Display:
Foreign and security policy always affects workers. Having a colonial empire weakens the ability of workers to secure their interests, because employers can exploit the indigenous population of the colonies (who have few rights and thus cannot organise effectively). Slavery weakens the ability of workers to secure their interests (for much the same reasons). A bloated Mil-Ind complex weakens the ability of workers to find honest work (both by weakening the economy and by channelling resources towards objectionable work).

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As in, directly affects workers.
It is the case with the examples you give, but this should not be generalized into making unions consultable in matters of foreign policy. I'm curious to see how far you are able to push unions' scope of action :)  They should decide military strategy too, and of course have a veto right on the Red Button - its use will most obviously affect workers' rights and benefits.

But then why not bring a communist dictatorship, purely and simply. At least them, you'll believe when they'll tell you it's the people who has the power.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 at 07:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They should decide military strategy too, and of course have a veto right on the Red Button - its use will most obviously affect workers' rights and benefits.

Well, yes, every major social interest group should have veto rights on the red button. Pushing the red button would be a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the Great War - doing so against the wishes of a significant minority of the population (nevermind an outright majority) doubly so.

I don't think that unions are necessarily the best fora in which to discuss military strategy - but if they can give compelling arguments for this or that strategy, I see nothing wrong with that. And if some strategy is so anathema to them that they are willing to deploy all their political guns - up to and including the general strike - it would probably behove any prudent politician to ask himself why this strategy has so antagonised a majority (or, even in the most de-unionised countries, significant minority) of the population.

But then why not bring a communist dictatorship, purely and simply. At least them, you'll believe when they'll tell you it's the people who has the power.

I'll assume that this is snark. The unions are hardly the only NGOs that attempt to influence public policy. They're not even the most odious of the various NGOs that do so.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not a snark at all. The point is that there are democratical instances elected for this by the people. Unions shouldl focus on strictly work-related issues, not influence politics. It is not democratical. They do it anyway if they can, obviously.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Tue Nov 18th, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series