Peter Schiff, one of the wealthy capitalist candidates vying for the Republican ballot position, was recently interviewed on WNPR’s “Where we Live.” Here is a bit of what he had to say:
"I think the workers benefited dramatically from the transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. We eliminated women labor in the country, child labor, because of capitalism. You know the reason – you know, my grandmother didn't have to work because my grandfather didn't have to pay any taxes. She was free to take care of eight kids, because that's what she wanted to do. But today, very few women have the choice to be stay-at-home moms. They are now back in the workforce. Capitalism lifted them out of the workforce but big government bureaucracy, high taxes and the social welfare state – that's the reason now that so few women, and men for that matter, can choose not to work. They have to work to support the government."
Hearing such a revised version of history from someone of his class is not surprising, but having it aired on public radio is another story. Mr. Schiff is entitled to his ideological beliefs as much as I am to my own, but these beliefs do not allow the complete re-writing of history. In a few short minutes he completely erased the woman's suffrage movement, woman's lib movement, the labor movement and pretty much anything that was not a “natural force of the market” right out of the history books. George Orwell is surely rolling in his grave.
Not only is Mr. Schiff’s account of U.S. history wrong, but it is dangerous. It invites anti-democratic tendencies into the mainstream. As a socialist, I am often mistaken for being one of two things; either some kind of utopian pipe-dreamer or some kind of anti-democratic Soviet-Style Communist. What I’d like to propose is the opposite, that Free-Market worshipers are in fact the utopians and certainly tend to be opposed to democracy. Just think for a minute about this: Government regulation of industry was originally won by democratic measures (but now by corporate lobbyists in the interest of industry). Groups of disgruntled citizens pressured the elected government to enact laws that addressed their grievances. As long as there is democracy and a big enough group of people being screwed there is going to be pressure to regulate. To put it another way, the only way that a truly unregulated free-market economy can exist is to completely eliminate democracy.
When a caller challenged Mr Schiff’s dogmatic blind-faith in deregulated capitalism, Schiff replied: "What you have is a revisionist, socialist version of history." He went on to argue that workers in the 19th century were not exploited by business owners. Thankfully the caller rightfully noted that the profit motive did not prevent business owners from abusing the rights of their workers. The caller further said that the very "reason we have the regulations we have is because of the abuse that was heaped on the middle and lower classes by the very free market system that you are espousing."
To insinuate that the caring and compassionate capitalist class created the 8 hour day, workplace safety standards, women’s equality, etc.. is to spit on the graves of the countless hard-working men and women who fought hard and many died for these simple measures. It was neither the capitalists nor the government that helped the working class or women; it was the women and the working class itself exercising it’s political influence in a democratic manner that won change, and that is exactly what the far right fears.
Now, I’d rather not waste too much time reflecting on this guy and his upper-class view of reality, but I would like to conclude by simply reminding readers that it was in fact capitalism which brought women and children to work in factories. The capitalists did this for one reason and one reason only: because they could pay them so much less than men at that time (and this is still true for women today).
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Flawed Logic # 7: Outsourcing, Unions and Cheap Labor
During the course of a wonderful family reunion visit with my grandfather in Mid-Coast Maine I encountered a case of.......(Duh,Duh,Duh!) "Flawed Logic!"
This time it came about in a discussion with a family member while paroozing the isles of a local grocery chain. The subject was jobs, and more specifically, the lack of them in America. The discussion, quite logically, led to the topic of outsourcing. It was then that the.....(Duh,Duh,Duh!) "Flawed Logic!" Reared its ugly head.
The reasoning, rather simply, went something like this: "Unions are destroying our country. These greedy workers are hurting businesses and forcing them to outsource work overseas."
I, being a loving family member and on (a very short and low-budget) vacation thought twice before responding. I decided instead to change the subject; "I can't believe they can sell liquor, wine and beer in the grocery store here!"
This very troubling logic and understanding of the world came from a known-to-be conservative family member whom I love very much, but have had unfruitful disagreements with in the past. It was definitely best to enjoy our short stay together and not spend time trying to convince each other of things that neither of us would likely concede.
