https://xcancel.com/TeamsterSOB/status/1813233768137662564
The C-suite long ago sold out the United States, shuttering factories in the homeland and gutting American jobs, while using the profits to push diversity, equity, and inclusion and the religion of the trans flag.
They have forged trade deals that led directly to the hemorrhaging of 4 million good jobs to China.
But as O’Brien correctly observed Monday night, that isn’t the Republican Party’s true tradition. There was a time when Republicans knew that American strength depends squarely on American workers—and their way of life: family, neighborhood, church, union hall. Ronald Reagan knew it.
China is ripping us off, and strong tariffs must be maintained and expanded.
Teamsters blaming transgender people, “DEI”, and China for the suppression of the labor unions in America. Gives support to family, church, and Ronald Reagan.
I guess the Democrats told him he can’t speak at their convention so why not twist the knife
I don’t understand this. Is there anyone decent in Teamsters at this point? Should we organize against this union? Why are these people so racist and transphobic? I don’t get why humans can’t just leave each other alone?
ALU just affiliated with them lmaoWhy do I feel like everything happening around me politically is trying to get me to kill myself?
Seriously, now unions are siding with the enemy? WTF am I supposed to do?
American Unions sided with the enemy when they kicked out the communists in the 40’s (thanks Eleanor Roosevelt). AFL-CIA has never been on our side.
We gotta organize outside of the co-opted bullshit orgs. I would recommend IWW, but the GEB and GST are fucking hamstringing the org right now for petty personal power and profit.
Vladimir Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
Should Revolutionaries Work in Reactionary Trade Unions?
…
In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions, which, according to the data of the last congress (April 1920), now have a membership of over four million and are formally non-Party. Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions, and primarily, of course, of the all-Russia general trade union centre or bureau (the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions), are made up of Communists and carry out all the directives of the Party. Thus, on the whole, we have a formally non-communist, flexible and relatively wide and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the class dictatorship is exercised. Without close contacts with the trade unions, and without their energetic support and devoted efforts, not only in economic, but also in military affairs, it would of course have been impossible for us to govern the country and to maintain the dictatorship for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years. In practice, these very close contacts naturally call for highly complex and diversified work in the form of propaganda, agitation, timely and frequent conferences, not only with the leading trade union workers, but with influential trade union workers generally; they call for a determined struggle against the Mensheviks, who still have a certain though very small following to whom they teach all kinds of counter-revolutionary machinations, ranging from an ideological defence of (bourgeois) democracy and the preaching that the trade unions should be “independent” (independent of proletarian state power!) to sabotage of proletarian discipline, etc., etc.
We consider that contacts with the “masses” through the trade unions are not enough. In the course of our revolution, practical activities have given rise to such institutions as non-Party workers’ and peasants’ conferences, and we strive by every means to support, develop and extend this institution in order to be able to observe the temper of the masses, come closer to them, meet their requirements, promote the best among them to state posts, etc. Under a recent decree on the transformation of the People’s Commissariat of State Control into the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, non-Party conferences of this kind have been empowered to select members of the State Control to carry out various kinds of investigations, etc.
Then, of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which embrace the working masses irrespective of occupation.
Including baristas lmao
The district congresses of Soviets are democratic institutions, the like of which even the best of the democratic republics of the bourgeois world have never known; through these congresses (whose proceedings the Party endeavours to follow with the closest attention), as well as by continually appointing class-conscious workers to various posts in the rural districts, the proletariat exercises its role of leader of the peasantry, gives effect to the dictatorship of the urban proletariat wages a systematic struggle against the rich, bourgeois, exploiting and profiteering peasantry, etc.
Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed “from above”, from the standpoint of the practical implementation of the dictatorship. We hope that the reader will understand why the Russian Bolshevik who has known this mechanism for twenty-five years and has seen it develop out of small, illegal and underground circles, cannot help regarding all this talk about “from above” or “from below”, about the dictatorship of leaders or the dictatorship of the masses, etc., as ridiculous and childish nonsense, something like discussing whether a man’s left leg or right arm is of greater use to him.
