WIIU and Academics

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

The attempting revival of the original WIIU and the trotting forth of academic tidbits trickling down from professors perched on their ivory towers.

 

Recently, in 3 posts on the WIIU discussion forum, we have been blessed with such trickling of tidbits by 3 academics.

 

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle scourge? None whatsoever.

 

The US history on the class struggle records only one such academic that devoted his life to doing just that. He decisively contributed to the establishment of the original IWW, and then, the original WIIU after the IWW was overrun and trashed by ignorant disruptors (anarcho-syndicalists). In memory, since 1914, he has been relegated to the status of nonperson.

 

Actually, amongst our midst in the current WIIU, there is an academic who strives to carry forth the efforts of that nonperson. From responses received by his efforts, it appears that he too is destined to be relegated to the status of non person.

 

All this to the glee and rejoicing of the capitalist class. As it was once said that nature abhors a vacuum, the capitalist class abhors any thought of working class emancipation. To them, may ignorance continue to reign amongst the working class, mired in a wasteland of disinformation, distortions, outright lies, rewriting of history, etc..

 

[Andrew Gunderman]

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle?

 

Depends on which academic. I mean Byron mentioned one and Matt two. Bill brought forth a report form an Engineering Dept. as well. These academics investigate and explain how the capitalist gears turn within the economy or within corporations, bringing a different alternative perspective to traditional economic theory in such realms as workplace democracy, costs of transactions, etc.

 

For example, strike the free market assumption from corporate behavior, because they usually operate by contract. It's not a free to choose construct, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, but a rock and hard place scenario between your personal freedom and that of corporate governance. How are workers emancipated? Democratic workplaces are inherently more efficient than authoritarian ones; there is less cost of control involved.

 

Now to go the route supposed by industrial unionism, i.e. to appeal to government agency for relief of workplace issues, violates the shortest and simplest solution rule under an inherent assumption that government supports workers over the money-making businesses.

 

 

 
 

---

Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:52:36 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com
Subject: WIIU and Academics

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

The question you posed, "How are workers emancipated?." Are you seriously directing that question to other members of WIIU? If you seriously think that other members would respond to that, then a rag chewing debate must be anticipated. Give a direct revolutionary answer to that question and you get my vote outright without any chitter chatter. 

 

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:20:24 PM UTC-5, Andrew Gunderman wrote:

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle?

 

Depends on which academic. I mean Byron mentioned one and Matt two. Bill brought forth a report form an Engineering Dept. as well. These academics investigate and explain how the capitalist gears turn within the economy or within corporations, bringing a different alternative perspective to traditional economic theory in such realms as workplace democracy, costs of transactions, etc.

 

For example, strike the free market assumption from corporate behavior, because they usually operate by contract. It's not a free to choose construct, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, but a rock and hard place scenario between your personal freedom and that of corporate governance. How are workers emancipated? Democratic workplaces are inherently more efficient than authoritarian ones; there is less cost of control involved.

 

Now to go the route supposed by industrial unionism, i.e. to appeal to government agency for relief of workplace issues, violates the shortest and simplest solution rule under an inherent assumption that government supports workers over the money-making businesses.

 

 

 
 

---

Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:52:36 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net

To: workers-international-industrial-union@googlegroups.com

Subject: WIIU and Academics

 

The attempting revival of the original WIIU and the trotting forth of academic tidbits trickling down from professors perched on their ivory towers.

 

Recently, in 3 posts on the WIIU discussion forum, we have been blessed with such trickling of tidbits by 3 academics.

 

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle scourge? None whatsoever.

 

The US history on the class struggle records only one such academic that devoted his life to doing just that. He decisively contributed to the establishment of the original IWW, and then, the original WIIU after the IWW was overrun and trashed by ignorant disruptors (anarcho-syndicalists). In memory, since 1914, he has been relegated to the status of nonperson.

 

Actually, amongst our midst in the current WIIU, there is an academic who strives to carry forth the efforts of that nonperson. From responses received by his efforts, it appears that he too is destined to be relegated to the status of non person.

 

All this to the glee and rejoicing of the capitalist class. As it was once said that nature abhors a vacuum, the capitalist class abhors any thought of working class emancipation. To them, may ignorance continue to reign amongst the working class, mired in a wasteland of disinformation, distortions, outright lies, rewriting of history, etc..

