RE: DBA - Job boundaries & perks [history of unions & american ex

Actually Rachel, I've been reading Eric's stuff - and I'm convinced he's just generating it from that socio-babble generator!

(I can't figure out how he gets the same first names and last names to appear next to each other all the time.)

GD&R,

Yosi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rachel Carmichael [mailto:carmichr_at_hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:48 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: DBA - Job boundaries & perks [history of unions
> & american
> exceptionalism]
>
>
> Eric,
>
> you have WAAAAY too much free time :)
>
> Rachel
>
>
> >From: "Eric D. Pierce" <PierceED_at_csus.edu>
> >Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
> >Subject: RE: DBA - Job boundaries & perks [history of unions
> & american
> >exceptionalism]
> >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:40:38 -0800
> >
> >Well, if you want to refer our esteemed peers in the UK/EU to social
> >science explanations of why socialism never took deep root in the
> >USA, Seymour Martin Lipset's work is an excellent source.
> >
> >Lipset explains, with stunning insight, how the underlying value
> >systems of anglo-imperialism (libertarianism, or "moral
> >individualism") interplay/compete with the value systems of
> >"collectivist" (socialist) politics *as cultural systems*.
> >
> >The main theme that Lipset has been concerned with is "american
> >exceptionalism".
> >
> >(Similar work has been done by another outstanding historian of
> >"conservative" anglo-imperialist culture, Kevin Phillips in
> >_The Cousin's Wars_, _The Politics of Rich and Poor_ etc.)
> >
> > (SIDE NOTE: Phillips explains Greenspan's attempts to control
> > wild asset inflation (stock market) such as led to the
> > "Great Depression" in the 1930s:
> >
> >
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec99/wages_9-3.html )
> >
> >Review:
> >
> > http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cousinswars.htm
> >
> >
> >Back to Lipset, here is some analysis that references Lipset's
> >critical early work on socialist politics in Canada vs. the USA:
> >
> >http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/sp98/schwartz.html
> >
> >-----
> >excerpt:
> >
> > "In 1950, Lipset saw in the experiences of the Saskatchewan CCF
> > the ways that democratic socialism could make for a more
> > democratic society. Now Lipset no longer equates democratic
> > socialism with an idealized form of democracy. His present
> > position is that democracy thrives where there is a free
> > market. ... Lipset's current take on U.S. exceptionalism
> > continues to elaborate on his earlier observations about the
> > absence of a working class socialist party. He has gone on to
> > emphasize the value dimensions of exceptionalism--'personal
> > responsibility, individual initiative, and voluntarism.' But he
> > also looks at the dark side of that exceptionalism-- 'self-
> > serving behavior, atomism, and a disregard for the common
> > good.' ... In light of this new awareness of how the United
> > States has generated negative and costly values and behavior, it
> > is interesting to reread Lipset's initial assessment of
> > socialism. There we hear a youthful optimism tempered by the
> > growing realism of a social scientist.
> >
> > It is my own belief, that in general, the democratic
> movements of
> > the left since the American Revolution were and are historically
> > justifiable and necessary to attain the values of an
> economic and
> > political and social democracy. In spite of their many and
> > obvious failings in terms of democratic values, the alternative
> > to them was a more rigidly stratified and sometimes a
> dictatorial
> > society. ..."
> >
> >-----end excerpt-----
> >
> >and
> >
> >-----
> >http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/sp98/diamond.html
> >
> >
> > "...Throughout this century, and especially since World
> War II, no
> > theme has more preoccupied the fields of comparative
> politics and
> > political sociology than the nature, conditions and
> possibilities
> > of democracy. And no political scientist or sociologist has
> > contributed more to advancing our thinking about democracy--in
> > all its dimensions, both comparatively and in the United States-
> > -than Seymour Martin Lipset.
> >...
> >
> > Of course, no article could do justice to the wide-ranging
> > intellectual contributions of Seymour Martin Lipset. His books
> > and articles have sought to elucidate such diverse phenomena as
> > the political and social origins of socialism (or the absence of
> > socialism), fascism, revolution, protest, ethnic prejudice,
> > anti-Semitism, and political extremism; the sources and
> > consequences of class structure, class consciousness, class
> > conflict, and social mobility; the links between historical and
> > social cleavages, party systems, and voter alignments; voter
> > preferences and electoral outcomes; the dense reciprocal
> > relations between values and institutions; the changing
> character
> > of such diverse and specific institutions as
> > [***]trade unions[***] and higher education (and even unions in
> > higher education!); the determinants and dynamics of public
> > opinion and public confidence in institutions; the role of
> > religion in American life; the political behavior of American
> > Jews; the conditions of the democratic order; and the
> differences
> > between cultures, especially the contrast (which has fascinated
> > him throughout his scholarly life) between Canada and the United
> > States. Across this sweeping landscape of classical and
> > pioneering issues in the social sciences, Lipset has brought a
> > consistently lucid and striking accessible analytical style, and
> > a breathtaking array of sources and evidence, that have made his
> > works among the most popular and widely used, both by teachers
> > and by researchers. More striking still, virtually every one of
> > these issues he has explored authoritatively, both
> across nations
> > and with a specific focus on the United States. And he has
> > published with equal distinction as a social historian and as an
> > astute commentator on the politics, culture, and
> conflicts of our
> > time. Can any living social scientist lay claim to such a broad
> > and broadly honored set of works?
