Last week, the United Auto Workers reached a deal with Stellantis to re-open an idled Belvidere Assembly Plant. "We made them invest," said transformational UAW President Shawn Fain.
I am asking you to consider, through substantive inquiry, how the ideal you promote is most likely to be achieved.
Historically, has the state supported the interests of the working class for becoming organized, or has it rather tended to support the interests of business?
If the state has supported the interests of workers, then would it not follow that the state already provides the organization needed for advancement of the working class, such that unions would be unnecessary?
I mean hasn’t it supported the interests of both to some degree, but only when the working class forced it. As a rule, it tends to support business because that is where wealth is concentrated and influence follows. The most substantial gains in worker rights has always been through unions, strikes, civil disobedience, etc. acting as a catalyst for politicians to prioritize the interests of workers over business. In other words, workers need unions to be more powerful than business.
Where are you trying to go though with your questions? I still think private interest serves a role in organizing society for certain important tasks by providing an incentive structure that the government can’t. That said, the government should heavily regulate private interest so it mostly serves the best interest of the public.
You seem to be suggesting that workers should form unions, such that, when the working class develops enough power, it should use the power to press the state to force workers to form unions.
An essential issue seems to be of circularity.
A further quite severe doubt for me is the meaningfulness of organization among workers who have not sought organization. Unions require active participation from members who believe that being organized is valuable and who conceive of themselves as agents of their own liberation.
I am asking you to consider, through substantive inquiry, how the ideal you promote is most likely to be achieved.
Historically, has the state supported the interests of the working class for becoming organized, or has it rather tended to support the interests of business?
If the state has supported the interests of workers, then would it not follow that the state already provides the organization needed for advancement of the working class, such that unions would be unnecessary?
I mean hasn’t it supported the interests of both to some degree, but only when the working class forced it. As a rule, it tends to support business because that is where wealth is concentrated and influence follows. The most substantial gains in worker rights has always been through unions, strikes, civil disobedience, etc. acting as a catalyst for politicians to prioritize the interests of workers over business. In other words, workers need unions to be more powerful than business.
Where are you trying to go though with your questions? I still think private interest serves a role in organizing society for certain important tasks by providing an incentive structure that the government can’t. That said, the government should heavily regulate private interest so it mostly serves the best interest of the public.
You seem to be suggesting that workers should form unions, such that, when the working class develops enough power, it should use the power to press the state to force workers to form unions.
An essential issue seems to be of circularity.
A further quite severe doubt for me is the meaningfulness of organization among workers who have not sought organization. Unions require active participation from members who believe that being organized is valuable and who conceive of themselves as agents of their own liberation.