|
dotcommunist
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: 19:58:03, 17-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 19:58:50, 17-07-2007 » |
|
Put the tags [ img ] and [ / img ] around it (delete the spaces) and it'll work like this:  i shall use this thread to try experiment with pasting images on here. i don't quite know how to do it yet... maybe this one'll work...  Use 'Quote' to have a look at the code used. Oh. You've already cracked it.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 20:02:06, 17-07-2007 » |
|
Worryingly, one of our fellow boarders seems to have strayed into the left of that picture ... (Sorry auto!  ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 10:48:20, 18-07-2007 » |
|
There's also conspicuously little on Ernst von Siemens, ie : how did he come to his fortune during 1942/3  These two are slightly different: http://www.answers.com/topic/siemens-aghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_AGi don't know if it has been translated yet, but there's a section on this in
Aesthetik des Widerstands, by Peter Weiss, which translates as
The Aesthetics of Resistance. the section in question is where he lists all the 'suddenly rich' firms and banks' of the 2nd WW. recognise any?
Deutscher Bank
Dresdner Bank
Theissen Krupp
IG Farben (colours)
...still a few guarded areas in wiki, despite all the free info
There were a great many companies that made very large sums of money from exploiting slave labour during the Third Reich. Amongst those who made use of that at Auschwitz were Siemens, also Rheinmetall-Borsig and Krupp. IG Farben's role (and that of its component firms Bayer, BASF, Hoechst, and Agfa) has been long-documented; others include BMW, AEG-Telefunken, Daimler-Benz, Schering, and the German division of Ford and General Motors. Try the following - www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/1998-02/paper.pdf . After the war, most companies were allowed to keep their profits obtained in such a manner; indeed it has been argued that a large percentage of the post-war West German economy was financed from such accumulated capital (though others, like the author of the paper above, argues that the net revenues were not so large). It's hard to get away from the conclusion that recepients of the Siemens Prize are receiving money that was made from slave labour at Auschwitz. However, I'm sure if we looked into the private capital that has financed other new music or more widely the economies in Western nations, we would find much of this derives from slave-like exploitation of peoples of the third world, through the use of slave or near-slave labour in the American South, and so on and so forth. The very basis of Western societies, the whole way of life we take for granted, derives from certain wealth that was ultimately obtained through viciously exploiting and subjugating the rest of the world's peoples. That book of Weiss can be found in English, by the way - look here. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:59:48, 18-07-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
David_Underdown
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 11:10:46, 18-07-2007 » |
|
Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia (but won't always have caught up with the latest revisions of the article)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
--
David
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 11:32:30, 18-07-2007 » |
|
Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia (but won't always have caught up with the latest revisions of the article)
Yes -also, not all revisions are necessarily for the better. But on issues of major political significance, it's best not use sites like that as one's sole source - there is some sort of editorial control, but plenty is deeply untrustworthy. Wiki can provide a good starting-point for suggesting a range of other (printed) references to follow up, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 12:07:20, 18-07-2007 » |
|
There were a great many companies that made very large sums of money from exploiting slave labour during the Third Reich. Amongst those who made use of that at Auschwitz were Siemens, also Rheinmetall-Borsig and Krupp. IG Farben's role (and that of its component firms Bayer, BASF, Hoechst, and Agfa) has been long-documented; others include BMW, AEG-Telefunken, Daimler-Benz, Schering, and the German division of Ford and General Motors. Try the following - www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/1998-02/paper.pdf . After the war, most companies were allowed to keep their profits obtained in such a manner; indeed it has been argued that a large percentage of the post-war West German economy was financed from such accumulated capital (though others, like the author of the paper above, argues that the net revenues were not so large). It's hard to get away from the conclusion that recepients of the Siemens Prize are receiving money that was made from slave labour at Auschwitz. However, I'm sure if we looked into the private capital that has financed other new music or more widely the economies in Western nations, we would find much of this derives from slave-like exploitation of peoples of the third world, through the use of slave or near-slave labour in the American South, and so on and so forth. The very basis of Western societies, the whole way of life we take for granted, derives from certain wealth that was ultimately obtained through viciously exploiting and subjugating the rest of the world's peoples. I don't doubt this last statement at all might indeed bve inclined to go a step farther and venture to suggest that the wealth from which it derives is mostly - if not actually all - made by some people at the expense of others; that, it seems to me, is a fundamental given of any and all kinds of capitalist operations involving the market place - there is no wealth advantage without a wealth disadvantage. By such operations I mean those of all sizes from giant corporations to sole traders, whether the businesses function in "capitalist" or "communist" countries for, economocially speaking, it is not overly simplistic to suggest that "communist" countries are not exempt - and indeed cannot exempt themselves from - capitalist practice, especially when conducting business with "capitalist" ones, as they all do. Should we be bothered about this beyond merely recognising it as a phenomenon? On the whole, no - for that would be rather a waste of time, since its very principle is simply not amenable to change. Yes, it is indeed salutary to be reminded of the economic successes that have been built up on the worst kind of exploitation and that can certainly be discouraged and changed, but the main principle of wealth creation being that of attaining advantages for some while disadvantaging others just has to be accepted as a way of business life the world over; all that can be checked (insofar as any such matters can be checked with any degree of effectiveness) is whether and when criminal activity or civil law breaches might be involved. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 12:13:05, 18-07-2007 » |
|
But this analysis excludes or downplays process and product innovations as a source of greater efficiency -- in such situations, everyone wins...
