[PEN-L:1897] Re: French m...

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

maggie wrote (her first message after talking to Louis! = tone!):

>I must say, I find Bill Mitchell's post about the strikes in France both
>confusing and arrogant.
>
>Confusing because he is putting the rips offs of the medical system by
>doctors and pharmaceutical companies on exactly the same level as workers
>demanding protection of benefits.  So, is he saying that because there are
>more transport workers collecting pensions that those actively working that
>they are in the same league as the companies ripping off welfare benefits?
>  O.k., let's demand death at a reasonably early age!!!!!

why do people always characterise a position that is not raa raa support
everything the trade unions do with extreme positions like sid yesterday?

- i have forgotten his interpretation of my position
- and maggie - lets demand death at a reasonably early age.

i am against corporatism b/tw unions and corporations. the health system in
france is a good example. the companies are highly protected by the govt. to
the detriment of the health of the people (too many drugs offered too many
times at too high a unit cost). the workers are not given any incentive by the
system to explore new methods of prevention. feel sick? go for major heart
surgery  and months of aftercare! my extreme characterisation.

the left in my view (i have argued this before) has a wider responsibility than
to bicker about material benefits.



>
>Arrogant because he is saying that demands like "summer of love" and
>"legalize drugs" are more important than pensions.  What the hell is wrong
>with striking to protect wages and pensions?  This is a perfect example of
>how lefties want to use the working class as cannon fodder, but have no
>interest in dealing with the real issues face by people who can't pay the
>rent, buy food, and feed the kids.  And what exactly is it that you think
>WILL make people want revolution?

not arrogant in the slightest (taking that to mean presumptious with an
overbearing leaning). i was responding to someone who was educating the list
about france (after requests for information from someone). that person was
trying to draw an analogy b/tw 1968 and 1995. i merely pointed out that in 1968
the issues were revolutionary including the social reforms for women and
relationships, while the 1995 strikes are about very narrow economic issues.
the unions are not in the slightest trying to bring anything down - just to
keep things up.

and did i say there was anything wrong with 1995. well a few things, but at the
same time i also indicated some ambivalence. as our friend from paris (fatemi -
sorry i cannot remember your name mate) said this morning the situation is
complex - poor workers striving for their livelihoods, and rich workers
striving to maintain their privilege, and students fearing change but hating
the present.

my points have not been about using the working class for fodder. i am part of
that class after all. and i would like to see it fight on broader fronts and
redistribute some of the largesse it extracts across the entire working class.
the french unions are particularly narrow minded in terms of seeing their
members interests first and last.

and maggie, please answer some of the substantive comments i have made to the
list about migrants, environmental issues in wasteful systems, and that sort of
stuff.

kind regards
bill
--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html