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-industrial-union+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Bill]

I had posted the article by an academic, not because I agreed with it. But to engender discussion.

Let's not attack me -- the messenger -- but address the issues.

Yes -- emancipation of the working class is the issue.

I offered the article as current thinking or ideology. Criticizing the current capitalist ideology is the target here.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

Don't feel offended. As you stated, "Criticizing the current capitalist ideology is the target here." Exactly what my intention was. Capitalist academia is part and parcel of capitalist ideology. The nonperson academic, that I referred to, contributed education countering that ideology. "Socialist Reconstruction of Society" was an insightful and effective address (in print), loaded with evidence, countering that ideology, yet he was relegated to the status of a nonperson, with no defense whatsoever from the left. For all practicality, even a nonperson within the WIIU, an organization he helped to create.

[Scott Wallace]

Suggested Reading

				Suggested Reading Website of the Workers' International Industrial Union, a union for all workers.
				View on wiiu.org	Preview by Yahoo

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

"...alternative perspective to traditional economic theory in such realms as workplace democracy,..."

 

Workplace democracy under capitalism is an oxymoron. Academics may harbor a different alternative [?] perspective, without focus on the main point: Workers are compelled to sell themselves as wage slaves, and are forced to function within the confines of being in competition with each other (whether discreetly or not). Academics also reside within that category (discreetly or not). Being subjected to the requirement that they toe the capitalist line explains their failure to definitively address wage slavery. To wage slaves, there is no "different" or "alternative" perspective, only exploitation to the maximum at any time, to a lesser or greater degree, according to circumstances existing at that time. To a capitalist, a worker's labor power always costs too much, that is the bottom line.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:20:24 PM UTC-5, Andrew Gunderman wrote:

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle?

 

Depends on which academic. I mean Byron mentioned one and Matt two. Bill brought forth a report form an Engineering Dept. as well. These academics investigate and explain how the capitalist gears turn within the economy or within corporations, bringing a different alternative perspective to traditional economic theory in such realms as workplace democracy, costs of transactions, etc.

 

For example, strike the free market assumption from corporate behavior, because they usually operate by contract. It's not a free to choose construct, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, but a rock and hard place scenario between your personal freedom and that of corporate governance. How are workers emancipated? Democratic workplaces are inherently more efficient than authoritarian ones; there is less cost of control involved.

 

Now to go the route supposed by industrial unionism, i.e. to appeal to government agency for relief of workplace issues, violates the shortest and simplest solution rule under an inherent assumption that government supports workers over the money-making businesses.

 

 

 
 

---

Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:52:36 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net

To: workers-international-industrial-union@googlegroups.com

Subject: WIIU and Academics

 

The attempting revival of the original WIIU and the trotting forth of academic tidbits trickling down from professors perched on their ivory towers.

 

Recently, in 3 posts on the WIIU discussion forum, we have been blessed with such trickling of tidbits by 3 academics.

 

Are these academics actively engaged in advancing the emancipation of workers from their class struggle scourge? None whatsoever.

 

The US history on the class struggle records only one such academic that devoted his life to doing just that. He decisively contributed to the establishment of the original IWW, and then, the original WIIU after the IWW was overrun and trashed by ignorant disruptors (anarcho-syndicalists). In memory, since 1914, he has been relegated to the status of nonperson.

 

Actually, amongst our midst in the current WIIU, there is an academic who strives to carry forth the efforts of that nonperson. From responses received by his efforts, it appears that he too is destined to be relegated to the status of non person.

 

All this to the glee and rejoicing of the capitalist class. As it was once said that nature abhors a vacuum, the capitalist class abhors any thought of working class emancipation. To them, may ignorance continue to reign amongst the working class, mired in a wasteland of disinformation, distortions, outright lies, rewriting of history, etc..

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-industrial-union+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

The bottom line: The tendency of the capitalist class is to render labor power superfluous to the process of production.

[Andrew Gunderman]

Workplace democracy under capitalism is an oxymoron. Academics may harbor an "alternative perspective" but on it goes without focus on the main point.
 
Workers, compelled to sell themselves as wage slaves, function within the confines of being in competition with each other. Academics also reside within that category, subject to the requirement that they toe the capitalist line. Thus their failure to definitively address wage slavery.
 
