Labour Unions [Archive]

Dr Mindbender

28th October 2006, 15:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 06:10 am
In my opinion American labour unions have been used by the corporate interests in order to placate the workers and avoid true socio-economic progression or reformation. Unions are also to blame for the increase in globalization, as the American labour force has become too expensive and Corporations have had to find less expensive sources of labour. The Unions instead of agitating for real reformation of the American economic system have pushed for minor reforms and concessions and have allowed themselves to lose sight of the true nature of Capitalism, a nature that is all too willing to abandon unfavorable market conditions, such as expensive labour. We should abandon Labour Unions and begin to establish more aggressive organizations that will hopefully be more proactive towards the destruction of the wage-slave system.
If workers are atomised how can they hope to defend their collective interests and security? They have not the werewithal to protect their jobs alone.

colonelguppy

28th October 2006, 17:15

well of course their work may be for nothing if they don't realize that they're going ot have to ocmpete with third world workers for employment.

MKS

28th October 2006, 22:56

well of course their work may be for nothing if they don't realize that they're going ot have to ocmpete with third world workers for employment

I contend that outsourcing is partially their fault, they have helped create the atmosphere in which American Corporations no longer see a viable environment for maximun profitablity. Not only have they allowed the continuation of the wage system but they have also allowed that smae system to exploit the international worker, they have in a sense contributed to the exploitation of the "3rd world worker".

uber-liberal

29th October 2006, 02:24

The American organized labor movement has bee the single most effective tool for pro-socialist change. Economic equality in the industrial proletariate can and will placate the masses from a revolution, but isn't that our goals as well, as true keepers of the Cause? Aren't we fighting for economic equitability for the toiling masses, and don't labor unions deliver that with affordable healthcare, paid vacation, annual cost of living increases, and a livable wage?
As I'm sure you'll agree overtime laws, OSHA regulations, and paid holidays aren't gifts from an enlightened management. They were fought for, and many people died for those rights we take for granted. If we fold our labor unions to groups like the Waltons and their ilk, where will we be, working at Wal-Mart for $8.50 an hour, spending half our checks on health care benefits leaving us just enough to pay for our crappy cars to go to another low-paying, shitty job, just to feed our kids?
Our place as workers in the world is NOT to toil from birth to death, but to make our lives better for our children. Unions give us a chance to attain that. We want bread, yes... but roses, too. When the blue-collar people of America can feed their families and afford a house and a car and still go to the beach on their vacation, they will be happy.
If you want revolution, that take it away and watch the newly-increasing poor take hunting rifles into the state capitols and Washington, D.C.

Viva Cesar Chavez!!! Viva la revolucion!!! Vive Presidente Hugo Chaves!!! Hasta la victoria siempre!!!!

MKS

29th October 2006, 14:58

The American organized labor movement has bee the single most effective tool for pro-socialist change

That may have been true in the early 20th century, but organized labour has since been hijacked by the burgousie power system, it has exchanged true reformation for simple concessions. Like dogs begging for table scraps the American Labour Union sit and cower obiedently by their masters side. Any person truly invested in the struggle for the destruction of Capitalism would conisder the American Labour Unions to be an impedement to the advancement of the international struggle of the proletariat.

If we fold our labor unions to groups like the Waltons and their ilk, where will we be, working at Wal-Mart for $8.50 an hour, spending half our checks on health care benefits leaving us just enough to pay for our crappy cars to go to another low-paying, shitty job, just to feed our kids?

This sounds like what we already have, a wage slave system that favours the owners (the waltons, Gates, Etc). The "working class" in America is slowly being dissolved as the gap between rich and poor grows wider, those who once could count on employment, who could make a decent life for themselves and their children, who only had to sacrafice thier time, sweat and sometimes blood in order to sustain a "pleaseant" existence, those same people are now without work and no amount of "orgainzation" could keep the company in towne, could prevent the outsourcing of their labour, or could guarantee a secure term of employment. The Unions instead of oganizing their membership against the system, at establishig a greater ownership for the worker, and destroying the institution of the corporation, had put all their efforts towards establishing a "comfortable" relationship between management and labour, the corporations grew confident in the knowledge that labour was placated and when they saw that the workers were hurting their bottom line they left and moved their exploitation to foreign shores. So tell me what did the Unions really do for the American Working people? In my opinion they did little to nothing. The corporations still thrive, and they continue to exploit our international brethern, meanwhile the working people of America are left hopless and abandoned.

Viva Cesar Chavez!!! Viva la revolucion!!! Vive Presidente Hugo Chaves!!! Hasta la victoria siempre!!!!

Youthful zeal is dangerous and should be silenced by proper education, experience and examination. Hopefully your misguided zeal will someday be shaped into substantial understanding of our compicated world, and that knowledge will truly help the advancement of the egalitarian struggle.

