Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: Reading from Ch. 6
I found it really interesting that the "scientific management" was even created, because the point of that rule was to abuse workers by dictating their every move; "The key, he decided, was to control their every move....Then he decreed the "one best way" to perform each motion and demanded that workers strictly follow his decrees." (p. 148) This rule, ignited a hateful relationship between the workers and the union owners, which is something I didn't expect, because I thought the point of the union was the help and support the workers. But I guess not every union had as good intentions as the next.
As a result of treating the workers badly, they tried to bring the unions down; "Ever as they signed contracts and hobnobbed with labor leaders in the NCF, employers never stopped searching for methods to contain and weaken unionism." So basically the working class was struggling with the governmental law on wages, working conditions, ect, while also fighting against the unions for the same reasons. This was a chaotic time for the working class.
As much as I love to hate modern capitalism, the free market, and our lack of government regulations, this reading reminded me how far we’ve come. To think there was time in our history when each company was like it’s own little…corrupt society. With almost no government regulations or workers rights, companies exploited immigrants, women, children, people of color, and even white (working) men in a way I never would have expected from a first world country. (when did the concept of first world countries develop?) It’s amazing how different the great things that come out of the free market can so easily become used against it’s own society. The appeal of the free market is that the government doesn’t restrict it’s citizens and that companies can succeed organically, that citizens have the freedom to chose what they buy. But when those companies are able to determine and restrict the working class (which in a capitalist society is the majority), the free market is not exactly free. It’s free to those who can access it.
I hope we’ve made progress from then…maybe we haven’t. I suppose I go in circles about the progress America has made, what do other people think?
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:39 am Post subject:
IWW people were called 'Wobblies'. that's a more ridiculous nickname then the whigs or the know-nothings. It seems like the IWW and the Socialist Party made the same mistake as the knights of labor: they were too radical to appeal to the everyman. It said they were less then one tenth the AFL's size.
It's a real shame that the AFL and the Socialist party were so opposed to each other. Obviously, there were disagreements to be had. Worker's rights and socialism arent the same thing. But still, those seem a bit insignificant when they both had a common enemy; big business.
I have a question: who were the machinists? Were they the opposite of the Luddites? they sound like something out of a sci-fi novel.
I agree with Rachel: the "scientific management" strategy was interesting. It's just taking more of the 'human' out of this work -- it makes the reasoning for switching over to machines as soon as possible make sense (from a profit POV).
On p. 145, the worker's half-hearted attitude is mentioned. "... inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it. Slip-shop assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference and half-hearted work seem the rule." This was written by Elbert Hubbard, who had employer sympathies. I think that if this was true, one explanation could be something Martha mentioned awhile ago, that stuck with me: the idea of making only a part of an object, assembly-line style, so that you never get the true satisfaction of a job well done. The other question is: were American workers this sloppy? It could have been employe propaganda. This is an era where we see employer groups like NAM pushing back against union activism, and this kind of "it's all their fault" literature could be a strategy. On the other hand, while we've heard a great deal in this book about the organizing and triumphs of the workers and their social disagreements, we've heard little about their actual work. Was the standard of craftsmanship high then? If it was or wasn't -- what was the cause?
The two quotes that most shocked me were “we have faith in popular opinion… when it is instructed, sober, moral, true. But we have no faith in popular opinion when it is rash, passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant” and “the work of the state is to think for the people and plan for the people—to teach them how to do, what to do, and to sustain them in the doing”(143). These are from business papers where the authors are voicing their skepticism about democracy, something I assumed by this time everyone was ok with. It seem shocking to me that these businessmen wanted something so similar to what I would consider, for lack for a better word at this point in time, a dictatorship. We the rich ruling class will listen to those who agree with us and know exactly what the working masses need.
Question: on page 144 the US Commissioner of Indian affairs says that people half or more Indian blood are not “legally competent.” What does this mean?