We cannot but regard as equally ridiculous and childish nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Lefts to the effect that Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to turn down such work, that it is necessary to withdraw from the trade unions and create a brand-new and immaculate “Workers’ Union” invented by very pleasant (and, probably, for the most part very youthful) Communists, etc., etc.
Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, of the old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions evolved in the course of centuries; on the other hand, trade unions, which only very slowly, in the course of years and years, can and will develop into broader industrial unions with less of the craft union about them (embracing entire industries, and not only crafts, trades and occupations), and later proceed, through these industrial unions, to eliminate the division of labour among people, to educate and school people, give them all-round development and an all-round training, so that they are able to do everything. Communism is advancing and must advance towards that goal, and will reach it, but only after very many years. To attempt in practice, today, to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilised and constituted, fully comprehensive and mature communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a child of four.
We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. True, that is no easy matter, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion.
The trade unions were a tremendous step forward for the working class in the early days of capitalist development, inasmuch as they marked a transition from the workers’ disunity and helplessness to the rudiments of class organisation. When the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the highest form of proletarian class organisation, began to take shape (and the Party will not merit the name until it learns to weld the leaders into one indivisible whole with the class and the masses) the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary features, a certain craft narrow-mindedness, a certain tendency to be non-political, a certain inertness, etc. However, the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the party of the working class. The proletariat’s conquest of political power is a gigantic step forward for the proletariat as a class, and the Party must more than ever and in a new way, not only in the old, educate and guide the trade unions, at the same time bearing in mind that they are and will long remain an indispensable “school of communism” and a preparatory school that trains proletarians to exercise their dictatorship, an indispensable organisation of the workers for the gradual transfer of the management of the whole economic life of the country to the working class (and not to the separate trades), and later to all the working people.
In the sense mentioned above, a certain “reactionism” in the trade unions is inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not to understand this means a complete failure to understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
Looking at you, Polandia.
It would be egregious folly to fear this “reactionism” or to try to evade or leap over it, for it would mean fearing that function of the proletarian vanguard which consists in training, educating, enlightening and drawing into the new life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and the peasantry. On the other hand, it would be a still graver error to postpone the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat until a time when there will not be a single worker with a narrow-minded craft outlook, or with craft and craft-union prejudices. The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able—during and after the seizure of power—to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people.
Further. In countries more advanced than Russia, a certain reactionism in the trade unions has been and was bound to be manifested in a far greater measure than in our country. Our Mensheviks found support in the trade unions (and to some extent still do so in a small number of unions), as a result of the latter’s craft narrow-mindedness, craft selfishness and opportunism. The Mensheviks of the West have acquired a much firmer footing in the trade unions; there the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, case-hardened, covetous, and petty-bourgeois “labour aristocracy”, imperialist-minded, and imperialist-corrupted, has developed into a much stronger section than in our country.
That is incontestable.
The struggle against the Gomperses, and against the Jouhaux, Hendersons, Merrheims, Legiens and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks, who are an absolutely homogeneous social and political type. This struggle must be waged ruthlessly, and it must unfailingly be brought—as we brought it—to a point when all the incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism are completely discredited and driven out of the trade unions. Political power cannot be captured (and the attempt to capture it should not be made) until the struggle has reached a certain stage. This “certain stage” will be different in different countries and in different circumstances; it can be correctly gauged only by thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable political leaders of the proletariat in each particular country. (In Russia the elections to the Constituent Assembly in November 1917, a few days after the proletarian revolution of October 25, 1917, were one of the criteria of the success of this struggle. In these elections the Mensheviks were utterly defeated; they received 700,000 votes—1,400,000 if the vote in Transcaucasia is added—as against 9,000,000 votes polled by the Bolsheviks. See my article, “The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”,[24] in the Communist International[25] No. 7–8.)