Severian

29th October 2006, 18:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 12:10 am
Unions are also to blame for the increase in globalization, as the American labour force has become too expensive and Corporations have had to find less expensive sources of labour.
Oh noes! Those poor, poor, employers!

You're coming at this from a nationalist and pro-business viewpoint, despite the socialist-sounding rhetoric.

MKS

29th October 2006, 19:43

You're coming at this from a nationalist and pro-business viewpoint, despite the socialist-sounding rhetoric

Actually I am coming at this from my viewpoint, it is not nationalist or pro-business. And I challenge you to find any evidence of my pro-business/nationalist leanings. In fact I mentioned the exploitation of our international workers, thanks in large part to the American Organized Labour Front which allowed the corporate to thrive and expand and thus did nothing to ensure the exploitation they once faced did not emigrate into foreign lands. The American Labour front did have a great oppurtunity to challenge the larger system and maybe even to force a reformation of the owner-worker realtionship (one could hope to eliminate the "owner" completely) but they did neither of these things. The failed to engage the greate problem, they underestimated the inhumanity of the neo-liberal doctrine and it reveled in false nationalism, focusing on the "American labour" and not the international labour movement.

If you had read my original and subsequent post you would hopefully understand my concern is for the worker, be they American, Chinese, Japanese, etc. I do have an international outlook on the problems facing humanity.

Janus

1st November 2006, 08:30

This is why anarcho-syndicalists are pushing to radicalize the unions so as to prevent the bureaucracy and corruption that have plagued many unions.

uber-liberal

1st November 2006, 12:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 02:58 pm

The American organized labor movement has bee the single most effective tool for pro-socialist change

That may have been true in the early 20th century, but organized labour has since been hijacked by the burgousie power system, it has exchanged true reformation for simple concessions. Like dogs begging for table scraps the American Labour Union sit and cower obiedently by their masters side. Any person truly invested in the struggle for the destruction of Capitalism would conisder the American Labour Unions to be an impedement to the advancement of the international struggle of the proletariat.
Impediment, not necessarily so. Labor unions are still a valid place to start ANY pro-Socialist movement. Who else are fighting for the rights of workers to live a decent life, and making any kind of headway at all? Collective bargaining works. Time has prooven that. Unfortunately so does lobbying and the economic blackmail that large multinationals use on small municipalities, and even large cities. But to call labor unions their lap dogs when they're the ones getting screwed the most is not only obtuse, it's dangerous to the future of the Left.

If we fold our labor unions to groups like the Waltons and their ilk, where will we be, working at Wal-Mart for $8.50 an hour, spending half our checks on health care benefits leaving us just enough to pay for our crappy cars to go to another low-paying, shitty job, just to feed our kids?

This sounds like what we already have, a wage slave system that favours the owners (the waltons, Gates, Etc). The "working class" in America is slowly being dissolved as the gap between rich and poor grows wider, those who once could count on employment, who could make a decent life for themselves and their children, who only had to sacrafice thier time, sweat and sometimes blood in order to sustain a "pleaseant" existence, those same people are now without work and no amount of "orgainzation" could keep the company in towne, could prevent the outsourcing of their labour, or could guarantee a secure term of employment. The Unions instead of oganizing their membership against the system, at establishig a greater ownership for the worker, and destroying the institution of the corporation, had put all their efforts towards establishing a "comfortable" relationship between management and labour, the corporations grew confident in the knowledge that labour was placated and when they saw that the workers were hurting their bottom line they left and moved their exploitation to foreign shores. So tell me what did the Unions really do for the American Working people? In my opinion they did little to nothing. The corporations still thrive, and they continue to exploit our international brethern, meanwhile the working people of America are left hopless and abandoned.

Wage slavery is very much the lay of the Wal-Mart infested land. But to blame the unions for "not acting", as you put it, is tantamount to charging someone with murder who watched it happen, but was unable to stop it.
Yes, the unions could have done more to prevent the corporations from leaving, but would it have made a difference? Remember, a corporation is ONLY legaly beholden to their stock owners, not the labor which they employ. To change this, you have two legal courses of action: 1) you can sue the company for unlawful termination if the lay-offs coincide within the timeframe of a legaly binding contract, or 2) change the corporate system.
Simply put, don't blame the unions for the corporations' mess.

Viva Cesar Chavez!!! Viva la revolucion!!! Vive Presidente Hugo Chaves!!! Hasta la victoria siempre!!!!

Youthful zeal is dangerous and should be silenced by proper education, experience and examination. Hopefully your misguided zeal will someday be shaped into substantial understanding of our compicated world, and that knowledge will truly help the advancement of the egalitarian struggle.

God, I love it. This coming from someone 7 years my junior...