The problem, however, was that this comment kept repeating itself in my mind all afternoon and was driving me nuts! So, at last, when my wife and I lugged our bags and three sleeping children into the hotel at 9pm, I picked up my phone and began typing this general response. (Yes, I said cell phone, and yes my thumbs are killing me right now!)
Response: Unions are the cause of outsourcing? Do you know how many private sector workers are actually in unions? They only make up 7.2% of the workforce.* Even in the 70s and 80s, when the outsourcing madness began, they only numbered 13%! Now think about all of the countless companies that shipped jobs over seas; the overwhelming majority were non-union businesses. How could unions have caused their non-union competitors (who already had a competitive advantage because of lower bottom lines due to cheaper labor expenditures) to start shipping their production lines overseas? Better yet, suppose we went back in time to 1978 and passed a constitutional amendment that outlawed unions. Would this have stopped outsourcing? Would all of these profit-seeking corporations have ignored the incredible competitive advantage of using cheap labor overseas? Absolutely, positively NOT! They want maximum profit, and are required by law to do whatever it takes to deliver this.
[Side note for my well intentioned "liberal" friends: I've got to say that even if the Democrats had defeated Reagan the problem would still exist in essentially the same way it does today.]
The problem is not unions, as conservatives argue. The problem is not Republicans, as liberals argue. The problem is "the coercive laws of competition."
Capitalists are always seeking a competitive advantage over other companies in order to increase their profits. So, as soon as one corporation sees how much more cheese it can rake in by capitalizing on cheap labor and weak environmental laws abroad, then every other capitalist must do the same in order to stay competitive and remain in business.
The problem is inherent in the system itself.
One possible solution, I might add, could actually be more unions! Unions in places like China. This would force stronger labor protections and higher wages in these countries which would in turn remove the incentive of U.S. Companies to seek outsourced production overseas.....
Well, that's it for this time folks. From "Up North" Maine, this has been another case of......(Duh,Duh,Duh!) "Flawed Logic!"
See you next time!
*union member statistics can be verified here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
This time it came about in a discussion with a family member while paroozing the isles of a local grocery chain. The subject was jobs, and more specifically, the lack of them in America. The discussion, quite logically, led to the topic of outsourcing. It was then that the.....(Duh,Duh,Duh!) "Flawed Logic!" Reared its ugly head.
The reasoning, rather simply, went something like this: "Unions are destroying our country. These greedy workers are hurting businesses and forcing them to outsource work overseas."
I, being a loving family member and on (a very short and low-budget) vacation thought twice before responding. I decided instead to change the subject; "I can't believe they can sell liquor, wine and beer in the grocery store here!"
This very troubling logic and understanding of the world came from a known-to-be conservative family member whom I love very much, but have had unfruitful disagreements with in the past. It was definitely best to enjoy our short stay together and not spend time trying to convince each other of things that neither of us would likely concede.
The problem, however, was that this comment kept repeating itself in my mind all afternoon and was driving me nuts! So, at last, when my wife and I lugged our bags and three sleeping children into the hotel at 9pm, I picked up my phone and began typing this general response. (Yes, I said cell phone, and yes my thumbs are killing me right now!)
Response: Unions are the cause of outsourcing? Do you know how many private sector workers are actually in unions? They only make up 7.2% of the workforce.* Even in the 70s and 80s, when the outsourcing madness began, they only numbered 13%! Now think about all of the countless companies that shipped jobs over seas; the overwhelming majority were non-union businesses. How could unions have caused their non-union competitors (who already had a competitive advantage because of lower bottom lines due to cheaper labor expenditures) to start shipping their production lines overseas? Better yet, suppose we went back in time to 1978 and passed a constitutional amendment that outlawed unions. Would this have stopped outsourcing? Would all of these profit-seeking corporations have ignored the incredible competitive advantage of using cheap labor overseas? Absolutely, positively NOT! They want maximum profit, and are required by law to do whatever it takes to deliver this.
[Side note for my well intentioned "liberal" friends: I've got to say that even if the Democrats had defeated Reagan the problem would still exist in essentially the same way it does today.]
