The bourgeoisie define labor unions; the proletariat get blamed for their corruption

Conza88 said:
:)


I didn't see a question asked... That's probably why you're still waiting on an answer. :)

As far as the union movement goes... they shouldn't be blamed for contributing to inflation pressures (they come after the fact, asking for wage increases). They are fine if they are voluntary and there is competition from other union movements within industries.



Hahaha! Aww Kade :( I was just messin wit j00. -> :D

To answer your question though; depending on the day, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, minarchist or libertarian. I guess that makes me a "minarcho-capliterarian." :cool:
Click to expand...


I go by the philosophy that the solution is less important than the truth. When the truth is well established, then we will be free; or, the Truth will set you free. So, I'm not thinking of what might be done to do away with union corruption. I'm think about who is to blame for union corruption. Tyranny established the institution of what is a union. Unfortunately, that stymied, appeased, cohersed, and subverted the union movement. Now unions get blamed for corruption that they had no part in.
 
Uncle Emanuel Watkins said:
I go by the philosophy that the solution is less important than the truth. When the truth is well established, then we will be free; or, the Truth will set you free. So, I'm not thinking of what might be done to do away with union corruption. I'm think about who is to blame for union corruption. Tyranny established the institution of what is a union. Unfortunately, that stymied, appeased, cohersed, and subverted the union movement. Now unions get blamed for corruption that they had no part in.
Click to expand...

You are correct sir.
 
Uncle Emanuel Watkins said:
I go by the philosophy that the solution is less important than the truth. When the truth is well established, then we will be free; or, the Truth will set you free. So, I'm not thinking of what might be done to do away with union corruption. I'm think about who is to blame for union corruption. Tyranny established the institution of what is a union. Unfortunately, that stymied, appeased, cohersed, and subverted the union movement. Now unions get blamed for corruption that they had no part in.
Click to expand...

I go by the philosophy that to come up with an actual solution, you need to know the truth. :rolleyes: Who is to blame for union corruption? I'd say the state, here in Australia anyway. They've influenced it. Who is to blame for corruption in general... if you want to get philosophical that's the way to go, not confine it simply to unions. Tyranny certainly didn't establish the institution of unions, here anyway.
 
“The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group. You should be able to organize. You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.”

- Ron Paul, 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
 
But unions helped the people win ownership of public property.

Conza88 said:
“The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group. You should be able to organize. You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.”

- Ron Paul, 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007
Click to expand...

The Union movement was actually that point where the people took ownership of public property. The sidewalk is my property as a vendor of union goods.
The act of the "business" of survival was once deemed illegal under ruling monarchies because the king owned every inch of land. In other words, there was no place for vending union goods. The accepted traditional businesses of the day were to either work for the monarchy, if one were the first born, and working for the Church, if one were the second born. The rest of the offspring went about the "illegal" business of survival. Such activities were deemed illegal because they took place on land 100% owned by the king.
Now, fast forward to the legal businesses of today. They are treating the working people with the same kind of contempt that the king and the Church treated businesses in the past.
By stepping in to negotiate, the U.S. government established the union movement as an institution. This usurped the union movement.
Winning public property was the most important acheivment of the unions and this is the most important reason we need a constant union movement. Stomp your feet and they won't be stomping your toes.
Hegel said that people need to own property to be free. That ushered in Marxism which ultimately went too far. By unions winning public property for the people, they helped the people in the United States preserve their freedom.
 
Ron Paul is against the union institution.

Conza88 said:
So... you're disagreeing with Ron Paul? :confused:

Have you read, Man Economy and State by Murry Rothbard?

It has some stuff on unions in there.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the union movement and the union as an institution. The union movement continually fights to give THE PEOPLE ownership of public property.
As mention before, the king at one time owned all property. He or she established an aristocracy of Dukes, Marquess', Earls, Viscounts, and Barons. Together this Aristocracy kept the public property in the hands of the king and as a result particular members of the Aristocracy received entitlements. While it would seem the these powerful members of the monarchy owned their land, the entitlement could be stripped by the king -- the president, supreme court, congress, judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into one.
As it stands today, people on public property can sell things like girlscout cookies, newspapers and labor unions. If a company allows its employees to sell girlscout cookies on company property, then one has the right to sell unionization on the property. If the company has a billboard for solicitions, then it has to allow labor unions to be solicited on company property. Coke machines? Union solicitation. What is wrong with this? We no longer have a strong labor union movement in this nation. Instead, we have a corrupt union institution that was established by the Federal Government when it stepped in to compromise, usurp and stymie the union movement.
 
I ask for a young Marxist and I get Truth Warrior. You failed to address the question. The structure of the Union was not designed by the proletariet because they didn't own the means of production. The structure of the Union was derived from the U.S. government stepping in and appeasing the movement. Yet, people blame Union corruption on the proletariet.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Marxist, but I do know that at least some Marxists consider the Union as a ploy by the capitalist state.
 
Can I get some examples / evidence of unions trying to get public property back to the people... :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Is America Turning Fascist?
Replies
0
Views
605
PAF
PAF
PAF
The Questions Crying Out for Answers
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
The Road Ahead: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”
Replies
1
Views
545
unknown
unknown
W
Declaration of North America Recipe for Loss of National Sovereignty
Replies
0
Views
435
WisconsinLiberty
W
PAF
The Centralization of Nations: What Does This Mean for You?
Replies
0
Views
322
PAF
PAF
Back
Top