...except those that don't have access to the innovation. Is that what you mean?
just talking to myself now, looks like...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 12:25:53, 18-07-2007 » |
|
But this analysis excludes or downplays process and product innovations as a source of greater efficiency -- in such situations, everyone wins...
...except those that don't have access to the innovation. Is that what you mean?
just talking to myself now, looks like...
I take your point but, no, that was not what I meant; what I meant was that a business that succeeds will inevitably cause a competing business to fail (by which I do not mean completely, but in tems of each particular transaction). Businesses A, B & C compete for a deal and business C secures it, inevitably to the disadvantage of businesses A & B; that's the inevitable (in most cases) competitive aspect of the market place. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 12:31:06, 18-07-2007 » |
|
I take your point but, no, that was not what I meant; what I meant was that a business that succeeds will inevitably cause a competing business to fail (by which I do not mean completely, but in tems of each particular transaction). Businesses A, B & C compete for a deal and business C secures it, inevitably to the disadvantage of businesses A & B; that's the inevitable (in most cases) competitive aspect of the market place.
Just wanted to make sure that that isn't being conflated with slave labor etc (which some might do given the discussion so far) Tofu. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:53:59, 18-07-2007 by Chafing Dish »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 12:36:35, 18-07-2007 » |
|
I take your point but, no, that was not what I meant; what I meant was that a business that succeeds will inevitably cause a competing business to fail (by which I do not mean completely, but in tems of each particular transaction). Businesses A, B & C compete for a deal and business C secures it, inevitably to the disadvantage of businesses A & B; that's the inevitable (in most cases) competitive aspect of the market place.
Business is a shaky world indeed, but even with businesses rising and falling, if the marketplace is well-regulated and the unions have some power, it need not too adversely effect the workers (inevitably, few shed a tear over the owners themselves). (I am neither a business man or an economical theorist, but "for some people to succeed, other people necessarily have to fail" idea, while having great historical precedent, seems a little bit overly-cynical). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 12:42:04, 18-07-2007 » |
|
...the main principle of wealth creation being that of attaining advantages for some while disadvantaging others just has to be accepted as a way of business life the world over.... Well, up to a point, Lord Copper  It depends to some extent, I suppose, on what you regard as covered by the terms 'wealth creation' and 'business' but, as a proposition about economic activity generally, that is surely the single most important and contentious claim that divides economists and political theorists and probably always will i.e. whether there can be economic activity that is beneficial to all. Everyone an economic winner, no losers. Whatever else Adam Smith and Karl Marx may disagree about   , they agree that it can be done. The systems they champion are, ahem, somewhat different but they are both optimists in their own way in the sense that that they both believe there is a way of doing it. IMHO, the debate over which of their two approaches gets nearest to the truth about how it can be done (as a matter of fact rather than just intuitive preference) remains the central most important and urgent issue in economics. But it is a debate between optimists (if it weren't, there wouldn't really be anything to debate). It isn't a debate between goodies and baddies. It's a debate between two opposing views about how economic activity actually works and (hence) about how best to maximise universal benefit. I for one beg to differ that we should just accept that winners and losers are an irredeemable fact of life. [Oh, and, ahem, welcome dotcommunist from me too  ] |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:47:39, 18-07-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 12:50:33, 18-07-2007 » |
|
I take your point but, no, that was not what I meant; what I meant was that a business that succeeds will inevitably cause a competing business to fail (by which I do not mean completely, but in tems of each particular transaction). Businesses A, B & C compete for a deal and business C secures it, inevitably to the disadvantage of businesses A & B; that's the inevitable (in most cases) competitive aspect of the market place.
