3 ms·
The destruction of unions and other forms of organized labor. Without any strong, organized resistance to Capital owners, they were free to redirect more and m
by knuththetruth 8y ago
The destruction of unions and other forms of organized labor.
Without any strong, organized resistance to Capital owners, they were free to redirect more and more of the profits from productivity gains to themselves. The resulting disparity created a kind of feedback loop that further entrenched the power of Capital owners, as some of the excess wealth they now possessed could be put to use subverting the American political system to serve their interests.
- randomdata 8y agoWhy did Canada's wages stop growing at the same time, even though unions continued to strengthen until the mid-1980s, when it peaked at nearly 40% of the workforce?
- knuththetruth 8y agoBecause by the 1970s, Capital was a fully globalized force whose political projects exceeded the power of individual nation state’s ability to resist them. Only transnational labor solidarity has comparable power, which is something that Capital owners had specifically sought to (and succeeded at) undermining in the context of the Cold War.
- randomdata 8y agoBy transnational you mean American? There are plenty of countries where unionization and labour solidarity remains strong even today. And, if so, what is special about the American workforce in particular that they have such an effect on the entire world?
- knuththetruth 8y agoIt’s not what’s so special about the American workforce, but what’s so special about American Capital. And the answer to that is that standing behind their demands is a massive, belligerent, military empire, with a long history of toppling or refusing to defend countries that don’t play along.
- randomdata 8y agoHow, then, was the, relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, unionization movement in the USA able to stand up to that powerful capital?