tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray) (04/06/84)
x <-- USENET insecticide I think jj's term "union-enforced socialism" is a contradiction in terms. Socialism is based on state control of a large part of the the economy. Free Enterprise is SUPPOSED to be based on enlightened self interest, free play of market forces, and all those other good fairy stories. Unions are organizations constituted of participants in the free labour market acting in their own enlightened self-interest to increase their value in that market. Now some unionists may be politically committed to socialism (damn few in the US). But they are part of the free market and can no more impose socialism than the "Moral Majority" can impose morality. But that's different, you say? Oh I see, enlightened self interest is only for the propertied, not for the peons... Actually, based on my experience in the private sector, I think the original poster was entirely correct in that the North American private sector is destroying itself (and our planet, as a by-product) through excessive focus on the quarterly bottom line. The problem is that if I as a corporate manager change my focus to the long-term, my quarterly profitability will decline, and with it my ability to attract the investment capital necessary to make important strategic moves. So I am locked into the vicious and eventually self-defeating quarterly-bottom-line cycle. The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work.
billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (04/09/84)
------------ > Unions are organizations constituted of participants in > the free labour market acting in their own enlightened self-interest > to increase their value in that market. Now some unionists may > be politically committed to socialism (damn few in the US). But > they are part of the free market and can no more impose socialism > than the "Moral Majority" can impose morality. If the unions were truly part of the free market, they couldn't do the damage they do now, I doubt if they could survive. Just look at the plethora of laws completely supporting their side of this "free" market. How long do you think unions could survive, if the state did not provide the muscle behind their demands? > The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work. Give it a chance, and it will, but don't call every state-sponsored interference with the free market "capitalism". Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp
jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/09/84)
Well, Tim, I don't think you're looking while you read. I certainly don't mean that unions INTEND socialism, only that the powers granted to labor unions in the US are so excessive that they allow the union to control management in almost all cases. While this is not of itself bad, many unions, union leaders, and union members do not understand the problems and/or needs of the business that they are controlling (indirectly, yes) well enough. Asking for a raise "because someone else got one" when the company doesn't HAVE the money to provide the raise, and can't afford it without going into their capital funds to provide it (look at steel, rubber, auto <there's a few other problems there, many related to labor>, and SOME mining industries for an example of what happens when the inprovement capital is lost>, is merely foolish. (As for the auto industry, many of the problems there are involved with labor difficulties. I was born and raised near a huge GM plant, and I have quite a bit of experience with the attitude that many (not all) union members have toward their jobs. This attitude is the direct cause of much of the missassembly, etc, that is commonly ascribed to US manufactured vehicles. Give VW and Mazda a few years.) -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (04/09/84)
<Soviet Agriculture - 65 years of unusally bad weather in a row!>
To Tim Brey:
I don't know about the term 'union-enforced Socialism', but
certainly 'union-enforced Communism' is NOT a contradiction in terms. The
Communist Parties of Eastern Europe are, so they say, also the worker's
unions; the only union a worker needs.
Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan)
(ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan)
(decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan)renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/10/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:uiucdcs:29200121:000:1983 uiucdcs!renner Apr 9 22:08:00 1984 /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / mprvaxa!tbray / 1:14 pm Apr 8, 1984 ****/ > Unions are organizations constituted of participants in > the free labour market acting in their own enlightened self-interest > to increase their value in that market. Sorry, I just can't let that one go past. Unions today serve several purposes, many of which are good. One function they perform, which is not good, is to place monopolistic controls on an otherwise free labor market. Want to make a movie? You will have to "rent" actors from the Screen Actor's Guild. Want to run a coal mine in Pennsylvania? Go to the UMW. Want to build cars in Detroit? See the UAW. Let me change a few terms in the definition and see how it looks: Corporate monopolies are organizations constituted of participants in the free market acting in their own enlightened self-interest to increase their value in that market. Doesn't look so good any more, does it? > The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work. The nice thing about capitalism is that it works better than any other system that has been tried. Socialism assumes that all the people will agree on goals -- things that are "good" -- and work together towards those goals. The idea is attractive because people tend to assume that it will be *their* goals that will be adopted. But if people disagree with the "common good," socialism requires that they be forced to conform. (Surely they cannot be permitted to go off on their own, working as they choose, trading with whom they please, keeping the profits from their work and investment -- for that would be capitalism.) Capitalism, on the other hand, *permits* people to work towards common goals if they so choose, but does not require it. You are free to work towards what you see as "good," just as I am free to do the same. Such a system is much more compatible with individual liberty, and therefore to be preferred. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/12/84)
-- >> If the unions were truly part of the free market, they couldn't do >> the damage they do now, I doubt if they could survive. Just look >> at the plethora of laws completely supporting their side of this "free" >> market. How long do you think unions could survive, if the state did >> not provide the muscle behind their demands? I don't know. Ask a member of PATCO. Actually, what unions give their members is service, plus community outreach, worker rehabilitation, a lot of charity and disaster relief-- they do their best to keep you alive and see to your funeral when you're dead. Of course, so many trade unionists are only marginally literate, even up to their top officers, that they don't counter this silliness about only being after a fast buck. It's too bad, as they're being decertified in record numbers as scabs virtually knife each other in the back to get what few jobs a "labor action" makes available. Another common misconception is that unions fight against progress. Actually what they fight for is dignity--not throwing a worker away, investing in retraining or more education. As this tends to be expensive in the short term, it is usually nixed by management. Back when unions were stronger, though, they often won. And so hand-typesetters in the newspaper industry learned how to operate the new linotype machines instead of being fired. Now, we all know that there are some not nice unions. Why one even takes its pension funds and "lends" them to the mob. But most are very democratic. Pension funds, of course, are one of those things that wouldn't exist without unions' having fought for them. Sure, blame the horrendous state of American industry on the unions, even though maybe 20% of the work force is organized. Germany is far more unionized. What about their economy? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 11 Apr 84 [22 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
jj@rabbit.UUCP (04/12/84)
Ken, I lived in Niles, Ohio (where? never mind) for most of my childhood and adolescent years. That town has (or had, I should say) two industries, steel and autos. In Niles, the control the union has was enormous. At the mills the control was also enormous, to the point where people couldn't even be fired for cause unless they were also bucking the union at the same time. (Bucking the union either got you fired or injured at work, when a wrench would accidentally fall on you.) Certainly all of the union members that I knew weren't like that, but a good percentage were convinced that they only had to keep the union happy, never mind production, etc. <The stories about the Lordstown Vega plant are amazing, but I like being alive myself. (yeah, I exagerate, but not much...) > From my viewpoint, the reason that the auto industry and the steel industry are dying is clear, and the cause is mostly <not all, naturally> labor. The management of the various companies is hardly without blame, but certainly shares a much lesser part, sometimes even almost none (thanks, JFK). Talking about the suppression of labor by management is fine and dandy, and gets lots of votes and lots of sympathy, most of it from the DAMN WELL NOT ILLITERATE union members who you affect. <I suggest that you NEVER make that comment in a steel town, unless you have police protection!> Talking about the responsibility of labor is, needless to say, almost as unpopular as calling the union members functionally illiterate. It certainly won't get you elected, and passing up the subject just might, so... <of course, you better vote right, too, or else...> Ken, please get off your pedestal and go to an old heavy industrial town, and look around you. Look past the breadlines and the lines of (literate) unemployed. (If you see a line, talk to the people in it. See if they are literate, and if they read anything. Might just be the sports section, yes, but at least they READ.) Talk to them and find out what their attitude is while working. Listen to them, they know which side the bread has always been buttered on. Look for yourself. <Dare I suggest this?> Talk to management. Listen to THEM for a while, too, if you are willing to allow equal time. Reality isn't always nice, Ken, nor is it black and white. Have a nice (unionized) day. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (04/13/84)
