[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / b2 / baaa / cafechan / dempart / fast / kurakao / sl ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: c62eb6341ae3757⋯.jpg (247.48 KB, 2638x1350, 1319:675, wfN9G4f.jpg)

 No.2872135

So here in the U.S., we encounter an issue in building socialism that our European and Asian comrades don't necessarily have. Namely that the labor movement has been safely kept from actual political power (namely forming anything even resembling a labor party) by the established government, that "communism" is more associated with foreign movements and a "fad" adopted by coastal elite liberals than a legitimate proletarian movement, and our rapidly slipping position as global hegemon allowed the previous generation of workers to see both a large increase in their standard of living as well as comfortable wages leaving communism to the kind of people who would engage in radical politics in times of prosperity: alienated youths and social recluses.

Overall, the mere act of building a cohesive communist movement in America is stymied by these myriad factors all playing off each other: if a communist party is formed it isn't expected to achieve or do anything, if it grows large enough it'll be split by bored coastal suburbanites adopting one strange tendency or another to LARP as being "deep political thinkers" or engage in spectacle politics, finally those making up the movement, initially, would be the kind of people who can afford to dedicate such a large portion of their life to politics so isolated from the common working man that it can hardly be argued that they represent the interest of the proletariat.

Thus, it appears to me that there's only one way to properly organize a leftist movement that doesn't fall into the trap of the three prior points I mentioned: radical unionism. Being elected doesn't matter, because votes alone are just the illusion of power.

Labor, however, is power. Even a small union in a big city can do more to affect policy and economics, than a large party operating only in the electoral sphere. You cannot commodify unionism, as unions are diametrically opposed to the Capitalist class and so advertisement of any workers organization, even if it's "tamed" unions collaborating with the bourgeoisie, would be cancerous on Capitalism's growth. Finally you crack down on woke-takes from IdPol types, after all it's easy for some bougie fuck to claim some "oppressed nationality" and then silence criticism by claiming you committed some terrible (race, sex, etc)-ism against them, or that so and so socialist party is terrible and should be boycotted because they don't cater to their bourgeois idpol tendencies enough, yet when factoring in the union element you wall these people off. They hide among the universalism of Marxism, of this abstract notion of "the people" to claim that since it's for "the people" then it should create a welcoming environment for "all people", thus allowing their liberal wrecking to commence under the guise of making things more "welcoming" for one abstract and superficial group or another. But unions are rooted firmly in the real world, in the real work place and at the real intersection of politics.

How can a bougie journalist condemn a group of coal miners or retail workers for their "intolerance" when they're not a real part of the union, when they don't even work in the same trade? Unions are not passing fads to join like a political party is, but a real commitment that roots you to a group and a work place. It's made up of real people, who at least are part of the workplace and the working class and are "normal" folks trying to make a decent living instead of political-obsessed weirdos.

Thus, in the U.S. at least, adopting a syndicalist line would probably be better for the growth of a real worker's movement than trying to grow a specific tendency in Marxism.

 No.2872174

You should go with Richard D. Wolff's workplace democracy line. Syndicalism by itself is too weak.


 No.2872188

File: 169d222dc186fe9⋯.jpg (47.22 KB, 500x329, 500:329, 1404658821171.jpg)

In the US unions have never fought capitalism they organized to barter with capitalism. Syndicalism would just create a labour aristocracy


 No.2872299

File: f6556f17cc9eaff⋯.png (29.41 KB, 500x500, 1:1, lmao.png)

>>2872188

This, you're literally better off trying to do People's War in Appalachia, the Rocky mountains, and Northern California where cops are underfunded and few. The Bundy larpers were literally able to fight the law and win.


