Dear Unknown Friends:
Here is the next
installment of Eli Siegel’s historic Ownership, Strikes, Unions,
a 1970 lecture from his Goodbye Profit System series. Those lectures explain
what the people of the world are experiencing now: Mr. Siegel saw that
after many centuries, the profit system had irrevocably failed. It might
go on awhile, as a worn-out car may still be on the highway; its driver
may even force some bursts of speed out of it, though its engine is dying.
Profit economics, Mr.
Siegel showed, has always been based on a completely ugly way of seeing
and using human beings: in terms of, How much money can I make from this
person? How much work can I get out of her while paying her as little as
possible? How much can I force people to pay for my product? It is based
on hoping other people be weak — desperate for a job so they’ll work for
very little. This is the economic way that made for child labor and sweatshops
and unsafe, disease-causing conditions — because through all these, bigger
profits could be got. Mr. Siegel said of it with passionate clarity 29
years ago:
Man was not made to be used by man for
money.... It is a corruption, it is artifice.... In May 1970, the conduct
of industry on the basis of ill will has been shown to be inefficient....
This is the greatest victory of good will in history. [Goodbye Profit
System: Update, Definition Press, pp. 70, 9]
I have written about
how this failure of economics based on ill will, and the ferocious effort
to force its continuance, have shaped life in the last decades. Now I ask
some quiet questions:
1. How much do
the people of America hate the profit system — though most would not describe
their feeling in those terms? How much do people in American workplaces
hate the way they are seen and used — as mechanisms to provide profit for
somebody? And do the terrific anger and grumpiness so much present on American
jobs constitute a terrific objection? Productivity is feeble when one considers
the enormous technological advances in recent years: does this fact show
that Americans despise how they are used on their jobs? — they’re resentful,
and therefore, as I once put it, they don’t produce devotedly?
2. Is the profit
system one of the forms that human contempt has taken? Mr. Siegel
explained that the big fight within everyone is between our desire to respect
the world — the purpose for which we were born — and our desire to have
contempt: "the addition to self through the lessening of something else."
He identified contempt as the thing in us that weakens our own mind; and
also as the source of every injustice ever perpetrated on one’s fellow
human beings. Contempt can be the everyday yet ugly pleasure at seeing
somebody flop because his failure, we think, makes us better. Is the feeling
that it is right for some persons to be rich and others poor — that a few
should own much more of the world than millions of others — sheer contempt
for people?
Economics: Ethical & Aesthetic
3. How much do the American people long for
another way of economics? Do they want another basis for jobs, buying,
selling — though they could not describe what that basis is? (They don’t,
of course, want something they associate with Eastern Europe of once.)
Do Americans want economics to be ethical, aesthetic — in keeping with
this great principle stated by Eli Siegel: "All beauty is a making one
of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after
in ourselves"? That is, do they want an economy that both brings out
the expression of each individual person and is fair to all
people?; that puts together freedom and justice?; an economy
that has a person feel "I take care of me by strengthening you"?
1970 and 1999
I comment now on some matters in the present
section of Ownership, Strikes, Unions.
Mr. Siegel discusses
the use of drugs at workplaces. That has increased these decades, and represents
even more intensely what Mr. Siegel said it did.
He discusses a
number of articles about unions. And he showed in 1970 that unions were
the principal means by which ethics had dealt a mortal blow to the ability
to use people as mere profit-producing commodities. I have said in previous
issues: it is because of the courage of unions that people began to be
paid with some decency; began to receive health benefits and pensions;
did not contract occupational diseases; could have some hours of leisure,
and vacations; could live with dignity, in a nice home; could send their
children to college. Every cent more that a boss was forced to pay a worker
or spend to make working conditions safe, cut in on his profits.
At the time of
this lecture, unions were more successful than they had ever been — which
means there was increasing justice to people who work. In the articles
Mr. Siegel discusses, we see the pride that people in unions had come to
have — and their power, which was the power of ethics. But the following
mathematics is central to the profit system: the more a worker gets what
he or she deserves, the less of the profit a boss or stockholder can take.
And the profit system can’t go on — that is, various persons can’t rake
in big profits — if all the people of America work and live with dignity.
So there has been a furious effort to safeguard profit economics by wiping
out the long-fought-for achievements of unions, and if possible unions
themselves.
That is why, despite
phony pronouncements in the media that the economy is "booming," Americans
are getting paid less; are becoming poorer; are forced to be temporary
workers; are forced to work grueling hours, often at two jobs; are without
health coverage; are tormented by debt. An article in the May 9 New
York Times spoke glowingly of "America’s Jobs Boom." But in two of
its statements we can see on what basis profit economics is continuing
in America.
The first statement,
presented as good news, is: "American companies... find it cheaper to hire
workers than their European competitors." What this means is that American
workers are being paid hideously; we are becoming a nation of "cheap labor"
— with all the insult and agony to people that such a phrase takes in.
The second statement is a quote from a Harvard economist, who says European
governments "are unwilling to tolerate as much income inequality as in
the United States." This means our economy is functioning on the basis
of keeping many people very poor so others can be rich.
The Vietnam War
In this section of Ownership, Strikes,
Unions, Mr. Siegel describes plainly the purpose of the Vietnam War.
The way he opposed that war from its very start, his tremendous feeling
and clearness about it, was one of the most beautiful things I have ever
seen. It was in keeping with his honesty, his grandeur and kindness of
thought, about everything — from a poem to the depths of an individual
person with whom he was speaking.
