babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » what happened and what needs to be done...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: what happened and what needs to be done...
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 30 May 2007 11:19 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/chry-30.shtml


quote:
Lessons of a history of struggle

The transformation of the UAW into an appendage of corporate management, with ambitions to become an outright capitalist enterprise, provides a definitive historical verdict on the conception that working people can defend their interests through organizations that accept and defend the profit system.

Although socialist and left-wing workers played the crucial role in the mass movement that established the industrial unions, including the UAW, in the 1930s, from the time of its inception, the leaders of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) explicitly defended the capitalist system and excluded any far-reaching demands that challenged the property rights and decision-making monopoly of the capitalist owners. This defense of the profit system was politically maintained through the union bureaucracy’s opposition to the development of an independent party of labor and its alliance with the Democrats.

After World War II, UAW President Walter Reuther spearheaded an anticommunist witch-hunt to purge the unions of socialist influence. The marginalization of socialists fatally undermined the unions, although its full implications were masked for a time by the temporary and extraordinary conditions of the postwar economic boom.

The subordination to the Democratic Party was based on the fiction that it was possible to reconcile the interests of the working class with those of the capitalist ruling elite. The UAW entered into a devil’s bargain with the auto monopolies: In exchange for the union’s guarantee of labor discipline and the exclusion of any challenge to the basic prerogatives of corporate management, the companies would provide auto workers with regular wage increases, long-term employment and other benefits. In essence, Reuther tied the future of the working class to the hope that US capitalism and the US-based auto companies would maintain a hegemonic position on world markets forever.

By the 1970s the postwar boom was unraveling and a growing world crisis was centered in the decline in the global economic position of the United States. The response of America’s corporate and political elite to the mounting challenge from Japan and Europe was to embark on an offensive against the working class.


The Chrysler bailout

The Chrysler bailout of 1979-80 was a major turning point. The auto bosses and the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter used the threatened shutdown of the near-bankrupt company to extract sweeping concessions from autoworkers. The UAW joined with the government and Chrysler in imposing massive job cuts and wage concessions against the bitter resistance of rank-and-file workers. In return, UAW President Douglas Fraser was given a seat on Chrysler’s board of directors.

The Chrysler bailout set the stage for the violent union-busting and wage-cutting of the 1980s and 1990s, beginning with Reagan’s smashing of the PATCO air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981. Rather than defending the hard-won gains of its members, the UAW and the AFL-CIO offered their services to crush rank-and-file resistance and impose the demands of the corporate bosses. The union bureaucracy claimed that the class struggle had been superseded by a new struggle to defend corporate America against its foreign competitors. A new labor-management partnership was needed, the UAW claimed, to “save American jobs.” Corporate bosses like Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca were presented as workers’ saviors, while the UAW organized racist campaigns against Japanese imports.

The UAW’s chief negotiator with Chrysler, Marc Stepp, summed up the position of the entire labor bureaucracy by declaring, “We have free enterprise in this country. The corporations have a right to make a profit.” On this basis the UAW supported the shutdown of dozens of plants, the elimination of 50,000 jobs and the imposition of $500 million in wage cuts and other concessions.

The betrayal of the UAW was rooted in the nationalist perspective to which it was, as an organization defending American capitalism, wedded. The globalization of the auto industry undermined the ability of nationally-based unions to extract concessions from management by withholding or threatening to withhold labor. Under conditions in which vehicles were produced increasingly for a world market and production was organized on a global scale, the auto companies were able to shift production from one country or region to another. The role of the unions was transformed from extracting concessions from the employers to extracting concessions from their own members, in an attempt to convince US automakers to keep production at home and thereby prop up the union’s membership rolls and dues base.

The pro-capitalist and nationalist polices of the UAW have produced an unmitigated disaster for workers. By the end of this year, there will be only 46,000 United Auto Workers members left at Chrysler, down from 110,000 in 1979. All told, the number of UAW members at the Big Three plants in the US will have fallen by a staggering 76 percent since 1979—from 750,000 to 177,000.

Entire cities—such as Detroit and Flint, Michigan, which once enjoyed the highest per capita incomes in the US—have been reduced to industrial wastelands plagued by chronic unemployment, cash-starved schools and record numbers of home foreclosures.

