{"id":110037,"date":"2021-06-23T15:52:07","date_gmt":"2021-06-23T22:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=110037"},"modified":"2021-06-24T16:14:42","modified_gmt":"2021-06-24T23:14:42","slug":"q996-transcript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=110037","title":{"rendered":"Q996 Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you.<\/strong><\/i><\/p>\n

To read the Tape Summary,\u00a0click here<\/a>. Listen to MP3 (Pt. 1<\/a>,\u00a0Pt. 2<\/a>).
\nTo return to the Tape Index, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Jones:<\/strong> The article\u2019s basic perspective is that the world capitalist economics are in deep and long-term crisis. The main strength of the reader is its multi-faceted description of the contradictions of the United States economy and the impact of the crisis on workers and communities. (tape edit) The theme of the reader is that the post world two\u2013 World War II strategy of capital accumulation no longer works. Rampant automation, increasing international competition and rising debts have undermined the stability of capitalist society, as we see for instance with Japan, who keeps its surplus of trade and its protectionist policies, refusing to have fair and equal trade, free trade between its so-called capitalist ally, USA. Fiscal crisises are paralyzing the state\u2019s attempts to mediate in the global economic shake-up. Anti-imperialist victories abroad, democratic struggles at home, and labor militancy everywhere have further shaken the capitalist system, particularly so the anti-imperialist victories like Afghanistan this week that thrills all of our hearts, that a great nation has gone communist. We are at a crossroad, URPE [Union for Radical Political Economics] economists tell us, with capitalists trying to establish a new world order on one hand, and with grueling rising class struggle opening up new possibilities for the qualitative transformation of capitalist society on the other. (tape edit)<\/p>\n

Some of the best articles are those which detail the impact of the recession on productivity and working conditions, effects on women and minority black workers and brown workers, and the movements of jobs towards the Sunbelt and overseas, thus bringing about a dire economic situation in United States, of grave unemployment amongst poor whites, and better than half of the blacks and Indians and Chicanos. These articles stand out because of their clear position that these issues are determined by class struggle, rather than the inevitable working out of the forces of production, a position which typifies many of the articles. (tape edit) URPE social democratic. Less satisfactory are a number of articles which suggest that because the state can become\u2013 can be a site of class struggle, it can also become the main instrument for the revolutionary transformation of society. The flaw in this interpretation is that the state is not neutral, but develops its structures as a part of capitalist society.<\/p>\n

Now, I\u2019m giving a total review of a book that is pretty popular these days, US Capitalism in Crisis,<\/em> and showing the flaw in its main theme, that is that the state is not neutral, but develops its structures as a part of capitalist society. Few of the articles explain the limits and uses of reform strategies. This vaguely social democratic approach to the state is mirrored\u2013 mirrored in the editorial collective section on political strategy at the end of the reader, elements of which appear in many of the articles as well. It is encouraging and\u2013 that academic Marxists feel the need to publish a book which contains a discussion of political strategy.<\/p>\n

However, the URPE analysis is seriously marred by a spontaneous and economistic approach. The editors call for the formation of an anti-capitalist movement, consisting of an alliance of everyone who feels assaulted by the current economic crisis. The URPE collective suggests that the only demands the anti-capitalist movement can make are those which make sense to most people right now. Thus, they raise demands for full employment, fighting inflation, and changing the government\u2019s tax policies.<\/p>\n

But how will those demands move the anti-capitalist\u2013 the anti-capitalist movement toward what the editors delicately\u2013 delicately call the qualitative transformation of the system? It doesn\u2019t fit. The collective explicitly states that they don\u2019t have the answers, that they will undoubtedly spring from the experiences of the movement as it encounters increasing resistance from capitalists, and the conflict heightens. For the immediate future, they stress the sole progress strategy\u2013 uh, the sole progressive strategy is to build the broadest base alliance possible, leaving aside such questions as the goals of the movement until the right moment. This strategy is an essentially economistic approach which relies heavily on spontaneity, both organizationally and theoretically. URPE implies that the increasing severity of the capitalistic crisis will spontaneously give rise to the theory which will transform the anti-capitalist movement into a revolutionary \u2013 but don\u2019t call it that \u2013 organization. Indeed, because it utts primacy on building the broadest-based movement possible and frowns upon squabbling over details like the role of the working class, or whether the goal of this movement is socialism, the URPE \u2013 again, let us know who that is, that is the Union for Radical Politics\u2013 Political Economics \u2013 the URPE in this perspective is way off. The URE [URPE] perspective may actually block<\/em> the development of the strategic revolutionary theory we need now, not later. You cannot avoid the issue of the working class. You cannot avoid the classless society concept and class structure that we deal with. You must<\/em> deal with Marxist-Leninist principles to get any kind of broad-based movement. There\u2019s no need to talk in such terms. So this book, some 346 pages, I have given you a synopsis. It\u2019s a weighty analysis, but a weak strategy. It\u2019s a very popular book today, US Capitalism in Crisis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Another book, America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism<\/em>, by Na\u2013 David F. Noble. Destroying the myth of the managerial elite will be the topic. David Noble challenges head-on one of the favorite myths about the current state of US monopoly capitalism that is soon to enter the fascistic cruel police repressive stage, that engineers have replaced capitalists in controlling the production process. Rejecting the image of engineers as pure scientists operating in the classless world of facts, Noble demonstrates that professional engineers have consistently worked to maintain capitalist hegemony in production, in his book America by Design<\/em>. From its earliest days, Noble suggests engineers were inco\u2013 were concerned with science for the sake of profit. He destroys a ridiculous but familiar image of Thomas Edison as an altruistic genius, a gentle genius of concern with romantic notions to help people. Instead, Edison is shown as one of the early entrepreneurial inventors, one of the true capitalists who ruthlessly considered the profit angle before beginning a new project. The real strength of Noble\u2019s book, however, is his descriptions of how engineers weeded science\u2013 wedded science to corporate capitalism, led it down the road to corporate capitalism. He depicts, for instance, Bell Telephone\u2019s numerous researchers put to work on wasteful projects inventing patentable gadgets which assures Bell\u2019s continued monopoly over the telephone. Noble also provides a detailed examination of the rise of scientific management, the process of harassing technology to the control of workers\u2013 or the process of harnessing technology to the control of workers, one might better say. Noble\u2019s main intention is not simply to demonstrate that technologies are developed in the interests of the capitalist class. However, he also wants to show the process by which science is harnessed to capitalist production. He attempts to show that in order to maintain control over the production process, capitalists had to create new and powerful managerial positions in firms largely staffed by engineers without soul or principle.<\/p>\n

