Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:31 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:You don't like Paine? He was one of the first to support the abolishment of slavery in America and supported a pension/guaranteed income for the poor coming from a progressive tax system on account of how he felt property ownership & inheritance couldn't be considered a proper right of man; I don't really see where your criticism is coming from.

More his pre-forming of America writings; which, I'll admit, is all of his that I've actually really read. It more has to do with who he was propping up through endorsing the revolution as such. I'll admit, my bad on the latter bit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Paine had no problem with outright theft, murder, and maybe rape. He was a pirate after all.

Seraph
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Seraph » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Paine had no problem with outright theft, murder, and maybe rape. He was a pirate after all.

You are aware that Thomas Paine the "Founding Father" and Thomas Paine the "pirate" are two different people, right?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Diadem » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:13 pm UTC

Don't forget that Thomas Paine was also instrumental in the first moon landings.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:32 pm UTC

Besides piracy, he was also known for later nautical adventures, including a sexual encounter with a mermaid.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Triangle_Man » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:09 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Besides piracy, he was also known for later nautical adventures, including a sexual encounter with a mermaid.


But did the mermaid actually exist...
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:21 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't support mobs lighting people on fire for their own personal satisfaction. That's the distinction, and that's why your position is, and continues to remain, insanely fucking evil.

You see the underlined part. That distinction? Its never been made. In fact when Jon said...
JonScholar wrote:What I said is that if it fits the common mold of the struggle between labor and capital, that I wouldn't blame the workers for their actions.

...he is saying "If it IS NOT just for their own personal satisfaction, then it may be justified. So basically, his position is insanely fucking evil because you didn't bother to read.

Thesh wrote:Even if you justify violent revolutions in some cases, they are not always justified. Let's say conditions for workers are deplorable and people are underpaid (I really don't know for sure). India is a democracy; before engaging in a violent revolution, try campaigning for minimum wages and workers rights and taking to the streets in peaceful demonstrations. Also, look to form unions to protect the workers rights. If it fails, it most likely failed because there wasn't enough popular support, meaning that you are the minority. If you are the minority, then a violent overthrow of the government is not justified. If the failure is due to corruption, you have majority support, and non-violent protest is not working, then a violent overthrow may be necessary.

However, this isn't a revolution. This was vigilantism. They aren't trying to get change, they are just looking for revenge.

India's been a democracy for what? 60 years? If they haven't had political reform yet, kinda makes it seem like it's not working, no? Unless, of course, the majority of people simply don't mind living in abject poverty.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:That distinction? Its never been made.

Yes, it has. Lighting someone on fire could be considered "sending a message." However, lighting someone on fire WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE is torture, and serves no purpose other than satisfying a depraved need to inflict suffering on another.

If you're a noble worker doing this for the greater good, kill the man first. Preferably not in front of his wife and children.
nitePhyyre wrote:India's been a democracy for what? 60 years? If they haven't had political reform yet, kinda makes it seem like it's not working, no?

When you're talking about Indian history, 60 years is not a long time.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:27 pm UTC

What Heisenberg said. Also, these workers lit the man on fire after they were fired. This was a response to them being fired. This was not a response to the various grave injustices of India's economic system; this was a response to losing their primary source of income.

Mob justice is evil. Vengeance is evil. Lynch mobs are evil. Those who support these things are supporting evil. Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.

User avatar
dedalus
Posts: 1169
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:16 pm UTC
Location: Dark Side of the Moon.

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby dedalus » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:00 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:...he is saying "If it IS NOT just for their own personal satisfaction, then it may be justified. So basically, his position is insanely fucking evil because you didn't bother to read.

I'm pretty sure that there is no realistic situation here where the ends justify the means. Just like the scenario where you need to torture someone in order to extract information to save a thousand people. It never happens. An angry mob is never going to realistically be in a situation where they can't choose pulling him out of his car and executing him in some other way that is much more painless.
doogly wrote:Oh yea, obviously they wouldn't know Griffiths from Sakurai if I were throwing them at them.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Triangle_Man » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:05 pm UTC

dedalus wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:...he is saying "If it IS NOT just for their own personal satisfaction, then it may be justified. So basically, his position is insanely fucking evil because you didn't bother to read.

I'm pretty sure that there is no realistic situation here where the ends justify the means. Just like the scenario where you need to torture someone in order to extract information to save a thousand people. It never happens. An angry mob is never going to realistically be in a situation where they can't choose pulling him out of his car and executing him in some other way that is much more painless.


Agreed.