The Chrysler bailout also gave rise to the “celebrity” CEO, who, along with corporate raiders and Wall Street speculators, openly set out to reorganize industry in order to funnel vast resources into their own pockets. Over the next quarter of century, a vast redistribution of wealth took place from working people to the richest 1 and 2 percent of the population. In the 1960s, top executives of manufacturing companies made 25 to 40 times the median pay of production workers. By 2006, CEOs were making 400 times the pay of their employees. The top 1 percent of the population—300,000 people averaging more than $1 million in yearly income—received their largest share of the national income since 1928, and collectively accounted for as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans.

These huge fortunes were not—as was the case with the nineteenth century robber barons—associated with the expansion of mass industries. On the contrary, financial speculators and top corporate executives were making vast sums by destroying the productive forces. Summing up the ruling elite’s contempt for production and for the working class, Ray Diallo, the founder of the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, who made $350 million last year, said, “The money that’s made from manufacturing stuff is a pittance in comparison to the amount of money made from shuffling money around.”


Transform the auto industry into a publicly-owned enterprise

The mass industries can no longer be allowed to remain the personal assets of America’s wealthy elite, who dispense with them as they see fit. The first step to protect the interests of working people is to institute democratic control over all business decisions affecting work, safety, salaries, hiring and hours. These decisions should be made not by the wealthy few, but rather by committees of factory floor workers, technicians and other experts committed to the interests of working people. The establishment of industrial democracy requires the opening of the books of all corporations for inspection by the workers, and the ratification of corporate leadership by a democratic vote of all employees.

If the auto industry is to be run for the good of society, it must be transformed into a publicly owned enterprise and integrated into a planned socialist economy. The global auto industry involves the activity of millions of factory workers, engineers, designers, scientists, accountants and other working people, and consumes large portions of the world’s steel, rubber, glass and oil. Such vast human and natural resources can be marshaled in a rational and environmentally sustainable fashion only if the world’s producers cooperate on the basis of a scientific plan to produce safe, high-quality and affordable transportation.

The vast sums of capital that travel through the world’s financial markets each day are the product of humanity’s labor. The vital decisions of where to invest society’s financial resources must be made democratically by the people, not behind closed doors by speculators and other financial parasites. The major banks and investment houses must be placed under public ownership. At the same time, the tax cuts for the rich implemented by the Bush administration must be repealed and taxes on those earning over $300,000 drastically increased in order to fund social programs and reduce taxes on working people.

Workers must reject the American chauvinism of the labor bureaucracy and the Democratic Party, and unite with their class brothers and sisters internationally against the global auto giants. Rank-and-file committees should be set up independently of the UAW and CAW in order to unite blue-collar and white-collar workers in the US and Canada to fight against the dismantling of Chrysler, and stand with workers throughout the industry to defend jobs and living standards. Chrysler workers should prepare strike action, plant occupations and mass demonstrations to link their struggle with every section of the working class.

The policies outlined here are anathema to the Democratic Party, which, like the Republicans, is a political party financed and controlled by the financial aristocracy. Because the interests of the working class cannot be reconciled with the profit system, it is necessary for workers to break with this big business party and build a mass socialist party of their own. Only in this way can every struggle—against job-cutting, militarism and war, attacks on democratic rights—be united in a single political struggle to establish a workers government and create genuine democracy and social equality.

We urge Chrysler workers and their supporters who are looking for way to fight the onslaught on jobs, wages, pensions and health benefits to contact the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party and discuss this perspective.



From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
huberman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14076

posted 31 May 2007 07:57 AM      Profile for huberman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stop building Dodge Durangos and other monster gas guzzling vehicles that are becoming redundant and destroying the planet.

Get all U.S. unions out of Canada. This article supports such a move, as does an excellent recent article by Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail.

Refuse to buy non-union made cars ie: Japan. They are not even practising fair trade as Buzz Hargrove always correctly points out. Why would 'progressive' people ever buy vehicles that are made in a 'Karoshi' work culture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi


From: NAFTA | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 May 2007 11:13 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
From the Article above:
If the auto industry is to be run for the good of society, it must be transformed into a publicly owned enterprise and integrated into a planned socialist economy.

