Tuesday, August 22, 2017
again: what is the welfare state?
the welfare state is an attempt by capital to mitigate the effects of unemployment, as they existed in the depression, and thereby strengthen the control of capital. the welfare state is a required condition when capitalism enters periods of crisis and unemployed workers are threatening unrest, general strikes and potentially a revolution.
historically, the welfare state has come about in a coalition between conservatives and socialists, and tended to be rejected by liberals, with their theory of markets, who argue that capitalism is only failing due to the corruption of the state in the first place, and unrest is best quelled by letting the markets freely produce jobs. conservatives (including the conservatives in the democratic party) have historically sided with socialists in rejecting these arguments, and instead opted to build welfare states to placate the starving masses into putting down their pitchforks. these welfare states include those built by bismarck, roosevelt and churchill. canada is actually the strange one, in that our welfare state was actually built by the liberal party (under mackenzie) - but in emulation to those built by the conservatives in england (under labour agitation, and rejected by liberals) and by the democrats in the united states (who were broadly the conservative party until the new deal, and didn't really exist on the left of the republicans until the republicans moved to their right with the southern strategy).
a smart and non-ideological president would be reacting to the unrest on the ground by expanding the welfare state first, and taking steps to create jobs second. that's what churchill would have done as much as it is what roosevelt would have done - not because it is socialist, but because it is realist in it's rejection of market utopianism.
capital has a choice in adjusting to it's own greed: placate (and reform) or repress. repression is dangerous, because it could lead to revolt. the smart thing to do is placate and reform. and, historically, plenty of conservatives have realized that.
the welfare state is an attempt by capital to mitigate the effects of unemployment, as they existed in the depression, and thereby strengthen the control of capital. the welfare state is a required condition when capitalism enters periods of crisis and unemployed workers are threatening unrest, general strikes and potentially a revolution.
historically, the welfare state has come about in a coalition between conservatives and socialists, and tended to be rejected by liberals, with their theory of markets, who argue that capitalism is only failing due to the corruption of the state in the first place, and unrest is best quelled by letting the markets freely produce jobs. conservatives (including the conservatives in the democratic party) have historically sided with socialists in rejecting these arguments, and instead opted to build welfare states to placate the starving masses into putting down their pitchforks. these welfare states include those built by bismarck, roosevelt and churchill. canada is actually the strange one, in that our welfare state was actually built by the liberal party (under mackenzie) - but in emulation to those built by the conservatives in england (under labour agitation, and rejected by liberals) and by the democrats in the united states (who were broadly the conservative party until the new deal, and didn't really exist on the left of the republicans until the republicans moved to their right with the southern strategy).
a smart and non-ideological president would be reacting to the unrest on the ground by expanding the welfare state first, and taking steps to create jobs second. that's what churchill would have done as much as it is what roosevelt would have done - not because it is socialist, but because it is realist in it's rejection of market utopianism.
capital has a choice in adjusting to it's own greed: placate (and reform) or repress. repression is dangerous, because it could lead to revolt. the smart thing to do is placate and reform. and, historically, plenty of conservatives have realized that.
at
18:32
let's be clear about this.
it's not like nafta accidentally gutted the manufacturing sector; this was an entirely purposeful project, for the purpose of maximizing revenue for shareholders. this much is clear: nafta was supposed to outsource jobs to mexico. that was the purpose of the agreement.
so, when these talking heads make the circuits through the corporate media, they're right to say it was a success - it has successfully shifted production to mexico, which has weaker labour standards and weaker environmental laws to get in the way of profit maximization. that's what it intended to do, and it's been a great success in doing it. they're right. no ambiguities.
but, there were supposed to be all these other jobs created, instead. laid-off workers were supposed to retrain for higher paying jobs in more technical industries. it's never been entirely clear whether anybody really thought this would happen or not, but by now it's clear enough that it hasn't and it isn't going to. but, this was always approached as a kind of corollary, a sort of necessary cost involved in moving production to more profitable jurisdictions, which was the actual purpose of the deal.
now, we have all of these laid-off workers creating all kinds of unrest. the system is at least working in directing this unrest towards race riots instead of towards bankers. but, it's not an ideal situation. the ideal way to eliminate social unrest is to create jobs and send these people to work.
it follows that capital must acknowledge that mistakes have been made and that some steps must be taken to redistribute some wealth to prevent further unrest. in recent history, democrats have been more likely to argue for a maintenance of the welfare state to keep this unrest in check, whereas republicans have pushed through "poor laws" under the guise of welfare reform, officially under the delusions of market theory. but, we may be in the process of a role reversal.
to be clear: i don't expect trump to be a champion of anybody except the banks. but, given it's flirtation with steve bannon, the party may be more keenly aware of the need to create jobs for these people, and the corollaries of failing to do so, than you think.
