Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ßoris]

... Do yourself a favour and read up a bit on farming in Africa.

Oh my dear, thick as mum’s pea soup.  You are obviously unable to differentiate between subsistence and commercial farming.

Most Black farm hands were not taught commercial farming but were merely labours doing as they were told while being overtly supervised by mostly white farm managers.  If the management and directors of a major Australian manufacturing company were to suddenly flee to another country, do you think the factory labourers would be able to just walk right in to the office and continue with production at a commercially sustainable level …I think not - Why then do you credit farm labourers with any more skill then factory labourers? 

But that’s not all; most of the new owners were war veterans and not the farm hands.  Many of the farm hands, who may have had some experience, were also driven off the land.  Another thing to consider is the subdivision of the land after compulsory acquisition.  With only small lots, commercial farming collapsed in favour of subsistence farming.  Also, the so called war veterans were used to taking what they wanted from others and now they had to actually do the work themselves, and the rest is history.

Now, I’m not saying that the collapse of the Farming industry was due only to the lack of skill, because other factors; such as the corruption of the market infrastructure and non-cooperation of the “old boy network", whose allegiances were to the White farmers, were also significant contributing factors.

[Lord Biscuit©]

Oh my dear, thick as mum’s pea soup.  You are obviously unable to differentiate between subsistence and commercial farming.

Most Black farm hands were not taught commercial farming but were merely labours doing as they were told while being overtly supervised by mostly white farm managers.  If the management and directors of a major Australian manufacturing company were to suddenly flee to another country, do you think the factory labourers would be able to just walk right in to the office and continue with production at a commercially sustainable level …I think not - Why then do you credit farm labourers with any more skill then factory labourers? 

So, if you are being told what to do, you are incapable of remembering that job the next day? Fortunately they are not quite as thick as that.

In there are many cases of factory workers taking over and running factories - with great success. Farms in Australia and many/most places are handed down, not sold to some highly trained specialist. People on farms do a lot of learning on the job.

I think your own inadequacies lead you be believing that everyone is like you. Fortunately, not so. You under-estimate the resourcefulness of people.

But that’s not all; most of the new owners were war veterans and not the farm hands.  Many of the farm hands, who may have had some experience, were also driven off the land.  Another thing to consider is the subdivision of the land after compulsory acquisition.  With only small lots, commercial farming collapsed in favour of subsistence farming.  Also, the so called war veterans were used to taking what they wanted from others and now they had to actually do the work themselves, and the rest is history.

Wrong, most farm hands were not 'driven off the land'. However, as you say, the vets were not always the best employers, and many farm hands ended up subsistence farming on a small plot of the existing farms. Of course, subsistence farming is simply unsustainable and doesn't do much for people living in cities.

Now, I’m not saying that the collapse of the Farming industry was due only to the lack of skill, because other factors; such as the corruption of the market infrastructure and non-cooperation of the “old boy network", whose allegiances were to the White farmers, were also significant contributing factors.

The collapse of the farming industry was almost nothing to do with lack of skill. You might have noticed there are other things going on in Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation has meant that businesses and farm alike cannot buy equipment or stuff like fertiliser from outside the country. Of course, it does not take long before everything starts to fail.

You are right in that the 'old boy' network is one example of colonialism working. It gives a country access to resources it might not otherwise enjoy. Unfortunately (for some places) it's not a comfortable situation, as the balance of power, and suspicion of cronyism is always going to be problematic.

[ßoris]

In there are many cases of factory workers taking over and running factories - with great success.

There has been only one case that I know of in Australia, a fruit canning company, and in that case the management remained in place.  The production line workers did not takeover the management role, they just became share-holders.  Get it right cookie!

Commercial farming is more than putting seed in the ground: there is recruitment, management, machinery maintenance, marketing, transport, forward planning, and pest control, storage, development and re-investment, etc. etc.  Magically these farm hands were able to do this overnight …get real!

I don’t see how anything you said has refuted my argument, you merely add more variables…and I concur with some.  However, as I said, it’s not the only factor but it is a factor.

[SG]

There has been only one case that I know of in Australia, a fruit canning company, and in that case the management remained in place.  The production line workers did not takeover the management role, they just became share-holders.  Get it right cookie!

SPC.

Equally BOC Gases DID run a fully empowered team system where the floor workers took full responsibility for the facility.  Ultimately when the GM resigned they didn't replace the position.

National Foods run a full team responsibility structure

Severl other companies that I know of directly do likewise.

So no, it's not just one.

And it's a lot more complex than farming.

SG

[Thaluikhain]

A further tragedy to the Iraq fiasco is the now trepidation of the US to extend their benevolent hand in other affairs.  At a time when our brethren are in dire need of some intervention the US is now gun shy.

Can I legitimately claim that Zimbabwe is a victim of the Iraq war?

