You Can Trust the Communists—to Be Communists!

The Socialist Worker stands up for all the rioting and destruction promulgated by Europe's brave dockworkin' men earlier this month over the possibility that the European Union might end existing monopolies in cargo loading and unloading work--it also lead to continent-wide strikes at the docks. To the SW, competition in cargo services would be a return to the 19th century--we all know guild restrictions defended by violence are the cutting edge of social and economic progress.

Comments

[Dave W.]

Media consolidation good. Laborer consolidation bad. Ummmm, ok.

[Marcvs]

Market-driven mergers of certain companies vs. government-enforced monopolies and *violent* resistance to change... Ummmm, yeah, totally different.

[Ironchef]

Oooooh there's that "media consolidation" boogeyman again! Those darned deregulators! (Life was so much simpler with just 3 networks eh Dave?)

Although I'm pro-union (well, technically free association, and free (labor) market), I do understand the consequences of what happens to these industries. Don't these knuckleheads realize that the more expensive they get, the more likely that ports will automate? How hard will it be to invent a giant container-unloading-robot-crane anyways?

[MP]

Media consolidation good. Laborer consolidation bad. Ummmm, ok.

When representatives of the new CW network start torching cars, then maybe you'd have a valid comparison.

[fyodor]

Actually, Doherty didn't comment on media consolidation either, at least not here. I would not be surprised if elsewhere he has expressed the opinion that media consolidation should not be prohibited by law, but of course that's different from saying it's actually "good." The libertarian position is generally that media companies should be allowed to consolidate all they like, but that there should not be legal bars to entry either.

[R C Dean]

Being "pro-union" in the current incarnation of unions has nothing to do with either "free association" or "free (labor) markets."

Sure, theoretically a union would be a free association of members for the purpose of collective bargaining, but that ain't the way its working in the real world.

[NoStar]

Ironchef,
Automation's fine. It makes for cushier featherbedded jobs.

[fyodor]

RC Dean,

You're correct. However, it's nice to point out to skeptics that a libertarian would not oppose a labor union that was based on free association and had no special legal protections so that they understand that the stand taken against labor unions in their currently protected status is due to that status and not borne of some sort of animus toward the well-being of blue-collar types, or the desire to see the management/capitalist class succeed at the blue-collar class's expense, or whatever it is they think.

[fyodor]

Don't these knuckleheads realize that the more expensive they get, the more likely that ports will automate?

But they can still tell themselves (and all who'll listen) that cutting their jobs is a form of injustice.

I think there's something in the human psyche that looks at the employer-employee relationship like it's a parent-child relationship, such being let go in favor of a cheaper means of production feels like being abandoned by one's parents, perhaps for some surrogate child, like in Clockwork Orange!

Then again, perhaps it's pure self-interest trumping (fanfare, please) Reason.

[James]

MP, Dave W.: Did I miss a thread? Have we discussed the WB/UPN merger? They both got about half a decent schedule and merging them makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Plus, locally, just looking at the ownership structure of the stations, it looks like the vile Sinclair Broadcasting Group will lose its network affiliation in the Twin Cities in favor of Fox, which owns the UPN rival station.

I know, I know, it's hard to know who to root for in that cage match. All you can hope for is that one of them suffers.

[fyodor]

while the allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum is a government-free zone, errrrr . . . oopsy-doodles!!!

Most libertarians oppose the government control of the broadcast frequencies. But most of us are totally okay with media consolidation (no winking necessary) based on a perspective that could possibly be summed up with the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right. Or more specifically, just because the government is interfering in one way that it shouldn't doesn't mean it would help anything for it to interfere further.

We all got our little contradictions.

You seem to have a zeal for seeing a lot more contradictions in libertarians than there actually are. It would support your credibility if you limited your "a-ha's" to times when there was something even remotely deserving of a-ha'ing about.

...at the hazard of offering you unsolicited advice! 🙂

[Rhywun]

They are concerned about proposals in the bill allowing ship crews to handle cargo themselves

This reminds me of one of the many sticking points in the proposed contract for the NYC transit workers' union: token booth clerks don't want to have to clean up after themselves, empty bins, etc. Train operators don't want to have to open and close doors. Platform sweepers don't want to have to replace light bulbs. All the jobs are very compartmentalized and nobody wants to do anything that isn't specifically spelled out in the contract. All I have to say is... WAHHHHH!

[BarryJV]

If you knew the full extent of this law you might well be rioting in the street as well. While part of it is supposed to break-up government monopolies, I have heard that there is a nasty little kicker that might or might not become part of the law, namely, that one proposal is to give the EU the right to take possession of 'failing' docks and either run them or sell them to a private company that it deems worthy. Who would decide what counts as failing is not clear, but docks which are currently held in private hands would be subject to the same rules. So, for example, the port of Liverpool which is currently one of the most efficent in Europe and about to make a multi-million pound investment to bring in the new larger continer ships, but which is owned and run by the same company and therefore technically a monoploy, could be seized by the government and sold off.

As I said, this is just one interpretation of the law, as reported in the Liverpool press based on fears voiced by the Port of Liverpool, but if there's one thing we know for sure, if you give powers to a government they will use them sooner or later.

BTW: I'm basing this on the interpretation of the law given by one company, so if anyone knows for sure that that interpretation is incorrect, please feel free to correct it.