Foreign Workers [Merged]

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
…
It is true that, perhaps once the whole thing was established, if there had been room to cut wages and gouge out higher rates of profit per car (and bosses are always looking to gouge out higher rates of profit), someone probably went into the back room and did the sums, and recognised that any reduction in wages would lead to reduced spending on luxury items like cars amongst the workforce, and that itself would threaten the profitability of the line (because of how the line required a large minimum number of units to be sold to be profitable).
…

Read the article.As it says the global free market has introduced massive downward pressure on wages in real terms. The result still being the Fordist production model with even better productivety but ‘without’ the Fordist wages to buy the products.Which is why China and Eastern Europe for example are dragging the whole global free market cluster zb down the tubes.

npr.org/2014/01/27/267145552 … henry-ford

So what you’re saying is that the capitalists are doing the very thing that Ford (and his would-be competitors) saw the folly in - cutting wages to squeeze out a higher rate of profit, and thereby undermining your own effective demand.

I can certainly agree that this may be part of the problem today - ruinous competition, in other words. Notably, prevailing government ideology is to promote competition - monopolies are not being allowed to form naturally in the economy.

Also bearing in mind that better productivety at the expense of using less workers to turn out more products actually adds to the problems of low wages.IE redundant unemployed workers don’t buy stuff and can’t pay the mortgage.

Indeed. Under automation, there should be downward pressure on working time (to distribute remaining work more evenly), but the UK in particular keeps resisting the compulsory reduction in the maximum working week. Again, I see your point that what capital owners are doing is keeping as much as possible of the profits attributable to automation, and are eliminating headcount (rather than easing working hours and sharing profits by increasing wages, which would maintain effective demand at the cost of more moderate rates of profit).

The market failure here is a “free rider” problem. High wages are necessary to sustain effective demand, but any one business can pay low wages without having much effect on aggregate effective demand. Every business therefore has the incentive to pay low wages itself, whilst relying on others to pay high wages to sustain demand. But even if industrialists could see the folly in this, the effect of competition forces every business to cut wages or go bust - competition actually puts out of business, the very businesses who are bearing the burden of sustaining effective demand! It’s time to return to the era of monopolies who could act strategically in the market!

And the political problem preventing the remedy to this market failure is, increased wages at the bottom necessitate either reduced profits, reduced wage inequality, or increased consumer prices (any of which reduce overall inequality and therefore threaten the better off in our society). The wealthy only let go of their wealth last time and accepted economic reform following two world wars in short succession, and a failed gamble on fascism.

As I said we can solve these problems with the required shift back towards the lost high ‘wage’/incomes component of the Fordist system,together with the realisation that productivety at the expense of redundant workers is a net burden on the economy.But it will take a massive shift in the Labour movement away from Socialism towards a Capitalist but nationalist protectionist stance which might just get a better hearing from the Capitalist ranks when it sees the sense in the idea compared to where we’ll end up if we stay on the present course.IE what I’m describing is the need for another Kennedy not another Reagan,Thatcher or Wilson and Callaghan.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
As I said we can solve these problems with the required shift back towards the lost high ‘wage’/incomes component of the Fordist system,together with the realisation that productivety at the expense of redundant workers is a net burden on the economy.

Automation is not a burden on the economy, because the loss of earning opportunities are offset by the reduction in prices (so people don’t need to earn as much as before).

The labour theory of value suggests that fully-automated production should lead to everything being free (just like fruits that grow naturally on trees cost nothing to produce if there is no human intervention required) - and mostly-automated production yields unit costs approaching zero.

The problem for capital owners is that free (i.e. fully automated) items have a zero profit rate, so that the more automated our economy becomes (with it’s abundance of nearly-free goods), citizens can increasingly live the life of riley (even on an income approaching zero), but capital owners will increasingly see their profits evaporate. This is functionally equivalent to wages inflating whilst prices fall - since it is only the relative difference that counts.

The only reason capital owners invest in automation, is because, for a short period whilst the market adjusts to automation, they can carry on charging something closer to the old, higher, non-automatic prices. Or it is because the automation coincides with the up-scaling of the operation (increasing the volume of profit, even if the long-term rate of profit will fall back).

Ford encountered this tendency in his day. Off the top of my head, profit returns in the late 19th century tended to be about 30% a year - clearly much higher than today’s norm. What happened to industry is that they scaled up production (and usually formed big monopolies or cartels to eliminate competition and risk), so that a lower rate of profit (caused by the lower rate of labour input per unit) still produced a higher volume of profit overall (and by eliminating competitors, better assured their receipt of that profit too).

Monopolies are an excellent way of wringing out risk from production, and thereby justifying lower rates of profit.

But it will take a massive shift in the Labour movement away from Socialism towards a Capitalist but nationalist protectionist stance which might just get a better hearing from the Capitalist ranks when it sees the sense in the idea compared to where we’ll end up if we stay on the present course.IE what I’m describing is the need for another Kennedy not another Reagan,Thatcher or Wilson and Callaghan.

No, we don’t want to return to nationalism, because that simply pits people against each other (and what is gained sooner in higher wages, is consumed again later in the cost of international competition and war dead). It also destroys capital assets and creates risks of confiscation and redistribution, which is why the rich aren’t really pushing for fascism again this time.

It is true that we need a return to “protectionism”, but in the form of allowing monopolies to form in the market. That is the key - eliminating competition from the economy. The old industrial monopolies were more akin to command economies.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
As I said we can solve these problems with the required shift back towards the lost high ‘wage’/incomes component of the Fordist system,together with the realisation that productivety at the expense of redundant workers is a net burden on the economy.

Automation is not a burden on the economy, because the loss of earning opportunities are offset by the reduction in prices (so people don’t need to earn as much as before).

No, we don’t want to return to nationalism, because that simply pits people against each other (and what is gained sooner in higher wages, is consumed again later in the cost of international competition and war dead). It also destroys capital assets and creates risks of confiscation and redistribution, which is why the rich aren’t really pushing for fascism again this time.

It is true that we need a return to “protectionism”, but in the form of allowing monopolies to form in the market. That is the key - eliminating competition from the economy. The old industrial monopolies were more akin to command economies.

Automation doesn’t always mean less workers required overall where they can be shifted onto other operations.While productivety increase at the expense of employment can also have nothing to do with utomation.IE expecting each worker to produce more in a shift meaning less workers required to do the same amount of work. In all cases less workers means the net burden of more unemployment and less customers to buy the stuff the remaining workers are producing in addition to increasing the supply of labour thereby putting downward pressure on wages.

As for war dead as I’ve said that has historically been more a case of centralised federal government ideology from Napoleon to Tito,which you’re obviously supporting,trying to stamp out the legitimate right of self determination in the form of national government and the nation state.So called ‘fascism’ just being another typically Socialist driven example of that.No surprise that the Socialists always choose to over look the Socialist component of Nazism and thereby the impossible contradiction in trying to call that Nationalist in it being anything but.Which explains Stalin’s original alliance with Hitler.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
As I said we can solve these problems with the required shift back towards the lost high ‘wage’/incomes component of the Fordist system,together with the realisation that productivety at the expense of redundant workers is a net burden on the economy.

Automation is not a burden on the economy, because the loss of earning opportunities are offset by the reduction in prices (so people don’t need to earn as much as before).

No, we don’t want to return to nationalism, because that simply pits people against each other (and what is gained sooner in higher wages, is consumed again later in the cost of international competition and war dead). It also destroys capital assets and creates risks of confiscation and redistribution, which is why the rich aren’t really pushing for fascism again this time.

It is true that we need a return to “protectionism”, but in the form of allowing monopolies to form in the market. That is the key - eliminating competition from the economy. The old industrial monopolies were more akin to command economies.

Automation doesn’t always mean less workers required overall where they can be shifted onto other operations.

Yes, like John Stuart Mill said, a labour-saving device never saved a minute of anyone’s labour!

But it seems reasonable to think that as all of our material needs are increasingly met automatically, there will have to be a point at which formal employment has to reduce (unless material consumption continues to grow without regard to natural resources, or there is a proliferation of ■■■■■■■■ service jobs which people are forced into).

While productivety increase at the expense of employment can also have nothing to do with utomation.IE expecting each worker to produce more in a shift meaning less workers required to do the same amount of work.

In the long term, the only way workers can produce more in a shift is by using tools, or automation. You can’t just keep cracking the whip and getting another 10% more (or any more) - in fact, I’m fond of the bible story (not that I’m religious) about the new king Rehoboam (1 Kings 12), who threatens a crackdown on the productivity of the Israelites, and is overthrown in return.

Using all one’s effort to improve productivity at work above its natural level, is likely to lead people to cut back effort in other areas of their lives - for example, exercising less, constraining their food consumption less, or doing fewer activities with the children, and so on.

In all cases less workers means the net burden of more unemployment and less customers to buy the stuff the remaining workers are producing in addition to increasing the supply of labour thereby putting downward pressure on wages.

Unemployment for this reason isn’t a burden though. If at first it takes 6 people to produce 6 units of a thing (and each get to keep one), and with automation it takes 1 person to produce 6 units (and he still gets to keep one, and the other 5 units are given away for free to the redundant workers), then that is not an economic problem. Obviously, there is a fairness problem if only one person is doing any work, so it would make sense to take turns to be the producer - but nobody is worse off, and no burden is increased overall (relative to when all 6 had to work).

As for war dead as I’ve said that has historically been more a case of centralised federal government ideology from Napoleon to Tito,which you’re obviously supporting,trying to stamp out the legitimate right of self determination in the form of national government and the nation state.So called ‘fascism’ just being another typically Socialist driven example of that.No surprise that the Socialists always choose to over look the Socialist component of Nazism and thereby the impossible contradiction in trying to call that Nationalist in it being anything but.Which explains Stalin’s original alliance with Hitler.

Utter tosh!

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Unemployment for this reason isn’t a burden though. If at first it takes 6 people to produce 6 units of a thing (and each get to keep one), and with automation it takes 1 person to produce 6 units (and he still gets to keep one, and the other 5 units are given away for free to the redundant workers), then that is not an economic problem. Obviously, there is a fairness problem if only one person is doing any work, so it would make sense to take turns to be the producer - but nobody is worse off, and no burden is increased overall (relative to when all 6 had to work).

As for war dead as I’ve said that has historically been more a case of centralised federal government ideology from Napoleon to Tito,which you’re obviously supporting,trying to stamp out the legitimate right of self determination in the form of national government and the nation state.So called ‘fascism’ just being another typically Socialist driven example of that.No surprise that the Socialists always choose to over look the Socialist component of Nazism and thereby the impossible contradiction in trying to call that Nationalist in it being anything but.Which explains Stalin’s original alliance with Hitler.

Utter tosh!

Feel free to provide any examples whereby automation results in products being ‘given away for free’.

As for utter tosh are you saying that you’d be on the side of Napoleon at Waterloo or Borodino.Or Stalin’s invasion of Poland in 1939.Or the JNA against the Slovenian or Croatian secessionist forces ?.If so what’s the difference between any of that and Hitler’s invasion of Poland etc.

If not that’s the difference between a Socialist/Federalist v a Nationalist.

Although in your case we’ve already got the clue that you’d blame the ‘nationalists’ for all of those wars/invasions of foreign sovereign nation states.On the basis that as expected you don’t agree with the right to self determination or the idea of the nation state.

While as for fascism we know that’s based on the impossible contradiction of so called Nationalism mixed with Socialism.When the definition of Nationalism is all about the recognition of the right to self determination and the nation state on the basis of friends with fences.

Which then just leaves the question of Socialism in that regard ?.

[dozy]

Juddian:
How do immigrants find jobs?

Lets think about the eastern europeans in particular here.
Firstly they make themselves presentable, get off their arse at silly o’clock and go look for work, instead of expecting it to find them.
Their English, both spoken and written is usually of a decent standard.
When they get the job they do their best, are reliable and don’t take the ■■■■ with sickies and the like, are prepared to start at the bottom and soon, very soon, work their way up.

Then, and this is where they differ from Brits who are now a divided society…by design but they aided and abetted those who designed their division and overrule…they look after their own, they get their friends and countrymen in whenever they can, those who are worth employing though, not the sickie crew.
Employers who’ve found good reliable results with EE’s are naturally quite happy to employ others EE’s, they don’t make trouble, they don’t cause problems re religious or other issues, what’s not to like if you’re an employer.

Your having a laugh , I’ve worked with them for years and get on with most of them fine but to claim they work hard is rubbish , zb me I’ve heard them say it’s cruel when there given a 3 hr run down to sittingbourne , there the zb who turn everything into a 12 hr shift , 10 of them were sacked for stealing diesel , I’m sorry Julian but it’s a bloody myth , the bloke on the t.0 is telling them tonight , you ring me , don’t just bloody sit there doing nothing , inform me if the loads not ready .
Zb me these are the ones turning a few drops round Notts into a bloody 15 hr shift , that fat ■■■■ last week had 3 hrs at donny waiting for a load then stopped at markam moor for a hour because he was tired , while I sat twiddling my fingers .
There nice folks , friendly , but boy they know how to drag the zb job out to the limit , I did Southampton in 10 1/2 hrs , the pole who left to go down with me took 15 hrs !!!
Zb hell it makes my blood boil were all idle ■■■■■■■■ whilst there all hard workers , you can’t get them zb out the zb yard never mind back too it , if I have too wait for my truck it’s always one of them in it

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Feel free to provide any examples whereby automation results in products being ‘given away for free’.

There are lots of products that today approach zero cost compared to the fully manual production of the past.

Besides, I was trying to illustrate a point that automation and redundancies are not an inherently bad thing. They are a bad thing in our society where the ‘relations of production’ mean the redundant workers do not receive the five widgets, and nor is any attempt made to share the remaining work fairly amongst workers.

Although in your case we’ve already got the clue that you’d blame the ‘nationalists’ for all of those wars/invasions of foreign sovereign nation states.On the basis that as expected you don’t agree with the right to self determination or the idea of the nation state.

I’m not “blaming” nationalism for all those wars. I’m simply pointing out that nationalism creates a war imperative, because each state, in trying to “self-determine” the solution to every political problem, and in always looking inward (and in having politicians who are looking inward to the electorate who look inward), not only finds that some political problems cut across borders or concern two states at the same time (and might concern them in ways that their national self-interests are opposed), but also their inward-lookingness and self-orientation means that neither has any due respect for the interests of the other or feels the need to compromise or cooperate for the common good. Under nationalism, everyone is always very clear about who should come first, that being themselves, and who should lose out, and that being everyone except their own nation.

The everyday equivalent to the genuinely nationalist nation-state is the indulgent parent who refuses to discipline their child or respect the complaints of neighbours. And when you get two such families living next to each other, they both see red because what enrages each most is to be treated as they treat others, and have their sovereignty flouted by the other who claims the same right.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Although in your case we’ve already got the clue that you’d blame the ‘nationalists’ for all of those wars/invasions of foreign sovereign nation states.On the basis that as expected you don’t agree with the right to self determination or the idea of the nation state.

I’m not “blaming” nationalism for all those wars. I’m simply pointing out that nationalism creates a war imperative, because each state, in trying to “self-determine” the solution to every political problem, and in always looking inward (and in having politicians who are looking inward to the electorate who look inward), not only finds that some political problems cut across borders or concern two states at the same time (and might concern them in ways that their national self-interests are opposed), but also their inward-lookingness and self-orientation means that neither has any due respect for the interests of the other or feels the need to compromise or cooperate for the common good. Under nationalism, everyone is always very clear about who should come first, that being themselves, and who should lose out, and that being everyone except their own nation.

The everyday equivalent to the genuinely nationalist nation-state is the indulgent parent who refuses to discipline their child or respect the complaints of neighbours. And when you get two such families living next to each other, they both see red because what enrages each most is to be treated as they treat others, and have their sovereignty flouted by the other who claims the same right.

No the everyday equivalent of the difference between nationalism v socialism/federalism.Would be the neighbour who thinks that they have the right to discipline the neighbour’s child as well as their own and who also thinks that they have the right to take the neighbour’s property into shared ownership with their own,by removing the boundary fence and adding their name to the title deeds.Which is a reasonable description of what both Stalin and Hitler did in Poland among other places and is more or less the end game of all federations.Whether it be Napoleon’s plans.Or Tito’s zbwit ideas concerning ‘Yugoslavia’.Or Merkel’s and Junker’s etc regarding the zb EU.Or China’s designs on Tibet.Or Lincoln’s actions against the Confederate States of America.Or the Franco Norman take over of the British Isles,most recently resulting in the Irish fight for independence in 1916-21.

On that note it’s clear that it’s the aggression of the Socialist/Federalist ideology,that creates the ‘imperative’ for conflict,by trampling all over the right of self determination and the right of nation state sovereignty and also then implements it.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
The everyday equivalent to the genuinely nationalist nation-state is the indulgent parent who refuses to discipline their child or respect the complaints of neighbours. And when you get two such families living next to each other, they both see red because what enrages each most is to be treated as they treat others, and have their sovereignty flouted by the other who claims the same right.

No the everyday equivalent of the difference between nationalism v socialism/federalism.Would be the neighbour who thinks that they have the right to discipline the neighbour’s child as well as their own

But in practice neighbours do have to be in a position to initiate a disciplinary process about the behaviour of others, and in order to maintain civilised relations there has to be some enforceable agreement about what others can and can’t do.

Most people accept the principle of trying to live in a degree of harmony with domestic neighbours, and exert self-discipline over their own behaviour - they don’t even begin by thinking that they are their own sovereign.

That principle which people accept in their everyday lives, is important to generalise to the national and political level - where people don’t even begin by thinking that their nation is its own sovereign.

and who also thinks that they have the right to take the neighbour’s property into shared ownership with their own,

But the vast majority of property that neighbours are concerned about is shared. Nobody wants noxious fumes wafting across in the wind. Nobody wants poisons in the water. Nobody wants noise blaring through the walls. Nobody wants all light blocked out. Nobody wants the local school or the local park vandalised. Nobody wants the roads damaged to the point of impassability.

You probably don’t readily conceive of these things as “property” - because that reflects the myopia of your thinking. All these common resources, and how they are managed, are fundamental to the enjoyment of our lives, and it is absurd to suppose that every individual can be sovereign over the same shared resources.

At the national level, the resources in question are more likely to take the form of access to good agricultural land, minerals, and so forth (I won’t labour the point) - there can’t be very many nations (if any) who have access to every material resource internally (and who don’t therefore have to engage in foreign trade, and therefore integrate those two economies to some extent).

Other things in common that nation states might have an interest in, also concern intangible systems - like the operation and manipulation of markets. If the Chinese say dump steel onto the market, that is not a sovereign local issue for the Chinese - it’s something that has (and is designed to have) repercussions on economies worldwide. So do the vast numbers of Chinese coal power stations, which taken to its extreme might help see the low-lying parts of Britain underwater in the distant future.

Nation states (or certainly classes within them) also have an interest in things like the culture of their neighbours. That’s most obvious with the ‘threat’ of communism (whose main threat has usually been that of contagion, but also the potential military threat). So too with Islamism and ‘terrorism’. Rightly or wrongly, some nation states are flouting the sovereignty of others and intervening early.

So the number of issues which have purely internal, local, implications for nations, are very few indeed - and if you can think of any good examples, I’ll bet they are parochial and pedestrian in the extreme.

by removing the boundary fence and adding their name to the title deeds.Which is a reasonable description of what both Stalin and Hitler did in Poland among other places and is more or less the end game of all federations.Whether it be Napoleon’s plans.Or Tito’s zbwit ideas concerning ‘Yugoslavia’.Or Merkel’s and Junker’s etc regarding the zb EU.Or China’s designs on Tibet.Or Lincoln’s actions against the Confederate States of America.Or the Franco Norman take over of the British Isles,most recently resulting in the Irish fight for independence in 1916-21.

But the UK itself is a merger of several local regions. Are you going to rebuild Hadrian’s wall? You’re back to effectively asking what the Romans did for us.

On that note it’s clear that it’s the aggression of the Socialist/Federalist ideology,that creates the ‘imperative’ for conflict,by trampling all over the right of self determination and the right of nation state sovereignty and also then implements it.

I’ve heard this script several times now but your ideas just don’t stand up to scrutiny. You can only reasonably “self-determine” the issues that only concern yourself, and in the scheme of life those issues are few and trivial - unless you go into a cabin in the mountains, lock your doors and windows, and basically make no impression on the rest of the world.

And that’s not the reality of a nation state - it’s not a cabin in the mountains with locked windows and doors. Europe’s a row of terraced houses, whose occupants live their lives in the street, and who are all very concerned about what the others are up to, and all want their fair share of access to the surrounding land, minerals, forest, and rivers.

In fact the closest example to the locked mountain cabin is Japan during the Tokugawa period. They locked the windows and doors, banned foreigners, banned foreign trade, and so their society just stood still whilst the rest of the world developed. And what changed their minds was when the Americans turned up (peacefully) in battleships, the likes of which they had never seen before.

And that was the era of the British Empire (and the rest), when imperialist nations didn’t just leave other nations alone - the more powerful nations went in to the weaker ones and extracted resources, and no one was going to tell the powerful any different.

[the-snowman]

Is anyone else wondering if carryfast and rjan are actually the same person?

[rjan]

The-Snowman:
Is anyone else wondering if carryfast and rjan are actually the same person?

Well, you become so good at playing chess, that eventually the only worthy opponent to play against is yourself.

[the_maoster]

Is anyone still actually reading or like me scrolling past looking for the smart arse one liners that someone injects now and again?

As I said before it looks like CF has finally met his wordy match and it’ll be interesting to see how far it goes before either one admits defeat.

[war1974]

I do this for most post where carryfast gets on about Fordism - to me anything posted that mentions Fordism = about 5-10 pages of intolerable drivel brought back from the last thread he overran with the same drivel as the last time he done the same and so on and so on.

hence I miss the odd thing he posts that I agree with. oh and I cant stand the whole quoting almost a full page to make a point just write your F’ing point.

[rjan]

the maoster:
Is anyone still actually reading or like me scrolling past looking for the smart arse one liners that someone injects now and again?

As I said before it looks like CF has finally met his wordy match and it’ll be interesting to see how far it goes before either one admits defeat.

I predict the forum software will be the first to admit defeat - if not the spectators awaiting the outcome.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

The-Snowman:
Is anyone else wondering if carryfast and rjan are actually the same person?

Well, you become so good at playing chess, that eventually the only worthy opponent to play against is yourself.

If it’s chess then like Dolph it’s time to stop the bs and put up or shut up.As a socialist/federalist exactly which side would you have been on ?.Regards Napoleon’s/Stalin’s/Hitler’s/Tito’s idiotic ideas.Or for that matter the Franco/Norman/Plantagenet etc takeover of the British Isles.All being Socialist/Federalist agendas.

Which would obviously include the Battles of Hastings and its aftermath/Borodino/Waterloo/the invasion of Poland etc in 1939/the numerous fights over Scottish and Irish independence culminating in the events of 1916-21 and last but not least the fight between the Slovenian and Croatian militias v the JNA in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

Edit to add although Serbia had a legitimate claim against the Austro/Hungarian federation in 1914 that doesn’t mean that it was in our ‘national interest’ to get involved in that argument.Hopefully you’ll see where this is going regards membership of the EU in that regard and the ‘benefits’ of a so called ‘inward looking’ agenda in that case. .

[war1974]

carryfast what does it matter - there are all sorts of different folks, if Rjan doesn’t want to join the cult let him and anyone else who has a different opinion to you then accept it as just that.

whilst its quite admirable how committed to the cause you are - the way you promote it is wrong.

[carryfast]

war1974:
carryfast what does it matter - there are all sorts of different folks, if Rjan doesn’t want to join the cult let him and anyone else who has a different opinion to you then accept it as just that.

whilst its quite admirable how committed to the cause you are - the way you promote it is wrong.

The issue is clearly that between the two different ideologies of socialism v nationalism.It seems clear which side Rjan is on in that.Which logically puts him and all the other socialist zb wits on the same side as both Hitler and Stalin in the invasion of Poland for just one example.

[war1974]

in your opinion…that’s my point you make your point then pretty much like a door knocking Jehovah witness wont leave it at that, you cant convert people through Wikipedia or the guardian or posting a whole load of the same links you post in each thread that goes this way.

it would be boring to be honest if everyone agreed on everything.

[carryfast]

war1974:
in your opinion…that’s my point you make your point then pretty much like a door knocking Jehovah witness wont leave it at that, you cant convert people through Wikipedia or the guardian or posting a whole load of the same links you post in each thread that goes this way.

it would be boring to be honest if everyone agreed on everything.

It isn’t an ‘opinion’ to say that being on the side of Poland in 1939 cannot possibly be anything other than a nationalist position.While the Socialist position in that speaks for itself.

[war1974]

again its your opinion / assumption / how you choose to interpret anyone who disagrees with you.

purely by arguing and continuing to repeat the same things you said 3 pages ago proves this beyond any reasonable doubt.