Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16706 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Aug 10, 2008 5:50 pm)  What is the Difference Between Socialism and Communism? Answer: Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some main differences, however, can still be identified. One difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is mainly an economic system, while communism is both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism. Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. However, socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs. Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system. Finally, another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount. Perhaps this brief explanation will finally sink in ??? -Rocky
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Aug 10, 2008 6:39 pm) Actually The Big 3, did benefit from WWII. Don't you remember Ford, supplied the Nazi's. There was a story on the history channel about the involvement of large U.S. corporations with Nazi Germany. The UAW, did benefit because some of the shops that built weapons for the military were unionized. The Wyoming, Michigan - GM/Delphi plant was union during WWII and built rifles. -Rocky
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Aug 10, 2008 6:54 pm) American factories saw huge benefit from war production, the war helped to end the depression...but maybe not so much from the technology acquired right after the war. |
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Aug 10, 2008 6:49 pm) So from what you are saying is the UAW is an extension of Communism NOT Socialism In a collective bargaining Union, individual effort is discouraged not rewarded. The guy that puts one 100 tires per hour makes no more than the guy that puts on 10 per hour. I'm with Bob on this. Your ideas are scary. Just as the thought of Obama being President is scary. The guy is clueless on how to run our country. You cannot give me a good example of a EU country where there are not super wealthy and poor in the same country, if any immigration is allowed. If you want a totally closed society you should seek one out. I don't know of any I would even want to visit, let alone live in. In light of the riots and unrest among immigrants in France during the fall of 2005, the question of how immigrants are faring with respect to a certain minimum in society is both a timely and pertinent question for a number of European countries. In Norway, the prevalence of poverty is alarmingly high among immigrants and stands in stark contrast to the very low poverty rates for the native Norwegian population. Thus, unless the high poverty rates in the immigrant population are just a temporary feature of the immigrants' initial period of adjustment in the host country, poverty among immigrants is a cause for concern in Norway, too. This paper wishes to serve as a complement or extension of previous studies of immigrant adjustment; the study also aims to provide insights on the substantial heterogeneity -- observed, unobserved and unobservable -- in the immigrant population in Norway. http://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jopoec/v18y2005i4p691-718.html
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Aug 10, 2008 8:02 pm) The key is being selective about immigration and thinking of future consequences about both volumes and who is let in. Western Europe as a whole has been irresponsible about immigration, at the very least. This will be a serious problem in the future, the immigrants are kept to insular communities, and the natives resent them. This is the worst postwar mistake of Europe, and it works for nothing but the globalist ideal. No unions under that one, no western standard of living at all. Almost seems intentional. Maybe the subpar products introduced by the big 2.5 for about 35 years were intentional too...the worker will always get the most blame for a shoddy product...a way to destroy the unions.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Aug 09, 2008 5:40 pm) Give me a break Rock. I know they are still there because my brother is doing it. In a year it will be a different story. Many are being bought out and my brother is taking early retirement in October. My point is that GM has concessions coming in from the UAW but most have not taken effect yet and the concessions have not really hit the bottom line yet. Most of the high paid, old time workers are still there in the 2nd quarter. GM did not cut the pay of any current workers. They are still getting full health care. Again, in a year it will be a different story.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Aug 10, 2008 9:36 pm) When a nation discourages their people from having children as has been the case in parts of the EU and the USA, it leaves room for immigrants to come in and take those jobs left vacant. Immigration is fine if the people assimilate into society. As you have pointed out that is not happening in many EU countries. Those immigrants get the low paying jobs and become the poor of that country. I think we can equate that to what is happening in the USA. I am reading about Jefferson's striving to keep the US an agrarian society. He was trying to avoid the pitfalls in Great Britain of being industrialized and jammed into cities. I think he was right. We may have ultimately been better off trading corn for cars. Leave all the dirty work for other countries. That is where we are headed right now. Problem is we have built homes on some of the most productive crop land in the USA. the worker will always get the most blame for a shoddy product. If your home has shoddy workmanship, do you blame the guy that drew up the plans or the guy swinging the hammer? I do think it is simplistic to blame the UAW for poorly designed cars. I think you can blame them for less than great fit and finish. Mainly because of the contractual language that kept the automakers from changing to more modern methods. |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Aug 11, 2008 4:01 am) Thank you for setting the record straight. The idea that buyouts and early retirement is something that only the UAW has faced is totally wrong. They are just the latest. All during the 1990s companies such as AT&T, ARCO and IBM were offering early retirement to employees with a lot of seniority. I know this because friends took the buyouts. ARCO offered some great packages in Alaska to their employees before Bill Clinton allowed them to be gobbled up by the foreign Oil company BP. The same guys came back to work in Prudhoe as contract labor. Some made more money as consultants than they had before. Most made less with less benefits. The biggest difference was ARCO was a very friendly company to work for. More like one big family. Under BP it was a dictatorship. They got people to spy on each other and the whole business of searching rooms came about. There used to be laws against controlling foreign ownership of our companies. They should still be in place. All part of Globalization I am sure. Who allowed Daimler to buy Chrysler and start its downward spiral?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
