.
A business (or government) has five components: capital, creative, producer/workers, sales, customers. Each must have roughly equal say in what is produced, quality, price, and each should share roughly equally in the profits. Today, capital runs everything and takes most of the money, and sales (the least creative or productive) is elevated above all else. That's why our government and our economy do not work: two sectors have taken too much control.
A university teacher, for example, can be a fabulous teacher and writer with a great mind. But he is pressured to do "sales," i.e. fundraising, getting grants, and if he does not succeed in "sales," the area which is least suited to his talents, he will not be promoted or possibly even retained.
The biggest paycheck in a law firm does not go to the best attorney. It goes to the best salesperson. Bring in clients, promise them anything, guarantee you'll win, inflate your credentials and lie about your history, but land the client. Once you bring in the client, you will receive a big chunk of whatever they pay to have some other attorney in your firm do the actual legal work.
Most employees of wall street firms know very little about investments. They have charts prepared by the brains in their organization, computer programs, and they sit and fill in the information about age, assets, years to retirement, and the computer spits out the suggested allocation of investments. The employees' only function is sales: bring in the clients, promise them anything, get a cut of the commission.
I remember, not that long ago, when the salespeople were considered to be the low-end employees. Death of a Salesman. They're not creative. They make nothing. They often do not even understand the product. Their talent is in being attractive, glib, dishonest and persuasive. Why does your doctor prescribe a certain drug? Because the drug manufacturer sent him some hot young female in a low cut top and short skirt to take him to a special holiday lunch. That's it.
The people who create, invent, produce, do the labor, should be in charge, in cooperation with the customers. They should decide what to make, what quality, what to charge, and how to divide up the profits, fairly, so that everybody gets to have shelter, food, recreation, medical. When work is slow, instead of firing people set up a job-share and keep everybody working. Capital and sales care only about more money for themselves. Everybody else understands the concepts of loyalty, helping a neighbor, supporting your community.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Job Of Unions Is To Organize Workers To Fight For Their Rights.
*
The job of unions is not to support democrats, but to force the democrats to support the working people of this country.
The job of unions is not to demand coffee breaks for workers in third world countries who are now doing American jobs -- it is to get those jobs back here.
The job of unions is not to make friends with Wall Street, but to tear it down, dismantle the system, and throw its leaders into prison.
The job of unions is not to get bigger pensions for their insiders, but to get jobs for the unemployed.
The job of unions is to get their members out in the street, to shut the whole country down if needed, to protect the jobs of American working people. It requires a commitment to action, which must be as radical as the economic conditions we face.
The job of unions is to organize working people to fight for their own rights, not to organize phone banks to get some millionaire elected.
The job of unions is not to have their inner circle spend two years out of every four in the national binge-drinking excuse they call "elections."
The job of unions is not to learn how to work with the fascists on the right-wing. The job of unions is to destroy the fascists on the right-wing and take away their power and their money.
The job of unions is not to debate the merits of the wars, but to demand an end to them. It is only the children of the working people who fight the wars, while the children of Wall Street learn to be just like their parents -- thieves, liars, murderers.
The job of unions is not to support democrats, but to force the democrats to support the working people of this country.
The job of unions is not to demand coffee breaks for workers in third world countries who are now doing American jobs -- it is to get those jobs back here.
The job of unions is not to make friends with Wall Street, but to tear it down, dismantle the system, and throw its leaders into prison.
The job of unions is not to get bigger pensions for their insiders, but to get jobs for the unemployed.
The job of unions is to get their members out in the street, to shut the whole country down if needed, to protect the jobs of American working people. It requires a commitment to action, which must be as radical as the economic conditions we face.
The job of unions is to organize working people to fight for their own rights, not to organize phone banks to get some millionaire elected.
The job of unions is not to have their inner circle spend two years out of every four in the national binge-drinking excuse they call "elections."
The job of unions is not to learn how to work with the fascists on the right-wing. The job of unions is to destroy the fascists on the right-wing and take away their power and their money.
The job of unions is not to debate the merits of the wars, but to demand an end to them. It is only the children of the working people who fight the wars, while the children of Wall Street learn to be just like their parents -- thieves, liars, murderers.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Milton Rogovin, photographer, dies at 101.
This won the best short documentary at the Tribeca film festival a few years ago. It is about Milton Rogovin, a photographer who lived in the Buffalo area. He was called from Huac, his name and reputation were destroyed, and he lost his business as a result. He started taking pictures, and created a fabulous photo history of some neighborhoods in Buffalo.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Is Keith Olbermann Right? Is "Hate Speech" The Problem?
