Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- Chemical Disasters, Agent Orange, and GMOs: Monsanto's Legacy Traced in Exposé
- Hanford Nuclear Waste Site at Risk of Hydrogen Explosion, Report Warns
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Key to Rebuilding Workers' Power: Unrig the Rules
The battle in Wisconsin over the rights of public-sector workers holds the potential to reawaken workers across the country to demand their fair share of the economic pie. This could be an important turning point. However, if workers are to make real progress they must move to alter the rules of the game. These rules have been deliberately rigged against them over the last three decades.
The most obvious of these rules are those governing the rights to unionize, such as those that Gov. Walker directly attacked in Wisconsin. However, this is just part of the story. Unionization has become almost impossible in the private sector, since companies routinely fire workers engaged in an organizing drive.
It is illegal to fire workers for trying to organize, but the penalties are trivial, even if a fired worker presses a case before the National Labor Relations Board long enough to win. Companies will gladly pay a few dollars to the organizers they fire in order to avoid having a union.
It would be a very different world if there were real penalties for violating labor law. A woman in Minnesota got fined more than $200,000 for allowing people to download copyrighted music from her computer. Suppose companies paid the same penalty for illegally firing workers trying to organize a union as this woman had to pay for violating copyright laws. That might encourage some respect for the law.
But this is just the beginning. Over the last three decades the government has signed trade agreements like NAFTA, the major purpose of which is to put U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in countries like Mexico and China. According to economics and common sense, workers in the United States will lose jobs or see their pay cut when they have to compete with workers in other countries earning one-tenth as much.
This situation is made even worse when the dollar is over-valued. If the dollar is over-valued by 20 percent, we are effectively giving a subsidy of 20 percent to foreign producers competing with our workers. It is not easy to overcome a 20 percent subsidy.
Therefore a lower-valued, or more competitive, dollar should be at the top of progressives' lists of demands.
The Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board can bring down the value of the dollar in international currency markets. If the current crew claims not to be smart enough, we can find people who are up to the job. A more competitive dollar would go an enormous way toward eliminating the trade deficit and generating jobs in manufacturing and other sectors that are open to trade.
The practices of the Fed more generally should be front and center in every progressive's agenda. The Fed's actions are enormously important in determining the course of the economy. If Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke had done their job, and reined in the housing bubble, we would not be sitting here with 25 million people who are either unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work altogether.
We need the Fed to be governed by people who take its commitment to full employment seriously, not by people who see its job as serving the big banks. The Fed should be moving more aggressively now to bring down the unemployment rate.
More generally, it has to be prepared to occasionally take the risk of somewhat higher inflation if that is the cost of bringing down the unemployment rate. The world looked very different for workers back in 2000 when the unemployment rate was 4.0 percent than it does today. The Fed should be pressed to get the unemployment rate back down to a level that we reasonably call "full employment."
There are many other important "rules of the game" issues that should concern progressives. Corporate CEOs walks away with paychecks in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States because they largely pick the board that determines their pay. Increased shareholder power should be effective in bringing CEO pay in the United States back in line with pay elsewhere in the world.
We also need to rein in our patent and copyright system which create enormous distortions in the economy while pulling hundreds of billions of dollars a year out of consumers' pockets and putting it in the hands of the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries. We pay an additional $250 billion a year from prescription drugs alone as a result of government granted patent monopolies, more than 5 times the cost of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.
The list of rules that need changing is long, but this is where a successful effort to rebuild the middle class must focus its efforts. As long as the economy is rigged to redistribute income upward, tax and transfer policies designed to help the middle class and poor will inevitably fail. The right knows this, if progressives can't learn this basic fact, then we are spinning our wheels no matter how angry and organized we get.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


56 Comments so far
Show AllWorker power Michigan, Lansing, Wednesday 3-16 at noon, on capitol steps. All union people come do your Wisconsin we-can-too stuff.
Enough is enough. We need the UNITED back in the United States, this most perfect union. Let's show the whorporate pigs what they can do with their thievery. I imagine a large share of Detroit will be there. I know they're sending trucks.
Know the bumper sticker..."If you can read this , thank a teacher." We could use a new version...
If you are driving an American made car, and can read this, thank a union.
BAW-HA-HA the rules is rigged, Christ in the good old days if you asked to unionize they'd beat the hell out of you, the fire you, the blacklist you!
Ask the sitdown strikers of GM who had heat, and water cutoff. dogs turned on them and even food blocked for a week if they think todays rules are too harsh and don't allow the forming of unions!
What bunch of veal-calves americans have become! We get nothing because we deserve nothing, we only deserve what we can get by fighting for it!