I doubt that whatever this guy did to his employees, it didn't justify the act of burning him alive in his car.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Thesh » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:18 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:India's been a democracy for what? 60 years? If they haven't had political reform yet, kinda makes it seem like it's not working, no? Unless, of course, the majority of people simply don't mind living in abject poverty.


"I'm in poverty, so this means democracy isn't working... Time for violent revolution"

That's not how democracy works.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby PeterCai » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:26 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:"I'm in poverty, so this means democracy isn't working... Time for violent revolution"

That's not how democracy works.


Well, India's multi-party brand of democracy did significantly stifled economic reform.It's not unreasonable to consider alternatives if democracy is not working for the country.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Thesh » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:29 pm UTC

Again, the first step is to protest, try and form workers unions, etc. Violent revolution is a last resort.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Dauric » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

Uhm... An angry mob is an angry mob and there's reasons that riot-police are deployed when dealing with an angry mob. If you're looking for finer judgments of morality from an angry mob you're looking in the wrong place. They run on peer-pressure and self-reinforcement, and there's entire studies about how and why mobs do the things that they do. Making a 'moral choice' isn't one of them.

Is it horrible? Absolutely.

Is a mob, of any size, going to make a conscious decision about the most moral way to be vigilantes? Astoundingly unlikely.

Given India's current state of increasing industrialization, highly divided populations of wealthy and impoverished, and a caste system to reinforce those divisions, is what happened surprising? No. India is going through a period of economic change not entirely unlike the Industrial Revolution, which ushered in a cultural change in the way that workers are treated which has impacts far beyond the workplace. There is almost nowhere that this change did not come with mob violence against employers and massacres of demonstrating workers.

Yes, it's horrible what they did to that executive, but it's not surprising.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:27 am UTC

Dauric wrote:Yes, it's horrible what they did to that executive, but it's not surprising.
Was someone arguing otherwise?

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby dedwrekka » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:59 am UTC

Lets put it this way. You have a bunch of pissed off factory workers who are laid off from a minimum wage job and have to watch their boss glide away on their golden parachute when the business goes under.... I'm sure that anyone already under the kind of physical and emotional stress of demanding job like that would be ready to take a few pot shots at their boss when apparently large portions of them are let go while they're still sitting pretty.
Nothing like an event repeating since the industrial revolution to show how constant stress + distance from upper management creates a dehumanizing effect.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:That distinction? Its never been made.

Yes, it has. Lighting someone on fire could be considered "sending a message." However, lighting someone on fire WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE is torture, and serves no purpose other than satisfying a depraved need to inflict suffering on another.
Really? Tell it to Thích Quảng Đức
Image

The Great Hippo wrote:What Heisenberg said. Also, these workers lit the man on fire after they were fired. This was a response to them being fired. This was not a response to the various grave injustices of India's economic system; this was a response to losing their primary source of income.

Again, you don't know any of that. We know that they murdered the guy, we know they were fired. We don't know how those things are connected. Maybe, they were just angry. Maybe it was something the executive said while they were being fired. Maybe the guy liked the wrong cricket team. We. don't. know. You are reading it, and using your imagination to add context. That is fine, doing that is the point of coming to the N&A forum. But to say someone is insane and evil because they aren't imagining the same as thing as you is a stretch.

The Great Hippo wrote:Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.
[citation needed]

Thesh wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:India's been a democracy for what? 60 years? If they haven't had political reform yet, kinda makes it seem like it's not working, no? Unless, of course, the majority of people simply don't mind living in abject poverty.


"I'm in poverty, so this means democracy isn't working... Time for violent revolution"

That's not how democracy works.

A) Yes it is. Except replace 'I'm in poverty' with anything.
B) You and I have no idea India's situation. Still you say "This was vigilantism because they didn't do such and such, even if I actually don't know if they did such and such."

aaaaand, I'm going to stop being the pedantry police...
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Really? Tell it to Thích Quảng Đức
Ah, the "It can't be bad to do to others if some people choose to do it to themselves" defense. Yes, you win. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture because you stayed out all night swimming that one time.

Silastic
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:45 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Silastic » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:26 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Really? Tell it to Thích Quảng Đức
Ah, the "It can't be bad to do to others if some people choose to do it to themselves" defense. Yes, you win. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture because you stayed out all night swimming that one time.

Wow you missed the point nitePhyyre was making so hard I am actually amazed. Try looking at that post again my friend. They were saying that indeed, lighting someone on fire while they are still alive has served a need other then inflicting suffering on another. Thích Quảng Đức did it to himself but the point is still made.
(caveat: please do not misinterperet this post as any form of justification of what happened to the guy who fired his employees.)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Angua » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:10 pm UTC

Silastic wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Really? Tell it to Thích Quảng Đức
Ah, the "It can't be bad to do to others if some people choose to do it to themselves" defense. Yes, you win. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture because you stayed out all night swimming that one time.