Last night Keith Olbermann had a special comment, his second about the Arizona shootings. In the first one, right after the shootings, he apparently called on politicians, the media, and all of us, to renounce language or communication which might be interpreted as calling for violence. He referred specifically to Sarah Palin's directive to her followers that they don't retreat, reload; her rifle-sights poster showing Democrats as the prey, apparently to be hunted down and eliminated; to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's constant hysteria; to many politicians and their apparent intent to lie, mislead, deceive, convince the public that something false is true, and that there is a crisis, and some member of the public must stand up and apparently save the country by resorting to violence.
We all know this type of communication is rather constant from the right-wing. We all feel threatened by it. But is the solution less speech, or more?
We have freedom of speech in this country that allows people to speak openly, regardless of how stupid they area. Our media has been largely taken over by the right-wing which uses it as a neo-nazi propaganda network to spread fascism and terrorize the public. We all know that.
But is the answer less speech, or more?
We have no evidence that the Arizona shooter was influenced in any way by the media or by any politician's communications. His acts could have been simply the deranged conduct of a mentally disturbed person, the same type of thing we see from the assassination of celebrities like John Lennon: not political, but the result of an obsession and mental defect.
Since we have no evidence that the conduct of the Arizona shooter was caused by speech, then why would we use that shooting as an occasion to propose restricting speech?
I see that somebody attended a forum in which there was to be a discussion of the Arizona shooting, and this man in the audience stood up and screamed at someone on stage: "You're dead. You're dead." He was arrested. I don't think he should have been. It's a volatile subject matter, highly emotional. But I would not see those comments as being a real threat to commit an act of violence, but rather simply an emotional response to a highly-charged environment.
Should we authorize or encourage the police to arrest citizens for being stupid, or emotional? Should speech by itself be sufficient to warrant arrest and punishment? Generally, no.
Besides, this member of the audience didn't kill anyone. Isn't it more likely that common people, working people will be arrested and punished for protesting against the government, than it is likely that the powerful media personalities or the politicians will be arrested for their speech? Of course it is.
I think Olbermann got it wrong this time. The problem in Arizona is apparently that somebody who was mentally ill was nonetheless able to get automatic weapons. Shouldn't background checks include a requirement that somebody go out and interview the parents, spouses, neighbors, co-workers, teachers, fellow students of the person trying to buy the weapon, and require the persons interviewed to sign a statement under penalty of perjury saying that they have never seen the person act erratically or be drunk or drugged or threaten anyone. Is there any legitimate reason for any civilian to own an automatic weapon, under any circumstances, and why aren't they banned? Is there some reason we cannot err on the side of caution? Well yes, actually, it's the NRA which pays enormous bribes to our politicians to stop them from passing stricter background check requirements on gun dealers, and to stop them from keeping in place the assault weapons ban that we used to have.
Honestly, the problem in Arizona isn't speech, it's the unfortunate proliferation of guns and specifically of automatic weapons, and the availability even to the obviously disturbed people in our society.
As for the right-wing threats, the Democrats in national office act as if their only job is to solicit bribes from foreign countries and multinational corporations. How about if they declare one day a week that will be a Bribe-Free day, and they spend it going out to the public and speaking. More speech, not less.
Remember when the teabaggers were out brandishing weapons to intimidate their neighbors and prevent open discussion about proposed healthcare reforms? Every single Democratic politician should have been attending those hearings and directing the police in advance to arrest anybody who brandished a weapon -- waved it at anyone else in the crowd in a manner intended to intimidate. Personally I would have put the gun people in a cage, far away from the meeting, because their only purpose for being there was to terrorize their neighbors. But the Democrats should been out in force, openly speaking, confronting the lunatics, and standing up and for and beside their supporters. Instead, they remained mum, back in D.C. negotiating the exact amount of bribes to be paid by the AMA and the insurance industry for the Democrats failure to pass a non-profit option for the citizens.
We need more speech, not less. Anybody threatens violence, the response should be an overwhelming number of opponents showing up and getting in the face of those promoting the threats. Harass them for a change, go to their houses and schools and place of work with picket signs saying they are a threat and danger to the community, that they are terrorizing their neighbors. Most of these people are cowards, and if somebody got up in their face, they'd likely stop doing it.
