Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: Due 12/03
Again, please write between 100-200 words minimum and include a question for your peers. Reflect on the reading, thinking particularly about methods of dissent, and build on the responses of your classmates.
Hello fellow dissentees. That felt like a lot of reading partly because I am a slow reader and partly because that was a lot of information.
A few important things I picked up/thought about while reading:
1. Taylorism- "to make workers interchangeable, able to do the simple tasks that the new division of labor required- like standard parts divested of individuality and humanity, bought and sold as commodities"(pg 8
Do you think that Taylorism is an effective method? Today in class we talked about the imaginary shoe factory where each person has one main responsibility. This would make it more difficult to find workers for each specific task. Do you think Taylorism is more effective than this?
2. Pauline Newman says on page 89 "and yet there was the spirit that led us on and on until we got to some hall.... I can see the young people, mostly women, walking down and not caring what might happen... the hunger, cold, loneliness... They just didn't care on that particular day; that was their day." I found the last sentence of this quote to be particularly interesting. I never considered that in the mind of a striker, the day of strike is "their" day. Sure, it is "the" day to act, but I never considered the day belonging to any single person.
3. The article talks a lot about education and reading and writing. "Some middle-class women, conscious of women's oppression and wanting to do something, were going to college and becoming aware of themselves as not just housewives" (pg 94)
This period was a major turning point for women as they were gaining power by taking control of themselves.
My main question is: What do you think of the rules for female teachers? Why do you think they weren't allowed to get married?
I'm not sure if it's possible to answer whether or not Taylorism (Capitalism, more broadly) or any other political-economic system is more effective than others. I mean some are clearly worse (in terms of general human happiness) than others (fascism). But whether or not Taylorism, some other less industrialized form of capitalism, or socialism is better depends on the behavior of the people involved in the system. If taylorism is applied humanely, with the consent of the employees, and it's still the most efficient means of production, then it's the most effective. As long as wealth is distributed fairly throughout the company and the workers have reasonable wages. I guess what I'm saying is that taylorism might work if actual workers have as much financial investment (and are compensated well) in the production of goods as the "capitalists" at the top of the corporate food chain.
Zinn would probably disagree with that on two counts, though. He would say that their is a certain intrinsic value to the sense of individual self-worth that taylorism destroys. He would also point out that a company which employed such a morally upstanding version of taylorism/capitalism could be easily overtaken or elbowed out of the market by a company in the same industry that was more financially successful because it treated its employees worse.
I guess what the federal government does now to a certain degree is to give corporations an incentive, via regulation, to curb the tendency to be heartless and cruel towards one another that funnels into cruelty towards employees, while still maintaining the economic incentive towards production. (that sentence was very long) I think (?) the government began to institute regulations in part because of the issues with unabated capitalism that came to light around the turn of the century.
My question is this: How do you think Howard Zinn would address the issues with Socialism, if you pressed him? How would he give workers an incentive to produce when their production/job performance has little effect on the economic rewards that they see?
I completely agree—I’m such a slow reader, I’ve been reading this beast since I got home. Ridiculous. I did think it was interesting though, which helped.
My thoughts on Heather’s (unofficial) question: Do you think that Taylorism is an effective method? Today in class we talked about the imaginary shoe factory where each person has one main responsibility. This would make it more difficult to find workers for each specific task. Do you think Taylorism is more effective than this?
Okay, I don’t know if I understood Taylorism correctly, but I interpreted it as a company’s decision to increase machine use and decrease job difficulty (and therefore the need for skilled workers), so their workers were essentially “interchangeable.” Aside from this being a little degrading and dehumanizing, it kind of devalues skilled workers. So if, for example, someone working in a car factory was really good with windows, they couldn’t be used to their full potential because they would be doing the same simple jobs as everyone else. Taylorism also seems slower than an assembly line method. I see the economic idea behind it—unskilled workers=cheaper, easier to find—but it sounds to me like Taylorism would create fewer, lower-quality products.
I had heard about the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire before (Doug’s USO class anyone?), but I never actually read about it in such personal detail. There were a lot of these kind of stories in this reading—Zinn seemed to prefer talking about specific workers, children, women, etc., instead of groups as a whole. Example: “One woman was carried unconscious to a hospital and gave birth to a dead child,” instead of just “Police beat the women really brutally.” (p. 92) So my question is: Was there one of these personal descriptions that really stood out to you? Did it change the way you thought about whichever event it showed?
My feelings about taylorism were mixed. On the hand I agree with what Annabel said it devalues skilled workers and could potentially cause the products quality to be compromised furthermore if anyone can do a job then they could be paid less to do it. However in practice it could do the opposite. Machines do the exact same thing every time they operate and therefore less frequently make mistakes. They are also faster which means that more goods are produced this could mean that the product is cheaper for the consumer but that money could also be passed onto the laborer.
In terms of devaluing skilled workers I believe that this could also have a positive side. A side that seems to be more communist or socialist than capitalist. If skilled laborers are not necessary and anyone can do a job then it is not just the person with the best education (that they got because they were born rich) who gets the job. Therefore they can not demand more money than all of the other workers for their labor and ultimately can not get too far ahead of every one else. This is one of the main problems with capitalism if somebody has a skill because they are gifted or got an education they can use it to get more and more money than every one else.