Wow you missed the point nitePhyyre was making so hard I am actually amazed. Try looking at that post again my friend. They were saying that indeed, lighting someone on fire while they are still alive has served a need other then inflicting suffering on another. Thích Quảng Đức did it to himself but the point is still made.
(caveat: please do not misinterperet this post as any form of justification of what happened to the guy who fired his employees.)
I don't think lighting someone on fire who didn't want to be and wasn't ready for it; and then watching them burn to death even though they let out two other people can really be for any other purpose than inflicting pain and causing death.

You can argue over whether or not they may have been morally justified in doing it because the leader was a horrible person who kicked kittens and supported the wrong cricket team (though let's be honest, it was probably because he was the person who fired them), but don't try and pretend that this was in any way not torturing and killing someone.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:22 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Again, you don't know any of that. We know that they murdered the guy, we know they were fired. We don't know how those things are connected. Maybe, they were just angry. Maybe it was something the executive said while they were being fired. Maybe the guy liked the wrong cricket team. We. don't. know. You are reading it, and using your imagination to add context. That is fine, doing that is the point of coming to the N&A forum. But to say someone is insane and evil because they aren't imagining the same as thing as you is a stretch.
What exact configuration of magical events would we need to cobble together to make this somehow justified? I'm waiting with baited breath to hear exactly how you're going to pull yourself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp with some sort of fucking One Thousand and One Nights level story-telling shit. Are you going to use genies? Magical unicorns, maybe? Maybe Agent Smith showed up and told them if they didn't light the guy on fire and watch him burn, all their families would die? Spin me a tale, Scheherazade.

Yes, because we live in a complex universe, there is some tiny, infinitesimally small possibility that what they did could be justified with more facts than what we have here. There is also a similar possibility that we could justify what Charles Manson did with more facts than what we have here. I'm still comfortable calling anyone out who says "Hey, we need more information, maybe this wasn't a horrible, monstrous thing to do" as a moral idiot.
NitePhyyre wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.
[citation needed]
For every case you cite where a rabid lynch mob accomplished a genuine good that extended beyond the heinous act, I'll cite you twenty ten1 where they didn't.

Lynch mobs that inspired people to outlaw lynch mobs don't count, by the way.


1Edited, because I'm way too lazy to look up 20 lynch mobs.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:53 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:What exact configuration of magical events would we need to cobble together to make this somehow justified?


I like to think there isn't any, but after doing a little more research I find that I don't believe I could possibly know what I would do in a similar situation.

Orissa is poor, even by Indian standards and most of it's population came from the lowest caste and they're still dealing with systemic discrimination from a deeply corrupt government. They have one of the lowest life expectancy at 57.7 years, and the highest infant mortality rate in India at 6.9%. The state is primarily rural, and the workers were from Titlagarh which has a population of about 27,000 so small town India. He died on the way to the closest hospital which was on Rourkela, which by my eye-ball estimate on Google maps is about 200km away, so assuming optimal conditions maybe a two hour drive away. Most medical care is done by mobile units (think MASH) which may or may not be in your area when you're injured. Since most of the region doesn't have basic infrastructure like running water, electricity, or housing, I think it's fair to say that the care is pretty bare bones. Until recently they didn't measure poverty by income, but instead by caloric intake and Orissa has 24% of it's population living in poverty which means less than 2100 calories per day. If you're lucky enough to receive food assistance before they hit their cap, once a month you'll be allocated 10kg of rice for a family, which at the high end is 20,000 calories which is enough to sustain one person for 10 days at a healthy level, but hardly what you'd call a balanced diet.

These workers were at Powermax, a small local firm, but if you're lucky you'll get a job with a good company - like Tata Steel. They're one of the largest and most profitable companies in India, won the Carnegie Award for Philanthropy in 2007 and have a reputation for being one of the most benevolent employers in India. They have a sizeable operation in Orissa and you can see from their website that they're proud to have a zero infant mortality rate for their employees, as well as various social and educational initiatives in the community.