To wage slaves, there is no "alternative perspective," only exploitation to the max at any time.
 
To a capitalist, a worker's labor always costs too much. The bottom line is the capitalist class tends to render labor power outside the process of production.
 
Nicely put, if I may say so. Definitive but not entirely true, you know, because labor power theory had been developed well before any notion of workplace democracy. It is really in the interest of the capitalist to create a spirit of democracy in the workplace.
 
To see why, consider the term democracy applied to government. Is our society outside the workplace really democratic - No.
 
We may have elections, but Representatives we choose are the ones creating and voting on the laws that govern us. We can claim at best, only to vote for Representation. It's a second-order, limited democracy. Some would say the elections are contrived and unreal. It's a better view of government if you do.
 
Secondly the bottom of the line is always making profits. Fact is, workers don't realize profits through their labor. Profit is the only real power in business. Unprofitable business, facing competition from more profitable firms, complement Don's definition of wage slavery. To better compete in our worldwide marketplace is a national objective. Lesser developed nations are exploited by advanced ones... and so on it goes like an endless food chain.
 
As participants in the system we thereby reject by our actions, this anti-capitalist hypothesis that profit is the corrupting feature of society. It is only as we concentrate solely on the proficiency of our skilled work that the outside forces of profit may seem remote or otherworldly. Capitalists provide this role, if understandably foreign to us, as necessary within the structure of the enterprise. There's no end to competition once you are hired by whatever company.
 
Now, garnering greater profit can come about by working together more efficiently. So, can this be done voluntarily, spontaneously, more democratically?
 
That is a good question. I would ask how can it not be done more democratically? My rhetorical answer is that an inherent waste of resources is scuttled on supervisory personnel who don't add any value to production. Anything that doesn't add direct labor to production is superfluous, extraneous, a profit drag.
 
Classical economics regards business firms as sources of production. They also play a major role in governance. Any system of production that has adjacent functionary departments, gets resources, materials or subassemblies, and gives the same, has to have centrally coordinated governing resources. And costs, therefore accrue with the amount of effort required to get it all together.
 
Classical economics also regards the marketplace as being free, the efficient way to accrue all the necessities of life. Therefore, whenever a manufacturing corporation exists it's basically doing to as a system of governance outside the free voluntary function of the market. All its internal transaction have costs. Alternatively its outside suppliers also operate in terms governed by contract and guarantees of continued performance.
 
Classical economics neglects any costs of making outside transactions, and it views the corporation solely as a production function in the overall scheme of things. It's an outmoded concept.
 
Labor power theory was developed alongside classical economics. There are by now much more relevant ways to view the working economy, as something more than just labor power pitted against capitalists.
 
That is my prerogative, to bring another viewpoint that's m ore realistic to light.
 

---

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:07:01 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: WIIU and Academics

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

Uff da!

 

It totally escapes me, nowhere in my post do I find were I defined "wage slavery." Perhaps you can point that out to me.

 

Labor power is no theory, everyone is born with it, albeit with rare cases of incapacitation. Stephen Hawking is almost completely immobilized. He applies his labor power, intellectually, he creates, produces. A child is able to apply labor power, not yet in the realm of wage slavery, nevertheless is able to apply it, naturally to a very limited degree. The systematic exploitation of a worker's labor power is no theory either. It has been perpetrated for many centuries, from ancient slavery, to
feudalism and now capitalism, discounting rare exceptions, mainly Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Neither were socialism or capitalism yet exploited labor power in a manner peculiar to each. State ownership directed and controlled by a despotic bureaucratic ruling class.

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 6:45:29 PM UTC-5, Andrew Gunderman wrote:

Workplace democracy under capitalism is an oxymoron. Academics may harbor an "alternative perspective" but on it goes without focus on the main point.
 
Workers, compelled to sell themselves as wage slaves, function within the confines of being in competition with each other. Academics also reside within that category, subject to the requirement that they toe the capitalist line. Thus their failure to definitively address wage slavery.
 
To wage slaves, there is no "alternative perspective," only exploitation to the max at any time.
 
To a capitalist, a worker's labor always costs too much. The bottom line is the capitalist class tends to render labor power outside the process of production.
 