How about if Canada purchase General Motors? The whole company could be purchased for a song--only about US$17B, or a mere US$600 per Canadian--although in the last twelve months GM lost over US$5.5B and that would have to be funded by the people somehow, too.

Or, for slightly less money (about US$16B), Canada could buy Ford. 'Course, Ford's losing even more money (something like US$11B in the last twelve months).

Either way, Canada could freely increase wages, hire tens of thousands of new employees, and do whatever else it wanted to do with GM, like fire all of the senior management (not sure who you'd get to run the show, though) and make small cars (no more SUVs or large pickups).

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 31 May 2007 11:26 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can just see it. A huge out of control government bureaucracy burning the public's money in a furnace to produce Ladas that'll cost a hundred thousand dollars each and get five miles to the gallon, produced by an elite corps of Ontario and Quebec union workers making two hundred dollars an hour with a generous allotment of ivory backscratchers thrown in, lest they strike and cut-off the supply of the only government approved vehicles allowed in a nightmarish totalitarian future - as rain falls contantly, and overhead advertising blimps tempt us to live offworld with the promise of free slave labour from the Nexus-6s.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 May 2007 11:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The writing is on the wall for car makers unless someone comes up with an engine that doesn't pollute. We need more public transit. A future socialist government would likely decide not to pour taxpayer's money into propping up the next British Leyland. A socialist government would likely invest heavily in infrastructure and public transit. If Canada could ditch our two old line parties for about 20 years or so, we could sink the oil profits into R&D of, say, Maglev or other high speed rail service between major cities. Right now we're simply shovelling cash and oil out of the country to appease multinationals and their shareholders. Our two old line parties don't think for themselves and wouldn't know how to if their political lives depended on it.

The U.S. needs socialized medicine for companies like GM to be able to shave a thousand dollars or more off each car. GM and Ford can compete with Toyota, but not with Japan.

[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 31 May 2007 11:53 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The writing is on the wall for car makers unless someone comes up with an engine that doesn't pollute.

Until "someone" comes up with an engine that doesn't pollute? Well, buying GM is your chance to do that. It may cost US$500B to do the research to come up with such an engine but that would be prerogative of a Canadian-owned GM.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 May 2007 06:21 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
I can just see it. A huge out of control government bureaucracy burning the public's money in a furnace to produce Ladas that'll cost a hundred thousand dollars each and get five miles to the gallon, produced by an elite corps of Ontario and Quebec union workers making two hundred dollars an hour with a generous allotment of ivory backscratchers thrown in, lest they strike and cut-off the supply of the only government approved vehicles allowed in a nightmarish totalitarian future - as rain falls contantly, and overhead advertising blimps tempt us to live offworld with the promise of free slave labour from the Nexus-6s.


You really should change your pseudo-name. I'm not defending government run everything, but the Lada's (and Yugos) for all their faults were hardly expensive vehicles and got pretty good mileage compared to most boats coming out of Detriot, before and since. Since the auto pact is officially dead and Canadian plants keep taking the brunt of layoffs I think threats of starting our own competing auto industry might be a good idea now, or at least a good tactic.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 31 May 2007 08:20 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now I remember why I never answer that idiot's posts. If shoes were clues, he'd be barefoot, Erik.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 31 May 2007 08:43 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe he's just developing tougher callouses and calling it another giant step forward...
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 31 May 2007 09:55 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Wizard of Stupidity wrote:

quote:
I can just see it. A huge out of control government bureaucracy burning the public's money in a furnace to produce Ladas that'll cost a hundred thousand dollars each and get five miles to the gallon, produced by an elite corps of Ontario and Quebec union workers making two hundred dollars an hour with a generous allotment of ivory backscratchers thrown in, lest they strike and cut-off the supply of the only government approved vehicles allowed in a nightmarish totalitarian future - as rain falls contantly, and overhead advertising blimps tempt us to live offworld with the promise of free slave labour from the Nexus-6s.

Wow, what a stupid little drip this is.

Sven wrote:

quote:
How about if Canada purchase General Motors? The whole company could be purchased for a song--only about US$17B, or a mere US$600 per Canadian--although in the last twelve months GM lost over US$5.5B and that would have to be funded by the people somehow, too.