But even for the "good guys", the reality is pretty sobering. They've got a lot of information about how they're helping out displaced farmers, but they don't mention that the company displaced them in the first place. The convinced the local government to sieze the farmers land by force and turn it over the the corporation for development. Compensation wasn't negotiated, many weren't even aware of it until they were evicted. Naturally they were upset, and when they gathered on the proposed site to protest police officers on the company payroll shot and killed 15 people, injuring 37 others. The reorganized to block supply lines demanding compensation for the land, the dead, and that the company make good on it's promise to reintegrate the previously displaced farmers before any new work began. They didn't even ask for medical assistance to be provided to everyone who'd become sick or died because they poisons the local water supplies with industrial waste. The company responded as one might expect , with an ultimatum - move by the deadline or we'll move you by force. The farmers gathered with staffs and bows, the company brought in a battalion of private security equipped with full riot gear, tear gas, rubber bullets, and a second battalion to protect the government officials who would be there to witness it. But when you're banking 2.7 billion dollars in profits in a year, what's a few atrocities against the peons in the big scheme of things?

So, when the most charitable companies are doing the murdering and pillaging, and a layoff equivalent to a death sentence for you and your family - what would you do? Maybe plan a particularly brutal means of killing them so that someone, out there might see what you did, dig a little deeper than the headline of some corporate rag taking a pot shot at the labor movement and maybe someone will notice?
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:40 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:So, when the most charitable companies are doing the murdering and pillaging, and a layoff equivalent to a death sentence for you and your family - what would you do?
Resort to crime as a means to feed and support my family.
Cleverbeans wrote:Maybe plan a particularly brutal means of killing them so that someone, out there might see what you did, dig a little deeper than the headline of some corporate rag taking a pot shot at the labor movement and maybe someone will notice?
In precisely what way does brutally killing your employers do anything but reaffirm the notion that organized labor is a horrible idea that should be resisted at all cost? This sort of mob justice does nothing but reinforce an anti-labor, anti-union climate. If they did this out of a desire of activism rather than reciprocity, then they aren't just murderers--they're horrible activists, too.

Edit: For clarification, I (personally) would support the acts of the farmers you described in your post, because they are actively working to protect their interests--even if those acts are violent. When lives are at stake, violence can be justified. But brutally killing someone after your interests have passed--when this killing won't benefit you in any way? How can we even begin to justify that? Again, this isn't killing a man for bread to feed your family; this is killing the man because he charges too much for his bread. For the men who killed this person, there was nothing more at stake--the evil had been done. They burned a man alive for absolutely nothing.

I condone violence only when it is an effective means to serve justice. Lighting someone on fire and then claiming it was to send a 'message' that this sort of behavior won't be tolerated--that in no way serves justice.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:In precisely what way does brutally killing your employers do anything but reaffirm the notion that organized labor is a horrible idea that should be resisted at all cost?


It doesn't really matter what they do, that sentiment is firmly entrenched in capitalist culture already. If violent organizations convinced people that such organizations should be resisted we'd have already gotten rid of capitalism. The reality of it is that the capitalists own the media, and they use it very willfully to vilify organized labor and government. Propaganda doesn't care about the truth, and is significantly more powerful than any violent act. Carnegie hired a milita to attack his workers during the Homestead strike, they resisted, so he had the state militia brought in and turned Homestead into a forced labor camp for the next decade but somehow he's one of the most celebrated businessmen in history. Victors write history, especially when they own the presses.

This sort of mob justice does nothing but reinforce an anti-labor, anti-union climate. If they did this out of a desire of activism rather than reciprocity, then they aren't just murderers--they're horrible activists, too.


The Times of India reports that 30 union agitators were participating in the disruption so it seems reasonable to me that they were activists. I'm not a big fan of the "ignore the context" approach to interpreting events, and generally if someone is willing to publicly murder someone knowing full well they're going to be caught I think it's reasonable to try and understand what could motivate someone to commit such an act. It's easy to forget that so many of the things we take for granted like minimum wage, public education, overtime pay, child labor laws, and lunch breaks among others were all paid for in blood by union members and their families. It's difficult to understand what's happening there until you see it for yourself, but I seriously doubt you'd feel the same way if you were there.

Edit: For clarification, I (personally) would support the acts of the farmers you described in your post, because they are actively working to protect their interests--even if those acts are violent. When lives are at stake, violence can be justified. But brutally killing someone after your interests have passed--when this killing won't benefit you in any way? How can we even begin to justify that?


Because it's not about you it's about us. If you're raped, and the rapist tosses you out while walking into your sisters room would you say it's justified to take action? Certainly their self-interest is no longer served, but self-interest is at the heart of the problem here, that's kinda the point of socialism in the first place.

