Our Communist Labor Unions
Been saying that unions are communistic for a long time and demand a part of something they did not create if in fact they want to own the means of production.
Listen to the video...this "Roofer" is a bit wacko.
"Yesterday, the AFL-CIO posted this bizarre tweet, which consists of a video starring someone named Dan Whelan, who is identified as “marxist, roofer.” The video is funny in all the wrong ways. Whelan tries to update Marx, who was wrong about everything 150 years ago and not worth the effort. Whelan says there is no such thing as a middle class, since everyone who does not own the “means of production” is a “worker.” What, exactly, are the means of production in a 21st century economy? This is my favorite howler: Whelan identifies three: factories (fair enough), plantations (we don’t have a lot of those anymore) and skyscrapers. Seriously. So you are a “worker” or a “capitalist,” depending on whether you own a part interest in the building that houses your office."
This is bizarre, We produce and or create value, we own Our means of production, whether we produce for our own business or produce for someone else's business. One has a skill in which to produce value and a mind in which to create value...I don't necessarily want to own the building, the machines nor the debt!; otherwise, I'd be the entrepreneur, I'd be the one taking the risk.
There is a lot to unpack here.
Public sector unions are Our Employees, are they not?...yet we don't own their means of production and as far as I am concerned, they don't produce anything except a tax bill at the end of the year.
The other question is...isn't a CEO, a president, an accountant, a congressman, (scratch that one), a worker?
Isn't everyone not homeless or on the dole part of the "Working Class"?
Listen to the video...this "Roofer" is a bit wacko.
"Yesterday, the AFL-CIO posted this bizarre tweet, which consists of a video starring someone named Dan Whelan, who is identified as “marxist, roofer.” The video is funny in all the wrong ways. Whelan tries to update Marx, who was wrong about everything 150 years ago and not worth the effort. Whelan says there is no such thing as a middle class, since everyone who does not own the “means of production” is a “worker.” What, exactly, are the means of production in a 21st century economy? This is my favorite howler: Whelan identifies three: factories (fair enough), plantations (we don’t have a lot of those anymore) and skyscrapers. Seriously. So you are a “worker” or a “capitalist,” depending on whether you own a part interest in the building that houses your office."
This is bizarre, We produce and or create value, we own Our means of production, whether we produce for our own business or produce for someone else's business. One has a skill in which to produce value and a mind in which to create value...I don't necessarily want to own the building, the machines nor the debt!; otherwise, I'd be the entrepreneur, I'd be the one taking the risk.
There is a lot to unpack here.
Public sector unions are Our Employees, are they not?...yet we don't own their means of production and as far as I am concerned, they don't produce anything except a tax bill at the end of the year.
The other question is...isn't a CEO, a president, an accountant, a congressman, (scratch that one), a worker?
Isn't everyone not homeless or on the dole part of the "Working Class"?
I can't agree. They are Fascistic at their core, not Communistic. Fascism arose from the foundation of Syndicalism, which would be "unionism" if we translated it to America. What we call "labor unions" or "trade unions" were called "syndicates" in Italy. The growth of the Fascist party in Italy was literally right down the line of Syndicate-run territories.
More specifically the commingling of syndicates/unions with government is the direct path to Fascism. Real Fascism, not what the punks in the street think it is. The unions controlling an area/industry/field are the linchpin for government control of those areas, industries, or fields without the burden of ownership. As blarman alluded to, "public sector" ones are the ones closest to the Fascist state already.
The mechanisms by which Unions today operate are literally the same ones used by Syndicates in Fascist and pre-Fascist Italy. Private Unions should, of course, be permitted but with zero "protections" and "advantages" bestowed by any government agency. That means you can be replaced if you go on strike, you can't be forced to pay into the Syndicate if you don't want to be part of it, you can't be mandated to be part of one, no tax benefits for being in one, and so on.
If we're going to have "anti-trust" laws, apply them to unions. Oh, we can't have monopolies? Guess what a labor union is when there can't be competition - to include not being in one? Yup, a monopoly on labor.
A key distinction between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism is the putative ownership. basically:
Fascism: "privately owned", government controlled
Socialism: government owned, government controlled
Communism "nobody owns", government controlled
The quotes are there for a reason. I'd argue that fundamentally whomever actually controls the thing, effectively owns the thing. But that distinction is often lost on people, particularly Leftists.
Real "anti-Fascist" protests would be protesting unions and laws/politicians promoting more special privileges to unions.
Government schools: Socialism + a bit of Fascism. Socialism because the government owns and controlled the "public schools", a bit of Fascism because you're technically allowed to have private schools so long as you follow all these rules the government puts on you - right down to who you can/must admit, what to teach, and whom you can hire.
Finally, yes, the "Green New Deal" is not Socialist; it is Fascist. Most of today's so-called "Socialists" are actually Fascists. Fascists who think they oppose Fascism.
I heard a video with an aflcio leader say they were communist...never broke that down...just shook my head in distaste.
And that's the benign part of unions. I won't even go into all the money they funnel to Democrats which largely originates from taxpayers in the first place...
I don't have a problem with people wanting to create private sector unions, but they shouldn't be protected by either State or Federal laws nor allowed to monopolize industries. Public sector unions of all kinds should be banned outright.
Let's see now. Me dino ain't among no limo riding upper class rich and me dino ain't among no stolen grocery cart pushing lower class poor.
So, um, where the heck would that put me dino?
Um, um, um--tryin' really real hard to think here--um,um, let's see, I ain't upper and I ain't lower.
So I must be--THAT'S IT!--stuck somewhere in the middle. Yay!
Hot dang golly! Whew! Thet thar was so really dadgum hard ter go figure.
But me dino done did it! A-huck! A-huck!
But except for the grocery cart gang, the inherited idle rich and those that go along to get along...we are all working class.
There is no reason good enough to justify in my mind a need for the union in the public sector...why should they get treated better than the rest of us.
It is a privilege to work for us but they are not privileged by doing so.
I also think the nature of the socialism has changed. It seems like people used to debate about how much we the people should be forced through taxes to help the poor. The new socialist seem to be for government helping the poor middle class, and not asking anything of the upper middle class. They don't admit they want handouts, but they say they want to do something about "the systems" (they should mean markets) for goods and services that account for most expenditures: health care, education, child care, housing. They just want to tweak the systems, they say. Really it's a bunch of handouts for most of the population that supposedly someone somewhere else you never think about will pay for.
I find this concerning because, regardless of what you think of gov't helping the poor, it's bad if most people see themselves as potential beneficiaries of help rather than strong agents who are capable of helping themselves and others.
It's hard for me to tell if we've really become more inclined to feel the need for handouts or if I have the romanticized view of the past of an old man saying "when I was their age, people took responsibility and were respectful."
They have no idea how humans have been undermined.
Government can't do anything right except take the value of our labor.
That they take the value of our labor "right" is even debatable. I'm not convinced they can do that well. :P
I really think I may just be getting old. There are many young people who take the benefits for the modern world and are more go-getters than most Gen-Xers were at their age. But the ones who stay in childhood into their 20s, literally afraid to make basic decisions without a parent, stand out to aging people like me.
I always wondered in my younger days why we allowed people like that to live here but learned we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. (yes, I think communism/marxism/progressiveism and environmentalism are a religion for these people)
Same goes for islamism.
Ok, I can accept that but Why the Hell do we let them into our government???
They have also empowered the progressive communist movement throughout the world.