>^^<
When I was a little kid (50's) and visited ancient relatives in Kansas & Illinois, who barely spoke French English; the old uncle loved to make us kids stick our fingers through the bullet holes in his wall. He scare the beejuz out of us when our fingers were in the wall, he'd scream "bang" and we'd scream bloody hell. It was the coal mine union wars, and wars they were. My uncle was an organizer and made a lot of people mad.
when the laundry list of changes required gets to a certain length then perhaps it is time to throw the whole thing out and start ANEW
like barry said during his lying prez campaign - putting lipstick on a pig doesn't do much to change the pig now does it
folks should try to get a hold of some on noam chomsky's stuff
http://www.chomsky.info/
there is no way to "save" this stillbirth called amerika - mostly it is a john wayne movie at best, its not even real
the country was set up and is run by the rich and the rest of us are slaves, so badly informed that we no longer even see the chains that bind us
let us keep in mind that the fascist scott walker won in wisconsin. he got his way and for the working people who think they got something done - think again
to repeat: they won, again
in a sane world this country should be shut down by a general strike until all of the nazis and corporatists are out of public life
we should be taking all the funds off the wall street banks and the hedge funds who stole 23 trillion dollars and counting from us
these same banks should be forced to disclose how much debt they are burdened with - some say 425 quadrillion dollars of it in credit swap defaults alone - and they should be put in jail for the rest of their lives, some should be hanged
we should take over the health insurance companies including all of their assets
we should stand down the birth certificateless prez obummer, the congress and the senate
that's just for starters
but in the meantime - we lost in wisonsin and in michigan and soon to be many other states
in kentucky they are repealing child labor laws
we have nothing to be happy about and less to be proud of
we are chattel slaves, increasingly unemployed and uninsured
our government and military represents the interests of the ruling class and corporations for which they stand, murdering and stealing everywhere there is a dime to be stole
we have nothing to be happy about
in wisconsin we got nothing done
like the bank bailout we all opposed the boys on wall street got their way
and judging by the lack of stories on this issue here today - it seems we are right back on the over medicated and over stuffed couch of life watching the slime oozing out of our tv sets all over again
i for one wish we had done better
It's long past time to storm the Bastille.
Build the guillotines and put them to use in the same way the French did in 1789.
People can be pushed only so far, then the backlash will not be pretty.
The Revolution will not be televised.
Correct, the reason we lost was because we gave up, the crowed had stormed in and rendered those scoundrels into gobbets of dog food, then used the tractors to pull down the building, yes-yes- it's violent! it's the language they understand! Make the next three governors see reason! ignore the people at your peril! and I don't mean losing a local seat so you can run for president in 2012,, I have more in mind a head on a pole!
In the old days we worked less and had more real freedom because the lords knew we were people who could only be pushed so far.. This group doesn't think of us as people just peroles to be done with in any manner they se fit!
>^^<
2nd comment medmeduke..really good, I liked your style too
My chief objection to this article is the idea of cleaning up the Fed. If you mean "rub it off the face of the earth because its existence is to promote the theft of the Treasury" as a clean up then I'd be behind it. We could go with Constitution and have the government(Treasury} print money as needed for projects and when the projects for which the "debt" was issued were completed, that portion of the money supply would then be retracted, out of circulation. No interest needed, taxes for the wage earner reduced and a disempowering of the Bush/Greenspawn/Rockefeller/Rothschild crowd. The Fed is an unnecessary, private, for-profit skimmer for those reptiles.
The Federal Reserve has been well exposed in a number of books: William Grieder, Matt Taibbi, and several others have exposed it for the scam it is. But it takes more than books, I guess.
I'd love to see it eliminated, but who do we trust to get that done? It's part of the system, deeply imbedded in the economy the way it is. All the Goldman Sachs-trained cronies of the current president have made their way under the auspices of the Fed. Who among them will lead a campaign to reform or eliminate it?
Stop looking for some one to lead you to some promised land.
Understand why the fed is legalized theft from the American people (lots of resources that prove this) and convince others. When Americans share a common view point things change.
I'd lead us to the promised land but I don't know the way. Looking may be foolish, but insisting that I "stop" won't affect what I say or do. Posting here may not be a big move toward helping "Americans share a common point of view" -- so far they are reluctant to listen to much that I say. But we all do what little we can.
The one element missing from any and all mainstream discourse on the subject is labor power.
Outside of socialists such as Frederich Engels and Daniel DeLeon, there is no one to refer to, other than Karl Marx, regarding labor power. In America, we do have home grown notables who briefly mentioned that labor is the main source of value. One before Karl Marx's time, Benjamin Franklin, preceding "Capital" by about 137 years, later acknowledged by Karl Marx, followed by Daniel DeLeon:
Before Marx, Benjamin Franklin:
"Trade in general being nothing else but the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is ... mostly justly measured by labour"
After Marx. Abraham Lincoln:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Again, Lincoln:
"The speaker, Lincoln, then went on to show that labor being the true standard of value ..." — The Pittsburgh Evening Chronicle, 15 February 1861
Labor simply being the application of labor power. Without access to the means of production, humans cannot apply it which is essential to procurring the needs for life.
http://www.wiiu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:introductory-labor-power-report&catid=35:iu-news&Itemid=18
Good post.
RE: The one element missing from any and all mainstream discourse on the subject is labor power.
True, but it has to be missing; otherwise it wouldn't be "mainstream".
Because there is no labor power! The unions exist only to give us false hope, like churches! if we be nice and ask we might get what we need, not what we want! I'm even angrier at the fake union leaders than the fatcats, at least the fatcats are taking care of their own. The fake unionists are maybe padding their own pockets, but are doing nothing but controlling their rank & file, which is what their supposed to do.; Can't have the plebes getting out of hand!