The problem is not unions, as conservatives argue. The problem is not Republicans, as liberals argue. The problem is "the coercive laws of competition."
Capitalists are always seeking a competitive advantage over other companies in order to increase their profits. So, as soon as one corporation sees how much more cheese it can rake in by capitalizing on cheap labor and weak environmental laws abroad, then every other capitalist must do the same in order to stay competitive and remain in business.
The problem is inherent in the system itself.
One possible solution, I might add, could actually be more unions! Unions in places like China. This would force stronger labor protections and higher wages in these countries which would in turn remove the incentive of U.S. Companies to seek outsourced production overseas.....
Well, that's it for this time folks. From "Up North" Maine, this has been another case of......(Duh,Duh,Duh!) "Flawed Logic!"
See you next time!
*union member statistics can be verified here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Freedom of Political Speech on Public Campuses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Letter to the Dean of MCC:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has come to my attention that there is some controversy regarding the collection of signatures by a minor party candidate on your campus. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the importance of protecting free political speech in public places.
As a taxpayer and a state university student, I would strongly urge you to protect the very important and basic civil liberty of free speech in public spaces.
It would seem on the surface that this political activity is only deemed "controversial" because of it's standing outside of the mainstream. One wonders if the response would have been the same if the candidate were of a different political persuasion; for instance, from the Green or the Libertarian Party. I would remind you that freedom of political speech is at the core of our nation's founding, is prominently built into our constitution, and is a basic tenant of a democratic society; a society which is itself a result of free speech that was "not in the mainstream" during it's day.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Todd Vachon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Background:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints regarding the politics of the Socialist Action campaign to elect Chris Hutchinson to U.S. Congress have led administrators at Manchester Community College to require campaign volunteers on the MCC campus to sit behind a table while collecting signatures to put their candidate on the November ballot. Volunteers - including an MCC student - have been told that if they approach a person on campus to ask for a signature they will face arrest, making signature collection next to impossible.
We believe this represents a threat to free speech on all Connecticut campuses and to the ability of third party candidates to obtain ballot status. We strongly urge supporters of free speech to contact the campus administrators below to express support for these rights on MCC's campus.
The first complaint against Socialist Action was lodged by a member of the Young Republicans who boasted about his ability to help kick socialists off the campus on his blog. His post ends with, "We already have one Socialist in office we don't need more, and with the help of The Greater Manchester Young Republicans we prevented another one today." His blog post can be seen here: http://gmyr.blogspot.com/
After this incident we were told we had to check in with the office of Student Affairs before collecting signatures. We did so on June 16th without any problems.
On Wednesday June 23rd, while two campaign activists (including an MCC student) collected signatures on campus (after having obtained permission to do so) a complaint was made "against disturbing literature being pushed on persons" (quoting from the police report) alongside two anonymous complaints which made no specific allegations other than that the volunteers were members of the "Communist Party."
In response the campus police told the two volunteers that they were required to remain at their seats at the table, and that if they approached people for signatures they would face arrest. Two police officers were then stationed about 30 feet from either side of the table.
We met with the Dean of Student Affairs and the Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs on the afternoon of Wednesday June 30th to defend our right to political speech. They have said they need to talk more with other Administrators, faculty and staff before making a decision on the right to petition or distribute literature on campus, and will contact us by Tuesday, July 5th.
This is a critical moment for defenders of free speech to express their opinion to the MCC administration.
Today the space for open political debate, discussion and organizing is extremely narrow. The arduous but elementary task of collecting signatures to put new candidates and parties on the ballot requires the ability to approach people for signatures - especially in spaces where many people congregate. Most of these spaces are now privately owned. But Manchester Community is a public college funded by tax dollars and student tuition. It is an institution of education where open debate, discussion, and organizing should not simply be defended, but encouraged. Political speech and activity will always be controversial. Simple differences of opinion cannot justify curtailing the right to express political opinions or to seek out like-minded individuals.