And also to clarify, I find nothing about this to be morally palatable either and I wouldn't describe these events as anything but tragic. I guess I think it's significantly more to it than mere vigilantism, and since anti-union propaganda is rampant in the corporate media this sort of non-journalism deserves more than a cursory glance. It's more about what they chose to exclude from the article rather than include.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:17 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:Because it's not about you it's about us. If you're raped, and the rapist tosses you out while walking into your sisters room would you say it's justified to take action? Certainly their self-interest is no longer served, but self-interest is at the heart of the problem here, that's kinda the point of socialism in the first place.

what

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:It doesn't really matter what they do, that sentiment is firmly entrenched in capitalist culture already. If violent organizations convinced people that such organizations should be resisted we'd have already gotten rid of capitalism. The reality of it is that the capitalists own the media, and they use it very willfully to vilify organized labor and government. Propaganda doesn't care about the truth, and is significantly more powerful than any violent act. Carnegie hired a milita to attack his workers during the Homestead strike, they resisted, so he had the state militia brought in and turned Homestead into a forced labor camp for the next decade but somehow he's one of the most celebrated businessmen in history. Victors write history, especially when they own the presses.
So what I'm reading here is "Setting this man on fire won't improve or otherwise change the way things are". So how do we get from that to "Setting this man on fire might have been justified"?
Cleverbeans wrote:The Times of India reports that 30 union agitators were participating in the disruption so it seems reasonable to me that they were activists. I'm not a big fan of the "ignore the context" approach to interpreting events, and generally if someone is willing to publicly murder someone knowing full well they're going to be caught I think it's reasonable to try and understand what could motivate someone to commit such an act. It's easy to forget that so many of the things we take for granted like minimum wage, public education, overtime pay, child labor laws, and lunch breaks among others were all paid for in blood by union members and their families. It's difficult to understand what's happening there until you see it for yourself, but I seriously doubt you'd feel the same way if you were there.
Let's get two things straight.

1) I'm all for interpreting the shit out of events. By all means; let's understand what's going on here and why there's such a brutal, violent response to the firings. When I hear about things like this, I have two responses: Horror, followed by a desire to understand why. But while we're doing that, let's at no juncture whatsoever try to justify those brutal, violent responses. I'm fine with putting things in context; I'm not fine with trying to use that context to justify lighting people on fire and watching them burn. Not unless there is something beneficial to gain from lighting people on fire.

2) I'm really sick and tired of people trying to use the whole 'You don't understand their experiences' defense to justify horrible acts of violence. I don't need to understand their experiences to understand that what they are doing is wrong. I understand that their situation may be horrible, deplorable, and fucked up beyond all measure; I accept that I have no understanding of what it is to live in deplorable poverty where the life of my family can be decided by the presence of a pink slip. These things do not justify acts of atrocity. They don't justify genocide, they don't justify rape, they don't justify torture, they don't justify murder, and I am sick to fucking death of people pretending like they do. The only way you can ever justify violating the rights of another human being is as a means to protect the rights of other human beings. If what they did doesn't accomplish that, then what they did is completely fucking wrong.

It really is that simple.
Cleverbeans wrote:Because it's not about you it's about us. If you're raped, and the rapist tosses you out while walking into your sisters room would you say it's justified to take action? Certainly their self-interest is no longer served, but self-interest is at the heart of the problem here, that's kinda the point of socialism in the first place.
This metaphor fails very deeply on several important levels. Killing someone to prevent a violation is justified; killing them in response to that violation is not. If I was violated, it would not be right for me to respond several hours later by finding the perpetrator and setting them on fire. Not unless this act was somehow preventing a future violation.

You might further justify this by saying that this manager was on the way to fire several more employees, but killing him would in no feasible way prevent those firings.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:08 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm really sick and tired of people trying to use the whole 'You don't understand their experiences' defense to justify horrible acts of violence.


And I'm kinda sick of the entitled rich pretending they have some sort of moral high ground while remaining complicit in these atrocities.

The only way you can ever justify violating the rights of another human being is as a means to protect the rights of other human beings. If what they did doesn't accomplish that, then what they did is completely fucking wrong.


If they're actively protecting labor rights, that fits the bill. The reality is we don't know why they did it, but I can absolutely think of circumstances where it would be justified, not optimal, or good, but justifiable.

If I was violated, it would not be right for me to respond several hours later by finding the perpetrator and setting them on fire. Not unless this act was somehow preventing a future violation.


The plant is on lock-out while they investigate the murder, and it will force the company and union to re-enter arbitration so it's definitely helping. We have the entire history of organized labor as the perfect example where entire generations of workers have been saved from brutal human rights violations as precedent.

You might further justify this by saying that this manager was on the way to fire several more employees, but killing him would in no feasible way prevent those firings.