The book\u2019s flaw, but it is here, that the main flaw in the book emerges. As the book progresses, one gets the uncomfortable feeling that Noble has simply left out a step in his book, America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism<\/em>. He has seemingly forgotten to explain how the capitalists manage to constrain these increasingly powerful managers from acting in their own, rather than the capitalists\u2019 interest. What his account needs and lacks is an explanation of the mechanisms by which capitalists continue to control the range of decisions made by the engineers, even if the experts are relatively autonomous within certain limits. This failure lends a static quality to the work. Noble\u2019s image of technology as a tool of capitalist domini\u2013 domination ignores the important ways in which these technologies simultaneously at the same time undermine capitalist hegemony. In the introduction to his book, Noble quotes Karl Marx\u2019 famous insight that the forces and relations of production appear to capital as mere means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow the foundations sky high. Unfortunately, Noble fails to carry this dialectical approach into the book. Nowhere to be found are the contradictions wrought by technological development in capitalist society. Nor does Noble provide an analysis of contradictions within the engineering process or profession. Thus, while the book provides a good insight into capitalism\u2019s use of\u2013 use of technology in a barbaric way to maintain bourgeoisie upper middle-class capitalist hegemony, what we need now is an assessment of how this same technological development and the contradictions it engenders or brings about can be turned against the capitalistic system to overthrow it. State by.<\/p>\n

(Tape edit, five second pause)<\/p>\n

Now this is an attack on the concepts of nationalization and expropriation that are being recommended by many US communists. Some US communists are falling into the same trick bag as the Eurocommunists, though the US Communist Party, CPUSA, still maintains its loyalty ostensibly to the Soviet Union. But at the height of the recet\u2013 recent coal strike, many of the leaders of the US Communist Party thundered forth its solution to the underlying problem: nationalize the mines.<\/p>\n

In the midst of the discussion about the energy crisis and an impending oil shortage, the Communist Party leaders were equally s\u2013 stentorian, nationalize the oil industry was their solution. When plant closings and reduced profit margins reveal the agonies of the US steel monopolies, once again the Communist Party leaders called to nationalize steel. In a speech just a few months ago, Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, put it all together. The time has come, Hall said, when the United States\u2013 in the United States, we are forced to consider the nationalization of a number of industries. We are simply not going to be able to solve the serious problems of energy, steel, coal, housing, mass transit and the pharmaceutical industry, medical supplies, without nationalization.<\/p>\n

Now all of this sounds pretty drastic. Just the thing to make it appear that the Communists are on the case with fundamental and radical solutions. And many people with only a hazy notion of Marxist-Leninism or socialism will undoubtedly see it that way. Certainly one popular myth about socialism is that it\u2013 in essence, it is the nationalization of industry. Some who realize that nationalization is not by itself socialisism\u2013 socialism, still see it as a progressive measure, a step on the road to socialism. Others see raising the question of nationalization as a means of introducing the question of socialism to the working class and the masses of the people. But the nationalization of industry is no answer for the working class, according to this viewer, Irwin Sibler [Silber], an active Marxist-Leninist, but not a member of the Communist Party USA. He says nationalization of industry is no answer for the working class (Tape edit) either in the short run or the long term. In fact, in his opinion, the bourgeoisie itself is at times a foremost advocate of nationalizing one or another sector of industry.<\/p>\n

This is particularly the case in certain services industries, such as communications and transportation, as we\u2019ve seen with recent nationalization of certain airlines, where conditions may have developed in such a way (tape edit) that no single group of capitalists can afford to operate in those areas profitably, and yet the capitalist class as a whole needs the functions performed by them. The postal service, for example. This was the case with the postal system in virtually all capitalist countries. Historically the postal services originated as private enterprises, but for a variety of reasons, the bourgeoisie soon realized that it was in the mutual interest of the entire class to have the postal service operated through its common state apparatus. First of all, the postal service was one area where the bourgeoisie ruling class wanted to eliminate competition completely. For here was a vital business service needed by the entire capitalist class. Secondly, it did not want to create a situation where any one group of capitalists might be able to exercise control over the mail service to the advantage of its particular financial holdings. This included maintaining the sanctity and security of the mails, with the notable exception of political literature and the mail of subversive individuals and organizations. Of course, those things are censored. So, in every capitalist country, the postal service was nationalized, that is, the bourgeoisie state operated it for the mutual benefit of the capitalist class as a whole.<\/p>\n

But doesn\u2019t the post office serve the public? Actually, no, indeed. The bulk of postal services are performed on behalf of business. Business rates are much cheaper than those services which individuals use the most: bulk rate, second class rates for periodicals, third class rates for merchandise, and fourth class rates (tape edit) [for] books and other educational materials, are all less costly than the first class rate, which is how the ordinary working class person has to send a letter.<\/p>\n

Now let us look at transportation. The same is true of transportation. Up until the mid-1930s, the New York City subway system, for instance, was privately-owned. Then it was nationalized, or municipalized would probably be the more accurate term. The reason: the five-cent fare did not provide a high enough return on investment for the subway owners, and raising the fare at that time would probably have been of an incendiary move. It would have enflamed passions too much. So the New York City bought the subways from its owners. Actually, the city did not have the money to pay for them, so it borrowed the money from the over\u2013 and ever accommodating New York banks. Forty years later, New York continues to pay the banks interest on these loans. In actual dollars, the loans have been repaid several times over. But the original principle indebtedness remains as it was, and the prospects are that it always will. So capitalist interests are gaining money from a continued loan that never will be paid off. Since that time, the subway fares in New York have gone up ten times. The subways receive some subsidies \u2013 underwriting, that is \u2013 from the state and federal governments, but the principle has been established that the subways have to pay for themselves. That is, the fares have to cover operating costs. This is a neat device for pitting one section of the working class, the subway workers, against the rest of the working class which rides the subways. Thus fare raises are always tied to wage increases for the transportation workers. (tape edit) But the huge department stores, industries and commercial establishments who would not be able to have the services of the workforce without the subways literally get a free ride.<\/p>\n

Nationalization is always recommended for ailing industries. This becomes a device for modernizing plants and developing new, high-priced technology at the workers\u2019 expense, since the bulk of taxes comes out of workers\u2019 paychecks. In many cases, (tape edit) companies and whole industries are returned to private corporate ownership after the state has fixed them up at its own expense. This was the case with the temporarily- nationalized steel plants in Britain and with the USA railroads. It was just an appearance of ownership of the people. It was taken over jointly by the state, which is the instrument of the capitalist class, then got in financial good repair, and returned to the private sector of monopoly capitalism.<\/p>\n

Effects of nationalization. The demand to nationalize industry without the accompanying and inseparable demand of expropriation becomes a charade for indefinitely permitting the former owners and the banks to continue to receive the surplus value produced by the workers. The only solution is for all property, means of production and distribution to be actually expropriated and turned over to the workers. For this is what the multi-billion dollar payouts invariably mean, that surplus value that should go to the workers, go to those that hone [hold] the loans on these industries that only appear to be nationalized. And if they\u2019re nationalized by a state that is capitalist, then some of the communist leaders\u2019 positions in USA are erroneous, because there can be no interest served by a state that is capitalistically-owned. That\u2019s why I don\u2019t like the references by Communist nations to the people as a state. We should call it the people or the government, not the state. The state can be a force of evil, as it has always<\/em> been in capitalism.<\/p>\n