Nicely put, if I may say so. Definitive but not entirely true, you know, because labor power theory had been developed well before any notion of workplace democracy. It is really in the interest of the capitalist to create a spirit of democracy in the workplace.
 
To see why, consider the term democracy applied to government. Is our society outside the workplace really democratic - No.
 
We may have elections, but Representatives we choose are the ones creating and voting on the laws that govern us. We can claim at best, only to vote for Representation. It's a second-order, limited democracy. Some would say the elections are contrived and unreal. It's a better view of government if you do.
 
Secondly the bottom of the line is always making profits. Fact is, workers don't realize profits through their labor. Profit is the only real power in business. Unprofitable business, facing competition from more profitable firms, complement Don's definition of wage slavery. To better compete in our worldwide marketplace is a national objective. Lesser developed nations are exploited by advanced ones... and so on it goes like an endless food chain.
 
As participants in the system we thereby reject by our actions, this anti-capitalist hypothesis that profit is the corrupting feature of society. It is only as we concentrate solely on the proficiency of our skilled work that the outside forces of profit may seem remote or otherworldly. Capitalists provide this role, if understandably foreign to us, as necessary within the structure of the enterprise. There's no end to competition once you are hired by whatever company.
 
Now, garnering greater profit can come about by working together more efficiently. So, can this be done voluntarily, spontaneously, more democratically?
 
That is a good question. I would ask how can it not be done more democratically? My rhetorical answer is that an inherent waste of resources is scuttled on supervisory personnel who don't add any value to production. Anything that doesn't add direct labor to production is superfluous, extraneous, a profit drag.
 
Classical economics regards business firms as sources of production. They also play a major role in governance. Any system of production that has adjacent functionary departments, gets resources, materials or subassemblies, and gives the same, has to have centrally coordinated governing resources. And costs, therefore accrue with the amount of effort required to get it all together.
 
Classical economics also regards the marketplace as being free, the efficient way to accrue all the necessities of life. Therefore, whenever a manufacturing corporation exists it's basically doing to as a system of governance outside the free voluntary function of the market. All its internal transaction have costs. Alternatively its outside suppliers also operate in terms governed by contract and guarantees of continued performance.
 
Classical economics neglects any costs of making outside transactions, and it views the corporation solely as a production function in the overall scheme of things. It's an outmoded concept.
 
Labor power theory was developed alongside classical economics. There are by now much more relevant ways to view the working economy, as something more than just labor power pitted against capitalists.
 
That is my prerogative, to bring another viewpoint that's m ore realistic to light.
 

---

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:07:01 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net

To: workers-international-industrial-union@googlegroups.com

[Andrew Gunderman]

Not to get overly academic on you, but Labor power stands as a specific not an ecumenical term, and it  together with wage slavery applies a Marxian subtext that is at best theoretical in this day and age. It wasn't actually the result of gaps in classical economics. Marx's central focus wasn't against economic theory as we know it, it was more of a treatise in political economy, or a philosophy against specific social conditions. I say "labor power theory," more to refer to later analysis of Marxian economics.
 
The idea that everyone is born armed with labor power, is theory itself.

---

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:01:13 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Gunderman]

The theory in context of workplace democracy is, all that the worker does is agree to work under the supervision of capitalists in exchange for a wage. It's as though the capitalist hires you based on your capacity to perform functions that you in turn, agree to actually do. To the degree that you can, without supervision, makes it more valuable to him because there's no need for control. Workplace democracy is an inherently more efficient program than the alternate, a hypothesis that labor-power (capacity) is all that the capitalist actually pays you for.
 
What happens if I return nothing profitable within my capacity? The capitalist gets a supervisor to force you into whatever he doesn't want to do himself. Now that two people are paid within their capacity, only one doing the work. What is accomplished? 
 

---

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:01:13 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

Can't you every answer a question directly.  I asked you to point to where you found that  I defined "wage slavery.

 

To imagine Monty Python reading your 2 replies, I can hear him jest, "brilliant"!

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 1:59:10 PM UTC-5, Andrew Gunderman wrote:

The theory in context of workplace democracy is, all that the worker does is agree to work under the supervision of capitalists in exchange for a wage. It's as though the capitalist hires you based on your capacity to perform functions that you in turn, agree to actually do. To the degree that you can, without supervision, makes it more valuable to him because there's no need for control. Workplace democracy is an inherently more efficient program than the alternate, a hypothesis that labor-power (capacity) is all that the capitalist actually pays you for.
 
