mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/01/84)
fischer@cornell.UUCP (Charles Fischer) has a rather muddled reply to
my note on ownership of property. My point was basically that our
notion of private property is relatively new, and that the way it is
maintained is through state support of the idea. If the state were
unwilling to protect this system of organization, it wouldn't exist,
as indeed it doesn't in many other nations, or it would exist in a
different form, as it does in still other nations. That isn't to defend
the structure of, say, the Soviet Union, as fisher immediately assumes
("...But wait! In that revered workers paradise, theft of state property
merits the DEATH PENALITY.") Few people I know consider the Soviet Union
a "revered workers paradise"; on the other hand, I don't know too many
working people who consider the U.S. a workers paradise, either.
My point on the factory owner is quite simple. There are conflicting
interests in any workplace. There are the interests of the workers in
a safe working environment and good wages. And there
is the interest of the employer in profits. There is a zero-sum game
to be played out here, and the employers understand that quite well.
They attack unions, since unions tend to strengthen the workers bargaining
position. They attack health and safety legislation, since this forces
them to make investments which do not directly increase profits. And,
whenever possible, they replace labor with machinery, which doesn't form
unions or complain about unsafe workplaces.
Yes, of course, we're all quite sophisticated now and don't use 19th
Century terminology anymore. Why, there isn't any class struggle;
we're all in this together. If corporate profits go up, well,
eventually it will trickle down to the workers. Just wait; really,
it will. And there aren't any big, bad owners. Corporations are all
publicly held, "and the majority of all stock is held by institutions
and pension funds (i.e., ordinary people)." Never mind that 0.5% of
Americans own 25% of the net wealth of the U.S., including 49.3% of
corporate stock. Never mind that the top 1% of Americas wealthy owned (in 1972)
60% of the corporate bonds, 52.7% of debt instruments and 89.9% of trusts.
Not surprisingly, these figures are neither easy to come by or widely known.
That's why they're somewhat old (although the study which reported them also
noted that the concentration of wealth in the U.S. hasn't changed substantially
since 1933). Source: Smith, J.D. and Franklin, S. "The Concentration of Personal
Wealth in America." Review of Income and Wealth, Series 20, #2.
And even if it were true that pension plans owned America, that still ignores
the fundamental issue of control. Who controls pension plans? The fiduciary
rules are so strict that any creative investment plan is almost automatically
illegal. Basically, these are massive pools of capital which provide a large
part of the working capital of American business, but very seldom are they
invested according to the interests of workers. The pension plans of blacks
are invested in companies which support apartheid in South Africa. Union
pensions are invested in companies that shut down union plants and move overseas
for cheap labor. The list could go on and on. Until control of investment
priorities comes along with the pension, I don't believe in pension-plan
socialism.
Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjkalle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (03/02/84)
+ > My point on the factory owner is quite simple. There are conflicting > interests in any workplace. There are the interests of the workers in > a safe working environment and good wages. And there > is the interest of the employer in profits. There is a zero-sum game > to be played out here, and the employers understand that quite well. > They attack unions, since unions tend to strengthen the workers bargaining > position. They attack health and safety legislation, since this forces > them to make investments which do not directly increase profits. And, > whenever possible, they replace labor with machinery, which doesn't form > unions or complain about unsafe workplaces. Come on Mike. If you really believe in "zero-sum game", then I contend you have little understanding of economics. It doesn't work that way and I challenge you to back up that contention. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/06/84)
Mike Kelly write in passing, as if it were an obvious fact, that between
factory owner and worker a zero-sum game is being played: what one wins,
the other loses. This isn't obvious at all. More probably, the aphorism
"United we stand, divided we fall" applies. When workers and owners pull
together, both win more than either could get from fighting. Look at
Japan, for example. That's how they win, not by low wages or poor living
conditions for the workers. Treating owners and workers as if they were
natural adversaries is how "Great" Britain has fallen so sadly, and how
North America may follow into the limbo of history.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtlkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (03/08/84)
Sam from Berkeley wonders about the recency of the notion of private property: Take the situation in England. Until the rise of Capitalism (about 200 years ago), the notion of property was indeed very different. Except perhaps for things like food, there was no such thing as a free market, property and most things were ot made to be bought and sold. In particular, land was not property. Nobles controlled the land through hereditery titles. THEY WERE NOT FREE TO BUY AND SELL IT AT WILL. In addition, they had certain responsiblitites to the serfs who lived on their land. These were based on tradition, not law. A serf couldn't sell his house, because the concept didn't make any sense. He would never move anywhere. People for the most part produced oly for themselves, their famililes, and for their lord. It was not until the late 1700's, when the Enclosure laws propted the nobles to kick the peasants off the land did the rise of industrial cities occur. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (03/08/84)
