a community focused on union news, info, discussion, etc
Friends:
Sure - in fact, I find a union to be a real free-market sort of concept when taken in its purest form.
It boils down to "treat us better or we all quit, gl replacing your entire workforce". If the employer calls then on it, that's a strike - employer either has to cut a deal or try to replace their entire workforce. In that way, it regulates employment without any interference from government.
Of course reality isn't so cut and dry, but theconceptt of a union isn't really communist at all IMO.
You can indeed be pro-union and anti-comunist. As a matter of fact all the EU countries have strong pro-union laws and are not communist countries nor they want to be.
As an example, in Spain (where I'm at) if a company has more than 80 employees they MUST have a union. If they don't, the company will get a fine.
The americans way of looking at these things is so tiring. Every european reads ops question and shakes his head propably. There has to be a lot more that's going wrong than "just" Fox News and Trump.
Communists are doing their fair share of trying to subvert the concept of unions. It doesn't help that several unions use communist imagery.
Yep! Unions are a way to regulate the worst evils of capitalism. This is best argued by Marx's Das Kapital.
Unions are also a way to democratize the workplace, and this increase in democracy past voting in general elections goes by the political theory name: Social Democracy.
A union is essentially a representative tool so that workers can negotiate with their boss without fear.
Now socialism and communism is when you remake society into being classless and stateless. Unions sieze the means of production from bosses and completely redistribute their wealth. No one can be born rich and lord over the working class.
Some leftists believe if you step to the left you can keep stepling left and eventually achieve the goals prescribed by leftist theorists. More realistically, in our lifetimes, I hope I get paid enough to live without so much stress.
And tankies, who tend to simp for the USSR, are a bit confused. In america if you dont show up to work you can be fired immediately. With unions, you aren't fired immediately. In the USSR, you are sent to the gulag. So be aware, that shit is not the true goal of communism or any leftist action.
Communism is a collection of ideas, and being pro union is just one of them. Being pro union doesnt necessarily mean your communist fully, as you might not adhere to some of the other ideas of communism.
People can believe any number of compatible and incompatible things. The human mind is very flexible.
Social democracy is the way.
Being supportive of unions is not necessarily indicative of supporing communism. Also, "tankies" do not have exclusive, philosophical ownership of the economic concept of communism, or even Marxist-Leninism. There's a wide variety of philosophies that are left of center.
Tankies, self described communists, I wasnt sure what word to describe the various types of socialists I have seen claim ownership of unions.
Tankies, self described communists, I wasn't sure what word to describe the various types of socialists I have seen claim ownership of unions.
Understood. In a perhaps ironic way of stating it, unions do not belong to socialists or communists, they belong to the workers. It is possible to be right-wing and support unions but, as right-wing policies are consistently anti-labor, this inevitably leads to a "leopards ate my face" situation.
I think it's also a good idea to thoroughly understand what one opposes or supports. Tankie is a pejorative that originally was used by a set of British Marxist-Leninists to describe Marxist-Leninists who were hard-line supporters of the USSR's use of force (tanks) to quell revolt. Not all self-described communists are even Marxist-Leninists. There's anarcho-communists, maoists, non-Marxist communists, and so on.
Socialism and communism are also separate, but similar structures. One of the differences being that socialism tends to aim for collective ownership of the means of production, whereas communism tends to also aim for collective ownership of distribution and consumption. Another way to look at it is that socialism tends to be organized in a manner that is meritocratic (everyone starts with the same economic opportunities, without hereditary wealth, and receives back according to their contribution) whereas communism intends to be more altruistic, distributing the fruits of labor principally based upon needs. Some communists would argue that socialism is a step towards communism but not all socialists would agree.