Perhaps Taylorism can stop this from happening to such extremes.
to answer Annabel's question I can not pinpoint one instance but the fact that it was made more personal also made it more powerful. Hearing that people were being hurt to such an extent made me root for them.
my question is can you think of any up sides to taylorism or capitalism for that matter that are more beneficial than socialism or communism.
So to answer Peter's question, I think that there are up-sides to taylorism. First of all it makes things much more efficient. Unfortunately for skilled workers, a finely made pair of shoes are not always what the consumer wants or needs. While skilled workers have better quality, i'm guessing that it would cost more. It takes them more time to make the shoes and they put a lot more effort into it and, honestly, i think they deserve to make more money than someone pushing a button at a factory. Because the shoes made at a factory are cheaper, more people will buy them, which is good for the company/economy. Also, even though they use machines to do the work, i think that they need workers to "push the buttons". So while the skilled workers are out of work, people who dont really know a lot about making shoes and who need a job can get one. Now, the skilled workers need a job too, but they could try and start their own business making "good" shoes without taylorism. Since they have that skill set, they are valued.
I like this reading so much because it concludes a lot of details and stories about the revoluts. And some stories make me to realize how good our lives are today, at least, I don't need to work in somewhere and have my finger move away from my hands.
It surprises me when I realize how popular the idea of socialism was during the early 1900's. As the labor union startes to get united and makes some successful revolution, then new ideas come out and follow this passion in order to fight for more freedom. Later on, women's right movement, civil rights, and labor rights take a big part in strikes
Same as some previous readings, education, speaking and writing help for people to get a higher eduacation, and support the movements efficiently.
But in this reading, those stories really connect me into the period, and depict great images about the harshness.
A lot of conflicts happened, but some of them turn into almost a war between upper class and labor union which is kind of surprising.
Also, the socialism and Utopia ideas remind me about the Shakers during the early 1900's.
My question is why the Big company hired gunman to force them go back to work??? Why it didn't turn into a bigger conflict??
This reading reminds me lots of things I learned in Doug’s USO class, so I felt the same way as Annabel did about the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire. It was already awful to hear, but it’s definitely more painful to read and know the details.
Zinn provided a lot of these sad stories, but their sadness also made them very powerful. I know the government wasn’t doing any good for the people, except the rich and power, but hurting so many of its people was just very shocking to me. It seemed that gender, age, jobs, and nationality didn’t matter, as long as you were a part of a strike, the government at that time sees you as their enemies. The government was doing anything they can to stop people striking and revolting. Facing a government standing on the opposite side and had no hesitance to hurt its people, it was not surprising to see people becoming united.
My question is: standing at the government’s position, what makes it worthwhile to hurt and lose the trust in your people? Is having the rich and the power by your side enough?
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:56 am Post subject:
There is no perfect system. Taylorism is no different in that matter. Taylorism definitely helped the economy, and spurred the industrial revolution. The problem was, corruption. The employers didn't give a crap about the employees. If one employee had a broken leg, too bad.
A highlight of this can be found when the teachers of MA had to follow some crazy laws that were very binding, for example, you must be at home from 8 PM till 6 AM, thats just.. crazy, and then theres the one where you can't be married.
hlipkin wrote:
Today in class we talked about the imaginary shoe factory where each person has one main responsibility. This would make it more difficult to find workers for each specific task. Do you think Taylorism is more effective than this?
My main question is: What do you think of the rules for female teachers? Why do you think they weren't allowed to get married?
I think that the jobs are fairly easy... for example, I'm just punching holes, thats really it, not much skill is needed. Even in car factories, its just a couple of screws here and there, then you do it, over and over again _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
In response to the question "standing at the government’s position, what makes it worthwhile to hurt and lose the trust in your people? Is having the rich and the power by your side enough?", the government found it more productive to use people for an unfair labour force because they didn't need much from them except their hands, and the people had to work because they needed money to live. They don't really NEED the people's respect or trust as long as they get the productions rates they want. It is more practical on the rich, powerful people's end to just manipulate the masses and treat them poorly for their benefit. They have so much control over them that it is difficult for the majority to rebel successfully (minus successful rebellions). Plus, the factory owners and government officials make a lot of money!
And, in response to Alan's question about "goons" used to manipulate people into doing things, they were used by big companies because it worked effectively. People are afraid of big, physically powerful men and don't want to get beat up (or will probably shut up after they do). And this is the same reason why it didn't turn into a bigger conflict. People are afraid of big, scary men and the companies that owned them were powerful enough to keep them quiet.
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: : )
I was sick yesterday so I am doing this assignment little late. One of the interesting labor strike was when IWW organized mass meetings and parades, the organization received donation from all over the country: from trade unions, IWW locals, socialist groups, individuals. (92) Also, when children were suffering from hunger, they were sent to sanctuary by the Socialist party. This shows how serious the strike was in the early 20th century. It was a tragedy that numerous civilians were sent to prisons without any evidence, or some people even take another’s guilt. Another tragedy is that the local created ridiculous laws spontaneously such as forbidding citizens to talk on the street.
As the reading stated, one of the reason why so many conflicts occurred between employers and employees in the early 20th century is that have nothing in common. Employer would never understand employees’ harsh, dangerous, and poor working conditions. I am so glad that I do not have to live in a society like in the 20th century. I show the great appreciation towards our ancestors who fought for better working conditions and wages.
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