Last and far from least, nationalization of any economic sector has always provided the bourgeoisie with the pretext for declaring strikes and many forms of collective action by workers in these enterprises illegal on the ground, but then there are strikes against the government. That certainly has been the truth in the postal services and in certain industries such as the transportation industries, railway and airlines that\u2019ve been nationalized by the US capitalist government.<\/p>\n

The nationalization of industry under the a\u2013 aegis of the capitalist state is thus: in practice a way to disguise the ultimate receivers of surplus value. What is a surplus value? You should all know that now. That is the difference between what the labor receives and the actual value of his labor. What he produces should all go to the laborer. But instead of that being so, only a small value of what he produces goes to the laborer, and a profit or surplus value goes to the ruling class, the monopoly elitist, the neo-fascist monopoly capitalist that rule USA and have a stranglehold on 66 percent of the world\u2019s population. These are the former owners who receive the surplus value, who receive their share in the form of the interminable payout, the banks who get theirs in the form of interest, like the interest that\u2019s still being received on the unpaid subway system in New York, landowners\u2013 landowners who get theirs in the form of rent, executives who get their share in the form of huge salaries, bonuses, expense accounts, and the like. The other capitalists able to avail themselves of these services are products of the nationalized enterprise at a reduced rate. The various suppliers of parts and materials, as well as the private distribute\u2013 distributors, wholesalers and retailers, all of these still divide up the surplus value produced by the workers in a nationalized enterprise. That\u2019s what the opposition PPP, Peoples Progressive Party under Dr. Cheddi Jagan, and the Working People\u2019s Alliance complain about in Guyana: 85 percent of the uh, business sector is owned by the state, but they still claim that too much surplus value go into wealth for members of the technologist or the bureaucrats\u2013 some bureaucrats in the PNC, who do not live modestly like Dr. [Ptolemy] Reid, the deputy prime minister and head of the party, or Dr. [Vibert] Mingo, who\u2019s been a good friend to us and our liaison with the Peoples National Congress, which is the party of Prime Minister
\n[Forbes] Burnham. True, a certain number of jobs may be saved by nationalization, but the actual exploitation of the working class does not diminish one iota, and the whole thing invariably turns out to be a windfall for the capitalist.<\/p>\n

The CP\u2019s nationalization policy. But none of this has discouraged much of the leadership of the Communist Party USA from touting nationalization of industry as the greatest idea since technicolor. Thus, an April 19th article in The Daily World<\/em>, the newspaper of the Communist Party USA, is euphoric \u2013 that\u2019s dreamy-eyed \u2013 at the prospect of having the US nationalize the railroads\u2013 the railways once again. Author Tom Foley writes about how wonderful a trip to West Germany\u2013 Germany recently was because the nationalized railroads\u2013 railroads perform so efficiently as compared to US railroads. I also remember that under the beginning of fascism, Benito Mussolini, who founded fascism in Italy in 1922, and much of the same climate exists in Italy today, the first thing said all over the world about Benito Mussolini in my memory was that the railways run on time. So fascists can make railroad\u2013 railroads nationalize and run them on time. The US is being denied the excellent means of transportation that nationalized railroads are in most countries, writes this writer, Tom Foley of the Communist Party, simply to keep a lot of greedy capitalists making\u2013 raking in profits.<\/p>\n

Foley doesn\u2019t even blanch when observing that some capitalists themselves are speaking up in favor of nationalization. Why should he? Revisionism is postulated on the premise that there will be a number of monopoly capitalists who at the right moment are going to be reasonable and intelligent about things, and simply turn their property over to the workers as soon as they see the handwriting on the wall. And this is ridiculous, and has been denounced by the Soviet Union, that revisionism will no longer work, that gradualism cannot take place, that you cannot bring changes of the means of production, the expropriation, the change of ownership of the means of production and the means of distribution, without revolution. Impossible. It will not take place peacefully.<\/p>\n

Gus Hall, at least, adds a few qualifying phrases, who is a good man and chairman of the Communist Party USA. He adds a few qualifying phrases to his demands for nationalization. (Tape edit) In his mind, nationalization means that these industries would be taken out of the system of corporate profits and would then be democratically-operated and controlled as public property \u2013 good idea \u2013 by elected representatives of the workers and public, and run for the benefit of all the people, he says. Such industries would then dispense with the private profits and corporate executive salaries. The takeovers must take place through, and by way of, the federal government. But after the takeover, the workers and the people\u2019s representatives must then be permitted to operate these plans\u2013 these plants. How good that sounds. How simple it is: the workers and the public, whoever they are, would run the nationalized companies. Actually, Hall says, they must be permitted to do so, which raises an increa\u2013 creasingly interesting question, namely who is it that so munificently, who so generously grants this permission, and what gives them the power and authority to do so, and what if they don\u2019t decide to do it? And to imagine that this gingerbread version of social practice is passed off as Marxist-Leninism, according to Irwin Slim\u2013 Silber, is just too much to believe. Gus Hall\u2019s scenario more approt\u2013 appropriately belongs to a collection of fairy tales, Grimm ones, like being passed off by the Eurocommunists who have become a part of the state apparatus in Italy and are even speaking out against the Red Brigade, that are the only group that have done anything of an activist nature, and have succeeded in dividing the ruling class by kidnapping one Aldo Moro, prime minister, after killing five of his bodyguards. And yet have not done a thing to him, but because other members of the ruling class are getting nervous on the fact that the capitalists are not doing one thing, and the ruling monopoly government is doing not one thing, and all the USA multinationals that backed Aldo Moro and for whom Aldo Moro served well, are not doing one thing to free him, other members of the government are becoming very, very nervous, and it may bring about, according to BBC, the actual disruption, if not the downfall, of the Christian Democratic Party of Italy. (tape edit)<\/p>\n

Hall postulates that a federal government[\u2018s] sole responsibility to the workers will not only nationalize industry and dispense with private profits, it will them turn industry over to the workers to run. Who will induce the federal government of the United States to do all this? And what in the world will the monopoly capitalists being doing during this time, to say nothing of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and the police throughout the country that I just brought you news earlier of how much terror they are bringing upon the American public. The US Civil Rights Commission says that there\u2019s more police brutality in every city of the nation than has even been known in the history of USA since it began its barbaric murder of the Indians and stole their land and used the black slaves, killing three million to make their own profit. Presumably, Gus Hall thinks that at some time\u2013 point, the workers will be strong enough to make this happen, and he is now doubt conscientious in this, unless like Fo\u2013 Foley, he is counting on the reasonableness of monopoly capitalists, which knowing Gus Hall, the writer thinks, is not likely. For he is sincere.<\/p>\n

