On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Eric wrote:
>> No, exactly the opposite. That truce was based on labor renouncing
>> any intrusion in management; I'm saying that management has proved
>> itself hopelessly foolish (even from the POV of the stockholders)
>> and the workers need to step in.'
>
> Gotcha. Is this remotely realistic, though? Not that realism must
> dictate how anyone acts, but if we are talking practical solutions,
> wouldn't it be better to aim for something that has at least one
> precedent in the U.S.? Also, if the "workers" took over, that
> really means that the UAW takes over. Can such a thing end any way
> other than with a sort of collective capitalism?
Of course it's not "realistic," but neither is preserving current wage and employment levels, and all the militance in the world can't change that. Were, by some miracle, something like this to happen, it wouldn't be the same UAW, so the question is moot.
Collective capitalism is marginally better than shareholder capitalism.
Doug