We are waging a struggle against the “labour aristocracy” in the name of the masses of the workers and in order to win them over to our side; we are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self-evident truth. Yet it is this very absurdity that the German “Left” Communists perpetrate when, because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of the trade union top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that . . . we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organisation! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render the bourgeoisie. Like all the opportunist, social-chauvinist, and Kautskyite trade union leaders, our Mensheviks are nothing but “agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement” (as we have always said the Mensheviks are), or “labour lieutenants of the capitalist class”, to use the splendid and profoundly true expression of the followers of Daniel De Leon in America. To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats, or “workers who have become completely bourgeois” (cf. Engels’s letter to Marx in 1858 about the British workers[26]).
This ridiculous “theory” that Communists should not work in reactionary trade unions reveals with the utmost clarity the frivolous attitude of the “Left” Communists towards the question of influencing the “masses”, and their misuse of clamour about the “masses”. If you want to help the “masses” and win the sympathy and support of the “masses”, you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the “leaders” (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found. You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations—even the most reactionary—in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found. The trade unions and the workers’ co-operatives (the latter sometimes, at least) are the very organisations in which the masses are to be found. According to figures quoted in the Swedish paper Folkets Dagblad Politiken of March 10, 1920, the trade union membership in Great Britain increased from 5,500,000 at the end of 1917 to 6,600,000 at the end of 1918, an increase of 19 per cent. Towards the close of 1919, the membership was estimated at 7,500,000. I have not got the corresponding figures for France and Germany to hand, but absolutely incontestable and generally known facts testify to a rapid rise in the trade union membership in these countries too.
These facts make crystal clear something that is confirmed by thousands of other symptoms, namely, that class-consciousness and the desire for organisation are growing among the proletarian masses, among the rank and file, among the backward elements. Millions of workers in Great Britain, France and Germany are for the first time passing from a complete lack of organisation to the elementary, lowest, simplest, and (to those still thoroughly imbued with bourgeois-democratic prejudices) most easily comprehensible form of organisation, namely, the trade unions; yet the revolutionary but imprudent Left Communists stand by, crying out “the masses”, “the masses!” but refusing to work within the trade unions, on the pretext that they are “reactionary”, and invent a brand-new, immaculate little “Workers’ Union”, which is guiltless of bourgeois-democratic prejudices and innocent of craft or narrow-minded craft-union sins, a union which, they claim, will be (!) a broad organisation. “Recognition of the Soviet system and the dictatorship” will be the only (!) condition of membership. (See the passage quoted above.)
It would be hard to imagine any greater ineptitude or greater harm to the revolution than that caused by the “Left” revolutionaries! Why, if we in Russia today, after two and a half years of unprecedented victories over the bourgeoisie of Russia and the Entente, were to make “recognition of the dictatorship” a condition of trade union membership, we would be doing a very foolish thing, damaging our influence among the masses, and helping the Mensheviks. The task devolving on Communists is to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them with artificial and childishly “Left” slogans.
There can be no doubt that the Gomperses, the Hendersons, the Jonhaux and the Legiens are very grateful to those “Left” revolutionaries who, like the German opposition “on principle” (heaven preserve us from such “principles”!), or like some of the revolutionaries in the American Industrial Workers of the World[27] advocate quitting the reactionary trade unions and refusing to work in them. These men, the “leaders” of opportunism, will no doubt resort to every device of bourgeois diplomacy and to the aid of bourgeois governments, the clergy, the police and the courts, to keep Communists out of the trade unions, oust them by every means, make their work in the trade unions as unpleasant as possible, and insult, bait and persecute them.
