Ed, Are you saying that large groups cannot make decisions that are ultimately good for the group through temporary self sacrifice?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Arthur Cordell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > Sorry about this, but this is the message I intended to send. Somehow a > draft version got out first. > > Ed > > > Just for purposes of discussion- can we try to think 'outside the box' of > > capitalism as it exists today, especially in the U.S. > > > > Would most of you agree :-) (I don't know the symbol for tongue-in-cheek) > > that, with all due respect to Harry, it might be possibleto control > > capitalism so that it works for the good of the general public, including > > the capitalists? No, they would not be able to make their obscene profits > > and salaries; but could there be incentives such that creativity would be > > encouraged, especially since the risks would be reduced? > > > > Selma > > > > Selma, you're getting very close to what the Soviet Union was like. It > wasn't really communism, it was state capitalism that was supposed to > benefit everyone, but that in actual fact benefited some far more than > others. The Soviet Union started out as an ideal egalitarian state, but > soon demonstrated something that may be inherent in human nature, that > people will want to exercise control and will divide themselves into classes > to do so. > > Personally, I don't think there is any possibility of achieving anything > like benign, good for all, capitalism. An individual company can perhaps > operate for a time without too much internal conflict by making its > employees its major shareholders (United Airlines?), but, typically, that > company has to operate in a competitive market that is anything but benign > and friendly. It may have to cut costs and lay people off, just as > privately held firms do. > > One has to see society divided into interest groups. What is good for > capitalists is not necessarily good for labour and v.v. IMHO, the only real > hope labour has is maintaining its bargaining power, but that has become > difficult because labour has changed and is no longer clearly definable. > Auto workers may still be "labour" (and well paid labour), but what about > clerical or administrative workers in the financial sector? And what about > techies? They probably see themselves as aspiring Bill Gates's, or at least > they probably did until the dot.com crash. What people seem to have lost is > a sense of common purpose and an understanding of which side of the > bargaining table they're on. > > Ed > > Ed Weick > 577 Melbourne Ave. > Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 > Canada > Phone (613) 728 4630 > Fax (613) 728 9382 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