 No.2872310

>>2872135

let's just establish american national syndicalism


 No.2872317

>>2872188

Even if so, increased union activities push the Overton window left, same way that succdems do. And though neither would likely have any chance to take out capitalism, the shear existence of these movements open up more opportunities for wider radicalisation


 No.2872319

File: 3bd7c2d33da4f02⋯.jpg (29.49 KB, 320x320, 1:1, IWW.jpg)

>>2872188

> US unions have never fought capitalism

Not all of them though. And while the unions themselves are conservative, the members would and could be radicalized


 No.2872322

>>2872188

you do realize that the cpusa reached the height of it's popularity because of their work in support and creation of trade unions in the 30s, and that browder thought that they could basically take over the democratic party with their connections to unions and the fdr's pro-union new deal stances


 No.2872354

File: f4a912a2865ef2e⋯.jpg (73.75 KB, 798x677, 798:677, EugeneDebs_798.jpg)

>>2872188

>In the US unions have never fought capitalism they organized to barter with capitalism.

Someone should learn their history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

>>2872299

>This, you're literally better off trying to do People's War in Appalachia, the Rocky mountains, and Northern California where cops are underfunded and few.

Trying to larp like we're in warlord China wont solve problems, and a sad truth is that this is another reason I made this post: people adopt a "tendency" like they adopt other fads, like they take those silly Harry Potter quizzes to see what "house" they're in, it's so they feel unique but also a part of something, so they have some little toy to trot out and pretend it gives them character. It's like personality tests for radlibs, they assign some meaning or importance to being an INFJ or ENTJ or what have you and think it says *anything*!

At the end of the day though, it just comes down to a particularly obtuse kind of LARP that hampers organization.


 No.2872474

>>2872299

>>2872188

Is this an actual joke? Are people here really this proud of there ignorance that they can post these obvious lies and expect to get away with it? Fucking Christ man. A hundred years ago mobs of workers battling cops on the streets of Chicago was considered just a part of everyday life.

Unions need parties to win but they've often proven themselves to be the main vehicle of class struggle, especially in America. This board's flagrant dismissal of them is one of the main reasons it's largely an anticommunist board.


 No.2872477

>>2872474

>dismissal of

>burgerville

<not correct

Also this is the fully classcucked post-cold war version of burgerville, there is no left. what was there has been perfectly erased. As far as the average burger in concerned the 8 hour day came from Ford being a nice guy.


 No.2872494

>>2872317

>Even if so, increased union activities push the Overton window left

No they don't there is no "overton window"

Revolutionary activity can encourage more people to join the cause however unions today are not revolutionary

>same way that succdems do

they don't

>And though neither would likely have any chance to take out capitalism, the shear existence of these movements open up more opportunities for wider radicalisation

succdems are capitalists they seek the preservation of capitalist as much as free marketers

>>2872319

>Not all of them though. And while the unions themselves are conservative, the members would and could be radicalized

I didn't say "100% every single union has never been revolutionary."

What I said was in the US unions ended up not fighting capitalism but bargaining with it.

>>2872322

>you do realize that the cpusa reached the height of it's popularity because of their work in support and creation of trade unions in the 30s, and that browder thought that they could basically take over the democratic party with their connections to unions and the fdr's pro-union new deal stances

yeah hows that going for them?

>>2872354

>Someone should learn their history.

I'm aware like I said above: I didn't say "100% every single union has never been revolutionary."

What I said was in the US unions ended up not fighting capitalism but bargaining with it.

>>2872474

>Is this an actual joke? Are people here really this proud of there ignorance that they can post these obvious lies and expect to get away with it? Fucking Christ man. A hundred years ago mobs of workers battling cops on the streets of Chicago was considered just a part of everyday life.

key word "a hundred years ago"

Just because some workers fought cops does not contradict what I said.


 No.2872519

>>2872299

>The Bundy larpers were literally able to fight the law and win.

Who are the Bundy larpers?


 No.2872602

File: 61b3e4610a065c6⋯.jpg (103.6 KB, 599x675, 599:675, 143555678665891.jpg)

>>2872477

>>2872494

>Do not organize, do not agitate, do not unionize the workers because uhhhhh doing nothing is revolutionary and stuff

>t. totally-not-FBI

This is entry-level anticommunist propaganda, my good retards. You're not going to convince anyone here by spewing the same horseshit lies we read and listen to every single day of our lives.