Tell me, exactly how long have you been in the working sector? How much do you know about budgeting your family's finances and STILL finding enough left over to get your kids a little treat or a toy?
I think you're the one here who doesn't understand how the world works, comrade. Try walking down another path before you jump to the conclusion that it's "misguded".
Zeal is the proof that an intellectual pursuit for the common good has the capacity to stir the soul. What good is life without some gusto? If what you believe doesn't stir your passion ask yourself: do you actually believe it, or are you playing at the role of Leftist Idealist, like some spoiled trustafarian dilletante?
And what's more, what good is an egalitarian struggle without your emotions? You are human, after all, so remember not to hide behind the principle of the fight when the feelings of the people involved are the MOST important barometer you will ever have. Trust your heart, but use your head, too. The best advise I ever had. You would do wise to adhere to it, too.

uber-liberal

1st November 2006, 12:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 07:43 pm

You're coming at this from a nationalist and pro-business viewpoint, despite the socialist-sounding rhetoric

Actually I am coming at this from my viewpoint, it is not nationalist or pro-business. And I challenge you to find any evidence of my pro-business/nationalist leanings. In fact I mentioned the exploitation of our international workers, thanks in large part to the American Organized Labour Front which allowed the corporate to thrive and expand and thus did nothing to ensure the exploitation they once faced did not emigrate into foreign lands. The American Labour front did have a great oppurtunity to challenge the larger system and maybe even to force a reformation of the owner-worker realtionship (one could hope to eliminate the "owner" completely) but they did neither of these things. The failed to engage the greate problem, they underestimated the inhumanity of the neo-liberal doctrine and it reveled in false nationalism, focusing on the "American labour" and not the international labour movement.

If you had read my original and subsequent post you would hopefully understand my concern is for the worker, be they American, Chinese, Japanese, etc. I do have an international outlook on the problems facing humanity.
Wow, you really know how to pass the buck, don't you?

An archist

1st November 2006, 13:46

http://www.cnt-f.org/

http://www.cnt.es/

MKS

2nd November 2006, 23:47

But to blame the unions for "not acting", as you put it, is tantamount to charging someone with murder who watched it happen, but was unable to stop it

There is a difference between unable and unwilling. The unions, and more importantly the workers had the power to greatly reform the economic system in this nation. In my opinion they were never unable to end the wage slave system and increase worker ownership. They were unwilling, in my opinion to do so because they were either misguided by some false sense of nationalism (the "American way", the "American" worker") or perverted by corrupt administration. Either way they failed to create any great change, in my view they are simply regulated outlets for petty grievances, not catalysts for revolution as they should be.

Wow, you really know how to pass the buck, don't you?

Care to elaborate?

uber-liberal

3rd November 2006, 00:20

There is a difference between unable and unwilling. The unions, and more importantly the workers had the power to greatly reform the economic system in this nation. In my opinion they were never unable to end the wage slave system and increase worker ownership. They were unwilling, in my opinion to do so because they were either misguided by some false sense of nationalism (the "American way", the "American" worker") or perverted by corrupt administration. Either way they failed to create any great change, in my view they are simply regulated outlets for petty grievances, not catalysts for revolution as they should be.

Early 20th century uneducated workers were supposed to set up an incredibly complex employee-ownership, communist system? Okay, sure...

Wow, you really know how to pass the buck, don't you?

Care to elaborate?

Why not...

You seem hell-bent on blaming the unions for the current corporate culture. How about, instead of laying blame on someone's feet for what you think they SHOULD have done, how about you blame the ones who actually DID the atrocious things to begin with? Do you blame Boeing because the US military dropped bombs on a mosque?
Your anger is richeous, but very misguided.

MKS

3rd November 2006, 02:29

Early 20th century uneducated workers were supposed to set up an incredibly complex employee-ownership, communist system? Okay, sure...

They did it Spain with some success albiet it was a smaller scale, the model was there. The workers orgainzed and established self sufficent bodies of production, distribution and trade.

Unions, by their nature should be a place of education, communication, and most of all active resitance to the system or systems that seek their bondage. I have confidence that "uneducated" workers can do anything they set out to do, they are people and for the most part people have created some pretty complex things.

How about, instead of laying blame on someone's feet for what you think they SHOULD have done, how about you blame the ones who actually DID the atrocious things to begin with? Do you blame Boeing because the US military dropped bombs on a mosque?

Because the system would be nothing withou the people who make it up. If workers did not bow, if they did not so willingly accept their "place" in the system, if they actually acted as a massive force, as they have always been and always will be, than they could initiate the revolution. Do you think owners out number workers? Of course they don't, but they the owners still manage to corral the masses for their gain. We should blame both parties for thier action and inaction. I blame boeing for selling the planes to the military knowing full well what those planes would be used for.