We must be able to stand up to all this, agree to make any sacrifice, and even—if need be—to resort to various stratagems, artifices and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, as long as we get into the trade unions, remain in them, and carry on communist work within them at all costs. Under tsarism we had no “legal opportunities” whatsoever until 1905. However, when Zubatov, agent of the secret police, organised Black-Hundred workers’ assemblies and workingmen’s societies for the purpose of trapping revolutionaries and combating them, we sent members of our Party to these assemblies and into these societies (I personally remember one of them, Comrade Babushkin, a leading St. Petersburg factory worker, shot by order of the tsar’s generals in 1906). They established contacts with the masses, were able to carry on their agitation, and succeeded in wresting workers from the influence of Zubatov’s agents. [*4] Of course, in Western Europe, which is imbued with most deep-rooted legalistic, constitutionalist and bourgeois-democratic prejudices, this is more difficult of achievement. However, it can and must be carried out, and systematically at that.
The Executive Committee of the Third International must, in my opinion, positively condemn, and call upon the next congress of the Communist International to condemn both the policy of refusing to work in reactionary trade unions in general (explaining in detail why such refusal is unwise, and what extreme harm it does to the cause of the proletarian revolution) and, in particular, the line of conduct of some members of the Communist Party of Holland, who—whether directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, wholly or partly, it does not matter—have supported this erroneous policy. The Third International must break with the tactics of the Second International, it must not evade or play down points at issue, but must pose them in a straightforward fashion. The whole truth has been put squarely to the “Independents”; the whole truth must likewise be put squarely to the “Left” Communists.
Hey, maybe don’t use the # so much, it makes it unreadable on mobile. Also, maybe link to the work instead and quote the most relevant bits instead of quoting such long tracts.
Also, yeah I phrased that wrong. Sorry, I’m recovering from covid right now and I’m not at 100%. I meant that we should have organizations outside of them, not that we should ignore them.
The links in the second sentence lol but you have a point
or like some of the revolutionaries in the American Industrial Workers of the World[27] advocate quitting the reactionary trade unions and refusing to work in them
At least that’s changed in the last century. I believe dual carding is encouraged, secretly if the business union forbids it. Mostly though the wobblies today focus on shops that don’t receive any organizing support from business unions.
Sort of the same way Lenin calls for dual power, workers looking to take control of their business union need a way to organize within it independently of its power structures if the union is wholly coopted by class traitors. Every high profile case where rank-and-file have gained power in american unions in the last ~decade (RWU, UAW, etc.) has featured some dual organizing like that.
IWW has an internal discipline management problem that devolves the entire organization into factionalist infighting due to the fact that the only measure of membership discipline they have is through expulsion from the IWW.
This also doesn’t mention the fact that the IWW is a hollowed out shell of its former glory and has only recently begun clawing itself back from irrelevance in the labor organizing field meaning that the IWW is fundamentally not where the working class is located. Dual unionism is an alright thing if you think you can learn something from them, but I’d say you’ll have better luck studying Foster.
the GEB and GST are fucking hamstringing the org right now for petty personal power and profit
feels like that’s been the case the whole time I’ve been a member. I checked out of anything besides the organizing stuff after the fiasco that was the 2020 convention
They haven’t sent remittance checks to 40 branches this whole year. There’s been one GOB (General Organizing Bulletin) sent out this year, the March GOB, and it was sent in June.
Yeah I’ve seen some grumbling in the group chat, esp. about the GOB, but I just tune it out for my own mental health.
FRSO organizes Teamsters (though they are pretty small). There are good Teamsters. Most Teamsters are incoherent liberals like everyone else and should be a focus of socislist agitation. Logistics unions are the most strategic ones to target given how the Imperialist economy operates.
Teamsters have had openly reactionary and anti-socialist sentiments for decades. Condescending or incompetent campaigns targeting them backfire and make this worse. We should be agitating from the bottom up via class struggle and political education.
deleted by creator
Ah shit here we go again
All the fucking labor notes hacks in TDU and all the socialist orgs that didn’t condemn their shitty UPS contract should be ashamed of themselves.
I thought UPS workers liked their contract.
Apologies for the late reply, this is the first chance I’ve gotten around to it.