 No.2872613

>>2872602

>>Do not organize, do not agitate, do not unionize the workers because uhhhhh doing nothing is revolutionary and stuff

I never said this

>This is entry-level anticommunist propaganda, my good retards. You're not going to convince anyone here by spewing the same horseshit lies we read and listen to every single day of our lives.

No one is saying do not organize. What OP is advocating for has already failed, we don't have to reinvent the wheel


 No.2872841

>>2872613

And what hasn't failed, parties? Last time I checked they totally fell short of giving us global communist society. The CPUSA had a history of bargaining with the bourgeois state too when it became a prominent supporter of the War against Fascism. That doesn't prove that parties are useless, because it isn't their whole history. Just like it isn't the whole history of unions.

America is literally the worst possible example you could use to prove the inferiority of unions. Every major socialist party here that ever got big owed their modest electoral successes to the unions, which were the real backbone of the movement.


 No.2872848

>>2872519

a few years ago some "libertarian" tea party conservatives or whatever decided to irl shitpost by forcibly occupying a federal building with guns on a nature reserve in oregon and yell on camera about how everyone needs to do the same thing to protest big government


 No.2873063

>>2872841

>And what hasn't failed, parties? Last time I checked they totally fell short of giving us global communist society. The CPUSA had a history of bargaining with the bourgeois state too when it became a prominent supporter of the War against Fascism. That doesn't prove that parties are useless, because it isn't their whole history. Just like it isn't the whole history of unions.

Syndicalism has failed, Leninism has the highest success rate.

Communism is the first world post WW2 has also failed so the material conditions are not right for a Marxist Leninist uprising.

syndicalism can be disregarded

>America is literally the worst possible example you could use to prove the inferiority of unions. Every major socialist party here that ever got big owed their modest electoral successes to the unions, which were the real backbone of the movement.

yeah and hows that working out?


 No.2873087

>>2873063

>Syndicalism has failed

Never been tried :^)


 No.2873089

File: bae0bca211bfc63⋯.jpg (16.26 KB, 552x290, 276:145, DThv3hZVwAEQOcC.jpg)


 No.2873093

>>2873089

it can't fail if it hasn't been implemented


 No.2873100

>>2873093

It fails precisely because it cannot be implemented, the unions aren't going to take over the state, it's not in their nature.


 No.2873102

>>2873100

>It fails precisely because it cannot be implemented

thats not how you measure failure


 No.2873203

>>2873063

>yeah and hows that working out?

Way better than your tendency, that's for fucking sure.


 No.2873209

File: 58a951fe40c6556⋯.png (45.74 KB, 1357x633, 1357:633, CommunistBlock.png)

>>2873203

>Way better than your tendency, that's for fucking sure.

syndicalist successful over thrown capitalism: 0

marxist leninist successfully over thrown capitalism: pic related


 No.2873226

>>2873209

Kaiserreich plebs btfo


 No.2873262

File: eed9c5dbb4bd6b4⋯.png (101.01 KB, 750x375, 2:1, flag.png)

>>2872494

>What I said was in the US unions ended up not fighting capitalism but bargaining with it.

You said "U.S. Unions never fought capitalism", that's an absolute statement, it's not "Well a few ended up bartering with capitalism after a while", it's "they never fought capitalism, ever."

Secondly this is blatantly untrue given the IWW began to lose membership precisely BECAUSE they refused to "moderate" themselves after WWII

>key word "a hundred years ago"

How many years has it been since the revolution in Russia again?

>>2872613

It's in essence saying people shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with organizing, period. You're saying rather than even try, just give up in advance because "that method of organizing failed because I said so."

>>2873063

>Syndicalism has failed, Leninism has the highest success rate.

Again, how do you even define a "failure"? That a revolution didn't happen? Well in part we have the brief success of the bolsheviks to thank for that, snatching up revolutionary fervor from other leftist ideologies, and where are the bolsheviks today?

>It fails precisely because it cannot be implemented, the unions aren't going to take over the state, it's not in their nature.

They wont according to who? And who will? Some hipster in the SEP sipping coffee with the 12 members of the Portland chapter?

>>2873209

Yes and how many of those countries are red today? How long did that overthrow of capitalism even last?

