3 ms·

Socialism aside, since that is a boogieman. As much as 'free-market' is boogieman. There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being sl

Socialism aside, since that is a boogieman. As much as 'free-market' is boogieman. There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being slaves, corporations were hiring Pinkertons and killing people. It was actual war. So Unions were the outcome. Maybe Unions were not optimal, but they were not the cause of all this, they were the outcome. Nobody formed Unions to 'extract' rents, they were formed for preservation. Now --> Things changed. Just like all organizations, maybe Unions then went sideways, became rent extractors. That was much later. Unions weren't formed to extract rent. But this is a boogieman. Unions are at an all time low % of population. Membership has been decreasing for decades, they no longer have much political power, even Democrats barely pay attention to them. SO in some sense maybe 'free' market is already eroding them. They definitely are not big enough or widespread enough to be causing a general problem in the economy. While at the same time, employee rights have been eroded, many people with full time jobs live in poverty and are on welfare, exactly because the 'free-market' has allowed corporations to pay below-living wage. If any thing, we need more Unions to correct the downward pressure of the free-market. On Rents. I find the real scary part of this article is discussion of Monopolies that extract rent, under pressure. From the article. "" Capitalist philosophers railed against rent. The "free market" of Adam Smith wasn't a market that was free from regulation – it was a market free from rents. The reason Smith railed against monopolists is because he (correctly) understood that once a monopoly emerged, it would become a chokepoint through which a rentier could cream off the profits he considered the capitalist's due: https://locusmag.com/2021/03/cory-doctorow-free-markets/ https://locusmag.com/2021/03/cory-doctorow-free-markets/ Today, we live in a rentier's paradise. People don't aspire to create value – they aspire to capture it "" Or if not monopolies, by entire industries that only offer bad choices. Lets say you want to buy a car that doesn't track you, you go to the free market and through competition try and find an option that does not track you. But, every car company is going down the same path of tracking, now you the customer that wants to make a free choice in the free-market, can't. There are no options.

ETH_start 3y ago
>There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being slaves, corporations were hiring Pinkertons and killing people. It was actual war. So Unions were the outcome. Pinkertons were brought in when unions set up picket lines, and then beat up or killed any worker who crossed it. Unions call replacement workers "scabs" to dehumanize them, so that they can rationalize brutalizing them. It was always a racket, and dominated by Communists and organized crime from the very beginning.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  But why were there picket lines? I don't think people were taking that risk, and dying, in order to extract rent, to merely get paid more. They were forced by working conditions and limited options. Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. If there is no option to leave, one must try to improve the current situation. Unions were the outcome. In other cases, like current more modern solution, the government pays welfare to makeup difference in wages between corporate pay, and the amount needed to allow people to eat. But, if Unions are Socialist and bad, and Welfare is Socialist and bad. What is next option? If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. Hence why Socialism is the end state of Capitalism, because Socialism is just another way to keep the poor : 'kind of ok enough to not violently revolt.'. Socialism is the way Capitalist's put a Band-Aid on the population to keep them from revolting. Socialism and Capitalisms aren't opposites.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >But why were there picket lines? Because of greed. There was no justification for using violence to coerce employers into paying them above market wages. >Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. The evidence clearly shows that these people who striked were not contrained in employment option from some imagined monopoly held by a corporate cartel on jobs offered. >If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. People were not starving. Millions were migrating to the US because its free market economy was providing unprecedented wages. Wages doubled for unskilled labor between 1870 and 1900 despite this massive influx of new workers. The answer was to not tolerate violent strikes, and not buy into the strikers' unfounded claims of being victims.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I think the word 'greed' is making too much of a moral judgment. Companies are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Unions are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Why is one morally superior to the other? Also.-- Not all greed. During industrial revolution, in factory jobs. It was not uncommon to have a hand chopped off in an press, or any dozens of injuries. If you lost a hand, and can't work, and your family starved, then what. Fighting against those conditions is not 'greed'. You might retort, in a free market, workers could just leave. But that doesn't work if all jobs are the same. Leave one factory to got to another, both are unsafe? You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Also, think you are missing how power dynamics work. This short video on 'the implication' helps explain the relationships that exists within corporations (boss-employee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo EDIT> DO have to add. I am pretty biased toward unions as they were needed during Industrial Revolution. Some did later morph and become problems. And in modern context, maybe Unions aren't the answer, but we need something to push back against wide spread wage suppression. It is crazy that people can have full time jobs, and still be on welfare. That is Corporations benefiting by the government making up the difference, and allowing the corp to profit more. But, if you just cut people off, they starve and revolt. So what is answer.

ETH_start 3y ago

>There were problems in the free market in the 1900's with employees being slaves, corporations were hiring Pinkertons and killing people. It was actual war. So Unions were the outcome. Pinkertons were brought in when unions set up picket lines, and then beat up or killed any worker who crossed it. Unions call replacement workers "scabs" to dehumanize them, so that they can rationalize brutalizing them. It was always a racket, and dominated by Communists and organized crime from the very beginning.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
But why were there picket lines? I don't think people were taking that risk, and dying, in order to extract rent, to merely get paid more. They were forced by working conditions and limited options. Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. If there is no option to leave, one must try to improve the current situation. Unions were the outcome. In other cases, like current more modern solution, the government pays welfare to makeup difference in wages between corporate pay, and the amount needed to allow people to eat. But, if Unions are Socialist and bad, and Welfare is Socialist and bad. What is next option? If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. Hence why Socialism is the end state of Capitalism, because Socialism is just another way to keep the poor : 'kind of ok enough to not violently revolt.'. Socialism is the way Capitalist's put a Band-Aid on the population to keep them from revolting. Socialism and Capitalisms aren't opposites.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >But why were there picket lines? Because of greed. There was no justification for using violence to coerce employers into paying them above market wages. >Which is what happens if corporations control all jobs, and thus removing the option to 'shop-around' in a free-market of 'job opportunities'. The evidence clearly shows that these people who striked were not contrained in employment option from some imagined monopoly held by a corporate cartel on jobs offered. >If enough people are starving, and there are no safety nets, then the situation does get violent. This is where more dramatic violent revolutions come from. People were not starving. Millions were migrating to the US because its free market economy was providing unprecedented wages. Wages doubled for unskilled labor between 1870 and 1900 despite this massive influx of new workers. The answer was to not tolerate violent strikes, and not buy into the strikers' unfounded claims of being victims.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think the word 'greed' is making too much of a moral judgment. Companies are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Unions are groups of individuals, that are greedy. Why is one morally superior to the other? Also.-- Not all greed. During industrial revolution, in factory jobs. It was not uncommon to have a hand chopped off in an press, or any dozens of injuries. If you lost a hand, and can't work, and your family starved, then what. Fighting against those conditions is not 'greed'. You might retort, in a free market, workers could just leave. But that doesn't work if all jobs are the same. Leave one factory to got to another, both are unsafe? You are missing where entire systems can lock people in (too poor to leave the factory town), and the only re-course is to try and change the current situation, by forming unions or protesting, or revolt. Also, think you are missing how power dynamics work. This short video on 'the implication' helps explain the relationships that exists within corporations (boss-employee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvCDn8mGwo EDIT> DO have to add. I am pretty biased toward unions as they were needed during Industrial Revolution. Some did later morph and become problems. And in modern context, maybe Unions aren't the answer, but we need something to push back against wide spread wage suppression. It is crazy that people can have full time jobs, and still be on welfare. That is Corporations benefiting by the government making up the difference, and allowing the corp to profit more. But, if you just cut people off, they starve and revolt. So what is answer.