During contract negotiations 97% of UPS Teamsters authorized a strike. This was widely lauded as an impressive show of militancy. Later only 86% of the 58% of eligible UPS Teamsters voted for the contract, or a little under half of the Teamsters at UPS. Rushing a contract vote and not engaging members in it is a regular tactic of union leadership that wants to reach a compromise and their ability to mobilize a strike vote shows that union officials were more than capable of reaching more members.
Shortly before the contract vote, A small group of Teamsters were organizing against it. They released this article in Cosmonaut and did an interview on Revolutionary Left Radio detailing extensively how many of the supposed victories in the contract were far from that. Employee tiers remained, the air conditioning concessions that were widely celebrated were overstated, and concessions had been made.
Shortly after the contract ratification Labor Notes, who loudly supported the TA before the vote, released this article detailing the many Teamsters that would have preferred a strike.
As detailed in the Cosmonaut article, communists, socialists and progressive labor widely supported the TA even after the actual rank and file Teamsters had overwhelmingly voted in favor of striking. Now we are seeing the opportunist reactionary labor aristocrat Shaun O’Brien that they all fell in line behind show his true colors.
The responsibility of socialists and any class struggle labor organizers was to tell UPS workers that while they are glad they got those raises and concessions, they could have got a lot more through militancy and membership-driven bargaining.
Idk, I believe in militancy and also want celebrate the work union members put in to get a good contract. I think it’s so easy to criticize unions not being militant enough that it comes across as we know what’s best for you and regardless of reality no one wants to follow people who tell them they know their best interests.
This 100%. The job of socialist organizers within the union is to take those wins, protect them, use them to fight for more wins, win leadership positions and ultimately build a school for working class struggle. The jobs of socialist activists outside the union is to support the union so that they get wins. External criticism of unions from the outside breaks internal unity and prevents solidarity from building between unions and parties/external orgs.
You can’t do any of that without agitation. You will just burn out while everyone else takes credit for what you’re trying to take credit for. This is the usual course of events for Western socialists bumbling into union organizing.
You also cannot provide uncritical support externally and expect to do anything but sharpen the knives that will be used against you by the people that you leave in power there through a lack of organizing and agitation. No socialist program has ever been won through uncritical cheerleading of unions. Unions have petty bourgeois characteristics that must be constantly combatted so that they can become tools for class struggle rather than class collaboration.
Re: internal unity, there is no such thing if you also want socialists in leadership positions. That is going to necessarily create disunity because your socialists will be advocating for something different than the liberals, proto-fash, and staff, and they will all fight you over it. You can support unity of action when it comes to direct actions but if you prioritize unity over agitation then you will have to pretend to be liberals and act like liberals the entire time like some kind of underground operation. There are not enough of us for that level of salting to ever work. There has never been.
Re: alienation from external criticism, this just means you have to be competent in your criticism. It needs to serve building an org within the union, the faction you will have to create if you ever want to succeed. Many Western leftists have no idea what they are doing and are not competent about it, so they do just alienate workers. But that’s a reason to become competent, not throw out the tool that has worked time and time again.
The point of the criticism is to draw workers to you because what you say resonates with them. Sometimes it resonstes because they are already pissed. There absolutely were pissed UPS workers and seeing socialists say, “great job!” correctly teaches them that those socialists are full of shit. There are also workers that may not have been thinking of those criticisms but will be convinced by them. The key is to build constructive criticisms on top of congratulating the wins so that you don’t alienate workers that are happy to have the contract. Trots tend to do that through their dogmatic and often hyperbolic criticism that is usually couched in esoteric language (either the workers aren’t the intended audience or the Trot writing it is incompetent).
Re: Militancy, the UPS contract is denoted by a lack of it and closed door negotiations by staff who reached a TA far too early. The bar is set so low that Western socialists teach each other that just striking at all is militancy. It isn’t. Militancy comes from strong worker organizer networks pushing demands, calling the shots on when to strike and when to agree, when to take other direct actions, and doing ds from a nascsntle class conscious perspective where they understand the boss as the enemy.
