free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

eraskin · Joined: 11 May 2010 Posts: 15

Please finish reading Ch. 5 in "From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend" and the Primary Source packets (addressing Industrialization and The Gospel of Wealth). Post a MINIMUM of 100-200 words on our forum responding thoughtfully to the readings. Include a question for your peers to work from.

Free Forum

eraskin · Joined: 11 May 2010 Posts: 15

This reading was so sad. It was the like watching the downfall of unions in America in moments instead of over many years…I’m always so surprised to find out how progressive some of the organizations were, and then how conservative other ones were. The Knights of Labor had some really great ideas, which sadly still have not been achieved today. For example the “cooperate commonwealth”. I saw the film Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore a couple months ago and in it, they talked about a company that makes robots that is completely run by it’s workers. They openly decide on their salaries and workdays, they vote on company cuts and collectively decide who does what. It’s sort of like running a socialist company because there is no boss. The workers said it was great because you’re forced to think about the collective benefits instead of your own personal benefits…That just reminded me of that.
The catch is, this company (which I completely forget the name of) was a very small company of highly educated employees (I’m pretty sure they were all engineers) so my question is, do people think this sort of system is doable on a large industrial level?

lilycp · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 20

Unfortunately I don’t think this kind of wonderful utopian like factory would work at all in a larger level. There comes a point where there are just too many people to be able to make communal decision fast enough. At some point I think a leader or leaders must be chosen to represent the majority. This is where democracy is supposed to come in but, as this chapter and book has shown, often fails. The thing that most upsets me is how poorly the government deals with these strikes, using the brute force of the military to crush resistance. With that attitude towards the working people the American government is not a functioning democratic republic at all. You can’t be by and for the people if you send in the National Guard to kill said people.

my question: besides the lack of solidarity what could the organizations we read about have done differently that would not have led them to failure?

canderson · Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Posts: 23

To answer Ziz's question: I would tend to think that the bigger the pool of workers got, the less that ideal system would hold together. That, for me, was another depressing aspect of the reading; unions like the Knights seemed to believe that if they only overthrew the monopolists, their lives would be better. While I'm sure better people could have been in power, there is a the argument that capitalism evolved into that tyrannical machine because it was the most efficient way to do things. Power corrupts; would even Eugene Debs (yay!), if made into a magnate, fight for every worker's rights? There comes a point at which the overseers have to see their employees as numbers, simply because the brain's ability to humanize is finite (arguably!).
That said, the reason capitalism has evolved that way is because of its priority; (surprisingly) capital. If the priorities of the economic system lay in something intangible and individually more important, like quality of life, would that be a better set-up? There are always those countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, where x% of people are happy or something. Is that proof that we're doing it "wrong"? This is, of course, assuming that happiness is what those striking workers were really getting at...

Maxwell A · Joined: 10 May 2010 Posts: 19

I think Ziz's comment is interesting and I also saw the Michael Moore movie. I believe that there are possible ways to make workplaces more democratic. Some countries like Japan and the Scandanavian countries have developed more democratic companies. I think the US political system has been not been only anti-union for most of our history but also not very pro-worker.

My question is what aspects of the political system made it so unfriendly to workers' needs except in periods like the great depression and other economic crises?

jpark · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 17

For me, the reading seemed very interesting because the knights of labor was kind of making majority of people equal. It was opened to women, blacks, employers etc. but some of the people were excluded which I do not really understand… I guess I can kind of understand why they were excluding liquor dealers, stockbrokers, professional gambler, but I’m a bit confused with why bankers and corporate lawers were unable to join the organization. Aren't they important part of the community? Also, the way police fought back to the strikers seemed really intense and it was discouraging to read how workers had little power.

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

The AFL are mad annoying, every desision the made, they made bad. They ignored woman and minoritys. they made high fees so that unskilled workers could not join them, and they refused to support revaloutiary political figures. despite this they maneged to stay around for a while. actuly maby it was because of this they were so effective and long lasting. maby it was the radical politics of unions as much as the economic aspects that caused such a backlash against them. I have to imagine that the companys owners would feel far more sympathetic to white men striking then anyone else.
the number of hours in the work week seems to be declining do you think this trend will continue?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

Looking at all the posts I was also wondering if what the situation would have been if the unions were successful. Although it is a grim fact that even the unions with the most "progressive" ideas were shut down through brute force from the government, would the unions' solution towards their issues really bring stability and peace? and if it would how long would it last? The knights of labor was a union which many talked about on the posts. I can understand how they would exclude what they refer to as criminals or people with shady reputations (gamblers, liquor dealers etc) but wouldn't their solution excluding these minorities still bring inequality? The institution set up with the success of this union would still be one with dividing classes (one ruling over the other). If the government would have chosen compromises instead of brute force to retaliate against these union stikes, how would this affect the economy? One reason why the government refused the union was due to the fact that poor conditions of the workers usually meant a more efficient economy (or that is what they believed since cutting down wages was one way companies tried to stay in competition). I agree with the statement mentioned before, power corrupts and believe that the union's success wouldn't necessarily change this fact.

aegilman · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 17

I couldn't agree more with W.E.B. Du Bois observation in 1924 that, "Modern imperialism and modern industrialism are one and the same system." I felt like this was one of the major themes of this Chapter because many of our military interventions/imperialist policies were not in the best interest of the American people but rather to protect and advance U.S. corporations. For example, the U.S. overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii in order to support American sugar planters serves as a perfect example of U.S. imperialism that would be extended throughout the 20th century. My question is do you believe that today, our government values and more importantly makes policies catered toward U.S. corporate interests over the interests and the welfare of Americans?

LeoSampaio · Joined: 10 May 2010 Posts: 8

alex: do you believe that today, our government values and more importantly makes policies catered toward U.S. corporate interests over the interests and the welfare of Americans?

I absolutely believe that. I think in many ways, the American government values and makes policies catered toward U.S. corporate interests in an attempt to serve it's citizens. The American government works around a belief that if the economy of a country is doing well, so will it's people. I don't think it's that the American goverment "cares" about money or is greedy because that is a anthropomorphic philosophy. I believe the way our goverment was built and established makes it easier for it to help corporations or companies than the average American. As in the case with the recent bail outs, many people complain that the goverment didn't bail them out but instead bailed out many credit card companies o insurance companies.

Free Forum