Oh, good goddam! Here we go again. What is wrong/right with certain political/economic systems? Well, consider this: We generally have choices that allow us to take actions that are negative-sum or positive-sum (waiting or entering an intersection when there is no room to drive out of it). Under certain systems, individuals are rewarded for their efforts. Under others, they reward others without benefit to themselves. Setting up s system where people are rewarded for doing things that benefit others (like building Ronco-matics :-) ) is a positive-sum type of action. Everyone benefits. Setting up a system where one is rewarded for sitting on ones' duff, or where working with benefit to others does not benefit oneself is a negative-sum action. And this is where humanitarianism in politics goes too far. Everyone should have a real and immediate stake in how well she does, except for cases of real disability (what is insurance for?) and taking that stake away is asking for a person to become a burden to others and to himself. It is reported that Sweden, with its fantastic cradle-to-grave security system, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The pressure of keeping oneself motivated without the occasional crutch of necessity must be terrible indeed. Trusting government to keep such systems as welfare or Social Security well run is nearly hopeless, because neither the government beaurocracy as a whole not the individuals who make it up feel that kind of necessity. (Why couldn't S.S. be moved into private hands?) Mark Terribile hou5d!mat
bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/09/84)
from mjk@tty3b.UUCP >My point was basically that our notion of private property is >relatively new, and that the way it is maintained is through state >support of the idea. Mike, would you please expound a couple of sentences worth on what you understand as "our notion of private property"? My understanding is that people have had the concept of personal possessions for millenia, including structures (houses) and, to a lesser extent, land. You seem to be giving a different meaning to "private property" than I would expect. Sam Hall, UCB decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (03/12/84)
Before it becomes accepted as fact on the net, as it has in
much of today's corporate world, Japan should neither be held up as a
model of labour/management cooperation, nor as a formula for economic
success for the U.S.
Regarding the relationship between worker and management, Japan
can only have this apparent unity because of the very great standing
army of labour (i.e. unemployed waiting to get a better job) existing
in the country and their history as a feudal society. Only when there
are no differences in the rewards to those who manage and those who
produce, or these are kept at a minimum, and where all own the means
of production will a truly "just" society exist. For an example of what
I mean, see the movie "The Mondragon Experiment", about how 91 worker-
owned and controlled cooperatives have been established in the Basque
region of Spain. While some problems still exist, it is far better, and
has been economically superior, than other "capitalist" companies in
Spain.
I know I should be posting the references, but perhaps this will
do for now (?). The reason that Japan has succeeded so well since WW 11
is that it was aided by the USA through vast sums of money and technological
assistance (recently, some of it through theft) and the country has
extensive import restrictions protecting it from competition.
Beware of the co-opt in cooperation,
Cameron Anderson
watmath!watarts!cdandersonturner@ucbesvax.UUCP (03/18/84)
> /***** ucbesvax:net.politics / ihuxb!alle / 1:30 am Mar 3, 1984*/ > Subject: Re: Property (or Class Struggle? What Class Struggle?) > > My point on the factory owner is quite simple. There are conflicting > > interests in any workplace. There are the interests of the workers in > > a safe working environment and good wages. And there > > is the interest of the employer in profits. There is a zero-sum game > > to be played out here, and the employers understand that quite well. > > Come on Mike. If you really believe in "zero-sum game", then I contend > you have little understanding of economics. It doesn't work that way > and I challenge you to back up that contention. > Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL (ihnp4!ihuxb!alle) Excuse me, Allen, but you claim understanding without offering it. How about giving us an example of a non-zero-sum game in the workplace? Or telling us how economics "really works"? I don't know all that much about economics, so it would be helpful to me. Also, you attacked a single phrase of mjk's article. It might be the single weakest phrase, but it doesn't make his whole world-view collapse like a house of cards. Nor will it much affect my general agreement (with manifold exceptions not noted here) with what he has to say. How about less nit-picking and challenging, and more education, especially from those out there who claim greater knowledge and wisdom, but rarely deliver? "Golly, I don't know how anyone could believe such tripe" does not improve the reader's power of distinction. "Golly, this is a load of tripe, and here's why:..." at least provides food for thought (or tripe for thought, as the case may be). --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)