Please call and/or e-mail the Dean of Student Affairs and the Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs to express your support for the right to collect signatures and distribute political literature on Manchester Community College's campus. Please be polite and courteous, but firm. The administrators can be reached here:
Duncan Harris, Dean of Student Affairs
(860) 512-3202
GHarris@mcc.commnet.edu
Umesh Vig, Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs
(860) 512-3204
UVig@mcc.commnet.edu
Feel free to contact us for more information at 860-986-9750 or votesocialistaction@gmail.com
Text from the "disturbing literature" can be read here:
http://votesocialistaction.org/about-the-campaign/
http://votesocialistaction.org/demands/
Open Letter to the Dean of MCC:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has come to my attention that there is some controversy regarding the collection of signatures by a minor party candidate on your campus. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the importance of protecting free political speech in public places.
As a taxpayer and a state university student, I would strongly urge you to protect the very important and basic civil liberty of free speech in public spaces.
It would seem on the surface that this political activity is only deemed "controversial" because of it's standing outside of the mainstream. One wonders if the response would have been the same if the candidate were of a different political persuasion; for instance, from the Green or the Libertarian Party. I would remind you that freedom of political speech is at the core of our nation's founding, is prominently built into our constitution, and is a basic tenant of a democratic society; a society which is itself a result of free speech that was "not in the mainstream" during it's day.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Todd Vachon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Background:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints regarding the politics of the Socialist Action campaign to elect Chris Hutchinson to U.S. Congress have led administrators at Manchester Community College to require campaign volunteers on the MCC campus to sit behind a table while collecting signatures to put their candidate on the November ballot. Volunteers - including an MCC student - have been told that if they approach a person on campus to ask for a signature they will face arrest, making signature collection next to impossible.
We believe this represents a threat to free speech on all Connecticut campuses and to the ability of third party candidates to obtain ballot status. We strongly urge supporters of free speech to contact the campus administrators below to express support for these rights on MCC's campus.
The first complaint against Socialist Action was lodged by a member of the Young Republicans who boasted about his ability to help kick socialists off the campus on his blog. His post ends with, "We already have one Socialist in office we don't need more, and with the help of The Greater Manchester Young Republicans we prevented another one today." His blog post can be seen here: http://gmyr.blogspot.com/
After this incident we were told we had to check in with the office of Student Affairs before collecting signatures. We did so on June 16th without any problems.
On Wednesday June 23rd, while two campaign activists (including an MCC student) collected signatures on campus (after having obtained permission to do so) a complaint was made "against disturbing literature being pushed on persons" (quoting from the police report) alongside two anonymous complaints which made no specific allegations other than that the volunteers were members of the "Communist Party."
In response the campus police told the two volunteers that they were required to remain at their seats at the table, and that if they approached people for signatures they would face arrest. Two police officers were then stationed about 30 feet from either side of the table.
We met with the Dean of Student Affairs and the Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs on the afternoon of Wednesday June 30th to defend our right to political speech. They have said they need to talk more with other Administrators, faculty and staff before making a decision on the right to petition or distribute literature on campus, and will contact us by Tuesday, July 5th.
This is a critical moment for defenders of free speech to express their opinion to the MCC administration.
Today the space for open political debate, discussion and organizing is extremely narrow. The arduous but elementary task of collecting signatures to put new candidates and parties on the ballot requires the ability to approach people for signatures - especially in spaces where many people congregate. Most of these spaces are now privately owned. But Manchester Community is a public college funded by tax dollars and student tuition. It is an institution of education where open debate, discussion, and organizing should not simply be defended, but encouraged. Political speech and activity will always be controversial. Simple differences of opinion cannot justify curtailing the right to express political opinions or to seek out like-minded individuals.
Please call and/or e-mail the Dean of Student Affairs and the Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs to express your support for the right to collect signatures and distribute political literature on Manchester Community College's campus. Please be polite and courteous, but firm. The administrators can be reached here:
Duncan Harris, Dean of Student Affairs
(860) 512-3202
GHarris@mcc.commnet.edu
Umesh Vig, Assistant to the Dean of Student Affairs
(860) 512-3204
UVig@mcc.commnet.edu
Feel free to contact us for more information at 860-986-9750 or votesocialistaction@gmail.com
Text from the "disturbing literature" can be read here:
http://votesocialistaction.org/about-the-campaign/
http://votesocialistaction.org/demands/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