> >...
> >
> > Of course, as with any great social scientist, Lipset's thinking
> > has been strongly influenced by preceding theorists, including
> > Robert Michels, Talcott Parsons, Karl Marx and, perhaps most of
> > all, Max Weber. But with reference to the conditions of
> > democracy, Lipset's intellectual affinity with Alexis de
> > Tocqueville is also noteworthy. As Lipset observes in his
> > introduction to Political Man, Tocqueville, struggling with the
> > same momentous, nineteenth-century issues and conflicts as Karl
> > Marx, came to very different conclusions. Rejecting the
> > desirability or inevitability of conflict polarization and
> > revolution, Tocqueville 'deliberately chose to emphasize those
> > aspects of social units which could maintain political cleavage
> > and political consensus at the same time' (Lipset 1981/1959, 7).
> > This concern for the factors that contain political conflict
> > within a framework of consensus, and so neutralize the
> demand for
> > violent and revolutionary change, has been an enduring theme in
> > Lipset's writings on democracy and society. Following
> > Tocqueville, it has led him to an intellectual and normative
> > interest in gradual change, political accommodation, and the
> > sources of political legitimacy; in limiting the power of the
> > state; and in independent, voluntary associations as one
> > important means for controlling the state and otherwise
> > developing the social infrastructure of a free society.
> >
> > An abiding concern for avoiding the polarization of
> conflict, the
> > formation of extremist political movements and
> preferences, or the
> > elimination of all conflict in a state-dominated 'mass society,'
> > runs through Lipset's writing on the conditions of the
> democratic
> > order. In Political Man he demonstrates the importance,
> for these
> > democratic ends, of historical legitimacy, effective
> performance,
> > social mobility, cross-cutting cleavages, as well as the gradual
> > incorporation into the polity of newly mobilizing social groups.
> > His analyses there of the dynamics of legitimacy and the effects
> > of cleavage structure are among the clearest and most compelling
> > in political sociology. These and related issues of democratic
> > development are further advanced in The First New Nation, which
> > highlights the importance of political leadership and political
> > values, and the determinants and consequences of party systems.
> > ..."
> >
> >-----end excerpt-----
> >
> >and
> >
> >-----
> >http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0010/bk.puddington.html
> >
> > "...what, in the view of Lipset and Marks, have been the real
> > underlying inhibitions on the progress of socialism in
> the United
> > States: namely, the absence, on the one hand, of rigid class
> > distinctions or of a popular resentment of capitalism and the
> > presence, on the other hand, of a highly individualistic ethos.
> > These signal attributes of American culture have created
> > inhospitable soil for any movement founded on both
> class conflict
> > and a collectivist vision.
> >
> > This same infertile soil may indeed be responsible
> dialectically,
> > as it were) for a unique characteristic of American socialism
> > that is stressed by Lipset and Marks: its rigidity and
> dogmatism.
> > Whereas, for example, both the British Labor party and
> the German
> > Social Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to
> > jettison unpopular positions and abandon Marxist principles to
> > expand their political base, socialists in the United
> States have
> > repeatedly held to a pattern of unbending ideological rigor.
> > Thus, during and after World War I, the party not only
> trespassed
> > on the patriotic sentiments of American workers by opposing U.S.
> > intervention in Europe, but compounded its difficulties by
> > adopting a stridently [*****]anticlerical line[*****] that held
> > little attraction for the movement's natural constituency.
> >
> > A similar lack of pragmatism was on display with respect to
> > immigration. Instead of appealing to the thousands upon
> thousands
> > of newcomers making their way to this land in the early
> decades of
> > the century, many socialist leaders embraced a nativist
> position.
> > This posture was made all the more absurd by the fact that the
> > Socialist party was itself thoroughly dominated by recent
> > immigrants, a circumstance that repelled native workers already
> > prone to regard socialism as an un-American creed. ..."