What happens if I return nothing profitable within my capacity? The capitalist gets a supervisor to force you into whatever he doesn't want to do himself. Now that two people are paid within their capacity, only one doing the work. What is accomplished? 
 

---

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 21:01:13 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net

[Andrew Gunderman]

I don't know if I can, Don. Thank you for defining labor power, though.
 
 
 

---

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:17:35 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

I don't know what I can do either, assuming that you are aware of what labor power means, I merely made reference to it. The point I was making is, how cold you comment on my definition of labor power when I offered none. I have questions with other comments presented by you. I just picked this one because it was  so obviously a misunderstanding, if not that, then I am at a loss of a reason for the discrepancy. Enough on that point, much more serious matters are facing us.

 

The Big Bang (acute decadence) of capitalism. From that emanates the multitudinous ills of our society nearing its dissolution.

 

In face of that, what are the multitudes doing? Clamoring for another man (or women) on a white horse to save the day. The last one, the horse stumbled, the rider lost his compass and has wondered in the wrong direction ever sense. During the endless procession of a new "the man on the white horse," the only academic that pointed in the right direction, as I said before, has been relegated to the status of a nonperson. Scott gave reference to the efforts of that person to alert workers to the only direction that could solve their problems. When I made reference to that nonperson without naming him, I was waiting for a request to name him. Scott interjected, named him and some of his most important writings. No matter silence remains.

 

As I said before, he was instrumental in forming the original IWW before it was trashed, helped form the WIIU in an effort to salvage the best elements of the original IWW. According to the response to Scott's reference,  it appears that he will continue to remain a nonperson. Bring on the "man on the white horse," to the dismay of us who know better. The nonperson strongly emphasized that workers organize together, use  Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States to restructure society on a sane basis. "The man on the white horse" is far and away from that.

 

One more: I pointed out that a member of WIIU, also and academic, in agreement with the program and principles poised by said nonperson appears doomed to join

him, Why?

 

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 5:27:28 PM UTC-5, Andrew Gunderman wrote:

I don't know if I can, Don. Thank you for defining labor power, though.
 
 
 

---

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:17:35 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net

[Scott Wallace]

Don, I believe that everyone on this forum is here because they view industrial unionism as a coherent program for the socialist transformation of society, and because they also understand that the WIIU is the brand of industrial unionism that embraces political organization along with industrial organization. I think our discussions here should center around how we get people who are not on this forum to understand these concepts. We should be discussing how to organize our fellow workers.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[William Shakalis]

We should be discussing how to organize our fellow workers.

I strongly agree. We are engaging in very thorough theoretical discussion -- OK. But we also need to determine how to organize others -- on the job, or generaly in society.

  These are practical, organizational and political issues that are missing from the discussion.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/workers-international-industrial-union/pku9jB1aV-Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

William Shakalis, MSLS

wsha...@gmail.com

cell: 860 208-7273

 

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

OK guys, I am thrilled to hear it. Some of the prater being submitted disturbed me, especially references to academics. Also I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. One other note. We are confronting capitalism and the more that the capitalist class can keep workers in ignorance the happier they are. The union hierarchy generously lends them a helping hand in accomplishing that. The fierce competition by capitalists is generated by reducing the amount of labor time expended in the process of production. This has, and is now, going through a constant evolutionary advancement; mass production, automation, cybernation and now robotic production. When I say the tendency of the capitalist class is to render labor power superfluous to the process of production, does not mean I am implying that we should abandon discussing how to organize revolutionary unions. To know and understand our enemy is a simple matter of being informed, it should not be a distraction. To be cognizant of what the capitalist class desperately wants to obscure from us should not be a distraction from our organizational efforts.

 

Being assured that members here hold that union organizations efforts should be the main cause is totally agreeable with me.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:20:48 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

We should be discussing how to organize our fellow workers.

I strongly agree. We are engaging in very thorough theoretical discussion -- OK. But we also need to determine how to organize others -- on the job, or generaly in society.

