Macchendra
26th April 2006, 05:49
We all seem to agree on the need for increased representation of the interests of labor and consumers in the marketplace against increasingly large players.
There are two approaches we can take:
Applying the force of collective action in the marketplace by labor and consumers.
Applying the force of coercive action against all players in the marketplace.
It seems to me that the problem that labor and consumers face is that they are missing out on the movement toward collective action that is already happening in the "free market". This movement toward collective action that I speak of is simply the consolidation of merchants and employers.
While these mega-conglomerations are forming and shaping the market through their own form of "collective action", labor and consumers have fallen very far behind. Mega-marts dictate to suppliers to lower their prices, or lose the collective business of their large consumer base. Large insurance companies pay a much smaller rate for medical procedures. Mega-marts say to cities: "provide free water and sewer development or I cross the city limits."
I believe the disparity in level of "collective action" that exists between merchants and employers vs. consumers and labor is caused by the successful villification of collective action, in the form of unions, by the modern day media (1890-present). Unions are portrayed as being rife with organized crime, as promoting lazyness, bad service, etc. (I'm sure you aware of many more ways.)
Unions are our source of collective action, and must be reclaimed from the propaganda that has defamed it for decades. Perhaps they can be "reframed" into being the very essential part of the checks and balances of any free market.
The other strategy that one might take is:
Applying the force of coercive action against all players in the marketplace.
This means externally imposing marketplace rules.
It is interesting to note that one set of examples for this is all anti-union laws.
These rules will always be at the end of a gun barrel in one form or another.
Which strategy do you prefer? Collective action or coercive action? Why?
Let me also just put it out there that it is my biased opinion that all collective action should be voluntary. Even though it is voluntary, it can be centrally organized. It can be highly democratic, yet totally unified, which it must be to represent the interests of labor and consumers in the marketplace against increasingly large players. Furthermore, it seems to me that this would be enough to overcome the force of capital without violence.
Finally, I believe that once people in large number start rediscovering collective action, they'll wake up to the fact that the accepting of currency is a collective act which should be brought back under democratic will. Currency should be labor-based and not gold-based or worse: the baseless counterfeiting by an elite group of central bankers. The unions should be the only ones to print money, because they are the only ones who can guarantee future labor.
Your response???
David Bright Morning
There are two approaches we can take:
Applying the force of collective action in the marketplace by labor and consumers.
Applying the force of coercive action against all players in the marketplace.
It seems to me that the problem that labor and consumers face is that they are missing out on the movement toward collective action that is already happening in the "free market". This movement toward collective action that I speak of is simply the consolidation of merchants and employers.
While these mega-conglomerations are forming and shaping the market through their own form of "collective action", labor and consumers have fallen very far behind. Mega-marts dictate to suppliers to lower their prices, or lose the collective business of their large consumer base. Large insurance companies pay a much smaller rate for medical procedures. Mega-marts say to cities: "provide free water and sewer development or I cross the city limits."
I believe the disparity in level of "collective action" that exists between merchants and employers vs. consumers and labor is caused by the successful villification of collective action, in the form of unions, by the modern day media (1890-present). Unions are portrayed as being rife with organized crime, as promoting lazyness, bad service, etc. (I'm sure you aware of many more ways.)
Unions are our source of collective action, and must be reclaimed from the propaganda that has defamed it for decades. Perhaps they can be "reframed" into being the very essential part of the checks and balances of any free market.
The other strategy that one might take is:
Applying the force of coercive action against all players in the marketplace.
This means externally imposing marketplace rules.
It is interesting to note that one set of examples for this is all anti-union laws.
These rules will always be at the end of a gun barrel in one form or another.
Which strategy do you prefer? Collective action or coercive action? Why?
Let me also just put it out there that it is my biased opinion that all collective action should be voluntary. Even though it is voluntary, it can be centrally organized. It can be highly democratic, yet totally unified, which it must be to represent the interests of labor and consumers in the marketplace against increasingly large players. Furthermore, it seems to me that this would be enough to overcome the force of capital without violence.
Finally, I believe that once people in large number start rediscovering collective action, they'll wake up to the fact that the accepting of currency is a collective act which should be brought back under democratic will. Currency should be labor-based and not gold-based or worse: the baseless counterfeiting by an elite group of central bankers. The unions should be the only ones to print money, because they are the only ones who can guarantee future labor.
Your response???
David Bright Morning