>^^<
Wikipedia provides a pretty good sketch of the contributions made by various people to a labor theory of value, including Aristotle, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, Karl Marx, Benjamin Franklin, and Ibn Khaldun.
Labor Theory of Value
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
The idea that labor is an important factor in the creation of wealth has been around a long time. In fact for much of human existence labor has almost been the only factor in the creation of wealth. Labor is still critically important in the creation of wealth today. This is a fact whether or not main stream media pundits choose to acknowledge the importance of labor or not.
What we refer to as "the rich" Fox calls, "the wealth makers" Well, who would ever want to cross the Wealth Makers? If their needs are not met and they cashed in their investments and left the country for greener pastures can you imagine the consequences? If that were to happen the country would not make any wealth. Misery would follow. Or so says Fox. Who believes them? Look at its audience. The real problem is not just that media spreads this nonsense. The real problem is that workers who are bled by these "Wealth Makers" believe the line they are being sold.
Absolutely true, and just try to get them to think otherwise. They've gotten their rules of logic and evidence from those Fox yahoos. If someone says something that counters what you've been led to believe, just stop your ears and start shouting. Like all your Fox heroes do.
tammons wrote:
"The real problem is not just that media spreads this nonsense. The real problem is that workers who are bled by these "Wealth Makers" believe the line they are being sold.
.
My reply:
I agree.
If wealth can be defined as something useful in a beneficial way that we can in some way possess, then our bodies and our minds with which we labor are forms of wealth, albeit forms of wealth that are perishable and can change significantly over time.
Someone has suggested that the opposite of wealth should be called "illth".
"Illth" can be defined as something harmful or destructive - even if that something is useful in a harmful or destructive way - that we can in some way possess, although we would be better off without it.
Many people would consider uranium and plutonium fuels to be "illth." Although they can be used to generate electricity, they are highly toxic and difficult to dispose of safely.
Toxic financial assets created by the wealthy of "Wall Street" are a form of "illth"
Labor isn't the only form of wealth or the only factor in producing wealth, but the working class deserves both credit for the creation of wealth as well as some of blame for the creation "illth."
Money is a medium that facilitates the exchange of wealth and illth. The use of money can be useful or harmful depending upon whether wealth or illth is part of the exchange. In either case money provides those who possess it with power which can be used in beneficial or harmful ways.
If Fox media were fair and balance, they would point out that the rich are among the most prodigeous producers of "illth. The rich are responsible for producing far more and far more dangerous "illth" than the working class.
Given that the wealthy usually control the means of production out of proportion to the value of the wealth that they contribute to production, the wealthy bear more responsibility for producing "illth" even when they have purchased a significant amount of labor to produce the "illth".
The wealthy cannot however, properly claim credit for the creation of wealth out of proportion to their own contributions of wealth as a factor of production, simply because of they control of the means of production.
PUFFIN: Interesting post. I salute you for relating a unique analysis. Thank you.
The rich are not wealth makers, they are Wealth Thieves. The poeple who actually make things are the real wealth makers. The rich get rich by stealing what the real wealth makers make.
I agree.
Given that wealthy people usually control corporate organizations which are intensely undemocratic, and therefore control the means of production, wealthy people are able to disproporationally extract wealth from everyone else (including labor), who contributes wealth to the process of creating more wealth.
Our bodies and our minds are a form of wealth. Labor is an expression of the power of that wealth.
They are the wealth takers. They hire organizers who organize teams of scientists, engineers, technicians, tool & die techs, machinists, mechanics, draftsmen, etc....the REAL wealth makers. Their modest contribution was to "fund" it (which could be done like Lincoln did; with Greenbacks printed by the U.S. Treasury), and for this, they expect to own the world & all humanity. Such depravity.
Indeed!
They can't cash in their investments and leave the country for greener pastures.
Wealth accumulation is about social relations, not stuff. The wealthy are in a symbiotic (parasitic) relationship with the working class. They need us far more than we need them. In fact, we don't need them at all. This parasite - Capitalism - kills the host, and is in the process of doing that at all times. It happens relatively quickly - a couple hundred years or so. We don't have to kill the human beings who, as a class, are the parasite. We have to kill the power they have - neutralize it.
People frantically strive for and accumulate wealth (and this permeates the society at all levels with petty tyrants and bullies and wannabe ruling class to be found in everything we do everywhere we go) for social reasons. Accumulating wealth gives one power in their relationships with others - the ability to boss them around, control them, have them do your work for you, torture them, kill them. About 10% or so of the population is motivated in this way. They are those who are unable or unwilling to relate to their fellow human beings as equals.
I happened to catch a few minutes of that guy Trump on TV the other night at the local watering hole. I though there it is personified - a person who cannot relate to other human beings except as their boss, their lord and master. Such a spiritually crippled, emotionally stunted, dysfunctional and anti-social human being.
No takers yet on the importance of labor power. The capitalist class owns the means of production, they recognize that it is their jproperty and protect it at all costs. The working class owns labor power; do not recognize it and therefore are unable to protect it. Labor power is common to all of us who work for a living. Why not organize on that basis instead of blaming each other for the economic problems while the rich, with infinity, take their loot to the bank week after week. Every time one turns on TV news we get the stock market report but never the labor power report, something all of us, employed, unemployed, under employed and students, the future workers, own.
Hmmm
devalue the dollar what a convienent and timely comment. But I beg to differ on the consequences. One has only to look down to street to see that a devalued dollar in todays "global" market place means massive inflation for the working class. A devalued dollar will (and has) impoverished the workers of this nation.
Consider that the FED and Treasury that you seem to have so much faith in have managed in the space of 100 years to devalue the dollar by OVER 95%!!!
The real outcome from this is that the average worker is now working for literally slave wages. Which of course was the intention from the beginning.
Ultimately, whether or not working people benefit from Russ Baker's proposal to devalue the dollar depends upon whether or not they have sufficient power, say through unions and through government, for their wages to increase at a rate that keeps pace or exceeds the rate of inflation.
Similiarly, debtors could benefit from the devaluation of the dollar, but only if their effective income and the effective interest rate which determines how much they must pay on their debt change in relatively favorable ways.
The complexities of the market affect whether or not income and interest rates will change in ways favorable to debtors, but so does the power of debtors, which could reside in union membership or in control of the government including the Fed, or more likely better be in both.
OK ddearborn, granted you know what is wrong. So do thousands of others who comment on these type of forums. Isn't that on the order of preaching to the choir? It has been called, "Stewing in one's brew.".When are we going to proceed from the point of knowing what is wrong to the point of what to do about it?
Workers built the pyramids, workers can tear the pyramids back down. Take down the pyramidal artificial power structure!
As with many suggestions from liberals and progressives, there is something confusing and illogical about this. The author recommends doing things in order to get power that would obviously require power before they could be done. Or does he?
Let's examine it.
Notice that the author says "we" need to do this that and the other, in order for workers to have power. "We" are separate from the workers. So who is this "we" and why does the author assume that "we" have the power to do these things, yet say that these things would give us power?
Clearly, the author is speaking from power and betraying the fact that liberals and progressives do for the most part identify with power and not with the working class. "We" then, the enlightened progressives will be helping this other group - the workers - to gain power.
Now, why does the author want workers to have power? Not too much power, mind you, since it will be "we" - progressives and liberals who have power and will be granting some to the workers, which means that the workers will be subordinate to this liberal group of people who can enact things, the ones who are bestowing favors on the workers. The only reason that the author could want to see the workers have more power would be to leverage that to enhance the power of "we" - not the workers, but the liberal and progressive upper middle class people.
This article is illogical, deceptive, manipulative and elitist.
Two Americas wrote:
"As with many suggestions from liberals and progressives, there is something confusing and illogical about this. The author recommends doing things in order to get power that would obviously require power before they could be done. Or does he?"
My Reply:
Well yes, Russ Baker does "recommend doing things in order to get power that would obviously require power before they could be done."
But as you point out in your post, given that Baker does not explain where working class people who labor in less powerful roles in the (political) economy can find this power and how they can exercise it, we might reasonably assume that Baker intends for less powerful members of the working class to accept a dependent relationship with their more powerful "progressive" and "liberal" working class "comrades."
But is this the case? I really don't know.
Personally, I do not believe that "progressives" and "liberals" have the power at this point in the stage of things to deliver on their own what Baker recommends without the help of those members of the working class whose main source of power resides in their collective action on the streets and everywhere else they can muster it.
In any case as I mentioned in response to ddearborn's criticism of Baker (Posted by PuffinThrush, Mar 15 2011 - 4:54pm above), whether or not what Baker recommends will actually even work favorably for the working class depends upon whether or not the working class has the power to control other factors that determine the actual outcome.
So, yes.
The working class needs their own source of power in order to get the power needed to put in place the policy Baker recommends, and the working class needs their own source of power in order to actually reap the benefits of the policy Baker recommends.
Regards.
Good luck with that, americans are too well fed and to poorly educated to began to understand their long to med term needs. Some migh follow a rock-star or actor type over a cliff but to stand and fight, americans don't have it whin them. as can demonstrated everywhere everyday, letting ilegals take our jobs! letting H1Bs take our jobs, dealing with companies who off-shore, fools we are! now it comes back to bite us!
>^^<
Two Americas: Just as ddearborn did, you heap more on the pile without offering a solution.and, as the trend has presented itself, there will be many more to follow until we end up walking down the road talking to ourselves with no results.
"OK ddearborn, granted you know what is wrong. So do thousands of others who comment on these type of forums. Isn't that on the order of preaching to the choir? It has been called, "Stewing in one's brew.".When are we going to proceed from the point of knowing what is wrong to the point of what to do about it?"
Working people need to employ multiple strategies in order to exercise power.
In Wisconsin there have been massive protests and they are now adding recall elections to the strategic mix.
Recall elections involve an up or down vote about the legislator or governor subject to recall.
Legislators and governors are supposedly public servants who work for us.
An up or down vote is the sort of power the people should have when they elect legislators and governors to office in the first place. This is the kind of power consistent with the people's role as sovereign and boss. This is the kind of power consistent with the role of legislators and governors as public servants. This is the kind of power consistent with government officials who are responsive and accountable to the people. This is the kind of power consistent with the idea that the legitimacy of democratic government is dependent upon the consent of the (self-)governed.
