Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Center-Left Betrayal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Batt Boy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 73
  • Views: 2K
OK fair enough but again, I don't really think this makes sense as part of a criticism of Clinton and Democrats pursuing anti-worker policies. Criticizing them for not having their justice departments use existing antitrust regulations to attempt to curtail the size of unions through government regulation seems like a bit of a stretch. I don't entirely disagree with the broader point that more unions is probably better than fewer (except in one sense: the union has to be big enough to have enough collective bargaining power to bring employers to the table, and if they could only call a strike with some portion of the employer's workforce that would obviously be a problem for the union) but it just seems to have strayed pretty far afield from any sort of legitimate criticism of supposed "anti-worker" policies for Democrats.

IMO the far bigger thing is that decades (centuries?) of conservative anti-union propaganda has been successful in many places, and many of the very people unions protect now see unions as the enemy. That is what has allowed the passage of "right-to-work" laws (which are always pitched as pro-worker, hence the misleading name) and the steady erosion of union membership and power in many industries.
It's not "fair enough." The Wrambling Wreck over here is just making stuff up, again.

1. The largest German trade union is larger per capita than the largest American union. At one point this century, the largest umbrella trade union organization in Germany represented 84% of all union members. Wikipedia says now that the DGB "only" represents 68% of unionized workers in Germany. That is way higher than any comparable organization here. For more details:


2. American unions WERE subject to antitrust scrutiny and even prosecution in the early days. In fact, the Clayton Act of 1914 included a provision to exempt unions from antitrust, as antitrust issues had been used to defeat the basic idea of unionization prior to that. Congress then expanded those protections in the Norris-Laguardia Act of 1932, which is why sports collective bargaining agreements can exist (except for baseball, which doesn't need it because stupidity).

3 The reason that unions have more effectiveness in Germany is that they have more power. Bargaining happens on a regional and industry basis. That is, employers form their own associations, and the union reps and the employer reps sit down and bargain over wages. They don't have to recruit members -- and certainly don't have to engage in the drag-down, bare-knuckles fighting of American organization efforts -- because all workers are covered in sectoral bargaining. There are no right-to-work laws. In fact, there's no such thing as "at-will" employment.

4. The basic shape of the labor system in Germany is shared across other European countries. There are differences, but no European country uses competition between unions as part of their industrial policy. The reason is that it just doesn't make sense. Unions, like electric utilities, are natural monopolies.

I encourage anyone who is interested to read the link I provided above
 
OK fair enough but again, I don't really think this makes sense as part of a criticism of Clinton and Democrats pursuing anti-worker policies. Criticizing them for not having their justice departments use existing antitrust regulations to attempt to curtail the size of unions through government regulation seems like a bit of a stretch. I don't entirely disagree with the broader point that more unions is probably better than fewer (except in one sense: the union has to be big enough to have enough collective bargaining power to bring employers to the table, and if they could only call a strike with some portion of the employer's workforce that would obviously be a problem for the union) but it just seems to have strayed pretty far afield from any sort of legitimate criticism of supposed "anti-worker" policies for Democrats.

IMO the far bigger thing is that decades (centuries?) of conservative anti-union propaganda has been successful in many places, and many of the very people unions protect now see unions as the enemy. That is what has allowed the passage of "right-to-work" laws (which are always pitched as pro-worker, hence the misleading name) and the steady erosion of union membership and power in many industries.

No doubt that conservatives are far and away the reason that unions have continued to die off despite their popularity. I think a lot of conservatives would agree with that statement.

I was just pointing out that some Democratic policies, including letting them get too big and inaction against corruption at the local level by politicians supported by unions, has contributed to the decline in unions.
 
Last edited:
I think you misunderstand my post. I was referring to people being brainwashed into opposing things like free healthcare and other forms of public welfare, not being brainwashed into liking big TVs.
It's easier to be brainwarshed into opposing things like free healthcare (or anything else) if you've got a big ass TV, though...
 
Can't we start on fixing the friggin problems instead of the effing blame? Seems like we love debating about it rather than trying to fix it? Walz is the best of us and also like the rest of us. We're going to get things wrong and get things right but nothing else will happen until we stop fussing and start working.
 