The revolutionaries of the 20th century hang around the modern left like an anchor preventing any and all kinds of new thinking. The modern left is wholly incapable of theorizing new movements, instead it's constantly trying to summon the ghost of Lenin and fetishizing catastrophes. None of these leftist parties have any plan for when the "catastrophe" goes down or even how to recognize it, but they're hoping for this nigh-apocalyptic event that will allow them to seize power rather than just get trampled over by the fascists as is more likely to happen.

Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, most of these figures have become chains for the modern left, they act as useless identarian signifiers no more telling than as an advertisement on your twitter profile. Worse yet, they serve to actually stifle creative action, "Yeah you might think that works, but Lenin says this" or "Mao did this" or "Trotsky argued this", it's inflexible, and every time these revolutionary's philosophies have tried to be exported outside of their home countries they ended up either falling into secular-heresy "revisionism" or even destroying local marxist parties (as was the case with the CPUSA)

New ideas have to be tried.


 No.2873309

File: 0263172999a47fd⋯.jpg (190.22 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, it_starts_in_one_country_b….jpg)

>>2873262

>You said "U.S. Unions never fought capitalism", that's an absolute statement, it's not "Well a few ended up bartering with capitalism after a while", it's "they never fought capitalism, ever."

A few did not end up bartering, a majority did and now they all do.

The Unions in the US never fought capitalism petty street fights do not count.

>Secondly this is blatantly untrue given the IWW began to lose membership precisely BECAUSE they refused to "moderate" themselves after WWII

Yeah wheres the people's war they conducted? Where is any revolutionary activity done by the IWW in any meaningful way? What did the achieve?

How is the IWW doing now?

>How many years has it been since the revolution in Russia again?

Not as long as the founding of the IWW :^)

>It's in essence saying people shouldn't.

I never said this, in fact I said the opposite.

>There's nothing wrong with organizing, period.

Yes, I already said this

>You're saying rather than even try, just give up in advance

Again I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming I said. Stop trying to put words into my mouth

>because "that method of organizing failed because I said so."

No it failed because it never made any progress.

>Again, how do you even define a "failure"?

Not achieving what it set out to do.

>That a revolution didn't happen?

nor was it even attempted.

>Well in part we have the brief success of the bolsheviks to thank for that, snatching up revolutionary fervor from other leftist ideologies, and where are the bolsheviks today?

>brief

>1917-1991

Not to mention the leftist movements inspired by and funded by the bolsheviks. The massive contributions to the goal of Communism done by Lenin, Stalin and other Marxist Leninists

>They wont according to who?

the entire history of Unions

>And who will? Some hipster in the SEP sipping coffee with the 12 members of the Portland chapter?

Definitely not the Burgerville Union are you are trying to have people believe

>Yes and how many of those countries are red today? How long did that overthrow of capitalism even last?

China, the DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba. Communes in Nepal, Kurdistan Iraq, Syria, There are Communist movements all over South America, all Marxist-Leninists

>The revolutionaries of the 20th century hang around the modern left like an anchor preventing any and all kinds of new thinking. The modern left is wholly incapable of theorizing new movements, instead it's constantly trying to summon the ghost of Lenin and fetishizing catastrophes. None of these leftist parties have any plan for when the "catastrophe" goes down or even how to recognize it, but they're hoping for this nigh-apocalyptic event that will allow them to seize power rather than just get trampled over by the fascists as is more likely to happen.

The biggest problem the modern left is having is exactly NOT taking in the revolutionaries of the 20th century and instead liberalizing.

>Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, most of these figures have become chains for the modern left, they act as useless identarian signifiers no more telling than as an advertisement on your twitter profile. Worse yet, they serve to actually stifle creative action, "Yeah you might think that works, but Lenin says this" or "Mao did this" or "Trotsky argued this", it's inflexible, and every time these revolutionary's philosophies have tried to be exported outside of their home countries they ended up either falling into secular-heresy "revisionism" or even destroying local marxist parties (as was the case with the CPUSA)

You are just projecting your past lost debates though.

Also CPUSA is a CIA honeypot this is well known.