Perhaps you should read up on the labor movement, because last I checked it's been phenomenally effective at ensuring job security to the working class. Isn't that what the capitalists are always whining about?
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:18 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:And I'm kinda sick of the entitled rich pretending they have some sort of moral high ground while remaining complicit in these atrocities.
We're all complicit in these atrocities by our contributions to a world-wide capitalistic culture; if you were set on fire for your particular contribution, would you like me to take your position and argue that while tragic, your horrible death was somehow justified? Were they to light me on fire for my contribution, I sure as hell wouldn't want you to be saying what you are saying here right now.
Cleverbeans wrote:If they're actively protecting labor rights, that fits the bill. The reality is we don't know why they did it, but I can absolutely think of circumstances where it would be justified, not optimal, or good, but justifiable.
You just finished explaining to me how these acts will in all likelihood have no impact on the reality of their situation; now you're telling me that they might?
Cleverbeans wrote:The plant is on lock-out while they investigate the murder, and it will force the company and union to re-enter arbitration so it's definitely helping. We have the entire history of organized labor as the perfect example where entire generations of workers have been saved from brutal human rights violations as precedent.
Is the entire history of organized labor a situation involving mob violence brutalizing those in power until they secede authority, or organized labor acquiring political power and using that political power to enforce change? I don't seem to recall the communist movement in the United States encouraging labourers to set people on fire or to engage in violence. Violence certainly happened, but one of the ways communists secured labor rights in the US was by moving away from mob justice.
Cleverbeans wrote:Perhaps you should read up on the labor movement, because last I checked it's been phenomenally effective at ensuring job security to the working class. Isn't that what the capitalists are always whining about?
Labor Movement != Setting people on fire and watching them burn. I think you need to do some reading.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:01 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:You just finished explaining to me how these acts will in all likelihood have no impact on the reality of their situation; now you're telling me that they might?

They're going to prison, they're children and coworkers have a better shot. I'm sure you can see the distinction between the individuals situations and that of society as a whole.

I don't seem to recall the communist movement in the United States encouraging labourers to set people on fire or to engage in violence.


I'm starting to get the impression you've completely unaware of what happened. Why don't you start by reading up on the Homestead Strike, Clarence Darrow, or Emma Goldman. Violence was widely advocated and used until there was enough media and political attention paid to the issues that it was no longer warranted. Naturally they moved away from violence as time went on and the ownership class realized they weren't going to keep their behavior a secret anymore. There is a long line of villains on both sides of the issue, but it was anything but non-violent.

Cleverbeans wrote:Labor Movement != Setting people on fire and watching them burn. I think you need to do some reading.

:roll:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:23 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:They're going to prison, they're children and coworkers have a better shot. I'm sure you can see the distinction between the individuals situations and that of society as a whole.
Their children have a better shot as a result of not having fathers to struggle and seek out alternative forms of income?
Cleverbeans wrote:I'm starting to get the impression you've completely unaware of what happened. Why don't you start by reading up on the Homestead Strike, Clarence Darrow, or Emma Goldman. Violence was widely advocated and used until there was enough media and political attention paid to the issues that it was no longer warranted. Naturally they moved away from violence as time went on and the ownership class realized they weren't going to keep their behavior a secret anymore. There is a long line of villains on both sides of the issue, but it was anything but non-violent.
I've said multiple times in this thread that I accept violence as an instrument of justice, I accept that these movements often engage in violence, and I accept the necessity that violence is sometimes required. I reject this particular example of violence. Only one justification has been proposed: Lighting someone on fire and watching them burn was necessary to send a proper message.

Are you using a computer? Do you live in a Western country? I do; therefore, I contribute to the system which leads to the oppression of India's working class. If I visited India and men in a labor movement set me on fire, would you like to explain to me as I burn to death precisely how this act might be justified? It would also send a message, wouldn't it? The only difference I see between my contribution and this man's contribution is proximity and size.

Also, please cite me an example where Clarence Darrow advocated killing people just to 'send a message'. I'd be genuinely interested, since this would be tremendous news to me.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:45 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:I'm starting to get the impression you've completely unaware of what happened. Why don't you start by reading up on the Homestead Strike, Clarence Darrow, or Emma Goldman. Violence was widely advocated and used until there was enough media and political attention paid to the issues that it was no longer warranted. Naturally they moved away from violence as time went on and the ownership class realized they weren't going to keep their behavior a secret anymore. There is a long line of villains on both sides of the issue, but it was anything but non-violent.

Goldman & Berkman's plot to kill Frick was later characterized by the union leader at the homestead strike as a major setback for the movement, and several other labor leaders and anarchists of the time strongly criticized the act. Seeing as this assassination attempt at least had the hopes of instigating revolution, I'd imagine the support you'd get from the original movement towards an act of pure revenge would have ran even thinner.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:59 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Their children have a better shot as a result of not having fathers to struggle and seek out alternative forms of income?