  These are practical, organizational and political issues that are missing from the discussion.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-industrial-union+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Workers' International Industrial Union" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/workers-international-industrial-union/pku9jB1aV-Y/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to workers-international-industrial-union+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andrew Gunderman]

The point I was making is this. How could you comment on my definition of labor power, when I offered none?
 
You do mean wage slavery? Don, I'll take your word for it. Strike any of my mistaken references about wage slavery for the record. Replace it with "white horse." 
 

---

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:27:50 -0700
From: ddon...@comcast.net
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to workers-international-ind...@googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Gunderman]

A not-so-subtle change in the way major corporations do business started off back in '71, with a statement from Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell to the Chamber of Commerce, urging them to become politically active. Looking back on the civil rights and anti-war movements of the '60s, he took note that American Citizens, by virtue of their personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution, could exert a profound influence on government policy. His thinking was, Is it not time for business to also acquire political power too? He issued a clarion call, saying business and the [free] enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late!

In the ensuing period our economy basically stagnated while every major corporation set up offices in Washington. The growth in the amount and variety of lobbies exerting direct actions on politicians has been staggering. The proportion of corporate-sponsored lobbies has increased four times as fast as in general, so we have a government run by special interests and factions, its all money centered, and the independent American Citizen has had no countervailing power.
 
The economy eventually recovered by loosening up monopoly restrictions, letting the rich get richer and more powerful. The influence of big money on politics has, in effect, increased geometrically and has reached such an epic proportion today that I think even a mass industrial union wouldn't have enough financial firepower to make an impact under the new rules of engagement. Every politician with the notary exception of Matt Andrews, runs a lobby business for himself, makes better investments than professional traders, and well, these are the guys who are making our laws and voting in our [democratic] system.
 
Because we have an occasional opportunity to vote for them on the basis of sham-filled money bomb campaigns, doesn't make us any more powerful and it doesn't give us a voice of our own in Congress. It seems the only way to influence is through the use of the same tactics and channels. But overall, this process renders itself inefficient and sub-optimizing. Every corporation or lobby group pressures for their own piece of the pie, rather than for the greater benefit of all. The implicit idea I think, in industrial unionism, is that it should work for our greater benefit.     

---

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:10:12 +0000
From: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com
To: workers-internation...@googlegroups.com

[Donald J Donaker (Don)]

 

Excuse me (if I may say so, being a lowly high school graduate) if this seems to belabor caution on depending on academics for insightful thought for workers in their organizational endeavors. I think its important. It is rare indeed that an academic has useful input towards the cause of workers' emancipation. Deleon was mentioned as one. Another, mentioned before not by name, is a member of WIIU, an academic with a masters degree. The following article is by a worker, not an academic, but possesses a masters degree, taking on MIT academics and the Wall Street Journal which is stuffed full of them:

 

A Fractured Robotic Epiphany

Marxism teaches that the mode of production and distribution and the social structures that result from it are the primary dynamics of historical development, and the basis of human history. This concept is apparently outside the field of inquiry of MIT economist Erik Brynjolfson, who realized that advancing robotic technology would cause such massive unemployment "that there are people who want to work but can't." This was one of his observations that appeared in Timothy Aeppel's front-page article in the Wall Street Journal of February, entitled "Jobs and the Clever Robot," which ambivalently toyed with the popularly promoted notion that automation is a job creator. The facts of job elimination are increasingly numerous. Ever hear of the linotype operator or Teletype operator, or the wire photo technician? The pressman's work is more or less extinct. All have disappeared. We recently reported on automation's devastating effect on railroad transportation. Mining has been greatly supplanted by massive earth removal. Industry after industry has suffered job destruction by advancing technology.

The following lists a few of the current results of automation under capitalism, as cited in the article:

In Australia the Rio Tinto mining giant, automated self-driving trucks and drills requiring no operators and will soon deliver ore to a port 300 miles away by automated train.

In the highly automated Port of Los Angeles automation will soon cut in half the number of longshoremen. Legal research, stock reports, news stories, translation, online advertisement, bank monitoring of potential illegal transactions, all done previously by humans can now be done by computers.

Last year, Bill Gates noted people are unaware of the job threat computers pose to a whole array of jobs from drivers to nurses to waiters.

Among them are bank employees, 484,000 tellers in 1985 as opposed to 361,00 today.