>New ideas have to be tried.

ummm your ideas are not new

In fact Syndicalism is older than Marxist Leninism


 No.2873336

>>2873309

>The Unions in the US never fought capitalism petty street fights do not count

Literally all of the big ones after the 1890's were explicitly in favor of abolishing the wage-system and private property. Even in the 30's most American unions were communist-controlled. Most of the "Marxist" parties were actually reformist until the Bolsheviks came to power so unions were the main vehicle of socialism before 1917.

American union men wanted a better life than what they had. And they were prepared to knock the teeth out of the skulls of any cops or pinkertons who stood in the way of that. Can you say the same you little coward? When's the last time you put your life on the line fighting the state with guns and your own two hands like the boys in Colorado, West Virginia, and Illinois did?


 No.2873352

File: 4c46f983d3d5dd2⋯.png (134.6 KB, 852x1206, 142:201, 1426607931253.png)

>>2873336

>Literally all of the big ones after the 1890's were explicitly in favor of abolishing the wage-system and private property. Even in the 30's most American unions were communist-controlled. Most of the "Marxist" parties were actually reformist until the Bolsheviks came to power so unions were the main vehicle of socialism before 1917.

>American union men wanted a better life than what they had. And they were prepared to knock the teeth out of the skulls of any cops or pinkertons who stood in the way of that. Can you say the same you little coward? When's the last time you put your life on the line fighting the state with guns and your own two hands like the boys in Colorado, West Virginia, and Illinois did?

You keep talking about it like its relevant 100 years later. It didn't workout then and these days are even more hostile to unions.


 No.2873377

>>2873352

>You keep talking about it like its relevant 100 years later. It didn't workout then and these days are even more hostile to unions

I love how you just keep owning yourself and I don't have to do anything but point it out. You were the one that started bringing up history in an attempt to prove your point, not me. So where are all the big communist parties people are flocking to in droves again? Since unions were such a colossal failure and parties never made any mistakes at all I'm sure it'll be easy for them to attract membership.

At any rate fighting without the unions and party together is like waging a war on a single front. I personally believe unions are more important (an opinion shared by most of the well-known American socialist leaders) as direct action invokes more class-consciousness than sitting on your ass and waiting for an election every four years, but that's a whole different discussion.


 No.2873420

>>2873377

>I love how you just keep owning yourself and I don't have to do anything but point it out

except I'm not and you're failing to even have a counter argument

>You were the one that started bringing up history in an attempt to prove your point, not me. So where are all the big communist parties people are flocking to in droves again?

I already answered that here >>2873309

>Since unions were such a colossal failure

I never said this

>and parties never made any mistakes at all

I also never said this

>At any rate fighting without the unions and party together is like waging a war on a single front

I never advocated for this.

>personally believe unions are more important (an opinion shared by most of the well-known American socialist leaders) as direct action invokes more class-consciousness than sitting on your ass and waiting for an election every four years, but that's a whole different discussion.

Now you back peddle from syndicalism to unions


 No.2873439

>>2873420

I don't even give a fuck about "syndicalism" which is largely a concept created after-the-fact and applied in retrospect onto the unions that existed a century ago, and I never said I was a syndicalist either. What I was attacking was the points in your posts where you repeatedly ridiculed and downplayed the successes of unions in the United States. Deny it if you want, anyone can read your posts and see the truth.


 No.2873464

>>2873420

You aren’t advocating anything. You just came into the thread, argued that unions can’t do anything against capitalism, never did anything against capitalism, and “syndicalism failed” because it didn’t create a state that doesn’t even exist anymore. When people call you on essentially coming into this thread to say don’t do anything related to union work, you whine and say “well that isn’t what I am really saying”.

The party system has totally failed in America, every single Marxist party is an unbridled failure, and the only response Maoists have is that it’s impossible to have a communist revolution in the US, while Leninists wait for some vague “catastrophe” that will end Capitalism for them rather than just giving fascists power.

There’s not a single Leninist in the United States capable of forming an even barely functional party, they always, without fail, end up becoming social clubs for bougie college students and isolated little islands of insanity and micro politics.

When is the last time a Leninist party here even did anything? It’s all waiting around and hoping people come to you.