American workers have formed a very narrow and myopic view of a very large problem. The international mass of workers have suffered because of this view.

uber-liberal

3rd November 2006, 15:00

Unions, by their nature should be a place of education, communication, and most of all active resitance to the system or systems that seek their bondage.

Unions are a place to educate on fair labor, not the struggle of the proletariat. That's why we have colleges. History proves that the working class educates themselves only insofar as it is believed to help their possition. A few go beyond the pale, but they are the minority.
Most people in the union are there because it pays decent enough to raise a family on. If you don't like the fact that they're not political enough, give them a reason that they'll get behind. Appeal to their sensabilities, don't ***** that they're doing it wrong.

Because the system would be nothing withou the people who make it up. If workers did not bow, if they did not so willingly accept their "place" in the system, if they actually acted as a massive force, as they have always been and always will be, than they could initiate the revolution. Do you think owners out number workers? Of course they don't, but they the owners still manage to corral the masses for their gain. We should blame both parties for thier action and inaction. I blame boeing for selling the planes to the military knowing full well what those planes would be used for.

Everyone plays a role, no matter your economic system. Some dig ditches while others decide where they are dug. The bosses have the money and the work to spend the money on (every horse must eventually drink from the stream). The problem isn't that the workers aren't telling the boss that they'll be obedient, it's that the guarantee of employment doesn't exist. If the workers could guarantee wages and hours will remain semi-constant, like UNIONS do all the time, then AND ONLY THEN do the laborers have a shot at equality in the power struggle. Then you have a bargaining chip. No one deals with a violent group except the military/police. That isn't a viable solution right now.

I'm not a huge fan of the situation the way it is, either, but I know enough to see where the chips have fallen. Step at a time and, with any luck and a lot of hard work, we'll be better off than when we started and leave our children a better world.

MKS

3rd November 2006, 22:43

Unions are a place to educate on fair labor, not the struggle of the proletariat

Unions can be used for whatever purpose the people in them decide. Leaving "education" to those fortunate to attend college sounds pretty elitist and is a symptom of an institutionalized ethos.

don't ***** that they're doing it wrong.

They are doing it wrong; we are all doing it wrong. But they have had the greater ability to stop it, to bring the machine to a grinding halt. Unions are one outlet that should be used by the people to achieve a greater equality. The people of the Unions have repeatedly failed to bring any lasting change, change that would create a better world for them and everyone else, but they, like most Americans, have decided to accept concessions, and even at times support the very system which enslaves them. To me this is a grave failure of character, and of responsibility. American Labour Unions to me are just another lobbying group and have lost any claims to being a body of workers progress.

If the workers could guarantee wages and hours will remain semi-constant, like UNIONS do all the time, then AND ONLY THEN do the laborers have a shot at equality in the power struggle.

The only time the workers will ever have real equality or freedom is when the wage-slave system is completely destroyed, when the workers have total control and there are no owners or bosses. The Unions have been competent at getting fair wages, health care benefits, safety regulations, overtime wages etc, but they still allow the corporation to exist and because of this great failure, the corporations regardless of the Unions have complete power to find another labour source, a cheaper labour source, and the Unions are left with nothing. Not only have the Unions let down the American workers they have allowed for the exploitation of our international brethren.

uber-liberal

5th November 2006, 13:23

Unions can be used for whatever purpose the people in them decide. Leaving "education" to those fortunate to attend college sounds pretty elitist and is a symptom of an institutionalized ethos.

While I agree with the sentiment about unions being anything the members want them to be, expecting them to do anything about corporations existing is just pissing in the wind. For one reason, it's not in the interest of the union to eliminate the largest money-making system in the world. Changing the corporate structure to irradicate senseless greed and a better bottom line alone would be a good start, yet still difficult in itself.
And education should be a right, not a privelage. But the choice isn't always going to be college. Some choose to go to the blue-collar way of life. People don't pick up a hammer because they can't afford college, but because the union can give you a future in the trades.
Even though John Kerry got poo-pooed for his joke about the economic make-up of our military , I think he had a VERY valid point. The rich should be at the same level as the poor in regards to national defense. Not that I think this war ( these wars?) is necessary, but I believe that our servicemen and women are the essence of what love of your country will AND MUST do. I just hope we get an executive who will use a bit more discression in their deployment, though I won't hold my breath...

Unions are one outlet that should be used by the people to achieve a greater equality.

They are, just not to the standard you hold them to.

American Labour Unions to me are just another lobbying group and have lost any claims to being a body of workers progress.

As far as the AFL/CIO is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. But, I believe in the stance of the Change to Win Unions, like the Teamster's, SEIU and TWA. The same-old, same-old has gotten us to where we are. It's time for a new tactic. Maybe an old tactic like rallies outside factories where there's a strike. Go all Hoffa/IWW on 'em...

The only time the workers will ever have real equality or freedom is when the wage-slave system is completely destroyed, when the workers have total control and there are no owners or bosses. The Unions have been competent at getting fair wages, health care benefits, safety regulations, overtime wages etc, but they still allow the corporation to exist and because of this great failure, the corporations regardless of the Unions have complete power to find another labour source, a cheaper labour source, and the Unions are left with nothing. Not only have the Unions let down the American workers they have allowed for the exploitation of our international brethren

I'm not here for the workers in Nicaragua or South Korea. They should unionise, and if asked to go there and help I'd be on a plane quicker than shit. But, in the mean time, I can only deal with the American worker. You gotta eat the burrito one bite at a time, not all at once.

Johnny Anarcho

5th November 2006, 20:42

What about the I.W.W.? A union like that cant possibly be a Capitalist tool.

MKS

6th November 2006, 00:28

For one reason, it's not in the interest of the union to eliminate the largest money-making system in the world

Actually it is in their best intrest to elminate the coporation, if they achieved that they could be their own masters, they wouldnt have to pander to bosses or managers. I dont think you get the point of Workers Control or ownership. It gives the workers complete freedom and equality.

Your way of thinking is dangerous to any progressive movement because it treats the characteristics of the Capitalist system as unmovable realities, which they aren’t they are man made impediments and are easily destroyed if the will is there.

I'm not here for the workers in Nicaragua or South Korea. They should unionise, and if asked to go there and help I'd be on a plane quicker than shit. But, in the mean time, I can only deal with the American worker. You gotta eat the burrito one bite at a time, not all at once.

The workers struggle is an international one, it always will be. To ignore our brethern from different nations is discrimatory (to say the least) and does nothing towards the achivement of any true change. We should always act with the International struggle in mind. We are one human race and cannot let imaginary borders stop the progress of the egalitarian movement.

like the Teamster's

The Teamsters are probably the most corrupt Union in the USA. Hoffa was a disgrace, and the present leadership are the lapdogs of the politicians, corporations and special intrests.

Just think if the people are better off in the US now than they were 40 years ago? And then think how better it could be now if the Unions did act as aggressive catalysts for a greater socio-economic change. They failed, they are "Americanized", and are now a tool used by the Imperial powers.

uber-liberal

6th November 2006, 23:41

Actually it is in their best intrest to elminate the coporation, if they achieved that they could be their own masters, they wouldnt have to pander to bosses or managers. I dont think you get the point of Workers Control or ownership. It gives the workers complete freedom and equality.

Your way of thinking is dangerous to any progressive movement because it treats the characteristics of the Capitalist system as unmovable realities, which they aren’t they are man made impediments and are easily destroyed if the will is there.

In any situation, when you have a large group of people in a working environment, SOMEONE WILL NEED TO BE THE EXECUTIVE, in charge of the day-to-day business dealings of the workforce and the company, be it capitalist or communist. Therew will also need to be management types to organize the day-to-day activities in each department. Once that occurs, you have bosses, of some form or another.
Should the janitor have a say in the overall goals of the business? Sure, just as much as the guys building widgets and the chief executive. Everyone should have one vote. But, and this is the sticking point, equality does not exist in titles or the lack thereof. Titles are labels for your job, nothing more.
If you want to destroy the system, be ready to put something vialbe in it's place, not just theory, stud. A socialist system can work, but let's not try and re-invent the wheel.

The workers struggle is an international one, it always will be. To ignore our brethern from different nations is discrimatory (to say the least) and does nothing towards the achivement of any true change. We should always act with the International struggle in mind. We are one human race and cannot let imaginary borders stop the progress of the egalitarian movement.

Think globally, act locally, amigo. More than just an environmental slogan...

Just think if the people are better off in the US now than they were 40 years ago? And then think how better it could be now if the Unions did act as aggressive catalysts for a greater socio-economic change. They failed, they are "Americanized", and are now a tool used by the Imperial powers.

Which is why the corporate structure is trying to get rid of it? Do your homework...

The American union is a victim of lobbying efforts to undermine their political clout and of foreign labor, both being exploited overseas and being brought in here as scab labor. But by bringing in labor from other countries, especially Latin America, they successfully split the Left by creating two camps; the pro-immigrant group and the Organized Labor group.
A good way around it is to give illegal aliens amnesty and SIGN THEM UP IN THE UNIONS!