Unfortunately, in order for voters to have this kind of power in single-member district elections, where a single person is elected to office, hopefully from three or more candidates on a ballot, the voting procedure used must permit voters much greater freedom of speech and much greater freedom of political association than is allowed them by Plurality Voting. Plurality Voting is, of course, the voting procedure used in most elections in the United States.
There are two consent-dissent grading scale based voting procedures that give voters the power they need: Yes No "Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting.
Both these voting procedures enable voters to express a preference between major party candidates without supporting either major party candidate while at the same time support or opposing one or more of the other candidates on the ballot.
This completely eliminates the "lesser of two evils" dilemma and permits voters to exercise power in an up or down manner with respect to every candidate on the ballot including the two major party candidates and then applies the grades given each candidate by the voters to select a winner from among those one or more candidates if any who have received the consent of the self-governed.
If voters cannot reject all the candidates that have been placed on the ballot before the election at the same time they are "nominating" new candidates for instant victory or for an appearance on the ballot in a subsequent election, then voters do not have the power rightfully belonging to a sovereign people in a democracy.
The working class needs to protest in the streets to defend collective bargaining rights and at the same time demand fully democratic elections.
Replacing Plurality Voting with a consent-dissent grading scale voting procedure like Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting is an important part of establishing fully democratic elections in the United States and empowering the working class.
Replacing Plurality Voting with Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Votng is one more way to "unrig" the rules.
There will never be a choice on any ballot that will take power away from the ruling class. You will never vote the ruling class out of power, no matter what candidate, platform or party, no matter how many people vote for it.
You can unrig the rules all you like, but so long as the people who rigged them are still in power nothing will have been gained.
Two Americas wrote:
There will never be a choice on any ballot that will take power away from the ruling class. You will never vote the ruling class out of power, no matter what candidate, platform or party, no matter how many people vote for it.
My Reply:
That is why the working class needs the power of a boss when hiring elected government officials, who after all are supposed to be public servants who work for us on our behalf in our best interests.
Sure this is idealistic, but political democracy is one of the things that we need to strive for.
Unions themselves have had problems with dictatorial, undemocratic governance. We need to solve this problem, or at least try to solve this problem as much as possible, wherever we find it.
Voters, including the working class, need to be able to reject all the nominated candidates who appear on a ballot, at the same time that they suggest and support their own candidates for elected office.
This is what Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting and Category Scale Power Voting do. Give voters that power.
But it is pretty easy to demonstrate that adding a "None of the Above" option to Plurality Voting or a "None of the Others" option to Instant Runoff Voting will not give voters that ability in every instance where it is needed.
This is because neither Plurality Voting nor Instant Runoff Voting is a consent-dissent based voting procedure.
Neither Plurality Voting nor Instant Runoff Voting can consistently produce results that are consistent with the consent of the (self-)governed. But the consent of the (self-)governed is the fundamental principle as well as the actual fact which gives legitimacy to democratic government!
In fact in the case of Plurality Voting and the "None of the Above" option, adding "None of the Above" to the ballot, as has been done in Nevada simply puts into play the vote splitting character of Plurality Voting that gives us undemocratic election results including the so-called "spoiler effect" result that may have appeared in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, although the actual election result was so close and the actual vote counts were never official determined by a complete and reliable recount.
Hell, the use of Plurality Voting even effects who gets on the ballot in the first place. If either Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting were used in elections both the number of credible candidates and who those candidates are would be different.
Two Americas wrote:
You can unrig the rules all you like, but so long as the people who rigged them are still in power nothing will have been gained.
My Reply:
Well, something will be gained, but much more will need to be done.
If we don’t act until we can put into place a complete solution to the problems we face, then we will never act.
That is correct. I did not intend to offer a solution, and I didn't.
I have spoken often about "what to do about it." No one is really interested in that. The question is asked to shut down criticism, not to get an answer. You cannot possibly talk about solution without knowing what the problem is. We are a log way from anything approaching consensus about that.
What was the solution to slavery? Many people asked that of the Abolitionists. "Yes, yes, we have heard all of that a thousand times, we know slavery is bad. But what is your solution?" What good was offering the solution to people decade after decade after decade. Obviously, it was something other than a "solution" that people were needing. That is true today, as well.
When people rally know what is wrong, rather than just saying that they do, the solution will be obvious.
Two Americas wrote:
I have spoken often about "what to do about it." No one is really interested in that. The question is asked to shut down criticism, not to get an answer. You cannot possibly talk about solution without knowing what the problem is. We are a log way from anything approaching consensus about that.
My Reply:
I beg to differ. I expect there are plenty of people who would like to hear again even if they have heard before what you believe the problems are and what the solutions are.
Talking with people about problems and solutions is hard work, but it is an essential part of organizing. Grassroots union folks know that and I expect that you do to.
You may know the old joke about an elephant and some mice. A version of that joke was recast with a mainframe computer as the elephant and IT guys like myself as the mice. Actually, I haven’t worked in IT for a while, but I did in the banking industry of God’s sakes, and don’t intend to again. I just can’t do it any more.
Anyway the joke goes something like this. A bunch of mice, they may have been blind mice, but there were more than three of them as I remember it, separately encounter an elephant and return to describe the elephant to their friends. One describes an ear, another the trunk, another the tail, another a leg.