Your response reminds me so much of a trot tho. Like this is exactly their playbook and no one cares what they have to say.
Unions are not going to bring about the revolution. They are a way to get working people engaged in the class solidarity and organizing in the hopes that some join a communist party. In the imperial core there is no viable communist party. And then that party can not only criticize but can enact change because they are actually working in the unions their criticizing the decisions of.
It will always be easy to criticize wins in a trade union within a capitalist system. Maybe things do get TA too quickly maybe they don’t struggle enough. But at the end of the day being the person or group of people that is constantly criticizing workers wins is not going to help people listen to you.
Your response reminds me so much of a trot tho. Like this is exactly their playbook and no one cares what they have to say.
What I’m describing is the basic approach taken by every successful communist party that made use of unions. Any adjustments I make are an attempt to work around the specific challenges of organizing in the heart of capitalist empire.
Trots ape this but in a Trot way that is ultra and often self-defeating and a lot of that comes down to how they communicate and whether they build well and authentically among the workers. Trots trying to do union things often come across as preachy and inauthentic because they are being preachy and inauthentic and they are bad at faking it. Our task is to be competent and authentic, not ignore the time-tested tools of building socialism with unions.
Trots also cite Lenin, call themselves communist, and emphasize class struggle. Is it wrong to do these things? Of course not. The devil is in the details and how you approach discipline. Strategy and tactics must align. Trots tend to fail at this because they are ungrounded and stick to dogmas (and even language!) that barely even worked in the 1910s in the Russian Empire. Their writings are de facto masturbatory.
Unions are not going to bring about the revolution. They are a way to get working people engaged in the class solidarity and organizing in the hopes that some join a communist party.
The usual hope is that unions can be used as part of class struggle organizing, yes. They are not themselves the labor movement nor a socialist party, they are a localized realization of the labor movement that is easily coopted into both liberalism and fascism to defang and kill us and those like us, and even self-defeat the labor movement as a whole. Thus is the central contradiction of trade unionism, their tendency for self-defeat through class collaboration, through liberalism. It’s whybther are imperialist unions. Our task re: doing anything constructive with uniond is to foment class struggle both in and outside of unions. Trots also say this, they are just bad at it. Lenin and Mao said it too and it is a very common sentiment among communists of most tendencies. Union members don’t even need to join a socialist party in order to engage in cognizant class struggle, though you will naturally engage in party building by simply doing a good job organizing and being a magnet for those you work with - they will want to know more about what you are doing and will join your reading groups if you ask.
To be an effective magnet, however, you cannot be noticeably inauthentic. The best way to avoid this is to be authentic. If that is not possible, you should at least be competent. Uncritical cheerleading sets you up for inauthenticity and handcuffs your ability to organize a movement within a union. You must have struggle, you must note failures, it just needs to be done effectively so as to court the workers.
In the imperial core there is no viable communist party. And then that party can not only criticize but can enact change because they are actually working in the unions their criticizing the decisions of.
There are small communist parties in the imperial core. Some of them engage in class struggle work in unions. I mentioned FRSO somewhere in this thread. They have a focus on the Teamsters. They have members among the Teamsters. They worked with TDU. They cheered the contract with no constructive criticism that would direct workers into a sustainable reform movement. TDU got this childish as their president, lol.
FRSO is small. But it would benefit from doing soft constructive criticism in its messaging so that it can build a proper class struggle, militant movement, which TDU clearly is not. Otherwise you will be “underground” and facilitating liberalism and fascism and burning out your organizers on that. It is worse than embracing sectarianism and making no attempt at class struggle, though not worse than what Trots do.
It will always be easy to criticize wins in a trade union within a capitalist system. Maybe things do get TA too quickly maybe they don’t struggle enough. But at the end of the day being the person or group of people that is constantly criticizing workers wins is not going to help people listen to you.
