Don’t know, but don’t think so. What form will it take, will it be something predictable, or something we have not yet imagined? Communism in its original form is a hothouse flower, a cooked up scheme of political science, it shares that with libertarianism. It is an abstraction based on theories about human nature and human behavior that have scant basis in fact.
As a lefty progressive, I don’t worry much about that. Simply move towards more justice and equality, and if those qualities are central to whatever system evolves, I won’t worry myself much about which nineteenth century political philosophy it most resembles.
Actually, most schools of communist thought reject the notion of “human nature” altogether–and rightly so, because it is an idea that has scant (actually zero) basis in fact.
In other words, communism.
I mean, seriously, a just, equitable, and egalitarian society is pretty much by definition a communist society. That’s why I advocate communism–because that’s what the society you and I want is.
I’ve worked for a non-union company that bent over backwards to be good to it’s workers in every measurable way. There was virtually nothing a union could provide to improve the situation.
So what? The world isn’t you. The world includes, among its teeming millions, many people that are not you, and not living identical lives and conditions.
An argument against unions because you worked for a decent non-union company, is like arguing against hospitals because you’ve never been sick.
And the workers at VW (for which this thread is about) are not you. In this case they voted not to have a union. An argument for unions because they believe they’re needed is like arguing we need hospitals on every corner because you’re always sick.
It’s a good thing when workers don’t require the services of a union. It means communal good health.
Actually, it’s like saying, “I’ve been invited to this awesome picnic, and I’ve been asked to bring a dish, but I don’t actually need to because everyone else will be bringing food so there’ll be plenty regardless.”
Yep. Another way unions are victims of their own success. The UAW won all those nice things many years ago, and now they are standard, at least in the auto industry. It make require more erosion of pay and benefits and working conditions, which is already happening in other kinds of jobs, before workers see the need for unions again.
Victim as in they are losing union elections such as this one.
“Victim of your own success” is a common saying that means you are hurt by the consequences of your past success. It doesn’t mean you’re a victim of something independent of that saying.
I know this is a hijack, but I wonder if you’ve heard of the book The Blank Slate. Prior to reading it, I believed as you claim–that there was no such thing as human nature. After reading the book, my mind was pretty radically changed. It’s one of the books I’ve read that’s most influenced my view of the world. (His politics I’m not so convinced by, but his description of the evidence for human nature was very convincing to me.)
Marshall Sahlins has done a pretty good job of demonstrating why these approaches are ethnographically unsound. Essentially, they project a fundamentally Western, liberal subjectivity onto groups where it’s not really appropriate, and then draw their conclusions from that.
The workers were already treated well. All they have to do is look at the city of Detroit to see the writing on the wall. I’d call it victims of their own failure.
It’s sad to look at their achievements in the early part of the 20th century and what that evolved into.
If you don’t mind my asking, I’m wondering how you originally came to the notion that there was no human nature.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen at least one person of that belief who was driven by an extreme political agenda, but I’d love to hear about a more regular case. Very curious.
But, Sahlins doesn’t argue that there’s no such thing as human nature, he argues for one particular conception of what that nature is. If your argument is that there’s no human nature at all, that we’re all blank slates, Sahlins doesn’t support you.
Yes, a lot of organized union works in the early and middle parts of the last century paved the way for a lot of laws that guaranteed workers’ rights, rights of which a union was not required for.
Why should we continue to pay unions when there is no negotiating to be had? The businesses, by law, can’t just back down that path and stop, for instance, paying us overtime. In addition, when there has been a drive for better conditions, it’s gone to legal routes and not union-organized routes. The push for a minimum wage hike, for instance, would be an enshrinement in regulation and not in negotiations between businesses and unions. This is equally true for dangerous situations with the federal OSHA and MSHA organizations.
In addition, how you treat your workers in terms of firing is also governed by law because of the necessity of unemployment taxes. If you let someone go for a reason that’s not illegal or protected (firing for drunk on the job, etc) you have to pay unemployment costs. On top of this, retirement law has been written for 25+ years, now, that allows you to sock away money tax free for retirement.
So, given all of that, the last benefits a union has is wages and training. The old-style all-encompassing union contracts are waning. So, are you going to pay union dues so that your employer pays you a possibly higher wage plus training possibilities or will you take the wage, find a better job, and just leave to greener pastures when you have the opportunity?
A lot of people chose the latter. Unions have fallen victim to the overall social progress of our culture. They either need to reform how they function or they need to offer something over and above a “You’ll get better wages…probably!”