No.

C'mon, there's been lots of shitty third world countries that the US could have intervened in, but didn't, even before they went to Iraq.

Nations simply do not invade other nations for humanitarian purposes.

Well, ok, you get some that do...evil communists like Fidel Castro like sending troops to fight against apartheid South Africa and US backed armies for no actual gain, but otherwise it's extremely rare.

[ßoris]

SPC.
Equally BOC Gases DID run a fully empowered team system where the floor workers took full responsibility for the facility.  Ultimately when the GM resigned they didn't replace the position.
National Foods run a full team responsibility structure
Severl other companies that I know of directly do likewise.
So no, it's not just one.
And it's a lot more complex than farming.

You are comparing apples with coal. 
 
These that you mention are different in that there was no vacuum in management, no sudden change, but rather a restructure, where the skills of key personnel remained in place and peripheral infrastructures remained functional.   

[ßoris]

Nations simply do not invade other nations for humanitarian purposes.

This is a valid point. 

Since WW2, the United States has interfered directly, or indirectly, with many countries around the world. Presently, the U.S. has 6,000 bases in 130 countries.  When the US can’t get its way with the UN it just goes off and does what it wants anyway like some petulant child.  The following are countries that America has interfered militarily since WW 2, as compiled by historian William Blum: China (1945-46), Korea (1950-53), China (1950-53), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Guatemala (1960), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-2008), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998-2008). This list does not include covert interference in places such as Colombia and Chili etc.

On the surface, American philanthropy appears to pursue political outcomes, but political outcomes that are used to secure American trade interests.  Very few today would deny that the Iraq war was all about oil.

Hence my proposition, if Zimbabwe had any significant oil wealth, would America’s attitude be different to what it is now in regard to Mugabe?

[SG]

You are comparing apples with coal. 
 
These that you mention are different in that there was no vacuum in management, no sudden change, but rather a restructure, where the skills of key personnel remained in place and peripheral infrastructures remained functional.   

If you prefer an abrupt end to management then there are numerous examples of businesses going under and the staff banding together to resurrect them.

Most front of mind casewas a wedding cake company that went under and simply closed.  Staff got together, recovered customer orders from the bin, honoured all payments made to the old company and are still in business today.

Will that do for you?

Equally you are displaying an interesting thought pattern whereby the "noble savage" black man simply toils all day for the "master bwana" white man without learning a single thing over the entire time he worked.

Somehow I suspect that isn't the case.

SG

[SG]

This is a valid point. 

Since WW2, the United States has interfered directly, or indirectly, with many countries around the world. Presently, the U.S. has 6,000 bases in 130 countries.  When the US can’t get its way with the UN it just goes off and does what it wants anyway like some petulant child.  The following are countries that America has interfered militarily since WW 2, as compiled by historian William Blum: China (1945-46), Korea (1950-53), China (1950-53), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), Guatemala (1960), Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-2008), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998-2008). This list does not include covert interference in places such as Colombia and Chili etc.

On the surface, American philanthropy appears to pursue political outcomes, but political outcomes that are used to secure American trade interests.  Very few today would deny that the Iraq war was all about oil.

Hence my proposition, if Zimbabwe had any significant oil wealth, would America’s attitude be different to what it is now in regard to Mugabe?

Iraq wasn't all about oil.  If it was aboutoil then a different approach would have been taken.

Iraq was about power projection and the willingness to use it with the ultimate aim of being to demonstrate that the world's one remaining superpower is prepared to fuck you over if you don't fall in line.  Not necessarily complete submission but a clear warning not to get all uppity.  Look at the effect it had on Gadaffi.

And this is the way it has always been, bear in mind that part of FDR's WW2 strategy was to ensure that the British Empire could never become a threat to American interests and that end was achieved in spades.

If Zim had oil then Mugabe and his ZANLU/ZIPRA mates would never have got in in the first place.

SG

[Lord Biscuit©]

I must say I hadn't considered Australian companies taken over & run by employees, although of course there are plenty of example in western countries. I was thinking more about South America - Brazil, Venezuela & Colombia.

There's a great read called 'Maverick' about a factory in Brazil, by Ricardo Semler

http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

I believe you'd enjoy that book ßoris.

[SG]

There's a great read called 'Maverick' about a factory in Brazil, by Ricardo Semler

http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

I believe you'd enjoy that book ßoris.

GREAT book!

As a relatively (as in relative to now) young maintenance dude I did the tour of their pump facility.

Brilliant.

Taught me much of my preferred management style, or at least taught me to look beyond standard Australian management practices at the time.

Unfortuneately the tours have been discontinued as too distracting, I Wanted to send a grop of managers to have a look in the late 90s but no joy.

If you want to learn about management, read MAverick.  It shouldn't be the only text and very few managers will ever "get" it but when they do they become extremely effective.

SG