Yes, their children, grandchildren and countless future generations. I'm sure you'd consider the same to be true of the generations which survived those who died American revolution.

I reject this particular example of violence.


On what grounds exactly? Your vague intuition as to what might have motivated them, and a one line description of the event? You've got the vaguest understanding of events and you're ready to condemn them. Seems a little... presumptuous.

It would also send a message, wouldn't it?


No, it wouldn't, no one would care. I do like the slippery slope and red herring combination though, points for style will be awarded.

Also, please cite me an example where Clarence Darrow advocated killing people just to 'send a message'. I'd be genuinely interested, since this would be tremendous news to me.


You'll find many counter examples to the ridiculous claim that the labor movement never advocated violence in America by looking at his career, and you should have no difficulty finding example of his justification of violence in support labor, since it was a major portion of his career.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:07 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:Yes, their children, grandchildren and countless future generations. I'm sure you'd consider the same to be true of the generations which survived those who died American revolution.
That isn't what you said. You said 'children and coworkers'. How does this benefit their children and coworkers? Or did you actually mean 'countless future generations'?
Cleverbeans wrote:On what grounds exactly? Your vague intuition as to what might have motivated them, and a one line description of the event? You've got the vaguest understanding of events and you're ready to condemn them. Seems a little... presumptuous.
I don't give a fuck what their motivation or what their intent was; I give a fuck about what they did.
Cleverbeans wrote:No, it wouldn't, no one would care. I do like the slippery slope and red herring combination though, points for style will be awarded.
No one would care if a visiting Westerner (particularly an American one) was burned in India over labor rights disputes? Are you a moron, or are you... No, yeah, we'll stick with that one.
Cleverbeans wrote:You'll find many counter examples to the ridiculous claim that the labor movement never advocated violence
Are you even reading my posts?

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:09 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Also, please cite me an example where Clarence Darrow advocated killing people just to 'send a message'. I'd be genuinely interested, since this would be tremendous news to me.


You'll find many counter examples to the ridiculous claim that the labor movement never advocated violence in America by looking at his career, and you should have no difficulty finding example of his justification of violence in support labor, since it was a major portion of his career.

So... shouldn't be too hard for you to come with a quote matching Hippo's request then, should it? All you've managed to do in this thread is dance around substance with vague allusions.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:12 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:So... shouldn't be too hard for you to come with a quote matching Hippo's request then, should it? All you've managed to do in this thread is dance around substance with vague allusions.
Honestly, the closest thing I'm aware of this is that Clarence Darrow defended communists who were accused of gathering with the intent of overthrowing government (potentially with violence). But that's not defending someone for sending a message with violence, and if I recall correctly, in those specific cases, he argued that this was not their intent at all. So yeah, I'm sincerely interested in a citation where Clarence Darrow advocates sending messages via violence.

Edit: I should mention that in all fairness, I wouldn't actually consider this validating your position (I don't buy appeals to authority), but it interests me because Clarence Darrow is someone I hold a great deal of respect for, and it would let me down immensely to discover that he advocated violence as a means to send a message.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:45 am UTC

Also, since I don't think I ever articulated the point I was trying to make way back when: it wasn't that I was saying it was okay to burn a dude to death, but rather that we shouldn't just reduce the reason they did so simply to being fired as that would neglect a discussion on the actual economic oppression that helped contribute to the situation.

Though, I still stand by the wall thing since I called dibs on that position.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:38 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Honestly, the closest thing I'm aware of this is that Clarence Darrow defended communists who were accused of gathering with the intent of overthrowing government (potentially with violence). But that's not defending someone for sending a message with violence, and if I recall correctly, in those specific cases, he argued that this was not their intent at all.


The entire idea of "sending a message" as the intent of their violence is a red herring you constructed in relation to the US labor movement, I never suggested it otherwise. Your absurd claim that " I don't seem to recall the communist movement in the United States encouraging labourers to set people on fire or to engage in violence" is clearly refuted by Darrow's carrer, and of course, a myriad of other examples which you should have no trouble googling yourself if you cared one way or the other.

I should mention that in all fairness, I wouldn't actually consider this validating your position (I don't buy appeals to authority), but it interests me because Clarence Darrow is someone I hold a great deal of respect for, and it would let me down immensely to discover that he advocated violence as a means to send a message.