 No.2873469

>>2873439

>I don't even give a fuck about "syndicalism

ok well thats the OP topic and what I'm arguing against.


 No.2873472

>>2873464

>You aren’t advocating anything

do I need to be?

>You just came into the thread, argued that unions can’t do anything against capitalism

This is an over simplification. I argued that Unions in the US have not done anything useful to fight capitalism or establish syndicalism

>When people call you on essentially coming into this thread to say don’t do anything related to union work, you whine and say “well that isn’t what I am really saying

<when people(me) strawman you, you just call them out on their strawman arguments

yes

>There’s not a single Leninist in the United States capable of forming an even barely functional party, they always, without fail, end up becoming social clubs for bougie college students and isolated little islands of insanity and micro politics.

Yes agreed

>When is the last time a Leninist party here even did anything? It’s all waiting around and hoping people come to you.

I'm sorry if there is no revolutionary potential in the US


 No.2873483

>>2872322

>you do realize that the cpusa reached the height of it's popularity because of their work in support and creation of trade unions in the 30s

Yeah and then they made the typical reformist mistake

> thought that they could basically take over the democratic party

Then all the actual communists got purged from the unions during the Red Scare whilst the liberals in the union happily went along with it. The conservative union leadership that cucked themselves to the Democrats are what remained after.


 No.2873514


 No.2873524

IWW related effortish post warning

The IWW isn't syndicalist, you absolute fucktards (https://www.iww.org/history/myths/8), so I'm gonna stop you right there

The reason the Wobblies reject all autistic forms of sectarianism is that they inherently believe all forms of Leftism follow a similar form of technocratic centralization (read Hoxie on trade unions)

>>2872354

Stop using Debs as an example of a socialist leader( he denounced the IWW for representing "anarchistic Jabonism", and kicked out the left factions)

>>2872299

What is Harlan County, for 500.


 No.2873530

While Im not entirely a syndicalist myself, realize this board is full of MLs who consider states thst fell apart due to corruption in the 90s, caved into capitalism around thst time or slightly before, or small isolated states as "successfu)"


 No.2873534

>>2872310

I think they call that fascism.


 No.2873569

File: dae1c8ef7850aa7⋯.jpg (22.76 KB, 320x240, 4:3, HPIM1721.JPG)

File: e43f24c9c594b4e⋯.jpg (25.44 KB, 320x213, 320:213, Nakba_61_266.jpg)

Remember that time the IWW sent people to talk with Arafat's men


 No.2874027

>>2873514

>>what is May Day

>>what is the 8 hour working week

what about it?


 No.2874083

File: 018a3f0aab59622⋯.jpg (13.79 KB, 640x595, 128:119, 55744454_10218954176833684….jpg)

>>2873524

>posting a link that denies that IWW is anarchist to prove it isn't syndicalist


 No.2874090

>>2872188

>trade unions actively oppose communism

Scorching hot take

>labor aristocracy

<if the working class isn't suffering there can be no revolution

Plasmatic take


 No.2874095

>>2873483

Unions at one point were forced by law to take an anticommunist pledge

It's not LTV in as many words but at my ibew local they at least teach "if they weren't profiting feom our labor they wouldn't be in business so we are worth it"

The non union guys have an even stronger "temporarily embarassed millionaire" attitude despite being poorer


 No.2874128

>>2874090

>>trade unions actively oppose communism

I never said this.

>>labor aristocracy

>

><if the working class isn't suffering

more I never said


 No.2874137

>>2872135

I think Mao put it best. Revolution in America or most Western countries is near impossible. They are too powerful for even a national revolution. And the majority of the American populous aren't class conscious. The best target for revolution is third world nations the U.S relies on i.e Saudi Arabia, India, revolution in Japan or South Korea could even be more possible than revolution in America. I am in Placer County, Northern California, and have realized the formation of a vanguard party/red guard is borderline futile. Syndicalism has a general tendency to fail in that in the modern day, companies have far more power than ever and unions hardly exist. ML/MLMism is most likely to do well in America than syndicalism. I'd say, radicalize the CPUSA/REVCOM and send them to third world countries.


