If Anthony means that the U.S. has been effective in smashing organized
labor
and quelling resistence from workers, then I would have to agree. Our
system
is the envy of capitalists in Europe.--
Michael Perelman
Anthony: Yes, that is part of the story. South Korea is an interesting
case. Under military regimes political repression was not necessarily
accompanied by fire policies. today the situation is somewhat paradoxical.
With political liberalization we have greater demands by Korean capitalists
to fire workers when business conditions worsens (that could be all sorts
of things). But it is clear capital wants to have the upper hand and use
the flexible labor market to discipline labor. This is already part of the
American psyche. You fire workers when for whatever reasons, including
capital's incompetence, you can't keep them. No wonder the NYT gloats over
any sign of Japanese corporations laying off workers -- a real liberal
newspaper.
But the Korean contradiction should not go unnoticed. Political
liberalization also means the hegemony of "market" economy: or economic
repression if you will. On the other hand, keeping people employed without
corresponding changes in quantity and quality of output (productivity in
the broader sense also doesn't make much sense). india is a classic
example when a small percentage of state employees holds the rest of
society hostage.
Cheers, Anthony