Or, for slightly less money (about US$16B), Canada could buy Ford. 'Course, Ford's losing even more money (something like US$11B in the last twelve months).

Either way, Canada could freely increase wages, hire tens of thousands of new employees, and do whatever else it wanted to do with GM, like fire all of the senior management (not sure who you'd get to run the show, though) and make small cars (no more SUVs or large pickups).


Given the total misconduct of successive federal governments over the last 30 years, I wouldn’t trust them to run a hot dog stand, let alone something like this.

First, there’s a whole lot more to GM or Ford than just the auto production plants. For example, they may “lose” money on their public accounts, yet still pay out huge dividends and bonuses, as well as salaries, to their executive and privi stockholders and senior hacks. Also, what they don’t make in direct sale prices they recover in financing and optimizing. GM also has controlling interest in FIAT (which jointly owns Lada with a Russian state-owned firm), OPEL, BMW, and Audi, as well as substantial investments in Toyota and Hyundai.

Second, the auto sector, especially for GM, is actually only about 30 per cent of the total corporate empire —which is into everything from lucrative military technology contracting to real estate and bond trading—all highly profitable that would likely not be included in a Canadian buy-out.

Third, GM auto sector, while still sucking in cash for an elite, has—thanks to the dictatorial power and capitalistic greed of its bosses-- a huge corporate debt and pension shortfall problems that the government would inherit (actually that wouldn’t be as bad as the way it is now, with totally unaccountable private sector hacks running it).

Fourth is a global historic problem in that state owned corporate enterprises are, in many respects, every bit as capitalistic and bureaucratized as private sector ones. In short state capitalism is still pretty much capitalism, with many of the same fundamental problems—including the rule of profiteering hard-to-control corporate bureaucrats and executives with their own agendas (as we see in many crown corporations and bureaucracies). While nationalization and state ownership can have many advantages over traditional open-market private models, it can also backfire, with those same corporate bureaucrats taking over or grossly influencing the government, like the former Soviet Union and satellite states, China, etc.

Probably a better way for the government to change the auto industry is to enact laws and regulations that make it easier for workers to get control of their pension and other assets, including control over the investments and the trusts and hold them (which includes the corporations that currently have them).

Democratizing corporations via democratizing the huge employee pension and retirement assets they control is a promising way to democratizing the economy and fundamentally changing the mode of production and corporate behaviour--the key economic fundamentals of socialist economics.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
huberman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14076

posted 02 June 2007 06:37 AM      Profile for huberman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
what happened and what needs to be done...

"Over time we diminished our citizenship, offering it freely and asking little in return. We became more interested in rights than responsibilities."

"Still, as immigration has brought Canada prosperity, it has also brought ambiguity. No one has taught these new Canadians much about their new country, its past, its triumphs, its myths. In Canada, where the provinces are responsible for education, no one teaches Canadian history anymore. Captured by the canons of political correctness, schools celebrate multiculturalism as an end in itself, failing to teach the superiority of civic nationalism over ethnic nationalism. In the voiceless country, no one speaks for Canada anymore. East Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese come here and live their lives happily in Hindi, Urdu and Mandarin. Sadly, they import their prejudices and struggles, too, which often find violent expression in grim urban corridors."

In an essay by Andrew Cohen on 'what happened and what needs to be done... Canada 2020':
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/canada2020/essay-cohen.html

Andrew Cohen, a writer and professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University, is the author of While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World.


From: NAFTA | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
huberman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14076

posted 02 June 2007 06:49 AM      Profile for huberman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We really need to teach the social and labour history of Canada, and that of the greatest individuals and movements that brought us our most prized features as a society ie: Tommy Douglas the CCF and the establishment of universal healthcare as well as countless other social and labour advances for the public good.

We should teach the history of the environmental movement and great heros like Bob Hunter and Paul Watson.

Our history cannot be narrowly focussed on the blind allegiance of WWI soldiers to imperialist powers and monarchs. Otherwise, I do not know how we will develop the social consciousness and love of country required to accomplish the lofty ideals posted on this website. This place will remain 'hotel Canada' without such changes and understanding of our best social history.


From: NAFTA | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710

posted 02 June 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for bruce_the_vii     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"A planned, socialist economy"? What's that doing on an ostensibly NDP friendly forum.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca