Political Aspects of Full Employment - Essay Example

MANAGEMENT Political aspects of full employment Socialism does not only consist of building a human society, maintaining full employment or something that is close to full employment with adequate benefits, welfare state creation, egalitarian ideal enshrining, but also it is more than that. Its concern is in human freedom transforming individuals from acting as historical objects to being historical subjects, for which societal conditions above, namely states’ welfare measures, full employment, a decrease in economic and social inequalities, and human order creation, are conditions that are necessary; although they don’t form a whole, synonymous with an idea of freedom. Therefore, there is exhaustion of socialism content. Michael Kalecki in his ironical statement “you shall earn your bread with the sweat of your brow, unless you happen to have private means!” expresses his bourgeois ethics. This irony is directed against a basic principle, expressed in many economic literatures that are bourgeois. The statement meant that due to continuous corruption within the established authorities the poverty cycle would remain constant while the rich would have more. The notion behind the principle is rewards distribution by instant working of capitalistic system is flaxen in that each one is rewarded in accordance to contribution, following that if rewards distribution is interfered with it will be unfair. Therefore, by accepting responsibility to provide an essential minimum to each individual is different from the unfair and bourgeois system ethics. Secondly, mainly for this motive, is accepting of welfare contributed to lack of confidence in this system, in case it was accepted that bourgeois system working yielded outcomes that were not human. Having that it led to hardships which had no thing that deals with delinquency on victim’s part, the bourgeois system social legitimacy got a resultant effect undermined. Thirdly, the welfare of a state measure boosts the bargaining strength of waged individuals and workers in other sectors. Maintaining the conditions of next to full employment boosts the strength of bargaining of trade unions; unemployment provision assistance in the same way strengthens workers’ resistance. Sacking which is a device used by managers over workers’ heads has lost its effectiveness in a state which has reasonable unemployment allowances system, next to full employment and other social security forms. In a nutshell, workers’ resistance and other sectors of workers strengthen the welfare state existence measure. Therefore, socialism and welfare though conceptually different, are dialectically connected. Socialist must therefore support state welfare measures as its measures are human, it benefits workers and above all it strengthens the people’s will to resist, and help in transformation of workers from objects to subjects. This contributes to strengthening struggle of class. And as the bourgeois aim at avoiding this, as it wants individuals to enchain in their objective role, since its aim is to weaken, cow down, atomize, divide and transfix into an experimental routine that they cannot see, it pursues a struggle that is continuous to roll back state’s welfare measures. Even if it is under pressure of situations, it has been forced to accept that institutionalization of these measures works towards undoing them. Having it that Keynes could not realize nor see it collapse on demand management when it was under pressure that came from bourgeois, more particular financial interests, led to a weakness in Keynes social theory. On the other hand, the actuality that the collapse happened only emphasizes the social theory strength that was derided. The truth is that Keynesian collapse in demand management never happened in the very regime of political economy within which the introduction was made. The introduction was done in a situation where the state nation was superior and its jurisdiction area allowed for uncharged finance and good although it collapsed in a regime that had finance globalization and uncharged flow of finance and goods. But the changed context provided the extent to capital of rolling back Keynesianism. Having wished to act so was associated to insurmountable contradictions which the welfares’ dialects produced within this order that was bourgeois. Being under pressure that came from the UPA regime period, various measures as National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme were being adopted, which was against a stiffened force from leading advocates of neo-liberalism in the government. These advocates consequently claimed praises for the measures, even when quietly shaping them although they truly utilize these as fig-leaf covering the chase of policies that are blatantly pro-rich. These measures are taken to be basic as generosity acts on government’s part (Michael et al, 1990) Many of the measures are always rights based, although in practice which is not different from earlier programs whose implication depended on discretion of implementing government. Therefore, even if they provide succor to working and poor people, they authenticate individuals in their responsibility as objects. The whole of self-congratulatory dialogue that has grown among loyal intellectual to the class that rules, particularly after elections when the Congress party should have performed well because of such programs, is one which is loaded with the peoples’ objectification. The strengthening of the resistance wills among people that the state welfare measures can highlight, has to look practically efficient via the left intervention, as the Left’s aim specifically is to conquer peoples’ objectification. Therefore, the Left must act energetically to the state measures welfare implementation, preventing the bourgeoisie backsliding on people. Equally utilizing material succor context by such plot help strengthen peoples’ resistance in increasing struggle of class and also to overcome the internal objectification that is attached to the plots. The idea of guaranteed income as pointed out by Kalecki lies on the policies that the government establishes to maintain income levels. The government through the application of monetary and fiscal policy gain full employment without the economy facing any major problems. Michael Kalecki made it clear that the objections of tradition that focus on financing problems are overcame easily. Nevertheless, although achieving full employment happens to be a necessity in matters pertaining to economy, maintaining it becomes political. The full employment disagrees with capitalists interests as a rank. Consequently, they mount great pressure on the government that will make maintaining full employment to be very problematic. The major capitalist concern is that the full employment decreases their power during class struggles with employees to impose wages and conditions that favor them. Without changing any capitalism’s basic institution, the maintaining of full employment has remained a goal that is unachievable in societies of capitalists. The notion of guaranteed income revolves around this notion (Michael et al, 1990) According to Kalecki, a very crucial moral principle is at risk following the basic ethical requirements of the capitalists. It is that satisfaction and achievement must be associated with hard work unless one has another private alternative. Kalecki was concerned with the opposition of the business to government involvement policies like monetary and expansionary fiscal policy. The opposition was political and mainly concerned with the doctrine of full employment. During the depression, large businesses strongly opposed the government’s ideas and trials of employment increment. Without any doubt, increased employment and output not only benefit workers but also entrepreneurs, since increase in employment will lead to increased output hence rise in entrepreneurs’ profits. Full employment policy does not influence profits since any extra taxation is not involved. There are some reasons why the businesses opposed the government spending on employment policies. Firstly, the leaders of firms were reluctant to agree with the fact that the government is getting involved in employment issues. Each expanding of government activity was suspected by the business, but employment creation by the state spending considers a special way to make opposition intense. Employment depends on the government confidence. If this gets worse, then the private venture declines, hence a fall in employment rate and output both indirectly and directly. Therefore, anything that may tamper with the government confidence has to be avoided because it may lead to a great economic crisis (Michael et al, 1990) Secondly, business leaders did not like spending policy by the government, taking into consideration the areas of expenditure for instance, financing mass consumption and public investment. The government involvement principles require confinement of public investment to services which will not contend with the services offered by the private sector, for example, school, hospitals, and transport systems among others. Or else private sector profitability may be weakened and the affirmative impact of public venture upon employment balance, through the negative impact of the fall in private venture. Lastly, private sector disliked the political and social changes which were due to full employment maintenance. This will lead to rise of new force to the private sectors’ opposition. At stable full employment, the social rank of the top official would be diluted, and the personal assurance and class awareness of the workers would develop. Strikes for salary increment and work conditions improvement would lead to political tension. Under full employment regime, profits are higher, and still rise in the rate of salaries and wages due to the workers’ stronger bargaining ability would not cut profit than price increment. The right to work can be the best alternative to guaranteed income. By introduction of these assets there is productive assets creation and decision making is decentralized depending on the work that is available. If the right to work is seen in this perspective it can turn out to be guaranteed income as it leads to increase in their wages. If used as a tool, it alleviates poverty and stiffens vulnerable employees. In this form the economy can be changed to become a more stable economy. The rights to work empowers the poor as this motivates them to a guaranteed form employment which then leads to a guaranteed income which leads to employment opportunities (Michael et al, 1990) Reference Michael K, Osiatynski and Chester A. Kisiel, 1990. Capitalism: Business Cycles and Full Employment. Volume I. Read More