But if the workers are that strong, why shouldn\u2019t they then be taking over the government instead, not in some kind of nationalzistic\u2013 nationalistic program, nationalizing this and that, but an actual revolutionary overthrow of the government is the only hope that the working class can take control of their destinies. Here is the fundamental problem of revisionist schemes, in China, wherever they are. They want socialism without revolution. They aim to get state power peacefully and democratically, which is just another way of telling the bourgeoisie that they intend to play by capitalism\u2019s own rules, as the Eurocommunists and the capitalists\u2013 uh, the Communist Party of Italy have done, even to such a degree that they are supporting the stands of the capitalist regime of [Giulio] Andreotti and joining in alliance with the AFL-CIO, which is an instrument of bossism rather that trade unionism. And they think the workers can get state power gradually by degrees, the revisionists do, slowly expanding that power to nationalize more enterprises and bring various public sectors under their control, until one day, quan\u2013 quantitative\u2013 (Pause) not qualitative, I can assure you, but quantitative change will pass over into qualitative change, and socialism will have arrived. This is dreamy-eyed revisionistic nonsense. In their more sober moments, most revisionists probably realize these events would never come to pass. They are prepared therefore to pin the label of socialism on some form of welfare state capitalism in which, like their counterparts in western Europe, they will share in the management of the bourgeoisie edifice.<\/p>\n

This is why the demand for the nationalization of industry, no matter how militant it may sound, is the very essence of we\u2013 reformism, not revolution. It directly implies that capitalism can be made to work with a little help from the friends\u2013 its friends in the revisionist communist parties. That\u2019s why the Red Brigade and the Red Army have spoken out against all social systems where the institutions talk about gradual change and working for change through the democratic process and peaceful d\u00e9tente and co-existence between capitalists and Marxist-Leninists. That\u2019s why they are doing their revolutionary acts of shooting, for instance, the legs of the owner of Fiat [Rinaldo Camaioni] and shooting the legs of the deputy prime minister, kidnapping, such as Prime Minister Moro and holding him in ransom for money for further liberation causes and the release of political prisoners, and also to show the disloyalty of capitalists, which already, without one thing being done to Prime Minister Moro that the Red Brigade is holding, the whole ruling party\u2019s about to fall apart. The Red Brigade knows that there are dangers in this, that it may bring about a vicious form of fascism and state dictatorship, but they believe then and only then will the workers waken to the fact that the state is the enemy, the capitalist state, whether it goes through nationalization policies or whatever maneuvers to look humane, that the state of capitalism is the enemy of the people, and that is the difference between the policies of the Communist Red Brigade and the Red Army as opposed to the social imperialists who believe that change can come peacefully and revisionistically through gradualism and democratic change.<\/p>\n

This will give you at least food for thought. We want you to always inflame your mind, fan the flames of your thinking and introspection and analysis. Thank you, and I do love you very much. (tape edit)<\/p>\n

Part 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

(Agriculture\/livestock report from winter 1978)<\/p>\n

Man 1<\/strong>: We found out that the liver was spotted, had uh, leather\u2013 had yellow uh, round the liver, and we uh, concluded that it was uh, Newcastle that caused her death. Another\u2013 the other layer was a death was met by accident, she probably ran against the wall or something, we don\u2019t know. We found her laying in the morning, stiff. Another\u2013 (voice fades)<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 1<\/strong>: Uh, just a minute, (stumbles over words) I got something else, I didn\u2019t\u2013 and we need the Learning Crew down with hose to fron\u2013 uh, to finish the grass around the chicken house. No, they\u2013 they cut it with cutlass, and then they didn\u2019t cut it very short. So they have to use a hoe to go down deeper to the earth.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Wanda Swinney<\/strong>: Are you\u2013 are you inoculate\u2013 still inoculating all of them for Newcastle\u2019s disease? That is being done to all of them?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Wanda<\/strong>: Al\u2013 Also, I\u2019d like to know, because I didn\u2019t get\u2013 when I was in Georgetown, I never received an order to purchase more of this medication. If you need it, you better plan out what you\u2019re gonna need for a year so it can be purchased right away. \u2018Cause it\u2019s get\u2013 our medicines are getting hard to do.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man<\/strong>: The best I understand it, we got some in the\u2013 in the freezer.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 2<\/strong>: No, we only got one. We\u2013 we only have uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Wanda<\/strong>: Okay, see, when I was in Georgetown, you shoulda gave me that order so I coulda picked it up. So you need to get that done right away.<\/p>\n

Man 2<\/strong>: Well\u2013 well, we only ordered for two, so if you want us to order a year\u2019s supply, we\u2019ll do that.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Wanda<\/strong>: Medications are getting hard\u2013 Medica\u2013 My point is, you know, get together and\u2013and discuss it with the committee, but medications are getting increasingly more difficult to\u2013 to get.<\/p>\n

Woman 2<\/strong>: Uh, you\u2013 you mentioned the Learning Crew coming down, doing your\u2013 doing the uh, grass-cutting, you didn\u2019t state how many of the Learning Crew, because when I was down there, I didn\u2019t see that you need the whole entire Learning Crew to\u2013 to chop that little grass that\u2019s there.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 3<\/strong>: The Learning Crew\u2019s gonna be down there tomorrow, so if (too soft)<\/p>\n

Man 1<\/strong>: I have another request. We\u2013 we\u2013 we wanna uh, a sleeping pad installed in Building 8 for baby chicks, you know, to whoever observe\u2013 uh, we putting a 24-hour watch on the baby chicks, and we found out we were more successful that way in\u00ad\u2013 in losses, not having losses. So if we could uh, take some of the old lumber and make a sleeping pad there, \u2018cause it\u2019s put a\u2013 We already got the bed, so we just put a bed up there and uh\u2013 So whoever\u2019s there all night could at least rest uh, relax a little bit.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: What is the answer on that? Does anybody have an answer about the\u2013 what\u2013 what did you want exactly in the way of the\u2013 the stall in the building that\u2019s already there, or what? You know, or\u2013 or you want to just\u2013 couple of supports and a couple of boards across to hold the bed up off the ground, is that all you want? Uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Albert [Touchette] handy? (Pause) Yes, go ahead, Jim [Bogue].<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: The piggery will be glad to donate the chickery a bed.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right, thank you, that\u2019s taken care of. And is that\u2013 Is that all you have?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All\u2013 all right, uh, Tish [Leroy] (unintelligible word) that. Now, do we\u2013<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: I have\u2013 I have a question on that.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Yeah, I was going to ask for questions now. You have one, Tish. Go ahead.<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Yes, both of the items that he mentioned tonight as problems were covered in last week\u2019s meeting, and they were supposedly resolved last week. I\u2019m wondering why both the hoeing and the uh\u2013 what was the other problem (unintelligible word)\u2013<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Cutlass work. You talking about cutting the grass?<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Oh\u2013 Well, at least the hoeing of the\u2013 of the grass was covered in the last two meetings. We\u2019ve covered this and both times it was said that Learning Crew would get down there. We either need to have better facility of arranging this or work it out with the coordinator at the end of the meeting, but these things shouldn\u2019t carry over from meeting to meeting and be included in every report like this, because that\u2019s\u2013 uh, that\u2019s bad management.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 5<\/strong>: I\u2019d like to point out. He said that the Learning Crew came down there and cut the grass, but said they didn\u2019t cut it\u2013 cut it down low enough, and said they needed hoes instead of cutlasses, and from my experience with a cutlass, you can cut it as low as you want with a cutlass.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: You can\u2013 You can take care of that tomorrow when they get there, right? I mean there\u2019s no problem, right? All right, wait a minute. You understand that\u2013 (stumbles over words) We can take care of it tomorrow, all right. So that\u2019s settled. All right, fine.<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Wait a minute, (unintelligible name). It isn\u2019t going to be settled unless, when the Learning Crew gets down there, you talk to the supervisor and tell him how low you want it.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 6<\/strong>: (unintelligible beginning) \u2013 that they couldn\u2019t get it low enough with that, to bring hoes. He was\u2013 Dad said that.<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Okay, but what I\u2019m saying is, instruct the supervisor when he comes there. Coor\u2013 You<\/em> coordinate with him and tell him what you want<\/em>. And then tell him to come and tell you when they\u2019re done, so you can go and check<\/em> it, so we don\u2019t have this on the agenda again.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 7<\/strong>: Uh, I\u2019d like to know uh, one thing uh, Wanda, since you know about the Newcastle disease, uh, serum or whatever it is, uh, will it last a year?<\/p>\n