it's not like nafta accidentally gutted the manufacturing sector; this was an entirely purposeful project, for the purpose of maximizing revenue for shareholders. this much is clear: nafta was supposed to outsource jobs to mexico. that was the purpose of the agreement.
so, when these talking heads make the circuits through the corporate media, they're right to say it was a success - it has successfully shifted production to mexico, which has weaker labour standards and weaker environmental laws to get in the way of profit maximization. that's what it intended to do, and it's been a great success in doing it. they're right. no ambiguities.
but, there were supposed to be all these other jobs created, instead. laid-off workers were supposed to retrain for higher paying jobs in more technical industries. it's never been entirely clear whether anybody really thought this would happen or not, but by now it's clear enough that it hasn't and it isn't going to. but, this was always approached as a kind of corollary, a sort of necessary cost involved in moving production to more profitable jurisdictions, which was the actual purpose of the deal.
now, we have all of these laid-off workers creating all kinds of unrest. the system is at least working in directing this unrest towards race riots instead of towards bankers. but, it's not an ideal situation. the ideal way to eliminate social unrest is to create jobs and send these people to work.
it follows that capital must acknowledge that mistakes have been made and that some steps must be taken to redistribute some wealth to prevent further unrest. in recent history, democrats have been more likely to argue for a maintenance of the welfare state to keep this unrest in check, whereas republicans have pushed through "poor laws" under the guise of welfare reform, officially under the delusions of market theory. but, we may be in the process of a role reversal.
to be clear: i don't expect trump to be a champion of anybody except the banks. but, given it's flirtation with steve bannon, the party may be more keenly aware of the need to create jobs for these people, and the corollaries of failing to do so, than you think.
at
18:00
this is a strawman argument; i've never heard anybody push the idea of banning components that are produced at too low of a wage.
but, mexico's low wages are not an accident. they can't unionize. the cops are thugs. these are issues that the government has to address. in a word, the problem in mexico is corruption.
would you would do, then, is introduce punitive tariffs in regions that do not apply appropriate labour standards (including collective bargaining rights and proper wage floors), as well as environmental standards. there's no banning involved. there's just pricing out
..and, if that leads to labour unrest, that's a good thing.
i'm not naive: i understand that none of these governments represents the interests of workers. what mexico really needs is a way to kickstart it's labour movement, which is currently bogged down by government regulations. if i wanted to be snide, i could say something about cutting the red tape around the rights to organize and strike.
what a nafta deal can do is actually minimal - it can lay a law of decent standards down, and exclude them through tariffs if they won't comply. it's mexican workers that then need to rise up and demand their rights. and, if you think that sounds like colonialism, you can type me up an essay explaining your viewpoint from a cushy seat in the ministry of labour rights.
again: we're not going to get a lot out of this from the top down, and we should all be aware of that. but, there is some possibility that all of this unrest is leading capital to the realization that it needs to do something about the unemployment levels that nafta has left us with. forcing mexico to acknowledge collective bargaining rights is actually a pretty basic requirement. it's easy to say that the deal shouldn't have gone through without it, except that it was actually the point, and we can see that this was a mistake (we have increasing levels of unrest, not tech jobs for all). this is in truth very much long overdue, entirely feasible and entirely attainable - and all decent people should support it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/business/economy/nafta-labor-unions-wages.html
but, mexico's low wages are not an accident. they can't unionize. the cops are thugs. these are issues that the government has to address. in a word, the problem in mexico is corruption.
would you would do, then, is introduce punitive tariffs in regions that do not apply appropriate labour standards (including collective bargaining rights and proper wage floors), as well as environmental standards. there's no banning involved. there's just pricing out
..and, if that leads to labour unrest, that's a good thing.
i'm not naive: i understand that none of these governments represents the interests of workers. what mexico really needs is a way to kickstart it's labour movement, which is currently bogged down by government regulations. if i wanted to be snide, i could say something about cutting the red tape around the rights to organize and strike.
what a nafta deal can do is actually minimal - it can lay a law of decent standards down, and exclude them through tariffs if they won't comply. it's mexican workers that then need to rise up and demand their rights. and, if you think that sounds like colonialism, you can type me up an essay explaining your viewpoint from a cushy seat in the ministry of labour rights.
again: we're not going to get a lot out of this from the top down, and we should all be aware of that. but, there is some possibility that all of this unrest is leading capital to the realization that it needs to do something about the unemployment levels that nafta has left us with. forcing mexico to acknowledge collective bargaining rights is actually a pretty basic requirement. it's easy to say that the deal shouldn't have gone through without it, except that it was actually the point, and we can see that this was a mistake (we have increasing levels of unrest, not tech jobs for all). this is in truth very much long overdue, entirely feasible and entirely attainable - and all decent people should support it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/business/economy/nafta-labor-unions-wages.html
at
15:36
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)