From: "Christopher B. Wright" <cwbrenn-AT-ibm.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:32:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Strikes are pro-Capitalist ;-) (was Re: WG: STRIKE)


On Mon, 8 Feb 1982 20:13:18 +0100, der_ft._ike-AT-gmx.net wrote:

> 
> I already answered this mail but your additional comments are welcome (and
> will be forwarded to him), especially about his 'so smart' SUGGESTION FOR
> IMPROVEMENT. I'm not sure whether he really believes what he's writing, I
> couldn't...
> 
> Diversity and Unity
> 
> Marius

Hi Marius, when dealing with "capitalists" I like to dip into their
language. It really pisses them off.
:-)

Your friend seems to feel that the workers, having signed a contract to
work, are beholden to the authority of management to continue working,
or to simply resign. This is not true. When the workers and the
management entered into a contract, it was with the understanding that
both sides had resources the other wanted, and that a trade would
ensue. This brings us to the core of capitalism: barter. Capitalism is,
at its essense, trading goods for goods. In this case, the workers are
trading their economic resources (the ability to work) for the managers
economic resources (money).

The managers, naturally, seek to get the maximum work from the workers
while minimizing expense. Therefore, if they could get away with it,
they would try to get the workers to work without paying them anything
at all. Since that is not feasible, however, they will try to pay as
little as they can while maximizing the amount of work the workers do.

For the workers, however, it is advantageous for them, being the good
capitalists that they are, to work the least that they can while
receiving the most money that they can. In other words, if they could
do it they would prefer to be paid large sums of money for doing
nothing at all. Since that is not feasible, however, they try to work
as little as they can while getting as much money as they can.

That is the concept of utility.

In a situation where the managers do not see a profit, they fire the
workers and hire new ones. That's pretty simple. In a situation where
the workers do not see a profit, they have to be more creative.

The problem is that a single worker does not have the same kind of
economic power that a single manager does. As a single manager can
control the economic fortunes of an entire group of workers, the
economic power of a single worker is a fraction of the manager. For
example, if a manager oversees 100 workers, then a single worker has no
more than 1/100th the economic power of a manager.

However, if the worker manages to convince other workers to band
together, their economic power increases collectively. So if the worker
were able to get 10 other workers to cooperate with him, they would
have 11/100ths the economic power of the manager.

Curiously, while this does not give them power equal to the manager,
they still have an advantage. It is far less likely that a manager will
fire a group of people at once -- for one thing, it will be much harder
to find and train replacements for 11 people, and for another, the
manager must be careful to maintain the appearance of following state
and federal laws.  Meanwhile, the "unionized" workers collective power
is still greater than the other workers -- 11/100ths instead of
1/100ths. This can be useful in getting them to join the cause, since
the other workers will see the economic advantage of banding together.

So, lets say that the workers band together -- all of them -- form a
union, and go on strike.

Now you could say "this is against the law" but a) that's not
necessarily true, in the United States at least it is only illegal for
federal workers to strike, and b) it doesn't matter. Capitalism is not
social order, it is economic order and therefore is not innately
law-abiding nor is it innately ethical. It is an economic force. This
should be viewed only as a market struggle. The manager is trying to
maintain control of his resources, and his resources are trying to
wrest some of that control from him. By going on strike, the workers
are reminding the manager that they are an essential part of his
economic success, and that he'd better re-read his capitalist primer
because without his resources, he will soon have no capital.

The manager may try to hire "scabs", but the workers may also try and
discourage them from working. This is the equivalent of getting
consumers to boycott a product, I see no real difference here.

The problem your friend has is that he seems to feel that capitalism
applies only to the people who are paying the checks, not the people
who are working for them. Remember, capitalism is barter -- and barter
only works when both sides agree to the terms of the exchange. If the
two sides disagree with the terms, they must be renegotiated, and the
situation is not resolved until they do so.

If the manager wants people to work for him, he must convince them that
it is worth their while. If workers go on strike, they are saying is
not worth their while. If they keep other people from crossing the
lines, it means that they have convinced other people that it isn't
worth _their_ while either. In this scenario, the workers have
collectively exercised their economic power -- their ability to make
(or not make) money for the manager -- to get the manager to concede to
their demands.

What, I ask you, is so anticapitalist about that?

<g>

Of course, many anarchists will tell you there are other reasons for
strikes. And they're right. But this response is always fun to try.
It's also fun to explain to a capitalist that syndicalism is the
natural end result of true capitalism. That really drives them nuts,
heh.


Christopher B. Wright, Team OS/2 (cwbrenn-AT-ibm.net)
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
	- Edward Young