It isn’t so simplistic. We should reject a dichotomy of “we either just criticize workers’ winsthem, the time or we uncritically cheerlead every TA and ratification vote”. The former is not what I suggested and the latter is what the would-be major communist parties are doing.
What should be done follows from an analysis of how these trade unions actually function, who is in them, who is in leadership, and what you want to accomplish. All of these things have to align and be accurarely grounded for us to be effective and intentionally work towards our ends. The solutions will be a balancing act due to the nature of having opposing forces in the spaces we want to influence.
That last point is important.
Are you going to cheerlead a union full of chuds that builds the Brown People Bomber 3000? DSA libs are going to do that. They already do that. So what is your orientation? Do you ignore that union? Do you try to join it and actively make it easier to bomb the brown people? If so, what is your plan for contradicting this later? How many people do you need? With whom will you operate? Will you criticize that union and from what angle? In that scenario, it is almost certainly pointless to do anything at all in that union until our organizations are more powerful. You will build better by having a consistent anti-imperialist line that foments class struggle outside that particular union.
Or perhaps there is just a union that is run by the usual incoherent liberals, full of reactionaries, radlibs, etc. They make widgets at the widget factory. Their leadership is entrenched and always supports the Democratic party. They do typical collaborationist bargaining and staff are probably on the dole. Your organization decides they want to use this union as a venue for class struggle. What do you do? Do you praise the current bosses’ work, uncritically? Surely you will rapidly find that you have enemies in the union. This is not because you are being a dogmatic Trot. It’s because you want to do something that other people don’t - and that threatens their positions and career trajectories. That thing might be something as vague and liberal as TDU. They will fight you to the death over it. You will self-isolate if you uncritically praise the current leadership’s outcomes while also saying leadership needs to be changed. Everyone knows that’s inconsistent and the exact people you want to attract will write you off. You want to capture the people who are unhappy with the outcone or who can be made to understand it as inadequate. There are too few of us. Any project within a trade union must be premised on massive growth and political education. You can’t do that without identifying problems and bringing people in to work on them.
Anyways back to messaging. Rather than constantly crapping on contract wins or harping on about “union bosses” like a Trot, this is why you should use constructive criticism that celebrates the wins but notes where more is needed and what to do about it. Your message should build your org and/or projects. It should appeal to the dissatisfied and those who are okay with the contract but still wanted more or who saw some bullshit in the process and likes that you think it is bullshit, too. And it should hsve sonething tangible that they can do beyond feeling good. Trots just throw shot into the ether, they barely think about audience. They all write exactly like each other because they are literally copying a polemic approach as a dogma. They profess that if you build it (a lengthy esoteric polemic), the working class will come.
Does this make sense?
All the fucking labor notes hacks in TDU and all the socialist orgs that didn’t condemn their shitty UPS contract should be ashamed of themselves.
This was the og post that I disagreed with. Condemning the UPS contract as shitty and throwing shame at socialists for not condemning it is unnecessary shit throwing and will not help build up socialist orgs or undo the contradictions within trade unions. I also read theory and agree with most of what you wrote in the latest comment, but I think it’s quite a divergence from the original comment.
God I hate the democrats
China is ripping us off
American capitalists gave it to them, for free. Reagan and others allowed it to happen. It was a gift.
And its not like America lost everything. China is giving America ‘free’ shit in exchange for U.S. Dollars.
And Republicans are going to enact tariffs on Chinese goods while not improving domestic capacity. Atleast with Democrats one could claim they may give tax credits on domestic EVs or whatever (not enough of course). But Republicans love fossil fuels and think EVs are soy, there is zero reason for them to do anything.
Of 1.3 million members, I wonder how many teamsters are currently employed moving shit from shipping ports from China to wherever the fuck wholesaler in America it’s going?