MKS

7th November 2006, 01:01

In any situation, when you have a large group of people in a working environment, SOMEONE WILL NEED TO BE THE EXECUTIVE, in charge of the day-to-day business dealings of the workforce and the company, be it capitalist or communist. Therew will also need to be management types to organize the day-to-day activities in each department. Once that occurs, you have bosses, of some form or another.
Should the janitor have a say in the overall goals of the business? Sure, just as much as the guys building widgets and the chief executive. Everyone should have one vote. But, and this is the sticking point, equality does not exist in titles or the lack thereof. Titles are labels for your job, nothing more.
If you want to destroy the system, be ready to put something vialbe in it's place, not just theory, stud. A socialist system can work, but let's not try and re-invent the wheel

You should read some basic Communist/Anarchist/socialist literature. Because we are trying to re-invent the wheel, in terms of labour. The abolition of the corporate structre is one of the biggest goals of any true socialist or libertarian movement. Its not just about the dissolution of titles and thier privelage its about ending the wage-slave system. To say that there is a nessecity for management is about as anti-socialist as you can get. Workers can and should manage themselves.

Think globally, act locally, amigo. More than just an environmental slogan...

Why can’t you think and act globally? It’s because you choose to ignore the international struggle and such ignorance is tantamount to collusion.

youre beginning to sound more and more burgoise american liberal with every post. The American Liberal is one of the greatest dangers to the Revolutionary movement.

uber-liberal

8th November 2006, 02:03

You should read some basic Communist/Anarchist/socialist literature. Because we are trying to re-invent the wheel, in terms of labour. The abolition of the corporate structre is one of the biggest goals of any true socialist or libertarian movement. Its not just about the dissolution of titles and thier privelage its about ending the wage-slave system. To say that there is a nessecity for management is about as anti-socialist as you can get. Workers can and should manage themselves.

Okay, two things.

First, EVERY economic system needs to create capital in order to sustain themselves in a global market, be it communist, socialist, capitalist or what have you. The difference is in a communist system the global economic viability of the nation is what's being marketed, not the economic bodies within their borders. The work force AS A WHOLE are the company.
Secondly, you're living under the dillusion that an anarcho-socialist system is viable in the slightest degree. You can't have a system where no one is in charge of decisions, either by despotism, democracy or somewhere in between. As soon as someone says let's go do this that and the other you lose that anarchistic ideal. SOMEONE IS ALWAYS IN CHARGE!!!! The point is to make sure the ones in charge are keeping our interests in mind instead of special interests.

Why can’t you think and act globally? It’s because you choose to ignore the international struggle and such ignorance is tantamount to collusion.

youre beginning to sound more and more burgoise american liberal with every post. The American Liberal is one of the greatest dangers to the Revolutionary movement.

Who's ignoring the global labor issue? I never said that, so get off your petty soap box. So far you offer only criticism and no solutions to back up your agrument. It's time to put up or shut up.
And it's the American liberal that's going to pull the global fat out of the fire by taking the fight to Washington, D.C. one step at a time, chief.
Your argument suggests a quick, richeous revolution. Nothing worth while happens quickly; only destruction. Change takes time, usually one step at a time. Attrition works.

chimx

8th November 2006, 02:46

My stance on unions is the same as that of the red & anarchist action network. from the raan principles and direction:

"Weighted down by bureaucracy and internal hierarchies, unions exist well within the sphere of bourgeois law, often acting as another system of control over the heads of the oppressed. This is made all the worse by the fact that, like the vote, capitalist trade unions provide the illusion of power and representation, while at the same time strengthening the bourgeois order by recognizing it as a legitimate force to be negotiated with. Nevertheless, unions have been and remain almost the single greatest single expression of class-consciousness. Though we recognize the flaws and authoritarian nature of top-down unions, it would be a fatal mistake for us to completely ignore or reject these "workers' organizations".

We must be clear in our analysis: it is not the union that makes us strong, but the self- consciousness of the proletariat as a class entirely independent and with wholly different interests than those of the ruling-class.

Any situation where involvement in a labor union may accelerate such a realization of class- consciousness is welcome. Because unions are capable of bettering the lives of workers, they must be supported in their struggles against the bosses. However, the ultimate goal towards which we strive is organization and consciousness along class, not union, lines."

MKS

8th November 2006, 02:54

As soon as someone says let's go do this that and the other you lose that anarchistic ideal. SOMEONE IS ALWAYS IN CHARGE!!!! The point is to make sure the ones in charge are keeping our interests in mind instead of special interests.

The principles of Syndalicalism allow for a direct democracy of the workers, no one person or group of people is in charge of the larger group. Referendum decides all actions of commerce and subsequently social issues. These principles were proven affective by CNT-FAI factions of the Republican front during the Spanish Civil War. The Anarchist factions thrived under a democratic and egalitarian model of workers control. You seem to be arguing for a Republican model of government which actually acts against the interests of Democracy and allows the creation of Empires (like the US); to allow a person or a party of people over the greater masses is to surrender our will and our liberty. The people have the right to Direct Democracy; workers have the right to self management.

Your argument suggests a quick, richeous revolution. Nothing worth while happens quickly; only destruction. Change takes time, usually one step at a time. Attrition works.

I never argued for a quick "righteous" revolution, what I do support is a Revolution, not petty bourgeoisie reform which you seem to be all for..

And it's the American liberal that's going to pull the global fat out of the fire by taking the fight to Washington, D.C

The American Liberal has so far done very little to address the real issues facing humanity. They almost all support Capitalism/Neo-Liberalism, Larger Republican Government, and an increase of the people’s dependence on the State. The Liberals, like the Conservatives are one side of the same coin; the American Imperial Government, and because of this can never be counted as true revolutionaries

uber-liberal

8th November 2006, 12:52

The principles of Syndalicalism allow for a direct democracy of the workers, no one person or group of people is in charge of the larger group.

It can't work. Sorry you're betting on the wrong pony, but humanity on the whole just isn't there yet.
A direct democracy on a global scale, let alone a nation the size of Albania, can't work. There's just too many cooks in the kitchen. That's why we have elected officials; to cut out the gross inefficiency of 6 billion opinions on how to do things "the right way". The majority votes for the most desirable candidates, and then they make the decisions. If their constituency disagrees with said decisions, they don't get re-elected.
Now imagine Johnny Q. Poe-dunk the farmer deciding foreign policy. I hate to break it to you, but he's not exactly qualified to negotiate an arms deal with Thailand.

The people have the right to Direct Democracy; workers have the right to self management.

They absolutely have the right to it; it just won't work, not on a large scale. It worked in ancient Greece and in small and isolated principalities in the Spanish Civil War, but imagine the chaos of trying to get Britain, Canada, the U.S., E.U. or Russia to follow that model. You'd be in a Somali-style war within weeks.
Too many radically varying opinions, too many people insistent on being "right".

I never argued for a quick "righteous" revolution, what I do support is a Revolution, not petty bourgeoisie reform which you seem to be all for..

Revolution like the Sinn Fein, not the IRA. Do it through deligation, politics and legislative change. Do it through passive resistance, public awareness and education.
And if your complaint is that those people actually trying to put forward reform for labor aren't doing enough for labor, than get involved. Start a local group for citizen's awareness of these issues, get involved with the politics, stand on the corner with a bullhorn and do what Jello Biafra did; rant. Revolutions start with educated action. Untill then it's just speculation and unused potential.
"You say you want a Revolution... well, you know... we all want to change the world."

The American Liberal has so far done very little to address the real issues facing humanity. They almost all support Capitalism/Neo-Liberalism, Larger Republican Government, and an increase of the people’s dependence on the State. The Liberals, like the Conservatives are one side of the same coin; the American Imperial Government, and because of this can never be counted as true revolutionaries.

Now just hold it right there, cheif. Yes, they may be capitalist and support a centralized government, but to say they support dependence upon the State... damn, are you a Republican in liberal's clothing? Uh, excuse me, sir... your inner conservative is showing... perhaps if he just went back in the closet...
And the American liberal is on one side; the average Americans' side. Whether or not this meets your criteria for Revolution or not really doesn't phase me. I'm in the trenches daily, doing all I can as an informed citizen to help along the workers here. That is as much power as I have, but I'll use what little there is for the good of humanity and my country. If you don't like it, vote for someone you DO like, get involved in a political party, or START YOUR OWN PARTY! Pull a Ralph Nader, get up and do something instead of complain. But PLEASE GET INVOLVED!!!

MKS

9th November 2006, 01:00

It can't work. Sorry you're betting on the wrong pony, but humanity on the whole just isn't there yet.
A direct democracy on a global scale, let alone a nation the size of Albania, can't work. There's just too many cooks in the kitchen. That's why we have elected officials; to cut out the gross inefficiency of 6 billion opinions on how to do things "the right way". The majority votes for the most desirable candidates, and then they make the decisions. If their constituency disagrees with said decisions, they don't get re-elected.
Now imagine Johnny Q. Poe-dunk the farmer deciding foreign policy. I hate to break it to you, but he's not exactly qualified to negotiate an arms deal with Thailand.

Thats why the National Union needs t be dissolved. The Republic must be destroyed. Direct Democracy, for labour or the general population can only be benefical on the small scale.

It worked in ancient Greece and in small and isolated principalities in the Spanish Civil War, but imagine the chaos of trying to get Britain, Canada, the U.S., E.U. or Russia to follow that model. You'd be in a Somali-style war within weeks.
Too many radically varying opinions, too many people insistent on being "right".

The best example of a more Direct Democracy is Switzerland who utilizes Referendum more often than Representation.

Revolution like the Sinn Fein, not the IRA. Do it through deligation, politics and legislative change. Do it through passive resistance, public awareness and education.

Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. Furthermore elective reform, "resistance" i.e. protests, allow the system to destroy any progress or even intiative for progress. History has numerous examples of "radical movements" being pacified by the State. Any true Revolution must be done outside the system, with radical ideas and actions. One of the reasons why Labour Unions failed is because they became ingested by the State machine and now are just another appendage of the system.

but to say they support dependence upon the State...

The Democrats have always supported an increase in welfare, they established Social Security, and have almost always voted for tax increases, all of which increase the peoples dependence on the State.

Republican in liberal's clothing? Uh, excuse me, sir... your inner conservative is showing... perhaps if he just went back in the closet

Republicans, Democrats they are all Capitalists, Statists, and otherwise tools of the State. They are all the same if they still support the Imperial Republic of the USA.

That is as much power as I have, but I'll use what little there is for the good of humanity and my country

Well you keep doing what youre doing and Ill d nothing and we'll see how the much the world changes. Nothing we do will ever change anything, so why bother. I just like to argue, and make people think, and agitate in general. I will never act for "my country" because I hate it and as for humanity in general I'll say this; "The sea is so big and my boat so small".

uber-liberal

9th November 2006, 10:06

Nothing we do will ever change anything, so why bother.

God damn, you apathetic bastard. Nothing changes because people with that shitty attitude run around spreading it like Gospel truth. Get of your sorry, pitty-pot-for-the-international-worker ass and DO something instead of acting like some vacuous diletante, just stirring the pot to get other people's opinions. For fuck's sake, if you want a revolution, pick up a FUCKING GUN AND START A GOD-DAMNED REVOLUTION!!!!!
If you're comfortable dodging social responsibility, go right ahead. But don't expect others to listen to theory when practicality is proven to work.

And I'm pretty sure just about everyone is aware that the Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA. What you missed, as obtuse as missing it is, is that the IRA uses force while the Sinn Fein uses the system to their advantage, or as best as they can.
Oh, and this little nugget:

The Democrats have always supported an increase in welfare, they established Social Security, and have almost always voted for tax increases, all of which increase the peoples dependence on the State.

Do a little research. The Democrats have always supported higher taxes to feed. house and care for the elderly, enfeebled and those below the poverty line (TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, Social Security) in order to care for society at large instead of the companies that are supposed to be creating livable jobs. The Dems have been more a friend of the people than any party exercizing political power in this country. They are the moderate party.
Now take a look at true communism, where everything IS the state. Private property is out. Private school is definitely gone, as is career advancement, performance bonuses, paid holidays (there are no holidays), and, along with everything else, ambition to better yourself. Who has a dependency issue here?

And, in closing, I would like to add one thing. Obviously you live in a developed country, and have an education. Do the world a favor and use it. Either that or quit posting messages on bulletin boards, masturbating your ego and placating you sense of right and wrong. Believe whatever you wish, but don't pull this namby-pabmy quasi-intellectual act anymore. Lenin did. Mao did. Ho Chi Mihn did. Hugo Chavez did. Che Guevara and Fidel Castro did. They got off their asses and said "no more!"
What are you going to do? What's your legacy going to be, posts on this website?

MKS

9th November 2006, 23:49

Do a little research. The Democrats have always supported higher taxes to feed. house and care for the elderly, enfeebled and those below the poverty line (TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, HUD, Social Security) in order to care for society at large instead of the companies that are supposed to be creating livable jobs. The Dems have been more a friend of the people than any party exercizing political power in this country. They are the moderate party.

In a critique of mother Teresa someone once said (I paraphrase here)" She never asked why the poor were so poor"? Well that is my assessment of the Democratic Party, they never seek to change the system that creates the necessity for dependence of the impoverished, they instead work to increase that dependence, while at the same time allowing the Neo-Liberal agenda to spread and thus create a greater inequitable distribution of wealth. While they may appear more liberal than their Republican counterparts, they aren’t in reality. Ghettos still exist, poverty still exists, and welfare still exists, high rates of crime, imprisonments etc all still exist. If the Dems really cared about people they would recognize the flaws of the Capitalist system and work towards its abandonment.

Now take a look at true communism, where everything IS the state. Private property is out. Private school is definitely gone, as is career advancement, performance bonuses, paid holidays (there are no holidays), and, along with everything else, ambition to better yourself. Who has a dependency issue here?

What you desribed is not true communism, it is in all reality State-Capitalism (something the US is getting closer and closer to). The state, at least as we know it, will not exist in a true Communist society, or thats at least what the Commies say.

Lenin did. Mao did. Ho Chi Mihn did. Hugo Chavez did. Che Guevara and Fidel Castro did. They got off their asses and said "no more!"

And they all created brutal totalitarian regimes which collectively are responsible for some of the greatest crimes against liberty, justice and humanity in general. I think I'll stay planted right here thanks.

The People get the government they deserve-Hume said that I think. But I agree completely. Nothing will ever change unless humanity changes, and I dont ever see that happening.