I'm curious how you think anyone can justify or vilify something without knowing more than the most trivial details about them? Oh, and you asked for an example of American labor advocating the use if violence and I provided one. Please don't confuse your red herring with an appeal to authority.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:and a layoff equivalent to a death sentence for you and your family -
Cleverbeans wrote:if someone is willing to publicly murder someone knowing full well they're going to be caught
Cleverbeans wrote:They're going to prison, they're children and coworkers have a better shot.

FAIL.
Cleverbeans wrote:Your absurd claim that " I don't seem to recall the communist movement in the United States encouraging labourers to set people on fire or to engage in violence" is clearly refuted by Darrow's carrer
When you suggest that a historical figure "would totally set a guy on fire; like totally" you're going to need to provide evidence, because sane people do not advocate lighting others aflame.
Cleverbeans wrote:The entire idea of "sending a message" as the intent of their violence is a red herring you constructed in relation to the US labor movement,
No, that was us trying to understand what the fuck you were saying. So... when exactly is lighting people on fire ok? Do you have to be in a labor union? Or can you just be in any scenario loosely tied to the Labor Movement?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Ex-worker mob burn executive to death in vehicle

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:11 pm UTC

Angua wrote:You can argue over whether or not they may have been morally justified in doing it because the leader was a horrible person who kicked kittens and supported the wrong cricket team (though let's be honest, it was probably because he was the person who fired them), but don't try and pretend that this was in any way not torturing and killing someone.

Heisenberg said that the only reason anyone would light anyone on fire was to satisfy a depraved need to inflict suffering. I pointed to a case where this wan't true. No one is saying it wasn't torture and murder.

The Great Hippo wrote:What exact configuration of magical events would we need to cobble together to make this somehow justified? I'm waiting with baited breath to hear exactly how you're going to pull yourself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp with some sort of fucking One Thousand and One Nights level story-telling shit. Are you going to use genies? Magical unicorns, maybe? Maybe Agent Smith showed up and told them if they didn't light the guy on fire and watch him burn, all their families would die? Spin me a tale, Scheherazade.

A) I'm not saying they are justified. I'm saying that calling this insane and evil without any of the information required to make that determination is presumptuous. This article says that laid-off workers singled someone out and burned them to death. That is literally all the information that the article gave.
B) This event sparks a popular uprising that spreads throughout the globe, starting an endless golden age of humanity.
C) I suck at story telling.
D) Why would I want to pull myself out of the "I Support Lynch Mobs" camp? All options should be on the table at all times.


The Great Hippo wrote:
NitePhyyre wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Whenever these things accomplish some good, it is only by sheer, stupid, blind luck--not by design.
[citation needed]
For every case you cite where a rabid lynch mob accomplished a genuine good that extended beyond the heinous act, I'll cite you twenty ten1 where they didn't.

I'm sure you could. Sturgeon's Law and all. That doesn't really say much about anything though does it?


The Great Hippo wrote:1) I'm all for interpreting the shit out of events. By all means; let's understand what's going on here and why there's such a brutal, violent response to the firings. When I hear about things like this, I have two responses: Horror, followed by a desire to understand why. But while we're doing that, let's at no juncture whatsoever try to justify those brutal, violent responses. I'm fine with putting things in context; I'm not fine with trying to use that context to justify lighting people on fire and watching them burn. Not unless there is something beneficial to gain from lighting people on fire.

2) I'm really sick and tired of people trying to use the whole 'You don't understand their experiences' defense to justify horrible acts of violence. I don't need to understand their experiences to understand that what they are doing is wrong. I understand that their situation may be horrible, deplorable, and fucked up beyond all measure; I accept that I have no understanding of what it is to live in deplorable poverty where the life of my family can be decided by the presence of a pink slip. These things do not justify acts of atrocity. They don't justify genocide, they don't justify rape, they don't justify torture, they don't justify murder, and I am sick to fucking death of people pretending like they do. The only way you can ever justify violating the rights of another human being is as a means to protect the rights of other human beings. If what they did doesn't accomplish that, then what they did is completely fucking wrong.

The underlined sections: It seems like your position on whether or not these acts are justified depend on the outcome of other acts that will follow from this one. If things go back to the status quo, it was unjustified. If the rest of the management decides to change their policy, it becomes justified. Yet, you have already condemned this as insane and evil. Your position depends on information you do not yet have, cannot yet have, but you have assumed it anyway. This is called "jumping to conclusions".

@cleverbeans:
Thanks for the info about India, it was interesting to get a little bit of context.
A google search for 'Clarence Darrow violence' (no quotes) didn't turn up anything interesting in the first couple of results. What should we be googling?
EDIT: Actually, the wikiquote article on him paints him in an anti-violence/pro-love picture.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests