Peter Chivay

hittin the licks out the bando

a timid toong

im collecting them its really easy at this point 

how dare you degrade orc culture like this

oh no i dont play on lotc anymore lmao maybe this summer tho could see a return!

Never left <333

hey dovee baby miss you as always :*

how dare you say that orcs have a rich and well known culture they waz rexes...

lat waz ull a drem mi used tu red wurd ub klompazines

SUNY Cortland

Eco 383 Midterm

An analysis of current conditions based on Harry Braverman

When looking at capitalism through rose tinted glasses, it is easy to assume many of the stated points that were argued for modern capitalism in the 50s and 60s were true. It would be easy to assume that advances in technology would eliminate most of the unpleasant jobs in manufacturing, and outside of manufacturing- the growth of jobs in the clerical, service, and retail sectors may have appeared to give greater opportunity and look like the future step away from the deskilling and routinization of labor. However, quite the contrary, Braverman has made many backed points from statistical data as well as real life evidence that neither of those points were the case. Though it cannot be one hundred percent proved either way, Braverman uses concrete evidence such as the Babbage principle, the separation of conception from execution, James Bright’s studies, and many other points to attempt to show that increasing technology actually worsens the position of the worker, and white collar work can be just as easily manipulated to serve the fundamental nature of capitalism (ie get workers to work as hard as possible for as little as possible, thus maximizing profit) as factory jobs were. Furthermore, Michael Zweig and his book The Working Class Majority provide further insight as to what has really been happening to jobs since the 1970s.

With rapid advancement in technology, it is not surprising that many had thought that these new machines would get rid of the tedious work that was done by the factory workers and simply leave the ‘creative, skillful, and educated’ jobs alone and even make them grow and prosper. However this is when looking at machinery through what is called the “Engineering Approach”, which views advances in technology as merely making things more efficient and innovative. If you switch that to the “Social Approach”, which views technology with its relation to human labor, a much different picture is painted. In 1832, Charles Babbage introduced something that Braverman refers to as the ‘Babbage principle’, in simple terms Braverman states that it means: capitalism constantly works toward the division of (skilled) labor into its constituent parts so that wages can be lowered and the capitalist himself/herself can purchase exactly what they need when they need it, in terms of labor. That is precisely where the advances of technology in capitalism come in. There have been three key developments in machinery that have systematically brought labor to one of its most unskilled and automated times in all of history- which include: first, tool and work are given a fixed motion path by the machine itself, or in Marxian terms, taking the tools out of the hand of the worker and putting it in the machine. The next two key developments are moving from ‘internal control’ to ‘external control’ and then finally the development of automatic systems. With the possibility of external control and the various antagonisms between Labor and Capital- these antagonisms being management wanting to work the worker as hard as possible and give them as little control over their own labor as possible- these advanced machines do not eliminate the tedious jobs of the factory worker, but infact can be used with a very Tayloristic and Babbage principle effect to help capital control not only the pace at which the workers must work, but the skill level of the workers as well. In the words of Harry Braverman toward the Tayloristic effect of machines, “Machinery offers management the opportunity to do by wholly mechanical means that which it had previously attempted to do by organizational and disciplinary means.” (Braverman, Pg. 134) By controlling the pace of labor with something as simple as a conveyor belt, management can set the pace of work and no longer need an excuse to fire those that cannot produce that output that they wish, if you cannot keep up with the machine, you’re gone. This puts further stress on the worker mentally, and constantly operating a simplistic machine where all you must do is either push a button or press a lever can be just as mind numbing to the worker as their previous factory positions.  Similarly, these machines help eliminate the need for skilled workers almost entirely, completely contrary to what was said in the late 1950s and 60s. As said by Braverman on Page 137 when speaking about the job of a machinist being replaced by a machine, “... There is no question that from a practical standpoint there is nothing to prevent the machining process under numerical control from remaining the province of the total craftsman. That this almost never happens is due, of course, to the opportunities the process offers for the destruction of craft and the cheapening of the resulting pieces of labor. ” This quote very much symbolizing Braverman’s interpretation of the Babbage principle in full effect with the machines of capitalism, breaking down the skilled work of the machinist into its constituent parts so that it may be done by various unskilled laborers working with a machine whose sole function is to replace the skilled worker, thus completely taking the creativity and skill out of the process and being driven solely by settings on a machine. Furthermore, to assume that higher levels of technology means higher levels of skill is simply naive, as shown on page 154 in Labor and Monopoly Capital, James R. Bright was able to chart the effects of automation and skill requirement, showing that although there may be an initial increase due to difficulty adjusting, once the processes become standardized and ‘habituated’, there is actually a swift decrease in skill needed to operate under higher levels of mechanization. Furthermore, Machines in capitalism are “made to be operated; operating costs involve, apart from the cost of the machine itself, the hourly cost of labor, and this is a part of the calculation involved in the machine design.” (Braverman Pg. 137) Since machines are then designed to be as little cost to the capitalist as possible, the amount of labor that goes into them is continually restricted almost to a point of complete automation, leaving human contact, and thus labor cost, to an absolute minimum. In summation, the advancement of machinery in capitalism does not simply remove the tedious jobs of the factory worker and allow for skill, creativity, and ability to prosper, it merely destroys the skill of any manufacturing craft entirely and breaks it down into its simplest forms of labor to be done by either a worker tediously operating a machine, or complete automation.

Although the above stated discrepancies with the assumptions of capitalism may be true, it is no secret that factory jobs have been on the decline, and there has been a massive rise in clerical, service, and retail jobs as a whole. However, this does not mean that these workers will no longer be subject to the ‘grim prospects of continual deskilling and the routinization of labor’ and similar to that, simply because there has been a rise of ‘semi-skilled’ workers and education has been prolonged, does not mean that we are escaping the relentless antagonisms of capitalism against the working people. First, the process starts from breaking down the complex tasks to single tasks (as know as separation of conception from execution) then slowly leads to deskilling and mechanization. Real life examples of this taking place can be seen in former office professions such as Telephone operators and bank tellers, both being replaced by computerized softwares in answering machines and ATMs. Further falsifying that point, many claimed that the complexities of Clerical and office work would be too great to rationalize and get down to an almost ‘assembly line’ like level, however as demonstrated by Harry Braverman, this is very much not the case: “In the first place, clerical operations are conducted almost entirely on paper, and paper is far easier than industrial products to rearrange, move from station to station, combine and recombine according to the needs of the process… much of the raw material of clerical work is numerical in form… so the process may itself be structured according to the rules of mathematics.”( Braverman Pg. 217) With a great many of the processes being mathematical, it is easy for management to break down the tasks from complex problems to almost routine addition and subtraction, this was even further demonstrated by Charles Babbage and his rationalization of decimal tables, it only took the work of 6 skilled mathematicians to derive the formulas that were eventually used by 60-80 people using addition and subtraction. Braverman said it best, “The work is still performed in the brain, but the brain is used as equivalent of the hand of the detail worker in production.” (Braverman Pg. 220) Once management is able to get office work down to this level, as demonstrated by the above evidence, how is it possible to say that rationalization of office work is impossible? So long as the mental capacity at which the individual must think is brought into a repetitive manner it is not much different from the menial and repetitive jobs of the factory worker of ‘past times’. Another portion of the argument that must be addressed is the constant claim that rise of education proves that jobs are becoming more skilled, although “time spent in school has been increasing: the median years of school completed by the employed civilian working population rose from 10.6 in 1948 to 12.4 by the end of the 1960s.” This most certainly does not prove any sort of jump in skill. It all started during World War II, when the mass amounts of veterans coming back obtained their GI bills to train for higher skill level jobs/expand their education, however that lead to the generalization of secondary education and “employers tended to raise their screening requirements for job applicants, not because of educational needs but simply because of the mass availability of high school graduates.” (Braverman Pg. 303) The diploma itself is used “as a screening device, often seeking people with higher levels of education even when the job content is not necessarily becoming more complex ir requiring higher levels of skill.” (Braverman Pg. 303) With the mass amount of surplus labor that is available now to capital (even in today’s working dimension) the diploma can be used to further restrict this supply of labor so the pool at which to chose from is even smaller “even when job content is not necessarily becoming more complex or requiring higher levels of skill.” (Braverman Pg. 303) Jobs are not becoming more difficult nor do most of them require more skill, the prolongation of education is simply due to the fact that secondary education has become generalized- and capital just needs another way to siphon and categorize the labor force.

In reality, the working class (and in extension their jobs) has become extensively bigger and more controlled than ever before- regardless of what some might say. As said by Michael Zweig, “Class is not in the name. Class in the power relationships people experience.” (Zweig Pg. 39) To further expand on that, jobs have become more and more regimented as demonstrated by Braverman, the “working class” isn’t just those that have low wages- it is heavily based on the power relationships that exist in the workplace between the workers and management, thus power plays a massive role. With that expansion of power, jobs have not necessarily become more free because of the switch to white collar work, sixty three percent of workers are still controlled by management and regimented to fit the needs of capital, and not given access to creative and skillful jobs that aren’t subject to the overarching power of management.  And we live in a time now that capital’s power over labor is such that the lines of what the capitalist controls and what the worker controls is almost entirely blurred. Furthermore, “Class is first and foremost a product of power asserted in the production process.” (Zweig Pg. 10) and as we demonstrated earlier, further mechanization increases the power of the capitalist class to control the very production process itself, morphing the working class even further below the level at which the capitalist class is on in terms of class ‘power’ and structure. Statistically speaking, if creative and ‘skilled’ jobs are infact paid more, why is it that the statistics are completely opposite what they should be? According to the State of Working America, once we hit 1973 to 1995, there is a blaring and massive difference between the growth of the two polar sides of classes: Negative seven percent growth for the poorest twenty percent and thirty two percent growth for the richest twenty (SOWA, Pg. 3)- the numbers not only got smaller- but they went negative for the people who needed it the most. Similar to that, the share of poor in ‘deep poverty’ has increased at least 14.3% since 1975 (SOWA, Pg. 4), and the United States has “The richest tenth [making] six times the income of the poorest” (SOWA, Pg. 5). With statistics like this, it is hard to prove that menial, poorly paid jobs are disappearing, especially when the ‘working class’ as defined by Zweig, constitute over 63% of the population. Class is merely a social extension of what your ‘job’ is, and if the laboring class is making less money than they have in the past and growing in size, what is really happening to jobs? They are becoming further and further rationalized by the capitalist class to justify lower wages and to retain as much profit as possible.

This report contains information on government policy and/or laws regarding Internet censorship in various countries around the world. Information herein was compiled by EFA in March 2002 in response to a request by the Chair of the NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues for information on whether or not other countries have Internet censorship laws similar to Schedule 2 of the NSW Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Amendment Bill 2001. (For detailed information about this Bill, see the NSW Internet Censorship Bill section of EFA's web site).

EFA subsequently undertook extensive research into the current status of laws and government policy outside Australia. EFA was unable to find any indication that any country broadly comparable to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has, or intends to introduce, Internet censorship laws as restrictive as the provisions of the NSW Bill, nor as restrictive as existing Commonwealth legislation. While numerous countries have laws of general application applicable to Internet content such as child pornography or incitement to racial hatred, they do not prohibit or otherwise restrict provision of "matter unsuitable for minors" on the Internet.

The lack of similar laws in comparable countries is not due to a failure of Parliaments or Governments to consider the problems of illegal content or content unsuitable for minors on the Internet. Rather, it reflects a different approach from that in Australia to dealing with the problems.

The remainder of this document contains an overview of governmental approaches to dealing with Internet content that is illegal, or is unsuitable for minors, followed by sections containing more detailed information about various countries. 

Overview

Since approximately 1995, numerous governments around the world have been addressing the problems of material on the Internet that is illegal under their offline laws, and also that considered harmful or otherwise unsuitable for minors. The nature of material of principal concern has varied substantially. For example: political speech; promotion of or incitement to racial hatred; pornographic material. Few governments have attempted to ban or otherwise legislatively restrict access to "matter unsuitable for minors" as distinct from material illegal to distribute to adults.

As at March 2002, government policies concerning censorship of the Internet may be broadly grouped into four categories:

a) Government policy to encourage Internet industry self-regulation and end-user voluntary use of filtering/blocking technologies. 
 

This approach is taken in the United Kingdom, Canada, and a considerable number of Western European countries. It also appears to be the current approach in New Zealand where applicability of offline classification/censorship laws to content on the Internet seems less than clear.

In these countries laws of general application apply to illegal Internet content such as child pornography and incitement to racial hatred.

Content "unsuitable for minors" is not illegal to make available on the Internet, nor must access to same be controlled by a restricted access system. Some (perhaps all) such governments encourage the voluntary use of, and ongoing development of, technologies that enable Internet users to control their own, and their children's, access to content on the Internet.

b) Criminal law penalties (fines or jail terms) applicable to content providers who make content "unsuitable for minors" available online. 
 

This approach is taken in some Australian State jurisdictions and has been attempted in the USA (although no such US Federal law is presently enforceable, and to the best of EFA's knowledge nor is any such US State law).

In these countries, in addition, laws of general application apply to content that is illegal for reasons other than its unsuitability for children, such as child pornography.

c) Government mandated blocking of access to content deemed unsuitable for adults. 
 

This approach is taken in Australian Commonwealth law (although it has not been enforced in this manner to date) and also in, for example, China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Some countries require Internet access providers to block material while others only allow restricted access to the Internet through a government controlled access point. 

d) Government prohibition of public access to the Internet. 
 

A number of countries either prohibit general public access to the Internet, or require Internet users to be registered/licensed by a government authority before permitting them restricted access as in (c) above. Information on countries in this category is available in the Reporters Without Borders/Reporters Sans Frontiers report Enemies of the Internet of February 2001.

In the many countries that have Internet censorship laws far more restrictive than those existing or proposed in Australia, governmental focus appears to be on prohibiting and/or restricting politically sensitive speech, criticism of the government, etc. These governments do not appear to have any focus on prohibiting or restricting content deemed unsuitable for minors as distinct from content deemed unsuitable for adults.

Commentary on the ineffectiveness of legislation like the NSW Bill to protect children on the Internet often focusses on the USA constitutional right to freedom of speech and the US Supreme Court having struck down a similar law. However, from a global perspective, the law in the USA is irrelevant. Even in the highly unlikely event that the USA and Australia enacted identical laws, these would remain ineffective in protecting minors on the global Internet.

Concerns about access to content on the Internet vary markedly around the world and regulatory policy reflects this. What is illegal in one country is not illegal in others, and what is deemed unsuitable for minors in one country is not in others. For example films classified R18 in Australia are often classified suitable for persons under 18 years in other countries, e.g. Intimacy (sex scenes) and Hannibal (violence) are classified 18 in Australia, but are classified 12 in France. However, France prohibits the display of Nazi memorabilia, including on web pages, which is not prohibited by Australian offline laws nor by existing or proposed online censorship laws. Many similar examples exist that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of national censorship laws to protect children (or adults) on the Internet.

The USA is not the only country where citizens have a right to freedom of expression. In contrast to Australia, governments in comparable countries including Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and various European countries have chosen to legislate to give citizens a right in domestic law to freedom of expression similar to that contained in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Such a right is by no means absolute and does not prevent governments from enacting or enforcing laws restricting freedom of expression. However, to the best of EFA's knowledge, governments in these countries have not enacted or indicated any intent to enact, Internet censorship legislation as restrictive of adults' freedom of expression, as that existing and proposed in Australia. 

miss u sarge :*

hey there cutie

my gay lover

been busy w/ that college life and work :[

hey griff how you been bb xxx

urasept gave me dome and didnt even let me finish

that was actually never

unimaginable amount of sweat rn