Wanda<\/strong>: You\u2019ll have to\u2013 You\u2019ll have to\u2013 When you purchase<\/em> it, you\u2019ll have to check the dates on the bottle, and it\u2013 it goes by the dates, and if\u2013 you know, according to that. Coordinate it with\u2013 he\u2019ll\u2013 what he\u2019ll have to do is figure up what his projection of usage will be, and then you\u2019ll have to coordinate that with the amount that you purchase and the dates of the bottle.<\/p>\n

Man 7<\/strong>: Uh, that\u2019s very good, but when the order goes in, this has got to be put down so the one who buys it understands it.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right, thank you. Now, do we have any more questions about the chickens?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right. Let\u2019s go on to the next item on the vergi\u2013 on the uh, agenda. Uh\u2013 We\u2019ll go through the bananas, please.<\/p>\n

Danny Kutulas<\/strong>: Okay, the banana report for this last week, uh, we\u2019ve done a lot of weeding, uh, coming up the road, and uh, that was the\u2013 that was a part of our uh, schedule. We planted 300 uh, banana suckers, uh, this last week. We sprayed the back fields, and uh, as our regular program. We picked 85 bunches of bananas. Uh, there was a uh, little mix-up on the uh, amount after rechecking \u2018em. We had 990 pounds, which is one of the greatest that we\u2019ve picked uh, since I\u2019ve been here. Uh, with the alert that we\u2019ve had this past weekend, we\u2019ve planted some with the\u2013 with the mixed group and crews that we planted some 70 citrus trees out in the cottage areas. Uh, if you notice the cottage areas, there\u2019s blossoming right now and uh\u2013 with the new trees going in. And there\u2019re a few more to be planted.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Kutulas<\/strong>: Now I\u2019d like to know if there are any questions.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 3<\/strong>: I\u2013 I\u2019m wondering if uh, those new trees had to be watered often or\u2013 or are they all right the way they are, or what?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: What we\u2019re going to do is we\u2019re going to water \u2018em every day for a week. At the end of that time, they should be able to hold by themselves, unless we have a very bad dry spell. Now, there are a few of those trees that the\u2013 See, we planted them with dirt around the roots, and there\u2019re a few that the dirt broke up before we got there. Those are gonna\u2013\u00a0Those are a little bit worse. Some of those are in shock. If you see a few of them that have the leaves drooping, they went into shock. We treated them with vitamin B-1, and I don\u2019t know uh, how successful that\u2019s gonna be. However, those we\u2019ll\u2013 we\u2019ll continue to water, and it could be that some of those trees are going to lose their leaves. But don\u2019t despair, because even when the citrus trees go into shock and they lose their leaves, very often they\u2019ll shoot a new set of leaves. So we really won\u2019t know whether we\u2019ve lost any trees for at least 60 days. And if they lose their trees, and they don\u2019t\u2013 their leaves, and they don\u2019t start shooting for like 60 days, then we may lose a few. But it\u2019s normal to lose uh\u2013 it\u2019s normal to lose almost ten percent on transplanting. So if we lose a couple of trees, why, we always try not to, but it really isn\u2019t the end of the world. We\u2019ll just replace them if we do lose a few.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Yes, Becky.<\/p>\n

Becky Flowers<\/strong>: I\u2019d like to know, how\u2013 how much longer will it be before we get some fruit off of them? (Laughs)<\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: Well, I\u2019ve got my crystal ball right here, you see. Um\u2013 Those trees\u2013 Well, now, there\u2019s some lime trees there that may bear in next year, some of the bigger lime trees, but most of them are about three years out. It\u2019s hard to say. Those are\u2013 Some of those little trees have been stunted, uh, those aren\u2019t the best trees. They\u2019re the ones we had available after the best were taken out and put on the road, so you\u2019ll see all different\u2013 As time goes on, you\u2019ll see all different things in those trees. You\u2019ll see some of them come on very well, some very fast, some of \u2018em probably won\u2019t do too well. They\u2019re going to take a lot of care and a lot of watching.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: We planted limes, lemons, grapefruits, tangerines, and oranges. All varieties.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: Those were all trees that were budded. Jan [Wilsey] budded them with her own hands.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft, scattered cheers<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Jan? Were there any Shaddock in that bunch at all? Oh yes, I\u2013 There\u2019s a rather\u2013 rather an interesting item that we\u2019re not familiar with in the uh, States, there\u2019s a fruit called a Shaddock. It\u2019s an extra large uh, type grapefruit, and the meat is pink on the inside and very sweet. When I say large, I mean it\u2019s about like this.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Wow!!<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Uh\u2013 We first saw some\u2013 The first October we were here, they had an illustration uh, an exhibit and they\u2013 at uh, Kaituma, and some uh, government people had some from Matthews Ridge which they\u2013 which they grow there, and apparently they think they grow some also around the Kaituma now. All right, uh, is\u2013 Any more questions about the banana report?<\/p>\n

Young person<\/strong>: This is dealing with the (unintelligible word), thought to ask you. How long before the uh, grapefruit trees gone bear?<\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: Uh, there will be a nursery report, so if there\u2019s any more on citrus, you can ask uh\u2013 ask a little later. Uh. Anything else on bananas at this time?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right, no one on\u2013 No more questions? So we\u2019ll go to the next item? Where do we have a question? All right.<\/p>\n