Well, this is a simple story, and as you can guess either the elephant, or a mainframe, represents a big and complex problem. Each of us sees it differently, maybe only a little differently, but maybe a lot differently.
The only way we will reach anything approaching consensus and grow to trust each other is to share our proposed solutions while we are actually working together or working separately to solve the problems that confront us.
Two Americas wrote:
When people rally know what is wrong, rather than just saying that they do, the solution will be obvious.
My Reply:
Like the mice in the story I don’t think any of us really, at least in the sense of completely, knows what the solution is to the problems we face. Some things are obvious. Others may not be, like how we can work together and trust each other. The problem we face is multi-faceted and those who wish to oppress us are resourceful and determined.
I may disagree with what you propose. I may think that what you propose will only make matters worse. I don't know.
Certainly, what Russ Baker has proposed in his article could make things worse as you and at least one other commenter bysides myself has suggested here.
Most of your comments which I have had the opportunity to read suggest to me at least that you are a sensible, practical person with considerable experience.
But as regards what you think we should do, I have only a vaguest sense of it.
I would appreciate your insight on the solution, really. Just say it for the record, regardless of what others will say. I've found your thinking on this well worth considering; it's thoughtful, even-tempered, dispassionate (that's a good thing: I get weary with "ragers" on the warpath, usually about the very people, like me, who will be NEEDED to form some kind of people's organization, somehow).
Wow. I really appreciate that you are seriously asking this question, because it got me to thinking in depth about the subject. That is rare. I didn't get a chance to answer you right away, which meant I have had a few hours to think about it. It is a massive effort to answer that question, so don't take what I say here as the final word by any means. The discussion about what to do is itself a big part of what to do. I realized that I have been in intense discussions with a few dozen people about this for years. In a way, everything I write is asking this question and working out answers.
A few preliminary thoughts on this:
- There are a lot of assumptions as to what the problem is that we are trying to solve, and about just who "we" is. I would say that most of those assumptions are false. No surprise there. One main purpose of the relentless propaganda assault we are under is to confuse people about those two things. If we knew who we were, and we knew what the reality of the conditions are, we would be fighting back. Overcoming that is 90% of the solution, maybe.
- Most of the solutions people offer miss the mark, because of they they are thinking of solutions. The core problem, the root problem is that working class people do not have any power to do anything. It does not matter how brilliant the various solutions may be to problems people offer when there is no power to implement them. Of course, most political commentators, including most posters here, were thoroughly indoctrinated all their lives to become members of the management sector - those I call the "house slaves" - in service as functionaries to the rulers and the wealthy directly or indirectly, and they have a profound mistrust of and antipathy toward everyday people. They see solutions in a technocratic way, tweaking and refining various approaches and never challenging the system itself.
- So few people study or talk about movements that have succeeded in the past, to use them as models. Instead, people offer the same things that have been tried for the last 40 years - approaches that have failed, or we . There is hardly any talk about the Abolition movement, the Labor movement, the Civil Rights movement, and most progressives and liberals are stunningly ignorant about those.
As to specific things...
- Speak and write. Talk about objective reality, about the conditions, not about plans and ideals and ideologies.
- Nothing is needed more than social criticism, biting social criticism. It is absent from the national discussion. Question all social arrangements and conventions. It is in those that the existing conditions are being held in place. Obviously we are in an escalating and severe crisis - the world is falling down around our ears. The social arrangements and conventions, all of the premises and assumptions upon which all social interactions are based, cannot go unchallenged. That is what has us lashed to this sinking ship. The efforts by those in positions of dominance and power within this system - at all levels of society, in all of our social activities, in everything that happens in our daily lives - are in direct opposition to any efforts to save the planet and human existence. It is life and death for millions, and the livability of the planet hangs in the balance, as well..
- Form and meet with a small local group regularly. Talk about what to do, who we are, etc.
- Join the union. Start a union. Or talk to people about starting a union. Support unions anywhere and anyway you can. This not because unions are "the solution," but rather because that is the context within which solutions can be discussed and found.
- Be careful with talk about solutions, agenda, plans, etc. The question "what can I do" is about what we can do as individuals to serve and contribute, not to plan, boss, or manage. and not to develop some personal strategy to save ourselves. Where can we contribute? How can we serve? When people challenge you with "what's your plan??" they are trying to shut you up - it is not a serious question, but a ploy. The answer is "the plan is to fight back, and we don't know how yet." Then they may say "but what are your goals?" The goal is to save the planet and human life. When you can say that with utter confidence and seriousness, and can find others who can, you are out of the woods. Then you can talk about the reality, and no one can contradict that. They may then throw a bunch of stuff out about how impossible it all is, to which you say "yes. That is how bad things are. That is why we must take this seriously." If they ask "why do you care?" the answer is "because it is a better way to live, right now and at every moment, serving and contributing - whether we succeed or not - then it is to merely look after myself and ignore the millions who are at risk and suffering, or to merely stand by watching the catastrophe unfold."
PuffinThrush: You don't get it either. US workers' labor power, a capital investent by the owners of the means of production, costs too much. First, companies in the North migrated to the non-union South and then off shore where, besides not having labor unions, workers didn't have any rights under virtual dictatorships that are sanctioned by the US government. What can your, "Replacing Plurality Voting with Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Votng is one more way to "unrig" the rules" do about that. Whatever legislation does will not change one iota what the stance of the private sector, the owners of the means of production is; that labor power always costs too much. And that fact is condoned by the US government.