> >
> >-----end excerpt-----
> >
> >and
> >
> >-----
> >http://www.salonmag.com/books/feature/2000/08/17/socialism/
> >
> > "The big picture is that, from the get-go, our 'core values'
> > glowed in the dark like Three Mile Island: an ethos of
> > individualism, a Weltanschauung of anti-statism and a
> blank check
> > from God. We sprang full-blown from John Locke's higher brow, a
> > natural-born hegemony of the bourgeois money-grubbers --
> > unscathed by medieval feudalism (with its fixed classes of
> > aristocracy and forelock-tugging peasants); exempt from 19th
> > century Europe's ideological power-sharing fratricides
> (by virtue
> > of early white male suffrage, lots of land, waves of immigrants
> > to assume the lousiest jobs while the native-born upwardly
> > mobilized themselves and a ragtag diversity that undermined
> > nascent class consciousness while permitting the merchant
> > princelings to play workers of different racial and ethnic
> > backgrounds against one another in a status scramble); and
> > insulated from revolting developments -- insurgencies, mutinies,
> > Jacqueries, even mugwumps and goo-goos -- by a political system
> > so partial to the status quo that it's almost
> arteriosclerotic (a
> > winner-take-all presidency, a fragmenting federalism, a bought
> > judiciary and a two-party Incumbent Protection Society). ..."
> >
> >...
> >
> >http://www.salonmag.com/books/feature/2000/08/17/socialism/in
> dex1.html
> >
> > "Thus the whole idea of a labor party here, anything like those
> > that developed in European nations, Canada and Australia, seems
> > chimerical when we read how radicals such as the
> Knights of Labor
> > and the Industrial Workers of the World -- more
> > anarcho-syndicalist than socialist or Marxist --
> disdained reform
> > politics every bit as much as conservative craft
> unionists in the
> > American Federation of Labor. The AFL in its turn worked just as
> > hard to protect the skilled jobs of its white native-born
> > membership from a lumpenproletariat of African-Americans and
> > immigrants as it did to wring concessions from rapacious
> > employers. (Until the Great Depression, the AFL actually opposed
> > minimum-wage legislation, state provision of old-age pensions,
> > compulsory health insurance and limitations on the manly
> > workweek. Nor should we ever forget a 1902 pamphlet that Samuel
> > Gompers wrote himself: 'Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood vs.
> > Asiatic Coolieism: Which Shall Survive?')
> >
> >[ep, note: see recent anti-immigration policy statements of the
> >Sierra Club, ultimate example of environmentalist elitism.]
> >
> > Or when we read how the Socialist Party, as fetishistic about
> > doctrine as any Protestant sect, refused to join in coalitions
> > with allies like the North Dakota Non-Partisan League, the
> > Minneosta Farmer-Labor Party, the Commonwealth Federations of
> > Washington and Oregon, the Working Class Union in Oklahoma or
> > Upton Sinclair's Campaign to End Poverty in California -- and in
> > many localities went so far as to expel, for 'opportunism,'
> > members who joined a union or, even worse, ran for office on a
> > coalition ticket and won a municipal election. ..."
> >
> >-----end excerpts-----
> >
> >Chapter from Lipset's book:
> >
> >
> >http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/a
> mericanexceptionalism.htm
> >
> >---
> >excerpt:
> >
> > "It is not difficult to show for example, that the two great
> > political parties in America represent only one English party,
> > the middle-class Liberal party. . . . There are no Tories . . .
> > and no Labor Party. . . . [T]he new world [was left] to
> the Whigs
> > and Nonconformists and to those less constructive, less logical,
> > more popular and liberating thinkers who became Radicals in
> > England, and Jeffersonians and then Democrats in America. All
> > Americans are, from the English point of view, Liberals of one
> > sort or another. . . . The liberalism of the eighteenth century
> > was essentially the rebellion . . . against the monarchical and
> > aristocratic state--against hereditary privilege, against
> > restrictions on bargains. Its spirit was essentially
> anarchistic-
> > -the antithesis of Socialism. It was anti-State. ..."
> >
> >---end excerpt---
> >
> >(and much more found via:
> >
> http://www.google.com/search?q=lipset+socialism&hl=en&lr=&safe=off )
> >
> >-
> >
> >Lipset's home page (Hoover Institution at Stanford Univ.):
> >
> >http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/BIOS/lipset.html
> >
> >
> >-
> >http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/BIOS/scollist.html
> >-
> >http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/
> >
> >
> >regards,
> >ep
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Cherie_Machler_at_gelco.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 8:10 AM
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> >...
> >
> > > We had a client from the U.K. who had
> > > their people on-site here in the U.S. One
> > > of their software guys was surprised to
> > > hear that we software people didn't have
> > > unions. We don't really have much protection
> > > for our working conditions the way that some
> > > software and computer industry workers do
> > > in the U.K. and in Europe.
> >
> >...
> >
> > > I guess it's a whole different paradigm here.
> >
> >...
> >
> >
> >--
> >Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> >--
> >Author: Eric D. Pierce
> > INET: PierceED_at_csus.edu
> >
> >Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> >San Diego, California -- Public Internet access /
> Mailing Lists
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> >to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> >the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> >(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> >also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --
> Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> --
> Author: Rachel Carmichael
> INET: carmichr_at_hotmail.com
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
Received on Thu Dec 21 2000 - 16:11:37 CST