 No.2874178

>>2874128

That's literally the context of "labor aristocracy": the idea that if the working class isn't destitute they will reject communism. It's an extra fucking hot take to take it a step further and say unionized workers will be even more pro capitalist because they're not as poor.

Is america fertile ground for a revolution? Probably not. But the unionized workers in my experience are a lot more class conscious than the non union workers, who get hammered with "unions are bad for you because you'll get paid as much as the lazy workers, and you sir are the hardworking est smartest worker I got!" Unions pay guys to sit down and learn labor history. Non union shops want you to think pinkerton is a synonym for fingerblasting


 No.2874334

File: c93f25ee41742d8⋯.jpg (118.12 KB, 592x1024, 37:64, hWqbdVJ.jpg)

File: 044af71b2ae97d6⋯.jpg (1.82 MB, 1936x1972, 484:493, fsl-ashes-haymarket-2.jpg)

>>2874083

That's the only type of syndicalism, at least other than fascism.

>>2874027

We helped give you those, dweeb


 No.2874794

>>2874178

>That's literally the context of "labor aristocracy": the idea that if the working class isn't destitute they will reject communism. It's an extra fucking hot take to take it a step further and say unionized workers will be even more pro capitalist because they're not as poor.

it has nothing to do with being "destitute"

People in the first world who do not own the means of production but making huge amounts of money have almost nothing in common with the working class and laborers

>Is america fertile ground for a revolution? Probably not. But the unionized workers in my experience are a lot more class conscious than the non union workers, who get hammered with "unions are bad for you because you'll get paid as much as the lazy workers, and you sir are the hardworking est smartest worker I got!" Unions pay guys to sit down and learn labor history. Non union shops want you to think pinkerton is a synonym for fingerblasting

ok and? No one is arguing against unions. The OP topic wasn't simply unions = good

but your argument dissolved into that


 No.2874795

>>2874334

>We helped give you those, dweeb

and?


 No.2875120

>>2874794

Sounds like maoist third worldist retarded conjecture to me


 No.2875157

>>2875120

Sounds like someone ran out of an argument


 No.2875646

>>2875157

"Developed world workers have nothing in common with third world workers because they can afford lattes and socks" is a total non sequitur


 No.2875661

>>2875646

>"Developed world workers have nothing in common with third world workers because they can afford lattes and socks" is a total non sequitur

but that isn't what I said


 No.2875673

>>2874794

It's not the amount of money they make, it's where the money comes from. Trying to separate workers solely based on income is clumsy and not suitable for making a structural analysis of society. Where the real distinction lies is between workers who only have income from wages and workers who have partial income from investments (be they realestate, stocks, commodities, currencies, ect). Workers who only have wages, even if those wages are high and even if they live in the first world, are still aligned with the rest of the working class. But workers who have investments naturally become sympathetic with the class interests of the bourgeoisie because the growth of their investments require the victory of capital over labor.


 No.2875719

>>2875673

>It's not the amount of money they make, it's where the money comes from. Trying to separate workers solely based on income is clumsy and not suitable for making a structural analysis of society.

>Trying to separate workers solely based on income

>solely based on income

confirmed not even reading what I wrote.

I literally said that PROLETARIANS who make huge amount of money have little in common with laborers

No where was I "separating workers solely based on income"

You're derailing


 No.2875744

>>2875719

Separating workers based on the amount of money they make is LITERALLY separating them solely based on income. Is English not your first language?


 No.2875765

>>2875744

>Separating workers based on the amount of money they make is LITERALLY separating them solely based on income. Is English not your first language?

Do you have anything relevant to the conversation? You're just going off topic at this point

I already said I'm not separating them based solely off income but to say a doctor has the same class interest or consciousness as a factory worker is retardation

Im not going to continue this any further if you're going to keep going off topic


 No.2875880

>>2875661

True, you actually said less, you just said "first world workers have nothing in common with the third world because ???"


 No.2875882

>>2875765

>only evidence is "of course I'm right, duhhhhhh! What are you, retarded?"

Like I said, conjecture.