End of side 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

Side 2:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Man 9<\/strong>: I\u2013 I don\u2019t really know, I haven\u2019t seen it. But our function is, we hang the bananas in the cellar, they turn yellow, and then we bring them up to the banana shed and uh, the kitchen handles it from that point.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right, uh, are there any more on the bananas now? We\u2019ll go to the next\u2013 next part of the agenda. We have a\u2013 a report yet on uh, ducks and rabbits, next.<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: \u2018Kay. As far as ducks go, I don\u2019t have any report for this week. Uh, on the rabbits, this morning, I mated our white New Zealand doe with the uh, New Zealand buck, and I\u2013 we have a problem with, when the rabbits are brought in, we\u2019re not sure of their ages. So uh, I tested the black cross breed for uh\u2013 for mating, but he\u2019s uh, he\u2019s not ready. He\u2019s disinterested and\u2013 (Laughs) He quit. Right. (Laughs) He\u2019d not equipped. Uh, okay, I\u2013 I was told this morning from uh, Mary Wotherspoon, we\u2019re supposed to be testing uh, feed and cassava cereal with uh, one of the feeds we were using, because the rabbits liked it, and uh, you know, it\u2013 it seemed to work, they were uh, getting full on it, but uh, I haven\u2019t had any supply for two weeks, it just hasn\u2019t been available, and I\u2019ve got about 15 to 20 pounds of it now, but Mary Wotherspoon informed me that there will be no cassava for the next uh, four or five months, till June. So there\u2019s gonna be a problem with the feed and the rabbits.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: Questions?<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Yes.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 5<\/strong>: (mic clicks on) \u2013Carrots pulled up and supposedly been sent over for the rabbits. Did you receive them, and did they eat them?<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: Uh, I got the carrots, and they ate \u2018em. They ate \u2018em.<\/p>\n

Woman<\/strong> 6: Okay, I got a question. Are you\u2013 are you feeding any commercial feed to the rabbits at all?<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: That\u2019s what they are eating, right now.<\/p>\n

Woman 6<\/strong>: The pig feed? Uh, I mean, the chicken feed?<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: No, commercial rabbit feed.<\/p>\n

Woman 6<\/strong>: Okay. If\u2013 if it\u2019s cheaper<\/em>, which I think it is, you can\u2013 I\u2019ve checked with two different veterinarians, and they said chicken feed will not (unintelligible word) rabbits, contrary to what you were told. And\u2013 in Georgetown, and it\u2019s cheaper, and they said that the medication in it will not hurt them. Actually, it\u2019s better for them.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 6<\/strong>: Uh, the medica\u2013 The medication that is contained in the commercial chicken feed will not hurt rabbits.<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: Charlie [Touchette] told me that the chicken feed was uh, twice as much as the rabbit feed. Otherwise, I think we\u2019d be\u2013 been using chicken feed.<\/p>\n

Woman 6<\/strong>: Be\u2013 Well, I\u2013 I didn\u2019t know the prices, \u2018cause the vets\u2013 uh, I didn\u2019t have the time to check out the last prices. At first they didn\u2019t have any. But they said that they\u2013 they thought it would be more expensive, because you have to get it\u2013 buy it special, because they aren\u2019t rea\u2013 they aren\u2019t making it that much. So I don\u2019t know. I just wanted to give you that information, because I was asked for it, and I didn\u2019t know whether it got back to you or not, but that\u2013 the chicken feed won\u2019t hurt them.<\/p>\n

Woman 4<\/strong>: Okay, I\u2019ll check with Charlie again on the prices then.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right. That takes care of the ducks and the rabbits. And uh, the next thing on uh, on the agenda is the tractor time. Is Philip [Blakey] handy?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right, we\u2019ll set his uh, uh\u2013 him further down on the agenda, we\u2019ll wait til he gets back. Uh, how about the Caterpillars for land clearing?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Is Michael [Touchette] over there with him too?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 11<\/strong>: He\u2019s taking (unintelligible word)<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: All right. Jim Bogue. Would you give us the piggery and the stock report?<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Well, I guess everybody\u2019s wants to know how the cows are getting along. (Laughs) It seems to be the big question. Everything is going great with them, they\u2019re putting on weight, they\u2019re getting sleek, they\u2013 all their gauntness is going away from the hard trip. Uh. So that part is in pretty good shape. We uh\u2013 The horses are starting to pick up a little bit now. Uh, we\u2019ve been building on a cattle corral down there. It seems like we kinda get held up every once in a while on it. Uh, right now we\u2019re uh, working on this upper piggery. I\u2019m getting it fixed up with screens so that the bats can\u2019t get in, so that we\u2019ll be able to shut the generator down there at night. Shut it off. So there\u2019ll be a few savings there. Uh, I do have a couple of questions I\u2019d like to bring up. What happened to my paper? Oh, here it is. (Laughs) Uh, I don\u2019t know just uh\u2013 We was going to order this lumber for down there for filling in the loft of the cassava mill. We need it for drying area, which is gonna be a\u2013 about 2000 feet. Uh, also, it\u2019s\u00ad\u2013 uh, two inch lum\u2013 uh, two inch uh, lumber.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: (Laughs) Yeah. That lumber that they was talking about a while ago here, uh, this was what I had ordered here uh, several meetings ago, and it had\u2013 it had been cleared to go ahead and get. And this is what they was talking about. And not the chickery. Uh, (pause) my question is now, I had ordered\u2013 in this order, uh, this would have floored half the floors in the piggery. Uh, now I\u2019m wondering whether we should go ahead and get the lumber to floor the whole piggery instead of just half of it, which would be\u2013 be the difference between uh, 1800 feet of two-inch lumber, compared to 3600 feet, uh, which eventually we\u2019ll need, but uh, it might be a little time before we\u2019ll need it. So that\u2013 this\u2013 this was my question, why I hadn\u2019t ordered it, uh, prior to this.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 7<\/strong>: Is the price of lumber going up the way everything else is?<\/p>\n

Man<\/strong>: Is the price of lumber going up?<\/p>\n

Man 10<\/strong>: Well, when we buy wood at the (unintelligible name), it hasn\u2019t. It stayed the same for, you know, three years, so I don\u2019t know\u2013 but I don\u2019t know what it\u2019s like in town. I never bought it in town. Tim [Swinney]? Uh, is it?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 10<\/strong>: Tim said it\u2019s uh, about the same in town.<\/p>\n