I think Olbermann got it wrong. The problem is not speech, even "hate" speech. We need more speech, from the people who are supposed to be on our side. But the real problem is guns, particularly automatic "assault" weapons which serve no legitimate purpose except to kill other people. Maybe we could ask our politicians to start speaking out agains the proliferation of guns. Let's demand that our politicians stop taking money from the NRA, and start passing strict background checks, and a ban on automatic weapons. More speech, less guns.
We all know this type of communication is rather constant from the right-wing. We all feel threatened by it. But is the solution less speech, or more?
We have freedom of speech in this country that allows people to speak openly, regardless of how stupid they area. Our media has been largely taken over by the right-wing which uses it as a neo-nazi propaganda network to spread fascism and terrorize the public. We all know that.
But is the answer less speech, or more?
We have no evidence that the Arizona shooter was influenced in any way by the media or by any politician's communications. His acts could have been simply the deranged conduct of a mentally disturbed person, the same type of thing we see from the assassination of celebrities like John Lennon: not political, but the result of an obsession and mental defect.
Since we have no evidence that the conduct of the Arizona shooter was caused by speech, then why would we use that shooting as an occasion to propose restricting speech?
I see that somebody attended a forum in which there was to be a discussion of the Arizona shooting, and this man in the audience stood up and screamed at someone on stage: "You're dead. You're dead." He was arrested. I don't think he should have been. It's a volatile subject matter, highly emotional. But I would not see those comments as being a real threat to commit an act of violence, but rather simply an emotional response to a highly-charged environment.
Should we authorize or encourage the police to arrest citizens for being stupid, or emotional? Should speech by itself be sufficient to warrant arrest and punishment? Generally, no.
Besides, this member of the audience didn't kill anyone. Isn't it more likely that common people, working people will be arrested and punished for protesting against the government, than it is likely that the powerful media personalities or the politicians will be arrested for their speech? Of course it is.
I think Olbermann got it wrong this time. The problem in Arizona is apparently that somebody who was mentally ill was nonetheless able to get automatic weapons. Shouldn't background checks include a requirement that somebody go out and interview the parents, spouses, neighbors, co-workers, teachers, fellow students of the person trying to buy the weapon, and require the persons interviewed to sign a statement under penalty of perjury saying that they have never seen the person act erratically or be drunk or drugged or threaten anyone. Is there any legitimate reason for any civilian to own an automatic weapon, under any circumstances, and why aren't they banned? Is there some reason we cannot err on the side of caution? Well yes, actually, it's the NRA which pays enormous bribes to our politicians to stop them from passing stricter background check requirements on gun dealers, and to stop them from keeping in place the assault weapons ban that we used to have.
Honestly, the problem in Arizona isn't speech, it's the unfortunate proliferation of guns and specifically of automatic weapons, and the availability even to the obviously disturbed people in our society.
As for the right-wing threats, the Democrats in national office act as if their only job is to solicit bribes from foreign countries and multinational corporations. How about if they declare one day a week that will be a Bribe-Free day, and they spend it going out to the public and speaking. More speech, not less.
Remember when the teabaggers were out brandishing weapons to intimidate their neighbors and prevent open discussion about proposed healthcare reforms? Every single Democratic politician should have been attending those hearings and directing the police in advance to arrest anybody who brandished a weapon -- waved it at anyone else in the crowd in a manner intended to intimidate. Personally I would have put the gun people in a cage, far away from the meeting, because their only purpose for being there was to terrorize their neighbors. But the Democrats should been out in force, openly speaking, confronting the lunatics, and standing up and for and beside their supporters. Instead, they remained mum, back in D.C. negotiating the exact amount of bribes to be paid by the AMA and the insurance industry for the Democrats failure to pass a non-profit option for the citizens.
We need more speech, not less. Anybody threatens violence, the response should be an overwhelming number of opponents showing up and getting in the face of those promoting the threats. Harass them for a change, go to their houses and schools and place of work with picket signs saying they are a threat and danger to the community, that they are terrorizing their neighbors. Most of these people are cowards, and if somebody got up in their face, they'd likely stop doing it.
I think Olbermann got it wrong. The problem is not speech, even "hate" speech. We need more speech, from the people who are supposed to be on our side. But the real problem is guns, particularly automatic "assault" weapons which serve no legitimate purpose except to kill other people. Maybe we could ask our politicians to start speaking out agains the proliferation of guns. Let's demand that our politicians stop taking money from the NRA, and start passing strict background checks, and a ban on automatic weapons. More speech, less guns.