As was stated to Two Americas, "you heap more on the pile without offering a solution," a logical and viable solution, of course.
RUSS del said:
"PuffinThrush: You don't get it either."
RUSS del said:
"First, companies in the North migrated to the non-union South and then off shore where, besides not having labor unions, workers didn't have any rights under virtual dictatorships that are sanctioned by the US government."
RUSS del said:
"Whatever legislation does will not change one iota what the stance of the private sector, the owners of the means of production is; that labor power always costs too much. And that fact is condoned by the US government."
RUSS del said:
"What can your, "Replacing Plurality Voting with Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Votng is one more way to "unrig" the rules" do about that."
My Reply:
The point is that replacing Plurality Voting with Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or with Category Scale Power Voting is one very important step in democratizing our government elections and empowering working class people.
Democratizing our government elections is one important step that will help working class people retain control of the government as they use every source of power they can muster, hopefully short of violent revolution, to take over control of the government. Establishing genuine democracy is important to the welfare of the working class.
There is no single silver bullet.
As you yourself have pointed out in your comments the U.S. federal government has sanctioned and condoned the exploitation of the working class for a long time.
I would add that this has been done with varying degrees of intensity over the years and has included at times efforts to calm any real challenge to elite power by "buying off" much of the working class with consumer goods. And by working class I also mean the affluent workers who too often identify with powerful capitalists rather than other working class people including blue collar workers and less affluent workers in service jobs.
Most of what passes for conventional politics in the United States is little more than competition between different members of the ruling elite. The undemocratic character of Plurality Voting is an important part of the facade that gives the appearance of genuine democracy at least in the eyes of many people without providing the actual substance of democracy.
Whatever Marx and Engels orginally intended, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was nothing more than propaganda for the dictatorship of an elite that professed to honor and empower the working class while exploiting them as severely or even more severely than any capitalist, depending upon the particular circumstances that happen to prevail at any given time. There has been no withering away of the state, but rather the fusion of the state with corporate capitalism at the initiative of the corporate elite.
Genuine democracy is the means by which we can control the abuse of power in society.
The working class must take over the government and establish a genuine democracy.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Certainly, great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few make genuine democracy impossible. But genuine democracy has never really existed in the United States even when the concentration of wealth hasn't been as severe as it is today.
Massive protests in the streets, repeated general strikes, protection of collective bargaining rights, breaking up the big banks and other massive financial institutions, restoring a 70% income tax rate on people who "earn" ridiculous amounts of money, establish universal health care [thank you, daryllicht], use the constitution to protect the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of individual Americans and overturn Supreme Court rulings which violate the Constitution's equal protection under the law guarantee by allowing both wealthy individuals and powerful individuals with access to a corporation's treasury to spend unlimited amounts of money on the dissemination of electioneering speech during the "virtual town hall" campaign season that precedes our government elections, joining together in solidary with working people all over the world, all these things and more need to be done.
Where do we start?
Everywhere we can!
Duplicate. Comment deleted.
In the "logic" of the neoliberal capitalist state, health and education are not intrinsic inalienable human rights, they are commodities to be subjected to "the market." The biggest boost to "labor power" would be the very real freedom that universal health care and a functioning social safety net would offer citizens - and that's why the corporate elite are so opposed to them - they would go a long way toward liberating the citizenry from their corporate serfdom. How many people do you know who would like to make a job change, start a new business or seek meaningful work, but cannot because they could not get simple health insurance? Imagine the creativity, innovation, productivity, and yes, even happiness that one change could make!
daryllicht, Norway and Sweden are really good examples of that...OH BUT horrors, they are a socialist system...panic, such a dastardly thing that socialism
And to medmed again, I think the worst thing that has happened to the left, the progressives, the blacks, and the youth, is that they put their heart and soul into the eflection of Obummer, actually believing, as we all did mostly, that he was telling the truth. Having been the victim of spousal infidelity, I can tell you that this betrayal feels the same. We have NOT blown our opportunity to be creative, productive, or even happy. What we have is a reneged-on contract just like marriage vows. He said he would uphold the Constitution and he isn't, plain and simple. This whole thing took the wind out of our sails just in time for them to crank up their thievery and MIC advancements. One thing about people who tend to be disorganized or even day-to-day ers...piss us off and we will wrestle up a meetin pretty damn fast.
Yes, daryllicht, universal healthcare would be an important boost to "labor power".
Darn, I think I'm done then remember something. So we are functioning from an extraordinary point of PTSD. We have been traumatized by a betrayal that runs deep. We really did believe he'd intentionally work on some of the biggest issues we talked about and he talked about. Some try to gloss over his need to compromise so he doesn't get shot. You want the job? You take the risk. Some try to say he was bad to begin with, and I tend to think that way now too. So where does that leave us in terms of another sleeper? This is why I have been advocating for serious research, no more assumptions, shadowing and stalking and hacking. The one thing the left is really good for..the truth.