Tim<\/strong>: About the same in town.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Uh, do we have any questions on the uh, piggery and the uh, livestock report, or are you still continuing, Jim?<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Uh, I\u2019m still continuing.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Sorry.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Brother (unintelligible name). Uh. (Pause) The\u2013 I had to do some refiguring here real quick, \u2019cause I\u2013 I turned in the order, and I don\u2019t have the other papers here. And I think that I uh, ordered the lumber for the piggery down in the bottom to finish out that floor, which would be an additional 1500 feet, I\u2013 trying to see\u2013 it\u2019d be\u2013 (Murmurs to self). Let me add it all together here real quick. (Pause) (Tape edit) Actually, with the bottom on it, it\u2019ll take about 5100 feet of two-inch lumber, uh, and we\u2019ll need uh, like I say, 2000 feet for the uh, the loft in the cassava farm, which would bring us up to uh, 7100 feet.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: 5100 uh, two inch lumber. This would be for the piggeries, and the 2000 feet for the cassava\u2013 the loft in the cassava barn. Bringing it up to 7100 feet.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: No, uh, 2000 feet\u2019d be one inch material.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: My question may relate to construction, I don\u2019t know, but uh\u2013 Two inch. I wonder how much\u2013 I wonder how much that cost, uh\u2013 I wonder how much the 2000 feet of lofting material\u2019s going to cost. I wonder whether it\u2019s gonna be cheaper to do that than it would be to build a storage facility out of aluminum. Because that two inch lum\u2013 material\u2019s expensive.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: No, no, he\u2019s talking about loft. (Pause) Yeah. I really wonder\u2013 I\u2019m talking about the 2000 feet that\u2019s going to go into the loft in the barn. Now that\u2019s to create additional storage area. And I know the two inch lumber is very expensive. I\u2013 I guess it cost around a dollar a foot, or something like that, for the two inch\u2013<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: That\u2019d be one inch. That\u2019d be one inch.<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: That\u2019s one inch? \u2018Cause you didn\u2019t specify that.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yes, I did.<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: Well, I didn\u2019t catch it then. The one inch is a little cheaper. It\u2019ll be about 80 cents a foot or something like that.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: (unintelligible word) What about the one inch.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: For one inch?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: So I\u2019m really wondering if it\u2019d be cheaper to\u2013 to put 2000 feet of uh, material into a facility like that, or it might be cheaper to put aluminum roof on some place and build a shed. I don\u2019t know. I was just inquiring.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: Yeah, but we\u2013 (Pause) We can use round wood. I\u2019m just inquiring, if it\u2019s cheaper to put a loft into the shed or if it\u2019s cheaper to build another shed with aluminum. That\u2019s all. I\u2019m just asking the question.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: I\u2019m just inquiring, because I know that wood\u2019s really expensive. Yeah. (Pause) A roof, yeah.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: 2000 feet.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: No. One inch.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: What is\u2013 What is\u2013 Do you know what uh, one inch stuff is?<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: Uh, Tim said it\u2019s the same, seven\u2013 about 78 cents.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: About 78 cents. So 78 times (murmurs under breath).<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: 1560.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: 1560. (Pause) Is\u2013 I don\u2019t think\u2013 I don\u2019t think you\u2019d see\u2013 (unintelligible word) here near that much floor space with aluminum for that price.<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: No, neither do I.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: \u2018Cause what is aluminum? It\u2019s running what, about a dollar uh, twenty\u2013 uh, a dollar thirty or something like that now?<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: I don\u2019t know, but you look at this\u2013 the tin building they made out here, and it\u2019s only 800 square feet. And you\u2019re talking about 2000 square feet. So that\u2019s quite a bit of difference.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yeah.<\/p>\n

Man 12<\/strong>: Look at the aluminum that went into that building. Yeah, and aluminum\u2019s a lot harder to get than wood. They grow wood here. You can\u2019t grow aluminum.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Okay, well\u2013 Yeah.<\/p>\n

Man 13<\/strong>: Uh, I\u2019m wondering if the structure of that cassava mill would hold up that much uh, weight, if you put a loft in that building, without a lot of support.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: That\u2019s what we have to do, and this is what we\u2019ve been doing, is putting in a lot of support. This has all been pole construction, it\u2019s slow, it\u2019s what we take out of the jungle, but it\u2019s our time instead of uh, using sawed material. So actually, we\u2019re right back to our own labor and the price of the floor and nails.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 14<\/strong>: I\u2019d like to\u2013 I\u2019d like to change the subject, (stumbles over words) Would it be all right to change the first\u2013 Okay, I\u2019d like to ask somebody generally?<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: No, we change the subject, we have to\u2013 you have to wait till the agenda gets to where you are, all right?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: No, he\u2019s just\u2013 Now have you finished, Jim?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman 8<\/strong>: Jim? Uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: What\u2019s your question? Just state it again?<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: (fades in) ought to go ahead with this other uh\u2013 other material and to go ahead and finish it all up now or whether to uh, go ahead and uh, doing the half of it.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Do we have any figures on the difference between\u2013<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: 3600 feet against 1800 feet.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Oh, I see. What do you think uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yeah, that\u2019s\u2013 that\u2019s been the upper figure, but I\u2018m talking about this lower figure too, of uh, which is uh, an additional 1500 feet. (Murmurs)<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yeah, 71\u2013 7100 feet. Yeah.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Is that total?<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yeah, but it\u2013 two\u2013 2000 feet of this is one inch material, and uh, fifty\u2013 uh, 5100 feet is uh, two-inch material.<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Jim?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: I understand that we have to go ahead and make these plans on this now, but I think that we are way out of line for not planning far enough down the line on these things, and when we come into this meeting with a report requesting anything as critical and as expensive as a structure, that we do not<\/em>, uh\u2013 I think that you should get together with construction before you come into this meeting, you should know what your costs are, and I feel that you shouldn\u2019t be figuring that square footage while you\u2019re here, because you can make a mistake in that kind of figuring. You<\/em> should figure it, and you should get somebody else to check it out. We\u2019re talking about a whale of a lot of money, to be making plans like this and to approve it in this meeting in that order. If we were in a capitalist structure and I were in business, I would raise holy hell about that kind of a situation on the outside.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Uh, I did do this, and I did turn it in. And uh, this is uh\u2013 This was the new subject of doing the other half of the piggery.<\/p>\n

Woman 10<\/strong>: In\u2013\u00ad in regards to your other half of the piggery, Jim, I was wondering, you mentioned that it wasn\u2019t an immediate need right now. Isn\u2019t that what you said? Okay, what I want to know is, if you go ahead and put it in, will the age have anything to do with the wood\u2013 I mean, if we don\u2019t need it now, will it affect it? Will we have to redo it, you know, at an earlier date, being as we don\u2019t need it sooner or\u2013<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: No. No, it wouldn\u2019t be no problem there at all.<\/p>\n

