Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget the administrations of Roosevelt and Roosevelt.

Republican Teddy Roosevelt realized that the concentation of wealth into the hands of a few was strangling the U.S. economy, and so he because the "Trust Buster," breaking up the growing monopolies and maintaining competition and the free market system.

Democrat Franklin Roosevelt legalized and strengthened union activities: leading to the 40-hour work week, sick leave, vacations, and bargained-for wages...which was the basis for the strong middle class. (Notice how, as unionism has declined over the past few decades, so has the number of people in the middle class.)

Globalization does present a challenge -- but also an opportunity. This could be a lot like automation in the 60's, which eliminated numerous jobs, but in the end created more, higher paying jobs.

Now, capitalists want to outsource American jobs to China, India, etc. to gain the advantage of paying low wages and thereby maximize profits. The choice they want to present the American worker with is, take lower salaries or loose your jobs completely.

For years, I've been advocating for years unions should be going aboard and organizing workers in India, China, etc. I don't want to drag our wages down to their level but rather to elevate their wages up to ours. Once we create vibrant middle classes in China and India, there will be a worldwide surge of a demand for goods and services, and we'll all benefit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

For years, I've been advocating for years unions should be going aboard and organizing workers in India, China, etc.

Unions are, generally, national entities, not because it is inevitable, but because they usually don't give a damn about people in other countries having jobs. They'd rather the jobs get taken away from people in India and given to Americans instead of trying to improve the lot of Indian workers. As for China, well unionizing may be more difficult there considering the government.

Though, of course, we can't fall into the trap of giving Indian/Chinese workers the same wages and benefits as American workers all at once. It has to be a gradual rising, or else inflation will their growing economies very quickly.

[Zkribbler]

Okay, I promise I won't get them American minimum wages within the next couple of years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By couple you mean like 20-30 years, right?

[Agathon]

Revolution is inevitable. The economic basis of society changes faster than the social superstructure.

Things have always been this way, and there is no reason to believe it will not continue.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
By couple you mean like 20-30 years, right?

I dunno, a lot can happen in 30 years. 30 years ago I was already starting to celebrate because it looked as if the Republicans might be dumb enough to nominate that loser Reagan, leading to a Democratic lock on the White House.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*points to Zkribbler*

HAW HAW

[Zkribbler]

Some days skies are cloudy.
Some days skies are blue.
Sometimes they say that you eat the bear,
But sometimes the bear eats you.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
For years, I've been advocating for years unions should be going aboard and organizing workers in India, China, etc. I don't want to drag our wages down to their level but rather to elevate their wages up to ours. Once we create vibrant middle classes in China and India, there will be a worldwide surge of a demand for goods and services, and we'll all benefit.

don't hold your breathe.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Should revolutions be considered a normal economic event?

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


But that assumes a dictator does more talking than shooting...

Oh, right, a single dictator with one gun can keep everyone in line...cause the guy is superman. And its not like any other individual can just shoot him dead....

That is the point, a Dictatorship works because people willingly follow the orders of the dictator. If no one followed their orders, they would not be dictator. Simple.

The question is, why does ANY individual follow the orders of another individual.

[Kuciwalker]

The question is, why does ANY individual follow the orders of another individual.

Because other people, with guns, follow the orders of that individual.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The question is, why does ANY individual follow the orders of another individual.

Because other people, with guns, follow the orders of that individual.

And why do the people with guns follow that individual ,as opposed to say, shooting the individual dead with said guns?

[Kuciwalker]

Because other people, with guns, follow the orders of that individual.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because other people, with guns, follow the orders of that individual.

Lets see how this continues...

I repeat my question above, you repeat the same answer, forever and ever, with you avoiding the basic point until we reduce this until you get to three people, the individual giving orders, the guy with a gun, and the third individual.

Now that we have reduced the issue to the simplest scenerio, and you no longer need to making your repetative answer, perhaps we can move forward, and you can actually tackle the question? Or probably not.

[Kuciwalker]

I repeat my question above, you repeat the same answer, forever and ever, with you avoiding the basic point until we reduce this until you get to three people, the individual giving orders, the guy with a gun, and the third individual.

I'm not avoiding the basic point - you just don't understand the situation. There doesn't need to be any original reason, or any original reason that persists. All that matters is that it's in no individual's interest to disobey.