I honestly have to say I hope he meets Jimmy Hoffa
This is literally fascism
Fascism is not pro-labor. In fact, it’s primary function is crushing labor
Fascism is not pro-labor. In fact, it’s primary function is crushing labor
“Pro-labor conservatism” is also not pro-labor. Just as National Socialism was not socialism. Fascism takes on the aesthetic of being pro-labor while doing actions that are anti-labor. Before creating Fascism, Mussolini was a member of the Italian socialist party and actively involved with Italian labor unions. One of the core principles of fascism is class collaboration. Mussolini inverted class conflict to create the idea that working class people and capitalists benefit from working together and actually aren’t in conflict. Fascism absolutely tries to present itself as being pro-labor.
If you saw the phrase “pro-labor conservatism” and thought they it’s actually going to be pro-labor while also blaming transgender people, electric vehicles, DEI, and China, then you have some seriously flawed analysis.
If you saw the phrase “pro-labor conservatism” and thought they it’s actually going to be pro-labor while also blaming transgender people, electric vehicles, DEI, and China, then you have some seriously flawed analysis.
Where did I say any of that? My point is that the GOP cozying up to unions doesn’t make them more fascist, if anything it makes them marginally less. My position is that both major parties in the US are fascist.
I say “If” because I try to interpret your comment without assuming. The way that your comments appear to me is that you are correcting the other person to say what is happening is not like Fascism.
I don’t see this as the GOP cozying up to unions. I see this as a union cozying up to the GOP. This seems like a flirtation with class collaboration. There are a few characteristics of this that seem similar to fascism.
Most importantly, the writing shifts the blame of class conflict to vulnerable communities, transgender people, DEI (dogwhistle for nonwhite people). Class conflict is what has caused workers and unions to suffer.
Another characteristic is that this “pro-labor conservatism” is a response to the rise of a new Marxist global superpower. Fascism in Italy and Germany rose to power as an opposition to the rise of Marxism, particularly the USSR. “Pro-labor conservatism” is telling us that it is motivated by an opposition to China, who is very soon to be surpassing the US economy in global power. The US is having increasingly more aggressive rhetoric towards China.
The article also promotes “America First” as a political ideology, which is a slogan of nationalists which dates back quite a long time and the slogan was compared to Fascism during WWII even.
Another characteristic of Fascism is that Sean O’Brien presents his ideology as bipartisan, a third way, as an alternative to the left-right spectrum.
The article also appeals to right wing values such as family and church and Ronald Reagan.
There’s a lot of characteristics of fascism being exhibited. I think it’s a fair to compare this “pro-labor conservatism” to fascism.
The OG official fascism in Italy thrived on turning unions to their cause. They specifically targeted unions as a focus for struggle: co-opt first and if that fails (usually because the union is radical left), destroy them.
Rabidly pro trans CEOs have infiltrated the highest echelons of American empire. Every day the CEO of my company calls me wanting to talk “next steps” on “the big plan”
We have the best Communist trans CEOs, folks.
Lol this country is fuckin cooked
I am kinda not even that mad for them joining the winning team. I just don’t see what they could possibly get out of it.
Like, the DNC isn’t gonna treat them any better so they might as well shop around I just can’t picture them getting anything for this.
They get to blame minorities I guess.
Good to see the feds hard work in dividing labor along color lines is still paying off. I would hate to think my tax money was bing wasted on a shitty psyop.
Not like a large number of their members weren’t already doing that
I remember this bozo. he’s been hit with discrimination charges before. Sanders actually had him called before a senate hearing and he started arguing with a senate republican (mullin i think) and they started acting like 12 year olds and challenging each other to a fight.
Also class collaborationist labor unions in the USA have been the norm since Taft Hartley at least
Probably should have guessed the old union guy is a fuck but i liked this guy. Oh well, into the trash
Teamster’s for a Democratic Union have some explaining to do
I had a long comment typed out but it doesn’t matter. All I can say is lol. Lmao, even.
Demanding the egg1918 analysis ft. yellow Parenti