(Pause)<\/p>\n

Woman 11<\/strong>: Um, Jim, I just\u2013 I\u2013\u00a0I wanted to say, I felt you were defensive just then, because I think that what Tish\u2019s point was correct. Although you figured it before, you shoulda had your figures before you right now, is what she was saying, rath\u2013 uh, rather than stand there and do it in\u2013 you know, as you were talking. That was all.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: See, I didn\u2019t know this was coming up tonight. I had the figures, and I had them turned in previously. So, I\u2013 I didn\u2019t know this was coming up tonight. That is why I was standing here trying to\u2013<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: (mic clocks on) \u2013being critical of you at this time, and I explained that I understood we brought it up before. I think that at the time it was brought up the first time, we should\u2019ve covered and considered that down the line, we\u2019re going to need to also do this part of the piggery. That should\u2019ve been presented then, so that uh, the whole issue could\u2019ve even come up at that time.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Woman in crowd<\/strong>: (soft beginning) You\u2019re trying to find something right now (fades)<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: As I under\u2013 as I understood, this would be the last order.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: No, what I understood was, that this\u2013 was\u2013 was this order uh, was to be completed forever, or something on this line. So that\u2019s why I brought up this subject of the other half.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: We did have the uh\u2013 the chicken structure was approved at the last meeting. And now it wasn\u2019t said how much board foot was needed for that. When the information came out from the radio just now, she mentioned the two buildings, the chicken uh, building and the toddlers\u2019 building, and said the lumber had been figured out for that with the coordinator. So uh, I don\u2019t know that they were talking about the piggery lumber. That piggery lumber order went in two weeks ago, so they may be confused on it. I\u2019m not sure. I think we better check it out, though, maybe you should go over and talk with\u2013 uh, with Charlie, to be sure that they have the correct information.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: What? All right, uh, there\u2019s one question, Jim, we have one question\u2013 one\u2013 I asked a question before you finish.<\/p>\n

Man 15<\/strong>: I heard you speak about the generators going to be cut off at night, but I wonder if there\u2019s any provision been made for lighting down there in the chicken area at night.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Oh, I\u2019m not sure. I\u2019m sure that we asked Tom, I know uh, something must be worked out.<\/p>\n

Man 15<\/strong>: Well, what I had referenced to the baby chicks coming in and we do need the infrared light to keep them warm at night for at least, about 14 days.<\/p>\n

Man 16<\/strong>: Yo, when this was talked about in the meeting the other night, you said there wouldn\u2019t\u2013 they wouldn\u2019t need electric light there, so when you planning on getting baby chicks?<\/p>\n

Man 17<\/strong>: They\u2019re due in on the nineteenth.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: I think this question about the electricity is going to be obvious that uh, whenever we have baby chicks, we\u2019re gonna to have the heat, so there\u2019s\u2013 I\u2013 really no question there, that\u2019s going to be necessary uh, at that time for two weeks, and then we can turn it off again. So, uh, if we have no more questions to the livestock man, do we have any more questions to Jim Bogue on livestock? All right.<\/p>\n

Woman 14<\/strong>: Yeah. I wanted to\u2013 All the cows are pregnant, I wanted to know when they\u2019re due, and when we\u2019ll get milk, and how much, and how often.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: (Laughs) Hah. Uh, I haven\u2019t seen the records yet, all of what Wanda\u2019s brought back on the pregnancies of the cows. Uh. This is something that\u2019ll take probably uh, another 30 days to find out if they\u2019re actually pregnant at all. Some of them. I mean, you have to\u2013 This is whenever you buy stock from anybody, you know, you have\u2013 unless they are large enough in there to where you can bump them to test them for calf, then uh, there\u2019s no way to tell until they are<\/em> large enough, or if they come back into heat. So, uh, this\u2019ll be something that we\u2019ll be straightening out in the next couple of weeks and getting in order so that we know just where we do stand with them.<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: Do we have any more questions?<\/p>\n

Woman 14<\/strong>: Okay, the other thing I wanted to ask was uh, I\u2013 I think you were trying to find a way to make dry yeast out of that yeast you have down there for the pig food? Okay, uh, I found a way to do it, but uh, I\u2013 I don\u2019t how other people have tried to do it, but I\u2013 I\u2019d lay\u2013 I used a small amount of it, and I have powdered dry yeast now, that I just laid it out in the sun, and\u2013 and thinned it out, and scraped it up. But I think if you did that on something like a hot tin plus the sun, or uh, tried baking it somehow or an outside uh, stove or something might do it. I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 17<\/strong>: Uh, (clears throat) this is uh, something we\u2019ve talked about and trying\u2013\u00ad and seeing just where our needs would be for the dry yeast, and uh, so this will be some of the things that we\u2019ll be a\u2013 testing out as we go along.<\/p>\n

Man 18<\/strong>: Uh\u2013 Are we getting\u2013 I understand at the last meeting that we\u2019re getting some sort of oven in from the States? It\u2019s a small little oven for uh\u2013 for drying seeds?<\/p>\n

Voices in crowd<\/strong>: Too soft<\/p>\n

Man 4<\/strong>: (mic clicks on) \u2013Okay, a drying oven that was sent by Helen [Swinney] and packed by Helen, and it should be in town right now. Uh\u2013 And uh, that\u2019s the word\u2013 that\u2019s the last word that I had on it. And it should be coming out in these uh, packages. All right? Now. Do we have any more questions?<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Yeah. I\u2013 I have one addition to add to the livestock report, and that is, you know, there was the problem with the tanning of the hides. And uh, I talked to the Department of Agriculture and there\u2019s\u2013 as this time, there\u2019s no official tannery. There will be one in New Amsterdam, but the Department of Agriculture \u2013 there\u2019s supposed to be more literature coming \u2013 is willing to train two of our people, as they thought it would be much more profitable for us to tan our own leather and use it, than to try to sell it as they sell it by the pound, thousands of pounds, rather than just individual hides. And uh, the\u2013 the second\u2013 on the subject of these chickens, this is uh\u2013 was it a suggestion, I don\u2019t know whether it\u2019s feasible or not, but since the chickens only have to be under infrared\u2013 correct if they have to be under infrared light for just 14 days?<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: Yes, that\u2019s what was said.<\/p>\n

Tish<\/strong>: Okay. Wouldn\u2019t it be\u2013 Is\u2013 Is it feasible to build a structure up here for the chickens, for the baby chicks, so that they could have that. Since this generator has to be run, and\u2013 and the arrangement, we\u2019re trying to eliminate that one at night, it seems like, you know, just a temporary structure for when the baby chicks come in every three weeks.<\/p>\n

Bogue<\/strong>: I\u2019m afraid that\u2019s something that has to be uh, handled uh, uh, and loo\u2013\u00ad looked into, you know. In other words, you\u2019re asking a question that needs to be looked into by construction, and that would have to be uh, looked into by somebody that knows how to handle the question, and then we can uh, get a report back. Uh\u00ad\u2013<\/p>\n

End of tape<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you. To read the Tape Summary,\u00a0click here. Listen to MP3 (Pt. 1,\u00a0Pt. 2). To return to the Tape Index, click here. Jones: The article\u2019s basic perspective is that the world capitalist economics are in deep and long-term […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":27291,"menu_order":666,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-110037","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/110037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=110037"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/110037\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":110127,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/110037\/revisions\/110127"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=110037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}