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP: The nice thing about capitalism is that it works better than any other system that has been tried. ---- Meanwhile, the countries in Europe that have stronger economies and higher standards of living than us (scandanavia and germany and holland come to mind) are all more highly socialized than the USA. How long are people in this country going to perpetuate the myth of failed socialism? -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/13/84)
-- >> Talking about the suppression of labor by management is fine and >> dandy, and gets lots of votes and lots of sympathy, most of >> it from the DAMN WELL NOT ILLITERATE union members who you >> affect. <I suggest that you NEVER make that comment in a steel >> town, unless you have police protection!> Talking about >> the responsibility of labor is, needless to say, almost as >> unpopular as calling the union members functionally illiterate. >> It certainly won't get you elected, and passing up the >> subject just might, so... <of course, you better vote right, too, >> or else...> >> Ken, please get off your pedestal and go to an old heavy industrial >> town, and look around you. Look past the breadlines and the >> lines of (literate) unemployed. (If you see a line, talk to the >> people in it. See if they are literate, and if they >> read anything. Might just be the sports section, yes, but at least >> they READ.) Talk to them and find out what their attitude is while >> working. Listen to them, they know which side the bread has always >> been buttered on. Look for yourself. <Dare I suggest this?> >> Talk to management. Listen to THEM for a while, too, if you >> are willing to allow equal time. Well, it looks like I gave an impression other than having worked on factory assembly lines and doing union organizing, which, of course, I did. (Note to my employer: Hey, it was a long time ago--I'm a yuppie now.) And I have served as a shop steward, albeit in the relatively safe confines of state service. I've walked a lot of picket lines, and some turned into more than walking. I've also run a business. The problems of our economy are not black and white-- I think I said that before. My postings on unions have been in response to the notion that unions are to blame for the state of our economy, and useless to boot. Anyone who thinks so should take jj's advice quoted above. When I spoke of "illiterate" trade unionists, I meant their not having the command of the language (including tactics of persuasion) to respond to Madison Avenue right-to-work hype in slick magazines. I didn't mean "unable to read", and certainly not stupid. I'm on their side, remember? In fact, I use the term "illiterate" as my dad does--retired from a lifelong career as a reporter and editor, he now teaches communication skills to trade unionists. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Apr 84 [23 Germinal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (04/16/84)
--------- > Meanwhile, the countries in Europe that have stronger economies and higher > standards of living than us (scandanavia and germany and holland come to mind) > are all more highly socialized than the USA. > -- > Larry Kolodney > (The Devil's Advocate) I can't say anything about Holland or Scandinavia, but I did grow up in Germany and can state emphatically that things are exactly opposite of Larry's claims. After Word War II, Germany's economy was first under the "direction" of Ludwig Erhard, who believed very strongly in the teachings of Murray Rothbard, the eminent laizzes-faire advocate. Erhard immediately abolished wage and price controls and vigorously fought any attempts to re-impose them. The result is legendary. The German economy rebounded so fast, it was called an "ecomomic miracle". Unemployment was non-existent, inflation was zero. Jobs expanded so fast, that there were no people to fill them, and Germany imported "guest workers" from all over Europe. Everything was fine until those nerds voted in the socialists, falling for their lies. The economy slowed down, then almost stopped. Suddenly there was inflation and unemployment. The guest workers were no longer welcome, and unrest and crime soared. Now that the socialists are out again, chancellor Kohl is making progress in repairing the vast damage the socialists have wrought. > How long are people in this country going to perpetuate the myth > of failed socialism? How long are people in this country going to believe the socialists' twisted facts and false claims? Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:uiucdcs:29200132:000:989 uiucdcs!renner Apr 16 17:44:00 1984 > /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 12:25 am Apr 14, 1984 ****/ > From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP: > The nice thing about capitalism is that it works better than any other system > that has been tried. > ---- > Meanwhile, the countries in Europe that have stronger economies and > higher standards of living than us (scandanavia and germany and holland > come to mind) are all more highly socialized than the USA. How long > are people in this country going to perpetuate the myth of failed socialism? > -- Larry Kolodney You might want to read the April 9 issue of Newsweek. It contains a special report on "The Decline of Europe," describing how "economic stagnation and powerful malaise darken the future of a once proud and powerful continent." A major theme in this article is the political difficulty of eliminating the many government welfare programs and the economic impossibility of continuing to pay for them. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:uiuccsb:11000097:000:2688 uiuccsb!grunwald Apr 17 11:31:00 1984 That Newsweek article did not have any historical perspective in its skewed view of Europe. Europe got blasted to kingdom come in WW-II, and thus there was a lot to rebuild when the war ended. This provided a great boom-time (except that there were few people around to do any booming) as far as new construction and what not goes. Now, the "stagnation" is a result of the reconstruction being completed. You can't maintain growth when there is no need for it. As for technical malaise, one need only study the french and german industry to see that this is false. They produce excellent "high-tech" ware (lab equipment, switching systems, reactors and unfortunetly, weapons). Much of their unemployment stems from the fact that their factories are "the factories of the future." In the current issue of "In These Times", the headline article is "German metal workers lead fight for a 35-hour work week to offset unemployment caused by automation." This is the sort of unemployment which our country has not experienced yet, not because we've got a better economic system than the Germans or the French, but because our factories do not have the same high levels of automation. This is a problem our own country and workers must address. Three routes out of this are socialism, a return to a more human-powered work place, or a shift in the job sector away from manufacturing to services. Our country is shooting for the later. Consider the case of german metal workers. There are no un-touched export markets. The third world is either bankrupt or producing their own metals. The management of the various steel companies realise this, and have steadly reduced the investments in industrial expansion. As noted by IGMetall, the largest single trade union in the western world, the percentage of profits invested in expansion have dropped from 72% in 1965 to 31% in 1982. At the same time, a steady an increase in profits has been seen, so the reductions are not due to a lack of available capital. Additionally, 3/4 of the investment capital is spent to decrease costs, not to increase production. This means fewer jobs. Higher unemployment. More "stagnation" as Newsweek called it. This is exactly the same thing that the United States wants to do! If Europe suffers from stagnation, it is simply walking the path that we also tred -- they're just walking a little faster. Even when the EEC gets around to forming the United States of Europe (which is a real and viable proposal), with the comensurate reductions in tariffs and transport costs within Europe, the situation will not improve. Dirk Grunwald -- University of Illinois -- ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:ea:10100029:000:1350 ea!mwm Apr 17 15:11:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / mprvaxa!tbray / 1:14 pm Apr 8, 1984 */ Unions are organizations constituted of participants in the free labour market acting in their own enlightened self-interest to increase their value in that market. Now some unionists may be politically committed to socialism (damn few in the US). But they are part of the free market and can no more impose socialism than the "Moral Majority" can impose morality. The problem with capitalism is that it doesn't work. /* ---------- */ Oh goody - AMMO! The unions can't impose socialism? Ok, maybe it isn't socialism - but whatever it is, I don't like it. Consider the local GM plant, where the employees got to vote on which union they wanted to join. What if I don't want to be in a union? To bad - it's against the law. Well, how about if I start a non-union shop and - nope, that's against the law, too. And of course, the MM making various manufacturers stop advertising on "immoral" television programs isn't an imposition of morality, either. As for capitalism not working - it managed to get a net built where you could express your opinions. Socialism hasn't even come close to replacing it, what with England just beginning to recover, and Scandinavia now going broke. If you've got something better than either of those two alternatives, please let us know. <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/19/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:ea:10100034:000:740 ea!mwm Apr 19 14:56:00 1984 On unions vs. monopolies. /***** ea:net.politics / uiucdcs!renner / 10:08 pm Apr 9, 1984 */ Corporate monopolies are organizations constituted of participants in the free market acting in their own enlightened self-interest to increase their value in that market. Scott Renner ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner /* ---------- */ Scott, you're being unfair to corporate monopolies. Corporations haven't: 1) Passed laws forcing you to buy from them, and only them. 2) Made it illegal to build your own. 3) Made it illegal to do by hand what their tools make easier. Organizing to increase your market value isn't a bad thing. Passing laws that *require* others to pay what you consider your market value to be is a bad thing. <mike
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (04/20/84)
