding or remain undone, rather than offer someone pay (Wage slavery)
>>or force them (slavery slavery). Evidently, he feels there are sufficient
>>numbers of people out there who enjoy cleaning toilets, sweeping streets,
>>and teaching 3rd graders to enable society to run along smooth as silk.
>
>Thanks for those wonderful words in my mouth.
>Actually, Mike thinks that a whole lot of "socially necessary" work
>is unpleasant and therefore, he and his Fellow Workers in the IWW
>try to get their fellow wage-slaves together to reduce the work day.
>We think it can be done too; mostly by adding all that labor time
>now wasted in various capitalist counting houses, advertising agencies,
>and other wasteful uses and instead putting all that labor time towards
>doing things people actually need, thus reducing the total necessary
>labor time of all.
>Write to us for details.
>Get wise; organize!
>Mike B)
>
>--
>Join the Wobblies!
>e-mail iww@igc.apc.org
>You'll be glad you did.
>





From notes@igc.apc.org Wed Aug 31 05:37:45 1994
Received: from mail.igc.apc.org by fido.wps.com (8.6.5/wps.com-hackery)
	id WAA24181; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 22:37:40 -0700
Received: by mail.igc.apc.org (8.6.9/Revision: 1.44 )
	id TAA17716; Tue, 30 Aug 1994 19:53:16 -0700
Path: cdp!igc.org!igc.apc.org!NFMail!elaine33.s!leland.Stanford.EDU!miballar
Reply-To: Conference "iww.news" <iww.news@conf.igc.apc.org>
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU
Newsgroups: iww.news
Date: 29 Aug 94 15:48 PDT
Subject: Adoption/Guatemala
To: Recipients of conference "iww.news" <iww.news@conf.igc.apc.org>
Message-ID: <199408292247.PAA01004@elaine33.s>
Sender: Conference to Mail Gateway <conf2mail@igc.apc.org>
Errors-To: support@igc.apc.org
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 10
Status: OR

From: Michael Ballard <miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Hi FW's!

I found out today that I must go to Guatemala this week in order to 
pick up Maura, my soon to be daughter.  I'll be gone for around a 
month.  I'll get in touch with y'all when I return.
Till then, no more e-mail please.
Mike Ballard
miballar@leland.stanford.edu.us