It's fascinating to read how there were three important groups, AFL, SP, and IWW, which had competed each other with different programs for better lives of the people. Each in which attracted people with different values. AFL concentrated on collective bargaining…federal labor unions and such…And there was a part in which I thought it was extra interesting… how AFL did not let new immigrants (south Italians slavs, and others…) and asian immigrants were included in those category. However, I was wondering why even asian American workers were also excluded. Anyways, SP went for socialism and considered it with American History and values. And wobblies focused on solidarity. I found this quote really powerful: “the IWW is not a white man;s union, not a black man’s union, not a red man’s union, but a workingman’s union” (158). I think each of these three groups pushed the society to have broader views with its standards.
The AFL keep getting more and more annoying with their racist policys, but their tactic of staying conservitive seemed to work realy well. I am surprized many unions did not follow their model, because it worked so much better then the other unions. but then they went kind of crazy and blew up a bunch of buildings with people in them and their workers got replaced by unskilled workers so maby they are not the best people to emulate. the IWW were perty cool but they nerver ammaseed that many people, how dou you think they were able to amass as much power as they did?
The chapter talks about the US expansion of Empire. It seems like American business wanted to get resources and protect markets in Latin America. The US treated central and Latin America as its colonies. I think it is interesting that the US was expanding its commercial interests overseas during the progressive era. The was social progress during the progressive era in terms of regulation and living standards in the US while overseas, we were supporting very oppressive governments. People like President Roosevelt supported American imperialism at the same time that they were against large corporations and their political power.
My questions is why America be progressive at home and imperialistic abroad?
It was interesting to see unions popping up with different ideals. Although they all believed in the corruption of their current system, their ways of solution were quite varying. The IWW focused on the issue of solidarity. They believed that the lack of solidarity was the core issue(or one of the main problems), and strived to bring together all the workers. As said in the book they called their union a "workingman's union". It was interesting to see that one of the major problems we discussed in class appearing as a union. The SP tried to filter their idea through socialism and reconsidered American values. It was nice to see that the issues which many unions thought during this time was related to the bigger picture. It seemed to me as if they all took a step back to analyze the root of the problem (although many came up with different solutions to the problem).
My questions is why America be progressive at home and imperialistic abroad?
I believe that these are different things that are in no way mutually exclusive: this so called "progressive era" in the U.S. refers to the growth of unions and the reversal of a few completely unethical and business-oriented ideas that carried over from the Gilded age (such as the Clayton Act passed in 1914 that effectively ended the illegality of striking on the grounds that it violates the anti-trust laws) but although there was progression (child labor bans, regulation of hours, set standards for workplace safety and health) from the very extreme Capitalist no regulation, profit over human safety system of the 19th century I would reluctantly classify this era as a progressive era, (based on my definition of what is progressive and I believe the companies only made these "compromises" to treat there workers less as animals and more as humans b/c they were afraid of the growing labor movement) especially considering that just as the Marine was a "racketeer, a gangster for capitalism" abroad so were most of the politicians as well as judges and other people in power. So the imperialistic policies of the U.S., in my opinion, U.S. imperialism or "dollar diplomacy:" foreign policy designed to expand and protect U.S. investments abroad was just and extension of protecting corporate interests domestically. Though, on this particular issue I certainly see how this era can be perceived as progressive and I am I think this topic is worth further discussion.
I don't know if it is just me, but I was a bit confused as to why the AFL was so much bigger and more successful than both the IWW and especially the SP b/c it seemed to be an exclusively white union for skilled craftsmen (besides the Federal Labor Unions) and also seemed to be fairly conservative. (Often, they agreed with the business-minded civic groups, such as when they agreed Socialism to be an Alien Doctrine or when they tried to quash the textile union strike that eventually was victorious) Its just interesting that they were able to gain 10x the amount of members as the IWW and SP combined b/c from the reading I can't help but agree with both the IWW and SP: that the AFL's executives are "capitalist misleaders" and that the "AFL was a nest of union scabs."
So that leads to my question:
Why weren't the Socialist Party of America and possibly even the IWW as successful as the AFL? Were they just too radical?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