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP: You might want to read the April 9 issue of Newsweek. It contains a special report on "The Decline of Europe," describing how "economic stagnation and powerful malaise darken the future of a once proud and powerful continent." A major theme in this article is the political difficulty of eliminating the many government welfare programs and the economic impossibility of continuing to pay for them. ------ The WHOLE WORLD is in a recession, not just Europe. These effects are independent of the socialiization of the economy. However, we in the US are suffering more because of the concurrent destruction of our soical welfare system that would normally smooth out the recessionary effects. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/25/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:ea:10100035:000:515 ea!mwm Apr 25 10:11:00 1984 The WHOLE WORLD is in a recession, not just Europe. These effects are independent of the socialiization of the economy. However, we in the US are suffering more because of the concurrent destruction of our soical welfare system that would normally smooth out the recessionary effects. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc /* ---------- */ The how come the American economy started getting better *after* we started cutting those programs? <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (05/02/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:ea:10100044:000:803 ea!mwm May 1 21:53:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 5:52 am Apr 27, 1984 */ From: mwm@ea.UUCP Scott, you're being unfair to corporate monopolies. Corporations haven't: 1) Passed laws forcing you to buy from them, and only them. 2) Made it illegal to build your own. 3) Made it illegal to do by hand what their tools make easier. Organizing to increase your market value isn't a bad thing. Passing laws that *require* others to pay what you consider your market value to be is a bad thing. <mike ----- Right, and nobody forces poor people to sleep in subway stations. Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc /* ---------- */ Since unions and poor people haven't had much to do with each other lately, could you explain your non sequitor? <mike
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (05/07/84)
>>>From: mwm@ea.UUCP >>>Scott, you're being unfair to corporate monopolies. Corporations haven't: >>> >>> 1) Passed laws forcing you to buy from them, and only them. >>> 2) Made it illegal to build your own. >>> 3) Made it illegal to do by hand what their tools make easier. >>> >>>Organizing to increase your market value isn't a bad thing. Passing laws that >>>*require* others to pay what you consider your market value to be is a bad >>>thing. >>> >>> <mike >>>----- >>> >>Right, and nobody forces poor people to sleep in subway stations. >> >>Larry Kolodney >Since unions and poor people haven't had much to do with each other lately, >could you explain your non sequitor? > > <mike The point here, which is a paraphrase of MARX, is that there is a form of coercion in society which is extralegal. This is called economic coercion. Because humans have certain needs which must be fulfilled in order to live (food, shelter, etc.) they often have no choice about what to do in certain situations, even though there is NO LAW requiring them to do it. For instance, if I live in a town which is dominated by one very large corporation, and I am poor and unskilled, I have very little choice but to work for that company, ON ITS TERMS. No law requires me to, except the law of biology which requires me to eat. Now before you say "Why don't you just move away?" Tell me where I am going move where my situation will be better? I am a naive person, not sophisticated like all of you yuppies. I also have a family to supoort, and roots in the community. We tend to forget these days the value of community, a quality which is dying out in our cities filled with lonely atomistic people with no roots and no support networks. and so on and so forth -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
mwm@ea.UUCP (05/09/84)
#R:mprvaxa:-51900:ea:10100046:000:1789 ea!mwm May 9 10:02:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 8:45 am May 7, 1984 */ The point here, which is a paraphrase of MARX, is that there is a form of coercion in society which is extralegal. This is called economic coercion. Because humans have certain needs which must be fulfilled in order to live (food, shelter, etc.) they often have no choice about what to do in certain situations, even though there is NO LAW requiring them to do it. For instance, if I live in a town which is dominated by one very large corporation, and I am poor and unskilled, I have very little choice but to work for that company, ON ITS TERMS. No law requires me to, except the law of biology which requires me to eat. Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc /* ---------- */ All well and good - but why is this bad when a corporation does it, and good when a union does it? For instance, I need something foobared. But foobarists are a powerful union, so it's *illegal* to hire a non-union person to do it, or to do it myself. So my choice is to pay a the union wage (which is set ON THEIR TERMS) or do without (in some cases, even *that* is illegal!). Similarly, your poor unskilled laborer can work for the wage the corporation sets, or do without money. The difference is that the corporation doesn't send the police around to arrest you if you try to buy outside their monopoly; nor do they threaten the life & limb of their competition. The point is that coercion is bad. I don't like monopolies, corporate or union, as they tend to coerce their customers. The government likes unions, so laws get passed supporting union monopolies, and dislikes corporations, so corporate monopolies get outlawed. This imbalance needs to be redressed. <mike