|
seems to me that the relatively good production wages are a strong argument FOR union representation and not, as you've no doubt been hearing from every remaining reactionary supply-sider on every available "news" outlet, an argument against it. one of the great ideological campaigns of the neoliberal period has consisted in repeating over and over that unions are somehow against the rules and atomized work/lowest possible wages are the norm---this despite the history of actually existing capitalism since the middle 19th century, which the reactionary set would replace with cheesy images of some entrepreneurial idyll...
the problems with the big 3 are structural. on the one hand, they seem to have opted for the classic american trajectory of taking short-term profits and acting as though the Invisible Hand will stroke appropriately in the longer run and "things will take care of themselves"....think about us steel after world war 2 exporting continuous casting along with the marshall plan and choosing to take short-term profits while that technological arrangement was being perfected elsewhere. by the early 80s, us steel was us-x its workforce vaporized and the reagan period in place which worked and worked to convince us all that this sort of shit was normal and not the result of something between short-sightedness and idiocy.
i think the only way to salvage these corporations is through an *aggressive* take-over and a form of economic planning. there are alot of ways this could happen. i also thing that in this context a purge of executives and upper management would be productive for everyone. there's more, but i gotta go.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|