Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!baparao
From: baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Jitendra's comments - An addition (trade unions)
Message-ID: <239@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 20:39:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.239
Posted: Sat Apr 27 20:39:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 03:08:32 EDT
References: <169@telesis.UUCP> <167@uscvax.UUCP> <240@sbcs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 48

> (Forward, the Light Brigade ...)
> 
> Bapa Rao:
> >
> > It is a mistake to speak of democracy as though ... what the
> > "masses" really need is ... suspension of trade unions ...
> > 
> Yeah, but if these damned trade unions got off their asses, stopped
> striking and gheraoing at the drop of a hat, and did a decent day's work,
> the country'd be a darned sight better off!  Much of the time their
> infighting is just for the control of political turf, anyway, not
> because it gives workers a better deal.  Frankly, I don't like some people
> making political capital out of other people's misery.
> -- 

Saumya:

I really threw in trade-union suppression as an example, among other things,
of undemocratic things that are done in the name of expediency. But
apparently trade-unions are your own private bugbear. :-)

I guess that perfectly responsible behavior on the part of all the
components of society makes the whole question of social organization
(democracy vs.  totaliarianism, for example) rather moot. I am pretty sure
that in any democratic system all power groups will try to pursue their
self-interest. Is it fair to arbitrarily decide to ban some of them at the
expense of others? I don't believe so. I have quite a serious problem with
disenfranchising anyone. 

In my view, suppressing trade unions to punish them for their unproductive
behavior is not the answer. It is not clear that the workers will better off
at the mercy of their employers,without the benefit of T.U.s. An open
society in which different special-interest groups are balanced against each
other, is, in my view, the optimal solution for a fair distribution of power
among the people. In case of the trade unions, for example, we might
conceive of an alternate, sincere leader emerging, whose superior
qualifications as a leader are obvious to the workers. It would be easier
for such a leader (e.g., someone halfway between Arthur Scargill and Doug
Fraser) to emerge in an open, democratic system where the established
corrupt leadership cannot threaten the emergent leader without risking
public obloquy at best, and lawful retribution at worst. On the other hand,
in a closed system where public assembly and association (as in Trade
Unions)  are under threat of banishment all the time, it is easier for
established leadership to leave the workers with the choice of being
represented by a mafia and not being represented at all. 


					--Bapa Rao.