One MIT economist, Scott Stern, observed "unpredictable results" of technological displacement at a faster and faster speeds.

Despite these signals of rapidly diminishing jobs, some still maintain that automation is a job creator. Among those is MIT's Frank Levy who wrote a book declaring driverless cars were impossible and has now become defensive regarding his widely published book. Significantly, the subject has launched monthly discussions and debates at MIT, though one need not hold one's breath that these could lead to the socialist conclusion, which would hardly qualify as grist for the Journal.

Among the economists "whistling in the dark" are those who blithely opine there are too many complex tasks that cannot be accomplished by robots, among which are cited in a sidebar pointing out that robots have a though time folding laundry! Well, now there's a job! The question will arise is there a sufficient number of openings for laundry operatives, hardly a growth industry? Not to worry! Technicians are already exploring gardening tasks, espresso operative, military pack carrying robots, etc. 88 percent of top economists polled by the Chicago School of Milton Freedman notoriety either agreed or strongly agreed that "automation has never historically led to reduced unemployment.:

Worth noting are some explanations that bear on the past decades of unemployment. MIT economist David Autor has found automation has inundated such occupations as "clerks and bookkeeper while creating jobs at the high and low-end of the market . . . one reason the labor market has polarized and wages have stagnated over the past 15 years," contributing "to growing inequality." Mr. Autor notes that the drive to automation's intent is not replacing workers but making them more productive, that is, increasing increments of profit per worker/ The amount of commodities increases but the employment level remains static. "Markets will yield new, yet-to-be imagined work...and according to modern economic history plenty of jobs."(15) But "the extension markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production'" and are governed by "quite different laws that work much less energetically" (Frederick Engels, Socialism: From Utopia to Science).

Meanwhile, as such discussions continue, the head of Georgia Institute of Technology's robotics program, Henrik Christensen, an expert in industrial robots, noted, "automation is spreading to factories world-wide, and China recently overtook the U.S. as the world's largest market for robots." Alongside this statement the Journal offered two graphs showing "More Work, Less Labor," and "Automation Nations" with China showing a growth of 174 percent while North America's growth is 26 percent, Japan 27 percent, S. Korea 22 percent, and German 15 percent.

According to Mr. Christensen, truck drivers will be replaced in 10 years, children won't have to learn to drive, but "will find plenty of jobs," a belief that goes unexplained. Scott Stern, another MIT economist believes that "technological advances are moving at a faster speed . . . with unpredictable results.

Despite this, the Journal article proceeds into "feel-good" territory striving to maintain optimism and faith with examples of why everything is going to be alright and "best-of -all-systems" hymns are introduced accordingly: "Some machines are so efficient they push down prices and create more demand-which in many cases spawns more jobs, not fewer." They cite the Rio Tinto example, stating that "the new equipment cut many jobs. . . . But the reductions will be partly offset by new types of work" such as "mechatronics engineers."

Marvelous! So the truck drivers are miraculously transformed into technicians? Not exactly. The truck drivers are cast out as human refuse, in a fashion analogous to when galley slaves wore out on the oars. A few are then plucked from the available stock of wage slaves to perform tasks related to robotic operations. In such scenarios do the number of new tech operatives paid higher wages equal the number of those laid-off at low-tech jobs: Hardly a likely scenario for if capitalists have to hire the same number of workers that robots render useless how are 'blood suckers' to make a profit - disclaimers of market expansion notwithstanding?

Growing unemployment and job destruction is an inevitable result of continued capitalist control of the means of social production and distribution. As the means of production continues to grow, ever in search for new markets, and competition drives every capitalist to more desperate measures to reduce the cost of production by employing more and more automated and robotic equipment, and fewer and fewer workers, so does the social fabric continue disintegrating with greater unemployment, and misery. Workers discharged from one industry by automation have little recourse but to seek work in another lured by the prospect of job retraining, with the prospect that the job they may have retrained for has been abolished because of automation!

The mode of production of capitalism is, as Frederick Engels noted, too restricted, too narrow, and is in revolt against the character of its appropriation as private property. Only socialism can reconcile automation and robotics with a social system that will bring into balance the needs of society and the capabilities of automation because only under such a system can products be produced to satisfy societies myriad requirements, not commodities produced for the enrichment of a tiny minority of the population.