|
there's a more basic disconnect in the arguments against unions above. it has been routine for firms to concentrate entirely on quarterly shareholder profits in that shangri-la that was neoliberalism. unions operate on the assumption that a firm is a social form, that it is part of a community or communities, that it is a political site, that workers can and should share in the benefits of their labor, and more basically that it is labor--and not the movement of capital taken in isolation---that generates profit/wealth---and that therefore wealth is SOCIAL, not private (at least not exclusively)...so there's no reason that the politics which shape how that wealth is distributed cannot be changed to the advantage of working people.
you'd think this would be common sense. just goes to show you the extent to which american economic language is a rightwing language.
if you want an explanation for firm's driving themselves into bankruptcy---think more about the way in which all that matters is quarterly shareholder returns. capital has done this to itself. it's not anything like a rational framework, particularly not in its neoliberal variant.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|