Can't we start on fixing the friggin problems instead of the effing blame? Seems like we love debating about it rather than trying to fix it? Walz is the best of us and also like the rest of us. We're going to get things wrong and get things right but nothing else will happen until we stop fussing and start working.
Who is this directed at? Democrats have been trying to fix the problems for a long time. Health care, immigration, infrastructure, etc - these are all areas where Dems have proposed and tried to implement solutions and rather than proposing different solutions, Pubs have brought nothing to the table except obstruction and culture-war posturing. They are the literal reason we can’t all “stop fussing and start working.”
 
Rodo I guess I hope some of the obstructionists would use that energy more productively. Must be some in MAGA world realizing the Kool Aid might kill them? If not then we need to bust ass and keep working to beat them beyond argument. I suppose Walz has removed some scales from my eyes and that I need to remember we're still all neighbors.
 
4. One thing that changed my thinking about politics was reading about the 1968 Dem convention. The cops were hostile af to the protesters, and I agree with the characterization of the events as a police riot. But why? The protesters were there ostensibly advancing the interests of the working classes. Police are working class. Why did the police hate the leftists with such a virulent passion? Why did the police feel the desire to crack open protesters' skulls. Maybe it was because the protesters didn't actually speak for them? I did a lot of reading after that, and what I found was the now-accepted narrative of working-class resentment toward the populists who were supposedly championing their interests. Some of that was sociological (i.e. class- and race-based), but it was also because the progressives were out of touch with what the working class population really wanted.
Speaking of leftists championing the ostensible views of the working class, this reminded me of a line from Reds by the Eugene O'Neill character speaking to the Louise Bryant character about herself and Jack Reed (and a broader swipe at the communist movement(s) of the day, which of course at that time were leftist (for the most part)):

You and Jack have a lot of middle-class dreams for two radicals. Jack dreams that he can hustle the American working man, whose one dream is to be rich enough not to have to work, into a revolution led by his party. And you dream that if you discuss the revolution with a man before you go to bed with him, it'll be missionary work rather than sex. I'm sorry to see you and Jack so serious about your sports. It's particularly disappointing in you, Louise. You had a lighter touch when you were touting free love.
 
Rodo I guess I hope some of the obstructionists would use that energy more productively. Must be some in MAGA world realizing the Kool Aid might kill them? If not then we need to bust ass and keep working to beat them beyond argument. I suppose Walz has removed some scales from my eyes and that I need to remember we're still all neighbors.
I've never lost sight of the fact that we're all neighbors. But some of our neighbors are pooping on our lawns and screaming in our faces when we ask them if they want to bring mac and cheese to the neighborhood picnic. There's only so much you can do to work with people who insult you to your face and tell the world you're a bunch of pedophiles and publicly swear over and over that they won't work with you under any circumstances.

The modern Republican political philosophy is built around intentionally not fixing problems. I have explained that to any conservatives who want to listen as patiently as I can. I think leaders like Walz are great because they make Republicans' attempts to paint all liberals as woke communists who want to spend your tax dollars to give undocumented immigrants stacks of cash and forcibly cut the genitals off of innocent young children look incredibly dumb. We're not going to get anywhere on "working with" Republicans until a sufficient number of their voting base finally realize that the culture war BS is poisoning their brains. If you have any productive suggestions for how to un-poison those brains I'm all ears.
 
Without a doubt, neoliberals cost us the elections in 2000 and 2016.
OMG is this really the OG Sandinista?

I think there's a lot of blame to go around in 2016. Both the Clinton campaign (the neoliberals) and the left can share it. The Clinton campaign did a poor job of making their pitch to leftists; coming off just as condescending as usual, and really mismanaged the strategic part of the campaign (ignoring the upper Midwest). But leftists were being typically unrealistic about their expectations of a national campaign in a 2-party system catering to their needs and wants, and were typically naive about the huge danger that a Trump presidency posed (with lots of "both sides are the same" idiocy). Too many of them stayed home out of frustration and/or petulance.
 
Back
Top