Just wanted to make sure that that isn't being conflated with slave labor etc (which some might do given the dsicussion so far) No, indeed that is not what I meant. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 13:03:04, 18-07-2007 » |
|
I take your point but, no, that was not what I meant; what I meant was that a business that succeeds will inevitably cause a competing business to fail (by which I do not mean completely, but in tems of each particular transaction). Businesses A, B & C compete for a deal and business C secures it, inevitably to the disadvantage of businesses A & B; that's the inevitable (in most cases) competitive aspect of the market place.
Business is a shaky world indeed, but even with businesses rising and falling, if the marketplace is well-regulated and the unions have some power, it need not too adversely effect the workers (inevitably, few shed a tear over the owners themselves). (I am neither a business man or an economical theorist, but "for some people to succeed, other people necessarily have to fail" idea, while having great historical precedent, seems a little bit overly-cynical). Not all markets and businesses are regulated in the same ways or to the same extent; this will vary widely not only from business type to business type but from country to country; also, not all businesses are unionised (and do bear in mind that I did not exclude from my remarks sole trader practices which, by definition, are almost all non-unionised). All employees of businesses (that have employees) can risk being affected by the positive and adverse effects of competition; salary increases during success times and reductions or redundancies during fail times; furthermore, one should not make an exclusive distinction between employees of businesses and shareholders of businesses, for sometimes they are one and the same (indeed far more often nowadays than was once the case). I certainly didn't intend to suggest cyncism in my remarks about success, failure and competition; indeed, I think that most people accept it as a fact of life and far more people are aware of it nowadays, partly because movement of labour is far greater in both numbers and frequency that once it was - no more "jobs for life", still less "jobs round the corner at the same address for life". Not only that, in UK, the proportion of employed and self-employed among the workforce has, I believe, changed substantially in recent decades with the effect that there are now far more businesses - and especially far more relatively new small businesses - than used to be the case. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 13:14:13, 18-07-2007 » |
|
...the main principle of wealth creation being that of attaining advantages for some while disadvantaging others just has to be accepted as a way of business life the world over.... Well, up to a point, Lord Copper It depends to some extent, I suppose, on what you regard as covered by the terms 'wealth creation' and 'business' but, as a proposition about economic activity generally, that is surely the single most important and contentious claim that divides economists and political theorists and probably always will i.e. whether there can be economic activity that is beneficial to all. Everyone an economic winner, no losers. I think that, in consideration of the possibility of a sector of the business world in which everyone is an economic winner and no one an economic loser, one has really to look at the end users of the business products/services separately from the owners/employees of those businesses. Take solar panel manufacture, for example. Most end users would, I imagine, assume that a leap forward (not a "great" one in the Maoist sense!) in R&D that results in panels some 2.5 times more efficient than any previously manufactured and at no great extra cost would leave them all as potential "winners" and none as "losers"; however, the business that develops and manufactures them will put out of joint the noses of the businesses that still market the older, less efficient kind (at least until they come up with something more competitive still). That's all I meant, really. IMHO, the debate over which of their two approaches gets nearest to the truth about how it can be done (as a matter of fact rather than just intuitive preference) remains the central most important and urgent issue in economics. But it is a debate between optimists (if it weren't, there wouldn't really be anything to debate). It isn't a debate betwen goodies and badies. It's a debate between two opposing views about how economic activity actually works and (hence) about how best to maximise universal benefit. I for one beg to differ that we should just accept that winners and losers are an irredeemable fact of life.
I think that we do have at least to recognise and accept that this is how it is right now, that it would be very difficult to change it and that such change would almost inevitably involve a thorough and universal (i.e. worldwide) overhaul of the very nature and application of the competition phenomenon in business and a sure and infallible means of ensuring that no laws are broken as a consequences of the conduct of business anywhere. A tall order, methinks! Your reference to "a debate between optimists", however, is a welcome notion that I nevertheless share, at least in theory. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