Our nation, with
its military might, did not win in Vietnam, though we defoliated the country,
napalmed children, burned villages, bombed hospitals and schools. In the
years that have followed, we have tried to do with sanctions what we couldn’t
do with bombs: destroy a land that was not based on profit. And that is
what we have tried to do these years to any country that will not use its
earth and people to supply profits for US corporations. Such countries
are to be impoverished by the IMF, starved by embargo, bombed. One does
not have to praise those nations to say, as I do now: if profit economics
is wonderful and healthy, one need not brutalize nations who don’t go for
it. If they have chosen wrongly, let them live with their bad choice and
see the folly of it: don’t starve their children in order to make them
say the Madeleine Albright way is the only way.
There is a deep
regret America needs to express to the people of Vietnam, and we will never
be clear or proud until we do so. American regret and pride are opposites
asking to be one, as valleys and mountains are together as one in our beautiful
American earth. And that earth, in its rich kindness, should be one with
— belong to — every American.
— Ellen Reiss, Class
Chairman of Aesthetic Realism-
The Protest Continues
By Eli Siegel
I go to an article about something new
in the attack on our industrial system: "Use of Hard Core Drugs Menaces
Business World," by Edward Benes (NY Daily News, 6 July 1970).
It isn’t the hard-core
drugs — it’s the disinclination of people to give themselves entirely to
what they are doing. This disinclination has always been around. But before,
if you were working somewhere, getting paid, maybe even had to punch a
time clock, you at least took care that the festivities of the night before
not be present. Now the desire to get away from the industrial world and
the profit system is quite noticeable.
The use of hard core drugs was described
as an "ominously growing problem to the business world"... by the New York
Chamber of Commerce.
A problem to the business world is anything
that interferes with profits. That’s the main problem. It’s not calling
the executives names.
A young bank executive [was] found dead
in the company washroom, a hypodermic needle protruding from his arm. A
public utility... cited an employe found unconscious..., a hypo needle
on the floor beside him.... The Chamber of Commerce issued a 64 page booklet...
["]concerning drug use in business."
I’m afraid the Chamber of Commerce cannot
cope with the desire to get away from an unwelcome world.
What Is Stronger?
There is a way of judging what element in
production is stronger. The figures are not too clear; but if there is
so much of the gross national product that goes to investment or ownership,
and so much relatively to labor, and if the amount to labor proportionately
increases (even though the amount as such that goes to investment may still
be larger) — it means the profit system is weakening. That has been happening.
Management is
not the same as investment. Investment doesn’t have any work in it. But
executives, insofar as they are executives, work. For example, in Fortune
there
was a story about executives in the USSR. There are persons who are responsible
for the biscuit business, persons responsible for the telephones; and they
work. They go to an office, and they make sure that everything is kept
orderly and things function. As they say in the spiritual, "The old ark’s
a-moverin’": that’s the purpose of an executive, to keep the old company
a-moverin’. To have somebody trusted by others and chosen as the person
to tell others what to do, is to have the beginning of an executive. So
it’s not a matter of the executive; it’s as if somebody, as I have put
it pretty often, doesn’t even know where the plant is — he has some spare
money, somebody invests it there, and he gets more money because he has
some already. That is different.
The other way of judging
what is stronger is to see how unions see themselves. The Daily News
had a strike on its own hands — which are never too clean. But there are
two items in the News of June 16 that are related. First, "Draft
HQ Wrecked":
Providence, R.I., June 15 (AP) Vandals
invaded the State Selective Service headquarters over the weekend and ruined
the files....
The purpose of the Vietnam
War is to impose the profit system on Vietnam, which didn’t want it. That’s
the purpose, put succinctly. That’s why they have to impose the profit
system on Cambodia, or see that it’s retained. Thailand has it, but it
must be retained; Laos, and everywhere else.
There is a relation
between that article and the next, about the perkiness, the confidence
of unions — "GE Workers Return":
Louisville, Ky., June 15 (AP) About 10,000
General Electric Appliance Park employes began returning to work today,
apparently ending a four-day walkout. Don Rock, president of Local 761
of the International Union of Electrical Workers, termed the action a "moratorium"
on the strike. The walkout protested a pay cut given 16 floor sweepers.
This shows that unions
are stronger, and they are much more sassy. It’s the most patriotic thing
going. They won’t stand that management and investment guff! If they will
go out for four days, 10,000 General Electric workers, because floor
sweepers are given a pay cut — there’s a certain spirit among one element
of labor!
The American Worker's Temperament
Next is another union item, and it shows the
temperament of the American worker, God bless him. Without the American
worker, where would America be? The wonderful thing about Thoreau was,
he was a worker, though he did most of his work alone:
Pittsfield, Mass., July 15 (AP)—About
350 white collar workers... at Pittsfield’s General Electric Company stayed
off the job today in a one-day walkout to protest the alleged bypassing
of seniority in recent plant layoffs. [New York Times, 16 July 70]
That is a protest. The matter of seniority
is a big thing in labor. Once that would not have occurred.
There’s a strange
item showing class consciousness. Baseball players now talk just as much
about unionism and protest as they do about the old sphere and bases. As
a player once said, "What do you mean I don’t have a base for protest?
— I have four of them!" This, though, is about umpires:
Albuquerque, N.M., July 13 (AP) The city’s
park and recreation baseball umpires voted 35 to 2 yesterday to strike
Wednesday night in an effort to get fifty cents a game more....
So they belong to labor too. Then there’s
an item about labor in a municipality:
Cleveland, July 13 (UPI) Efforts to collect
garbage for the first time in a week failed today when truck drivers called
in sick in sympathy with striking garbage collectors. City officials planned
to have the drivers make their regular route, with residents loading the
trucks themselves. Union officials told their drivers not to go out unless
there was a regular collector on each truck.
This is what the IWW called solidarity. It
is going on, and as it goes on, it will make for something. It already
has.
|