 No.2875912

>>2875882

Not what I said


 No.2876146

>>2875912

Now you're just disingenuously denying your own arguments.


 No.2876173

File: 445917810d20637⋯.png (196.93 KB, 1280x922, 640:461, ppsh.png)

American communists should join the American Party of Labor.

http://americanpartyoflabor.org/


 No.2876210

>>2876146

You're just straw manning my arguments also you're off topic


 No.2876236

>>2876210

There's multiple people trying to talk to you, and no one can understand what the fuck you're saying.


 No.2876795

>>2876236

I am being perfectly clear


 No.2876813

>>2874794

>the working class has almost nothing in common with the working class or the working class

Big if true.


 No.2877026

>>2876813

you're just shitposting now


 No.2878498

>>2875912

>but to say a doctor has the same class interest or consciousness as a factory worker is retardation

Hot opinion


 No.2878507

>>2874090

Trade unions are all inherently corrupt today. The average worker knows this. Simply look at the salaries of the union leadership across all unions and you'll figure out that unions are now the labor arm of capital and the only way workers can strike successfully now is to break away from their unions and strike independently like the Matamoros strike and the Yellow Vests


 No.2878533

Not a communist, but I can offer the fact that I know a significant fraction of us populists/nationalists would be sympathetic towards a syndicalist movement for reasons I would be glad to share.

If you took a more balanced and gradual position on the national question and the rivalry between provincials and urbanites, many of us would be interested in a class movement overlapping both.


 No.2878540

>>2878498

Yes the doctor making 200k a year has more in common with the average bourgeois than the average factory worker

I never said the doctor isn't technically proletariat


 No.2878541

>>2878533

Class movements without the goal of communism are irrelevant


 No.2878542

>>2878541

Your own history proves otherwise. Whenever you were most relevant, you were usually allied with the peasantry or the national bourgeoisie.


 No.2878546

>>2878542

Communism should be the end goal of any socialist system, if it isn't then the system is just liberal and succdem.


 No.2878547

>>2878507

>and the Yellow Vests

Major trade unions like CGT and Solidaires are supporting the GJs though.


 No.2878549

>>2878546

I wasn't commenting on that, again I am not a communist. I was just suggesting that there is quite a bit of precedent for your movements, in the process of becoming popular, to create coalitions with other classes and such. From what I can tell, this has ranged from the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' of the 19th century, the peasantry, and the national bourgeoisie. Also, I'm not sure there would be any narodism nor as much for 19th century American labor militancy without populism and the dispossession of the American farmer.


 No.2878550

>>2878549

any bolshevism without narodism*


 No.2878561

>>2878549

And you wind up wasting all your time just to establish capitalism

Not very productive


 No.2878621

>>2878561

maybe not. a number of us are aware that the popular and petty-bourgeois institutions we hold dear, like the family and the nation, have no long-term future under liberal-capitalism.


 No.2878823

>>2877026

Your birth was a shitpost.

>>2878507

>Simply look at the salaries of the union leadership across all unions

Yes, but that's not the mathematical-logical outcome of having a union. Unions can have rules to limit that. You need a different type of union, spontaneous everything is not an option.


 No.2878844

>>2878621

What does that have to do with anything


 No.2878848

>>2878542

>Your own history proves otherwise. Whenever you were most relevant, you were usually allied with the peasantry or the national bourgeoisie

Can you elaborate


 No.2878862

>>2878844

>What does that have to do with anything

more people becoming aware of that fact would probably lead to disillusionment with capitalism itself, rather than just liberals.

>>2878848

>Can you elaborate

the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, national liberation, etc.


 No.2879253

>>2878862

>more people becoming aware of that fact would probably lead to disillusionment with capitalism itself, rather than just liberals.

ok and?

>the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, national liberation, etc.

what are you talking about


 No.2879276

>>2879253

>ok and?

they would then be falling the similar path of proletarianization of the old middle class and peasantry

>>2879253

one is an example of relevance thanks to an alliance with the peasantry, the other because of an alliance with the national bourgeoisie

>what are you talking about




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / b2 / baaa / cafechan / dempart / fast / kurakao / sl ]