It should come as no surprise to anyone that Freedom Party stands opposed to the views and philosophy behind the London Union of Unemployed Workers [LUUW].

Led by activist John Clarke (who will "neither confirm nor deny" that he is a Communist), the group has adopted a very recognizable Communist tactic: it claims to speak for "all" the unemployed in the area in order to justify claim to unearned benefits.

"As far as we're concerned, people have a right to either be provided with jobs or they have a right to decent income. I'm talking about an income that people could expect to make if there was no job available," says Clarke.

But the subject of "jobs" was one on which Clarke revealed a great deal of ignorance. When confronted by Freedom Party president Robert Metz on the Wayne McLean Hot Line program (Radio '98 - London, Ontario) Clarke's ignorance was accompanied by another easily recognizable Communist tactic: name-calling and evasion.

The conversation went like this:

Metz: (Mr. Clarke), how is a "job" created? Where do jobs come from in your opinion?

Clarke: People own capital, they set productive units in motion, and they hire people to perform work for them.

Metz: (Then) you're saying that capital is the thing necessary to create jobs. Yet you have already denounced private enterprise and capitalism as being evils and that the profit motive cannot and does not serve the unemployed well. How do you account for this contradiction?

Clarke: I was obviously describing the present system. I'm not saying that there isn't a better system.

Metz: I'd be interested in your describing the "better" system.

Clarke: The better system would be one in which working people owned and controlled the means of production, not for the profit of private individuals but for what was socially beneficial as a whole.

Metz: So what you prefer is profit for the "people" rather than profit for the (individuals) who put it all together. Isn't everyone entitled to earn money?

Clarke: I would say that under the present system, profit is made, not out of entrepreneurial skills, (but) out of the labour of working people, as it has done from time immemorial.

Metz: What you seem to be telling me is the management and people who organize, collect capital and put it all together are not "working."

Clarke: Yes, I think that's about the size of it.

McLean: (But) there are companies that allow equity participation on the part of their staff or employees.

Clarke: Yes they do, but I would consider that a shabby fraud.

McLean: Why is that?

Clarke: You have a situation where workers produce profits. They take back a portion of their labour in the form of wages, whether (or not) you give that the glossy name of "profit-sharing," and introduce quality circles and other collaborationist [sic] measures. It comes down to the same thing: you're producing profit for the employer by working as a worker.

Metz: If the workers own the factory, how are they to get paid if they are not to make a profit?

Clarke: This is all fascinating stuff, but I came here today to talk about (an) attack that was made on us at the London and District Labour Council. ...I think that all the capitalists who find themselves out of work because of the lack of value for the parasitic existence they live at the moment (will) have my full support and sympathy.

Metz: Your "sympathy" will not do much good. These people need jobs, no matter what their political stripe. There is a reality here that you don't want to deal with. You (claim that you) want to pursue "public" works. Where does (that) money come from, Mr. Clarke?

Clarke: Just a second! This is really getting really, truly absurd!

Metz: (That's because) I'm addressing the premise of what you think. You don't like (having) that addressed, do you?

McLean: What is the "absurdity," John?

Clarke: I came on this program today to discuss the split with the London and District Labour Council, not to be party to a political party broadcast for the Freedom Party.

Metz: (But) you're evading my questions, Mr. Clarke.

Clarke [now agitated and getting angry]: I'm not interested in answering your questions! They're of no consequence to me! You come on here and want to talk about the glories of free enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism and other political irrelevance. It means nothing to me!

Metz: (But) how is a job going to be created? I want to hear your "process." You haven't created (any) job yet, either in theory or in practice.

Clarke: Perhaps you're not listening to me. I regard you and your organization and your mentor to be a guru of political irrelevance! It means nothing to me! It's of no interest to me! I don't want to debate with you! I don't want to discuss with you! You offend me! You revolt me! Please go away!

McLean: Bob, hang on --- I'm going to give you the last word.

Metz: I (can only) say that Mr. Clarke's evasion is very indicative of what he stands for. I hope people are listening to this because Clarke does not believe in the freedom of people to work for whom they (choose). His Marxist platitudes have been swallowed by people (of the political) left, right, and center. Everything (Clarke) advocates creates unemployment --- (without) exception. (His inability) to deal with (this) is quite evident by his manners.

That the London Union of Unemployed Workers exists only to attain unearned benefits cannot be disputed. Clarke himself proudly announced that one of the "achievements" of his group was to have the unemployment insurance job search requirements cut in half.

But if you were unemployed and wanted to work, wouldn't you want to increase the number of job contacts you made, rather than cut the number in half? We can only assume the purpose of joining the LUUW is to remain unemployed.

In that respect, the group has been a remarkable success!

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002