So we keep fighting, speaking out, foolishly arguing with morons, and protesting. And as the richless begin to fall, the semi-rich scratch and claw, and the stretch between the last two hierarchies of wealthdom like a rubber band snaps...those who have too much will have no place to hide.
Where do you start? The first thing for a start is getting the facts straight. What you said: "Whatever Marx and Engels orginally intended The "dictatorship of the proletariat,"' is definitely not a fact. Futhermore, why was that interjected into the discussion? Is it because you assume that I am a Maxist? Labor unions were virtually non existant during Marx's time. The one point made by Marx that applies to labor unionism is his insistance that if workers expect to accomplish removing their status as a wage slave they have to do it themselves; not to expect anyone to do it for them. When labor unionis first began in the US, workers were becoming class conscious. The Pamer raids scared the bejazzes out of workers and after that the "red scare" implecating workers, who were active in pushing unionism, as being dreaded communists! trying to protect their property "labor power" means that they are communits?? Then came the McCarthy witch hunts which all but put the lid on class conscious labor union activism.
Again, I reiterate that the basis for workers to organizer the only thing that they, each and everyone, own which is labor powr, and that is indispensible for producing life sustaining products. That is what is referred to "cutting to the chase" or must we go through another century to get to that point.
RUSS del wrote:
“ "Whatever Marx and Engels orginally intended The "dictatorship of the proletariat,"' is definitely not a fact. Futhermore, why was that interjected into the discussion? Is it because you assume that I am a Maxist? “
No, not at all.
In fact given that I do not usually use such strong rhetoric about the struggles of the working class, or about anything actually, I was beginning to worry just a bit that I was sounding like a Marxist.
But the reasons why I mentioned the “dictatorship of the proletariat” include the fact that my first draft responses to comments are often written quickly, sort of stream of consciousness, and I had gotten the impression, and I wish to emphasize that word impression, that you do not think it is important to the welfare of the working class to establish a genuine “political” democracy in the United States.
Establishing a genuine “political” democracy would in my opinion require the democratization of our elections including the replacement of Plurality Voting as mentioned above, among other changes some of which were also mentioned above.
I have always felt that Marx and Marxists have underestimated the importance of political democracy.
A person can believe that political democracy is not important, of course, without being a Marxist. That may or may not describe you. I wouldn’t know and wasn’t presuming to know when I mentioned the phrase “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” I was just trying to make a point about the importance of political democracy. In fact the importance of political democracy to the working class is a point I have repeatedly made in my posts here.
Sorry, if I inadvertently gave you the wrong impression of my intent.
RUSS del wrote:
“The one point made by Marx that applies to labor unionism is his insistance that if workers expect to accomplish removing their status as a wage slave they have to do it themselves; not to expect anyone to do it for them.”
My Reply:
I agree both with Marx and with you, as would many other people including the likes of Howard Zinn, who sure didn’t seem like a Marxist to me, but then I am not all that familiar with his work as a historian or as an activist.
I guess the real question here is whether various groups of working people within the working class trust each other enough to feel that they can work together toward common goals.
Two Americas, and I mean no criticism by saying so, clearly doesn’t trust Russ Baker, and doesn’t trust quite a few if not all “progressives” and “liberals”.
I have not read enough of Two Americas comments to even guess what ideological perspective he or she might have, if any. But I have read enough of Two Americas comments to know that I respect Two Americas' opinion even though I do not always agree with Two Americas and in fact may sometimes feel uncomfortable with what Two Americas says.
RUSS del wrote:
“When labor unionis first began in the US, workers were becoming class conscious. The Pamer raids scared the bejazzes out of workers and after that the "red scare" implecating workers, who were active in pushing unionism, as being dreaded communists! trying to protect their property "labor power" means that they are communits?? Then came the McCarthy witch hunts which all but put the lid on class conscious labor union activism.”
My Reply:
Yes, things have gotten pretty brutal at times.
RUSS del wrote:
Again, I reiterate that the basis for workers to organizer the only thing that they, each and everyone, own which is labor powr, and that is indispensible for producing life sustaining products. That is what is referred to "cutting to the chase" or must we go through another century to get to that point.
My Reply:
Well, we all also live together within a community such as it is even though we may work and earn a living in dramatically different ways.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps here in this last comment is confirmation of my impression that you do not think the establishment of genuine political democracy is important.
Marx apparently believed that control of the state was important to the welfare of workers. I do too.
But I believe that what Marxists have sometimes called with distain bourgeois political democracy actually provides many of the elements important to the establishment of a genuine democracy based upon the genuine consent of the self-governed, i.e. all those workers (together with any capitalists who might still be around.)
Libertarians and others of similar persuasion like to describe democracy as a wolf and a fox and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Yes, workers would outnumber capitalists, but basic civil rights are essential to democracy. Democratic elections are impossible without them, even though those same civil rights would protect any capitalist or ex-capitalist from actually becoming dinner in the more literal sense of that phrase.
Besides it is the capitalists who more closely resemble predators.
Somehow I can’t imagine why anyone would actually want to eat one of them. The meat of predators is said not to be very tasty.
Although she was not a capitalist, but rather an aristocrat, I prefer Marie Antoinette’s suggestion that we eat cake.
:>)
My comment, Mar 15 2011 - 10:46pm,. was directed to PuffinThrush